New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. Town of Montclair

Supreme Court of New Jersey

New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. Town of Montclair

37 A.2d 114, 131 N.J.L. 564, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 220

DecidedApril 13, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.2d 114 (New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. Town of Montclair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. Town of Montclair, 37 A.2d 114, 131 N.J.L. 564, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 220 (N.J. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Heher, J.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court, as supplemented by the opinion ol: this court in the case of Jersey Central Power and Light Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, decided this day, 131 N. J. L. 565.

Here, the excise was levied under chapter 4 of the Laws of 1940. Pamph. L., p. 21; N. J. S. A. 54:31 — 15.14, et seq. The basic question for decision is whether the term “lines,” as used in this statute, comprehends “drop and block wires.” We are clear it does not. They, too, fall into the general category of “services” or “service connections.”

It is said that “the formula for distributing the total tax complements the formula by which flic tax is assessed and fairly completes the contemplated legislative process.” But the formula for distribution of the tax revenue, unlike the assessment process, is the comparative value of all the utility’s property located in the streets and highways of the several municipalities. Section 9 provides for division of the tax among the municipalities “in the proportion that the appor *565 tionment value oí the scheduled property of such taxpayer located in, on or over any public street, highway, road or other public place in each municipality * * * hears to the total apportionment value oí such scheduled property of such taxpayer in this state * * *.” Pamph. L. 1940, pp. 21, 29; N. J. S. A. 54:31-15.22.

Thus, the apportionment is based upon the value oí the property in the streets and highways, while the Length oí the Hines or mains” constitutes the basis of the formula lor the assessment oí the tax. The “drop wire” is but an extension of a wire on the poles or within a cable comprising, in whole or in part, the principal or main line ; and it is conceded that all the wires on the poles and in the cables are not be considered as separate “lines” in the ascertainment of the tax. It is not a property tax, but a license charge on gross receipts. That such is the legislative understanding oí the term “lines” is shown by the provision oí section 7 oí the statute under review for the valuation of the taxpayer’s property lor apportionment purposes. Pamph. L. 1940, pp. 21, 25 ; N. J. 8. A. 54:31-15.20. See, also, R. 8. 48:17-8, 48:17-9.

Judgment affirmed.

For affirmance- — The Chancellor, Ghiee Justice, Parker, Bobine, Heher, Pbrskie, Porter, Wells, Eaeeerty, Hague, Thompson, Dtll, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Heher, J.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court, as supplemented by the opinion ol: this court in the case of Jersey Central Power and Light Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, decided this day, 131 N. J. L. 565.

Here, the excise was levied under chapter 4 of the Laws of 1940. Pamph. L., p. 21; N. J. S. A. 54:31 — 15.14, et seq. The basic question for decision is whether the term “lines,” as used in this statute, comprehends “drop and block wires.” We are clear it does not. They, too, fall into the general category of “services” or “service connections.”

It is said that “the formula for distributing the total tax complements the formula by which flic tax is assessed and fairly completes the contemplated legislative process.” But the formula for distribution of the tax revenue, unlike the assessment process, is the comparative value of all the utility’s property located in the streets and highways of the several municipalities. Section 9 provides for division of the tax among the municipalities “in the proportion that the appor *565 tionment value oí the scheduled property of such taxpayer located in, on or over any public street, highway, road or other public place in each municipality * * * hears to the total apportionment value oí such scheduled property of such taxpayer in this state * * *.” Pamph. L. 1940, pp. 21, 29; N. J. S. A. 54:31-15.22.

Thus, the apportionment is based upon the value oí the property in the streets and highways, while the Length oí the Hines or mains” constitutes the basis of the formula lor the assessment oí the tax. The “drop wire” is but an extension of a wire on the poles or within a cable comprising, in whole or in part, the principal or main line ; and it is conceded that all the wires on the poles and in the cables are not be considered as separate “lines” in the ascertainment of the tax. It is not a property tax, but a license charge on gross receipts. That such is the legislative understanding oí the term “lines” is shown by the provision oí section 7 oí the statute under review for the valuation of the taxpayer’s property lor apportionment purposes. Pamph. L. 1940, pp. 21, 25 ; N. J. 8. A. 54:31-15.20. See, also, R. 8. 48:17-8, 48:17-9.

Judgment affirmed.

For affirmance- — The Chancellor, Ghiee Justice, Parker, Bobine, Heher, Pbrskie, Porter, Wells, Eaeeerty, Hague, Thompson, Dtll, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.2d 114, 131 N.J.L. 564, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-jersey-bell-telephone-co-v-town-of-montclair-nj-1944.