Opinion
Docket No. 012769-2015
01-06-2015
Re: Constance Kane v. Director, Division of Taxation
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS Ms. Constance Kane
2 Windward Road
Beach Haven, New Jersey 08008 Paul G. Buonaguro
Deputy Attorney General
Division of Law
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
P.O. Box 106
25 Market Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0106 Dear Ms. Kane and DAG Buonaguro:
This letter constitutes the court's opinion in the above-referenced matter, which was submitted for decision without trial pursuant to R. 8:8-1(b). Plaintiff challenges the final decision of the Director, Division of Taxation denying her application for a homestead property tax reimbursement for tax year 2013. For the reasons explained more fully below, the Director's decision is affirmed.
I. Procedural History and Findings of Fact
Plaintiff Constance Kane is unable to travel to Trenton for trial because of health issues. She requested, pursuant to R. 8:8-1(b), that this matter be submitted for decision without trial "on the ground that sufficient facts have been admitted, stipulated, established by depositions or otherwise included in the record." The Director did not oppose plaintiff's application. On November 6, 2015, the court agreed to plaintiff's request and allowed both parties the opportunity to file documents in support of their position prior to submission of the matter to the court for decision.
The record contains plaintiff's Complaint, a handwritten letter from plaintiff explaining her claim, a Certification of Meg Jones, a Division of Taxation employee, with attachments, and a letter brief filed on behalf of the Director. The evidence in the record provides a sufficient basis on which to render a decision in this matter.
Plaintiff Constance Kane owns a home in Forked River, Ocean County. She purchased the home in July 2005. The deed of sale indicates that at the time she purchased the Forked River home plaintiff resided on Staten Island, New York.
Plaintiff seeks a tax year 2013 homestead property tax reimbursement for taxes paid on her home. The homestead property tax reimbursement program is authorized by statute to provide local property tax relief to seniors and other qualified property owners. The Director, Division of Taxation, pursuant to his statutory authority, established an application deadline of September 15, 2014 for the tax year 2013 reimbursement program.
In October 2012, plaintiff's home was severely damaged by Super Storm Sandy, a destructive weather event the existence of which the court will take judicial notice. According to plaintiff's Complaint and letter she was "displaced by the storm," and, as a result, "was under much stress" and her "mail was not going to the address where I was living temporarily." Plaintiff continues that she "apparently" and "obviously" did not receive the application for a tax year 2013 homestead property tax reimbursement. Plaintiff alleges that in 2014 her home was demolished to make way for construction of a new residence. Plaintiff also alleges that in June 2014 her sister became ill and plaintiff thereafter cared for her sibling in her sibling's home, where plaintiff was living. Plaintiff concludes that her "life has been in complete turmoil since Sandy in 2012, so [she] would appreciate it if you would allow me the reimbursement."
Although plaintiff's Complaint and letter indicate that she did not receive an application for a tax year 2013 reimbursement, the Director submitted a completed 2013 Property Tax Reimbursement Application signed by plaintiff and filed with the Director on April 9, 2014. It is not clear why plaintiff is under the mistaken belief that she did not file a tax year 2013 reimbursement application. On the application, in response to the question "have you live in New Jersey continuously since December 31, 2002", plaintiff checked "No."
Because plaintiff did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a tax year 2013 reimbursement, the Director denied her application.
On September 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a letter with the court, in effect challenging the Director's denial of her application and requesting the award of a tax year 2013 homestead property tax reimbursement. On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking the same relief. As detailed above, plaintiff's request for relief is based on her failure to receive from the Director an application for the 2013 reimbursement, although the record establishes that she filed a timely application, which was denied for failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for a reimbursement.
II. Conclusions of Law
The court's analysis begins with the familiar principle that the Director's interpretation of tax statutes is entitled to a presumption of validity. "Courts have recognized the Director's expertise in the highly specialized and technical area of taxation." Aetna Burglar & Fire Alarm Co. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 16 N.J. Tax 584, 589 (Tax 1997) (citing Metromedia, Inc v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 97 N.J. 313, 327 (1984)). The scope of judicial review of the Director's decision with respect to the imposition of a tax "is limited." Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 387 N.J. Super. 104, 109 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 188 N.J. 577 (2006). The Supreme Court has directed the courts to accord "great respect" to the Director's application of tax statutes, "so long as it is not plainly unreasonable." Metromedia, supra, 97 N.J. at 327. See also GE Solid State, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 132 N.J. 298, 306 (1993) ("Generally, courts accord substantial deference to the interpretation an agency gives to a statute that the agency is charged with enforcing.")
In addition, the Appellate Division has instructed this court to construe the statutes defining eligibility for homestead rebates narrowly. MacMillan v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 180 N.J. Super. 175, 178 (App. Div. 1981), aff'd, 89 N.J. 216 (1982). "[T]ax preference provisions are strictly construed against those claiming exemption. This is so with regard to local property taxes. It is also true with respect to state taxes." Ibid. (citations omitted). Where the homestead rebate "statute is outspoken and unambiguous" its terms must be strictly applied. Id. at 179. Accord Fedders Fin. Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 96 N.J. 376, 384-86 (1984); Vavoulakis v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 12 N.J. Tax 318, 329 (1992) , aff'd o.b., 13 N.J. Tax 322 (App. Div. 1993).
In 1975, our Constitution was amended to authorize the enactment of laws to allow homeowners and residential tenants "a rebate or a credit of a sum of money related to property taxes paid by or allocable to them at such rates and subject to such limits as may be provided by law." N.J. Const. (1947) Art. VIII, §1, par. 5. Since that time, the Legislature has enacted a series of homestead rebate programs for resident homeowners and tenants. Vavoulakis v. Director, Div. of Taxation, supra, 12 N.J. Tax at 323-24. Although the programs have had various names and eligibility requirements, the purpose of the programs has consistently been "the beneficent purpose of alleviating the heavy realty tax burden." Rubin v. Glaser, 83 N.J. 299, 307, app. dis., 449 U.S. 977, 101 S. Ct. 389, 66 L. Ed. 2d 239 (1980).
A homestead property tax reimbursement is available to any person sixty-five or more years of age or who is disabled who meets certain income limits and 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 application for a homestead property tax reimbursement is filed." N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67. The amount of the reimbursement is the difference between the amount of property tax due in the year for which the reimbursement is claimed and the amount due in the "base year." Ibid. The "base year" is tax year 1997 or the first year in which a claimant becomes eligible for a reimbursement after December 31, 1997. Ibid.
"An application for a homestead property tax reimbursement . . . shall be filed with the director annually on or before June of the year following the year for which the claim is being made; provided, however, that the director may, by rule, designate a later date as the date by which the application shall be filed or waive the requirement for filing an annual application for any year or years subject to any limitations and conditions the director may deem appropriate." N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.70. "The director shall administer the homestead property tax reimbursement program," N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.71, and has the authority to enact regulations implementing this authority, N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.73. As noted above, the Director exercised his authority to establish a filing deadline of September 15, 2014, for the 2013 homestead property tax reimbursement program.
Although plaintiff alleges that she did not receive an application for the tax year 2013 reimbursement, the record establishes that she filed a timely application. The Director denied plaintiff's application because she did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a homestead property tax reimbursement for tax year 2013. To qualify for a homestead property tax reimbursement, an application must establish that she has been "a principal residence in this State for at least 10 consecutive years" prior to the date that her application is filed. N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67. The record establishes that plaintiff purchased her home in July 2005. At that time, she lived in New York State. In 2013, the tax year at issue here, and in 2014, when she filed her application, plaintiff had not been a resident of New Jersey for ten consecutive years. The residency requirements unambiguously set forth in the statute establishing the homestead reimbursement program must be strictly enforced. See Anderson v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 24 N.J. Tax 141 (Tax 2008), aff'd, 25 N.J. Tax 275 (App. Div. 2009).
Because it is clear that plaintiff did not meet the ten-year residency requirement for a 2013 homestead property tax reimbursement, the court need not address the question of whether plaintiff maintained a homestead at the subject property, given plaintiff's admission that she moved from the home in 2012 after Super Storm Sandy, and that the home was subsequently demolished, apparently without plaintiff having returned to reside at the home.
The court will enter Judgment affirming the Director's denial of plaintiff's tax year 2013 homestead property tax reimbursement application.
Very truly yours,
/s/Patrick DeAlmeida, P.J.T.C.