28 N.J. Tax 568
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2015Background
- The Borgata Casino complex in Atlantic City was assessed for 2009 and 2010 property taxes owned by Marina District Development Co., LLC.
- The City of Atlantic City contends the correct valuation method is the cost approach, not the income approach used by the Tax Court judge.
- The City also argues the casino-specific methodology violates the uniformity provision of the New Jersey Constitution.
- Judge DeAlmeida conducted a 21-day trial and concluded the plaintiffs’ evidence rebutted the presumption of the municipality’s assessment.
- The appellate court affirms, rejecting the constitutional challenge and confirming the Tax Court’s valuation approach and findings, applying the standard of review for Tax Court decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper valuation method for Borgata taxes | Marina District argues the income approach should be used. | Atlantic City contends the cost approach should apply. | Income approach is valid; uphold Tax Court. |
| Uniformity under the constitution | Casino-specific methodology does not violate uniformity. | Methodology unnecessarily privileges casinos and violates uniformity. | No constitutional violation; methodology permissible. |
| Standards for appellate review of Tax Court findings | Tax Court findings should reflect true value given credibility findings. | Presumption of validity governs unless clearly arbitrary. | Tax Court findings sustained; substantial evidence supports valuation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic, 100 N.J. 408 (1985) (presumption of validity can be rebutted where value deviates from true value)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Twp. of Edison, 127 N.J. 290 (1992) (Tax Court may apply its own judgment to reach true value)
- City of Atl. City v. Ace Gaming, LLC, 23 N.J.Tax 70 (Tax 2006) (income approach used to assess casino property)
- Boardwalk Regency Corp. v. City of Atlantic City, 19 N.J.Tax 164 (App.Div.2000) (Tax Court findings receive deference on appeal)
- 125 Monitor St., LLC v. City of Jersey City, 21 N.J.Tax 232 (Tax 2004) (no single determinative valuation approach; depends on facts)
- G & S Co. v. Borough of Eatontown, 6 N.J.Tax 218 (App.Div.1982) (appellate review of Tax Court credibility standards)
- Switz v. Kingsley, 37 N.J. 566 (1962) (uniformity parameters under art. VIII, § 1, ¶ 1)