Lacking Credibility, Taxpayer Loses Fight Against Ch. 91 Motion
An intriguing set of facts unfolded in a fight against the Township’s Chapter 91 motion in R&M Manufacturing v. Twp. of Monroe. Normally, Ch. 91 requests by municipalities are composed of a cover letter, an income and expense statement (I&E statement), a “Schedule A” with instructions on how to fill them out, and a copy of the statute. The property for which the information is requested is identified on either the cover letter or I&E statement, or often on both. When motions are filed in Tax Court, these documents are attached to the Ch. 91 motion in order to provide evidence of compliance with all requirements of the statute.
In R&M Manufacturing v. Twp. of Monroe, the Township filed a Ch. 91 motion accompanied by a “sample” transmittal letter, I&E statement, and Schedule A. Plaintiff and plaintiff’s property was not identified anywhere on the attached sample transmittal letter, I&E statement, or the Schedule A. Instead, a different property in the Township and a different owner was identified. The Township purposely attached a “sample” transmittal letter because the assessor did not retain copies of every Ch. 91 request mailed to income-producing properties given the volume of such requests. The Township’s assessor certified that R&M’s name and property would have been identified in the original request, and it was mailed to its mailing address in Parsippany. In its opposition to the motion, R&M’s property manager argued that no such request was ever received and even if he had received such a request, he would still not have responded because the forms did not identify a property owned by R&M.
Given the fact that the request was sent via certified mail, and the mailing receipt as well as the “green card” both indicated receipt by the plaintiff, the Tax Court did not find plaintiff’s argument credible. Furthermore, plaintiff’s property in Monroe was the only property with an out-of-town mailing address in Parsippany, and R&M’s property manager confirmed that mail pertaining to the subject property is received at the Parsippany address. In light of all the facts before the court, greater credence was given to the Township’s assessor, and the court granted the Township’s Ch. 91 motion.
Plaintiff’s main contention rested on the premise that it had never received the Township’s request. Once plaintiff’s credibility was cast in doubt by the evidence to the contrary, the Township was given the benefit of the doubt. The outcome may have possibly been different had the taxpayer argued that it had received a Ch. 91 request that failed to identify the subject property. The court did in fact indicate that the use of a “sample” request in support of a Ch. 91 motion alone would not have been sufficient to dismiss the appeal. If that were the argument made, it would have, again, come down to the credibility of the taxpayer and the Township’s assessor. Given the fact that the Township retained no actual copies of the income and expense request sent to the plaintiff that identified the property, it may have been a stronger position.
