Mutual Assurance Co. v. Gluck

10 N.J. Tax 234
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedMay 19, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 N.J. Tax 234 (Mutual Assurance Co. v. Gluck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mutual Assurance Co. v. Gluck, 10 N.J. Tax 234 (N.J. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Tax Court holding it liable for premium taxes under the New Jersey Insurance Premiums Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:18A-1 et seq., and assessments under the New Jersey Insurance Underwriting Association Act (IUAA), N.J.S.A. 17:37A-1 et seq. Plaintiff’s appeal “is limited to the determination that the annual cost of the use of the deposit money is the perpetual insurance premium subject to tax by the state of New Jersey.” The Commissioner of the Department of Insurance cross-appeals from that portion of the judgment “limiting taxable and assessable premiums to the [insured’s] cost of foregoing the use of the premium deposit.” The Commissioner contends that the deposits paid by insureds for perpetual homeowners’ insurance are “premiums” subject to taxation and assessment under N.J.S.A. 54:18A-2 and -4 and N.J.S.A. 17:37A-2(g) and -6 because “these monies are the consideration for the insurance.” Plaintiff, in essence, contends that no “premiums” are paid for their perpetual homeowners’ policies, and therefore, that no tax or assessment is due thereon.

The Tax Court held that “neither N.J.S.A. 54:18A-1 et seq. nor N.J.S.A. 17:37A-1 et seq. imposes a tax on perpetual insurance policyholder deposits but both do impose a tax on the ‘cost of the use of money’ premiums” and “that the annual cost of the use of the deposit money is the perpetual insurance [236]*236premium subject to tax by the State of New Jersey.” 9 N.J.Tax at 65.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lasser in his opinion appearing at 9 N.J.Tax 55.

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

Related

Hill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
166 Cal. App. 4th 1438 (California Court of Appeal, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 N.J. Tax 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-assurance-co-v-gluck-njsuperctappdiv-1988.