American Insurance v. City of Newark

15 A.2d 119, 18 N.J. Misc. 516, 1940 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 85
CourtNew Jersey Tax Court
DecidedJuly 23, 1940
StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.2d 119 (American Insurance v. City of Newark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Insurance v. City of Newark, 15 A.2d 119, 18 N.J. Misc. 516, 1940 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 85 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1940).

Opinion

Quinn, President.

Petitioner is a stock insurance company, having its principle office in the respondent taxing district. It was subject to taxation for the year 1938, as of the assessing date, October 1st, 1937, upon its capital stock paid in and accumulated surplus, less the amount of assessments upon real estate belonging to the company, under Pamph. L. 1918, ch. 236, § 307. By judicial construction of substantially similar predecessor statutes, the act entails an assessing formula for such companies requiring: (a) determination of the true value of gross assets; (b) the deduction therefrom of debts and fixed liabilities, i. e., such as are certain and definite both as to obligation and amount, as of the assessing date; (c) the deduction from the remainder of the amount of assessed real estate and the value of non-taxable and exempt property. Trenton v. Standard Fire Insurance Co. (Court of Errors and Appeals, 1909); 77 N. J. L. 757; 73 Atl. Rep. 636; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Board of Equalization (Supreme Court, 1908), 77 N. J. L. 128; 71 Atl. Rep. 61.

The city of Newark levied an assessment against petitioner, under the statute, in the sum of $3,513,367, for the year 1938. Upon appeal to the Essex County Board of Taxation, the assessment was reduced to $3,112,118. The petition of appeal before this board prays a further reduction to $2,907,014. Upon the basis of the proof and argument adduced at the hearing, petitioner has in its brief, requested that the assessment be fixed at $2,046,370.44. In view of our conclusions with respect to the substance of petitioner’s contentions, however, we need not consider the propriety of a request for reductions not supported by a prayer in the petition of appeal, or by amendment thereof.

For sake of clarity, our consideration of the proof herein will be had under these headings: (a) assets; (b) deductible debts and liabilities; (c) deductible assessed realty and exempt and non-taxable property.

(a) Assets. The company’s valuation of the following of its assets upon the assessing date is undisputed:

[518]*518 Ledger Assets

Cash in office .......................... $4,175.00

National Newark deposit.............. 424,581.67

Other bank deposits..................... 241,072.05

Stocks and bonds ....................... 26,109,550.65

Bonds and mortgages ................... 1,145,705.00

Bond and mortgages (P. H. A.) .......... 932,373.21

Premiums uncollected (less than 90 days). . 1,892,914.86

Premiums uncollected (over 90 days)...... 264,884.25

Missouri premiums ..................... 41,800.52

Premium notes outstanding ............. 48,176.71

Becoverable insurance on paid losses..... 15,316.05

Inter-company accts. rec................. 67,982.16

Non-Ledger Assets

Accrued interest bonds and mortgages..... 19,621.68

Accrued interest on bonds ............... 86,574.04

Total Undisputed Assets ............ $31,294,727.85.

In addition to the assets set forth, the petitioner’s balance sheet shows real estate (company occupied), at $3,278,589.49, and real estate (all other) at $565,075.60. The city contends that the figures for these items should be respectively, $4,407,552.75 and $751,295.50. These, however, according to the proof adduced, are original cost amounts, and not reflective of true value, since they do not allow for any depreciation at all, which is necessarily a factor in selling value. Turnley v. Elizabeth (Supreme Court, 1908), 76 N. J. L. 42; 68 Atl. Rep. 1094. And see City of Newark v. Imperial Laundry Co. (State Board), filed December 12th, 1939. The cost of companjr occupied buildings was properly subject to write-offs for depreciation duly voted by the directors of the company, in the amount of $787,552.75. But petitioner’s claim for an additional deduction of $407,636.20 as a reserve for depreciation of such realty is not allowable, in the absence of a showing that such additional depreciation has accrued and is thus properly chargeable against the property, as a matter of valuation. Nor does the reserve, [519]*519under sucli circumstances, represent a liability certain and definite as to amount, as required by the rule stated in Commercial Casualty Insurance Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals (Supreme Court, 1937), 119 N. J. L. 94; 194 Atl. Rep. 390. See The National Commercial Title and Mortgage Guaranty Co. v. City of Newark (State Board, 1940), 18 N. J. Mis. R. 186; 11 Atl. Rep. (2d) 759. The burden as to this, as well as all other issues in the case, rests upon petitioner, in view of the presumption of correctness attending the county board determination. Estell v. Hawhens (Supreme Court, 1887), 50 N. J. L. 122, 125. Similarly, while the cost of the other real estate of petitioner, in the sum of $605,873.70, was properly chargeable with actually accrued depreciation, taken on the books of the company, of $29,565.82, there is no additional right to the deduction from cost of a reserve for depreciation. In pursuance of the foregoing the evidence indicates total realty of a true value of $3,620,000 (company office buildings), and $576,307.88 (other realty), or a total of $4,196,307.88.

Petitioner contends, however, that a proper construction of the statute would preclude the taking of real estate, for purposes of determination of gross assets, at a figure in excess of its assessed value. This contention is posited on the statutory provision for deduction of realty belonging to the company in its assessed value, and upon the theory that unless the real estate is similarly taken at its assessed value in computing capital and surplus, there will ensue double taxation of such realty. We cannot concur in this view. It was seen above that the first necessary step in the formula of assessment of a stock insurance company is the determination of the true value of its gross assets. Kealty owned is an asset. As writh all other assets, it must be taken at its true value. The statutory provision for the deduction from capital and surplus of the assessed value of real estate is for the purpose of avoiding any duplication of real estate taxes, but only to the extent of the actual assessed values of such realty. Concurrence in petitioner’s argument herein would result in the exemption from taxation of that portion of the true value of its real estate, which is represented by the excess which [520]*520appears in this case to exist in such true value, over assessed value. The city of Newark is not estopped in this case from urging the assessment of petitioner’s capital and surplus as its true value, as required by statute, by mere reason of its underassessment of one of the constituents thereof, in the administration of a separate and distinct tax thereupon.

The respondent taxing district takes further exception to the statement of assets contained in petitioner’s balance sheet because of its failure to reflect as an asset an item of $680,000, constituting recoverable reinsurance on unpaid losses. According to the proof at the hearing, petitioner becomes entitled to this credit only if, as, and when it pays claims against it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commercial Casualty Insurance v. State Board of Tax Appeals
194 A. 390 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1937)
Turnley v. City of Elizabeth
68 A. 1094 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1908)
Fidelity Trust Co. v. Board of Equalization of Taxes
71 A. 61 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 A.2d 119, 18 N.J. Misc. 516, 1940 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-insurance-v-city-of-newark-njtaxct-1940.