325 Tenafly Road LLC v. Dir., Div. of Taxation

• Court: New Jersey Tax Court
• Decided: June 18, 2026
• Docket: 000092-2021
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY JOAN BEDRIN MURRAY Essex County Dr. Martin L. King Jr. Justice Bldg. JUDGE 495 Martin Luther King Blvd.- 4th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102-0690 609 815-2922, Ext. 54660

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

June 11, 2026

James J. Robinson, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey 25 Market Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0106

Constantine Stamos, Esq. Ferraro & Stamos LLP 22 Paris Avenue, Suite 105 Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Re: 325 Tenafly Road LLC v. Dir., Div. of Taxation Docket No. 000092-2021

Dear Counsel:

This letter constitutes the court’s opinion with regard to defendant, Director,

Division of Taxation’s, motion to dismiss plaintiff, 325 Tenafly Road LLC’s,

complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under R. 4:6-2(a). In

the underlying complaint, plaintiff contests defendant’s denial of its claim for refund

of the realty transfer fee based on the claim’s untimeliness. Defendant contends plaintiff’s claim was made outside the ninety-day period within which to file a refund

claim under N.J.S.A. 46:15-7.2(c).

While plaintiff does not dispute the untimeliness of its refund claim, it

contends dismissal of its appeal would produce an inequitable result, and urges the

court to allow the matter to proceed on its merits. Further, plaintiff asserts the error

lies with defendant and the Bergen County Clerk’s Office for failing to return the

check upon reviewing Buyer’s Affidavit of Consideration stating that the property

is exempt from the realty transfer fee. For the reasons set forth below, the court

concludes plaintiff’s complaint is untimely and that equitable relief is not

appropriate. Thus, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

I. Findings of Fact and Procedural Posture

The facts in this matter are undisputed. By deed dated May 31, 2018, plaintiff,

325 Tenafly Road LLC, acquired title to property commonly known as 325 Tenafly

Road, Tenafly, New Jersey for the sum of $1,600,000. Plaintiff’s settlement agent

sent the deed for recording with the Bergen County Clerk’s Office (the “Clerk”) on

June 26, 2018, along with form RTF-1EE, Affidavit of Consideration for Use by

Buyer (“Affidavit of Consideration”). Although the Affidavit of Consideration

reflected that the transaction was not subject to the additional one percent realty

transfer fee due to the property’s classification as Class 4C - Apartments, plaintiff

remitted a check for one percent of the consideration, or $16,0000, to the Clerk.

2 On April 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a Claim for Refund of the one percent realty

transfer fee paid to defendant. By letter dated October 12, 2020, defendant rejected

plaintiff’s refund claim due to the fact that it was filed more than ninety days from

July 10, 2018, the date the realty transfer fee was paid. Plaintiff filed the present

appeal with the Tax Court on January 8, 2021.

By way of opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss its complaint, plaintiff

concedes its refund claim was untimely but contends the matter should be allowed to

proceed on the merits for equitable reasons. Plaintiff asserts that the Clerk wrongfully

retained the check for $16,000 and should have noticed that the Affidavit of

Consideration indicated that the transaction was not subject to the one percent realty

transfer fee. In addition, plaintiff notes that the Clerk did not return the recorded deed

for six months, by which time the ninety-day limitation period for filing a refund

claim had expired. However, it is significant that plaintiff did not file its refund claim

until more than one year after its receipt of the recorded deed.

II. Conclusions of Law

Although referred to as a fee, the one percent additional realty transfer fee is

subject to the State Uniform Tax Procedure Law (“UPL”). The UPL is the “exclusive

remedy available to any taxpayer for review of an action of the Director of the

Division of Taxation . . . or of a county recording officer with respect to the realty

transfer tax.” N.J.S.A. 54:51A-16.

3 Importantly, the refund claim provision under the UPL, N.J.S.A. 54:49-14(a),

which provides a four-year statute of limitations for refund claims, does not apply if

“a shorter limit is fixed by the law imposing the tax.” The law imposing the one

percent realty transfer fee, N.J.S.A. 46:15-7.2, fixes a shorter limit and requires all

refund claims to be made “within 90 days after the payment of any original fee.”

N.J.S.A. 46:15-7.2(c). Thus, plaintiff’s time to file a refund claim in this matter was

ninety days from payment of the fee.

Here, plaintiff paid the one percent fee to the Clerk on July 10, 2018. Plaintiff

had until October 8, 2018 to file its claim for a refund. However, plaintiff’s refund

claim was not filed until April 20, 2020, almost two years after the expiration of the

statutory limitation period. Moreover, plaintiff does not dispute that it filed the

refund claim out of time. Instead, plaintiff seeks to relax the statutory time limitation

on equitable principles.

The statutory time periods for tax matters are jurisdictional. McMahon v. City

of Newark, 195 N.J. 526, 530, 544 (2008) (citing F.M.C. Stores v. Borough of Morris

Plains, 100 N.J. 418, 424 (1985)). As such, they are not subject to relaxation by the

Tax Court. Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 1 on R. 8:4-1

(GANN) (2021). This principle extends to periods for filing a protest or refund claim

with the Division of Taxation. Ibid. “Strict adherence to statutory time limitations

is essential in tax matters, borne of the exigencies of taxation and the administration

4 of local government.” F.M.C. Stores, 100 N.J. at 424. These time constraints are

non-relaxable “in order to provide finality and predictability of revenue to state and

local government.” Bonanno v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 12 N.J. Tax, 552, 556 (Tax

1992) (citing Pantasote, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 8 N.J. Tax 160, 164-66 (Tax

1988)).

Although courts have held that there are situations in which “statutes of

limitations can and should be relaxed, those rulings do not apply to tax matters where

such relaxation is unavailable except in the most extraordinary circumstances.” M.J.

Ocean, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 23 N.J. Tax 646, 652-53 (Tax 2008).

Furthermore, “[p]ublic policy discourages suits for the refund of taxes erroneously

paid or illegally collected.” Continental Trailways, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Motor

Vehicles, 102 N.J. 526, 548 (1986). “It is a ‘well-established principle that statutes

of limitation applicable to suits against the government are conditions attached to the

sovereign’s consent to be sued and must be strictly construed.’” H.B. Acquisitions,

Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 12 N.J. Tax 60, 65 (Tax 1991) (quoting Kreiger v.

United States, 539 F.2d 317, 320 (3d Cir. 1976)).

Here, plaintiff offers no support for its claim that equitable relief is appropriate.

Plaintiff concedes the tax was paid in error. However, plaintiff should have known

the subject property was exempt from the one percent realty transfer fee at the time

it remitted the check. In fact, the Affidavit of Consideration filed with the deed

5 clearly indicates that the property was classified as “Class 4C – Apartments” and that

the grantee was not required to pay the one percent fee. Plaintiff’s contention that

the Clerk or defendant should have noticed the error and returned the check is

unavailing. Simply put, plaintiff did not act promptly to discover the error, nor did it

act promptly to seek relief by way of a refund claim. Accordingly, equitable relief is

not appropriate in this matter.

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. As such, defendant’s motion is granted and

plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. An Order accompanies this

Opinion.

Respectfully,

/s/ Joan Bedrin Murray Hon. Joan Bedrin Murray