Opinion
Docket No. 015462-2013
03-31-2014
Re: DiGirolamo et al. v. Director, Division of Taxation
BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL Walter & Camille DiGirolamo, Pro-Se BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jeremy M. Vaida, D.A.G.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF
THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
Mala Sundar
JUDGE
BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Walter & Camille DiGirolamo, Pro-Se
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jeremy M. Vaida, D.A.G.
Dear Plaintiffs and Counsel:
This is the court's opinion with respect to plaintiffs' complaint seeking reversal of the denial of their Property Tax Reimbursement ("PTR") for tax year 2012 by defendant ("Taxation"). The denial was based upon Taxation's determination that plaintiffs' were ineligible for the PTR because they had sold the residence for which the PTR was sought on December 17, 2012. Plaintiffs contended that had they known this, they would have delayed the closing of the sale of their residence.
The court affirms Taxation's denial. The PTR law permits a reimbursement only to "eligible" claimants. One such criterion is that an applicant must own the residence as of December 31 of the year for which the PTR is sought. Plaintiffs' ignorance of the law in this regard unfortunately does not permit extending an equitable remedy of grant of the PTR. FACTS
Plaintiffs are New Jersey residents. They had owned their home located at 57 Garfield Avenue, Colonia, New Jersey for 47 years.
Because of Mr. DiGirolamo's medical issues, Mrs. DiGiralomo undertook the entire responsibility for the sale of their home, the purchase of another home, and the moving in this regard. Per Mrs. Mrs. DiGiralomo, the buyers wanted to move in before Christmas, therefore, insisted on a closing date before that date. Accordingly, the closing took place December 17, 2012.
On July 2, 2013, plaintiffs filed an application for PTR for tax year 2012 fot their Colonia home. In the portion titled "Residency Requirement," they marked "yes" to the question whether "on December 31, 2012" they "still" lived in the home for which they had claimed and had received a 2011 PTR. They also marked "yes" to the question that they had met "all of the eligibility requirements for 2012."
On September 5, 2013, Taxation denied the PTR. The denial notice stated that "to be eligible for the 2012 PTR" plaintiffs should have "owned and lived in the same house for the entire period of [January] 1, 2009, through [December] 31, 2012 . . . ." Since plaintiffs had sold their house December 17, 2012, the notice stated that they were not entitled to the PTR "unless" they could prove that they "moved in" to the house in 2009 or 2010, and had received a PTR "for the last full tax year that [they] occupied [their] previous home." LAW AND ANALYSIS
The PTR program is authorized by N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67 to provide local property tax relief to seniors and other qualified property owners. A PTR is available to a person who satisfies the age, ownership, income, and residency eligibility requirements. Ibid. (defining the term "eligible applicant"). All four requirements must be satisfied.
In this connection, the law as to the residency requirement provides as follows:
"Eligible Applicant" means a person who
. . .
as a . . . homeowner, has made a long-term contribution to the fabric, social structure and finances of one or more communities in this State, as demonstrated through the payment of property taxes . . . , on any homestead . . . used as a principal residence in this State for at least 10 consecutive years at least three of which as owner of the homestead for which a homestead property tax reimbursement is sought prior to the date that an initial application for a homestead property tax reimbursement is filed. A person who has been an eligible claimant for a previous tax year shall qualify as an eligible claimant beginning the second full tax year following a move to another homestead in New Jersey, despite not meeting the three-year minimum residency and ownership requirement required for initial claimants under this paragraph; provided that the person satisfies the income eligibility limits for the tax year. Provided however, eligibility beginning in a second full tax year after such a move shall not apply to tax years commencing prior to January 1, 2010.
[N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67] (emphasis added)
Here, Taxation's notice of denial focused on the three-year residency requirements by noting that plaintiffs should have owned and lived at their home for three years from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012 unless they had moved into that house in 2009 or 2010. However, nothing was provided to the court to prove that plaintiffs' 2012 PTR application was their first or "initial" application, thus, they were "initial claimants." It is undisputed that plaintiffs had owned their home in Colonia for over ten years and paid property taxes thereon.
The language in the above statute makes it clear that when there is a change in ownership, there is a loss of the three-year residency requirement, but this is for the new house the taxpayers move into. The denial of PTR for plaintiffs' new home is not at issue here since they were claiming the 2012 PTR for their prior home in Colonia, which they had sold December 17, 2012. Therefore, the three-year residency rule is not implicated here.
The only question is therefore, whether plaintiffs' sale of their prior homestead, and thus, cessation of ownership of that house, disqualifies them for a PTR for that house. Taxation points out that for a claimant to be eligible for a PTR for a homestead, all the requirements (income, ownership, age, and residency) must exist as of December 31 of the tax year for which the PTR is sought. This is correct. See N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.70 (a PTR application which is filed in the "year following the year for which" the PTR is claimed, must "reflect the prerequisites for a [PTR] on December 31 of the tax year for which the claim is being made"). One of the requirements for being eligible for a PTR is that the claimant must be "an owner of a homestead." N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67. Here, this means that, among others, as of December 31, 2012, plaintiffs should have owned their home. They did not.
Thus, their representation on their 2012 PTR application that still lived in their Colonia home "on December 31, 2012" was incorrect.
It is plain that N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.70 mandates the eligibility criteria exist as of December 31 of the year for which the PTR is claimed. There is nothing ambiguous about the statutory language or intent. Therefore, the court must enforce the statute as it is written. See Koch v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 157 N.J. 1, 7 (1999) (courts must construe and apply a statute in accordance with its plain language).
Plaintiffs' ignorance of the law and their credible allegation that neither their realtor nor their real estate closing attorney alerted them to the possibility of a loss of the 2012 PTR is unfortunate. However, these factors do not allow this court to relax the statute's requirement that all criteria for the PTR eligibility must exist as of December 31, 2012 (the year for which the PTR is being claimed). See State v. Lisa, 391 N.J. Super. 556, 579 (App. Div. 2007) ("ignorance of the law is no defense"); MacMillan v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 180 N.J. Super. 175, 177 (App. Div. 1981) (empathizing with the Tax Court's attempt to liberally construe the PTR statute but disagreeing that this could be used to expand the plain meaning of the statute and provide PTR benefits "no matter how confident we are of what the Legislature would do if it were to reconsider today"), aff'd, 89 N.J. 216 (1982). For the same reasons, Taxation's failure to specifically reference the statute, N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.70, as the basis for plaintiff's ineligibility in its denial notice does not require grant of the 2012 PTR. CONCLUSION
The notice in any event correctly pointed out that plaintiffs should have owned their home until December 31, 2012.
--------
For the aforementioned reasons, Taxation's decision to deny plaintiffs' a PTR for tax year 2012 for plaintiffs' Colonia home, is hereby affirmed. An Order and Final Judgment reflecting this decision accompanies this opinion,
Very truly yours,
Mala Sundar, J.T.C.