TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

DOCKET NOS.: 010456-2020; 

009577-2021; 007910-2022 

 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF

THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

 

Options Imagined, :

A NJ Nonprofit Corporation, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

 : 

Decided: October 31, 2022 

Robert B. McBriar for plaintiff (Schneck, Price, Smith, & King, LLP., 

attorneys). 

Richard P. DeAngelis for defendant (Connell Foley LLP., attorneys). 

BIANCO, J.T.C.

This is the court’s formal opinion concerning property tax exemption 

eligibility pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, for tax years 2020, 2021, and 2022,

1 of 

property owned by plaintiff, Options Imagined, a NJ Nonprofit Corporation 

(Options), located at 2467 Route 10, Apt. 18-A1, Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, 

1 When the Township filed its motion in March 2022, it included tax years 2020 and 2021 as those 

were the only appeals then pending in the Tax Court. On June 8, Options timely filed its complaint 

challenging the denial of the exemption for the current tax year. Thereafter, on July 12, Options 

filed its opposition to the Township’s Motion for Summary Judgement and Cross-Motions for 

Summary Judgement that included tax year 2022. In filing its reply brief and opposition to Options’ 

Cross Motion on August 15, the Township failed to include reference to tax year 2022. Both parties 

have confirmed in writing that the Court’s consideration of the pending Motion for Summary 

Judgement and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement should be for all years under appeal as the 

material facts pertaining to all years are the same.

Approved for Publication

In the New Jersey

Tax Court Reports 
2 

and designated by the taxing district as Lot 18.01 in Block 15.25 (Subject Property). 

Specifically at issue is whether the Subject Property is actually used in furtherance 

of Options’ charitable purpose, and whether Options is operating in furtherance of 

its organizational purpose set forth in its bylaws. Defendant Parsippany-Troy Hills 

Township (Township) moved for summary judgment to dismiss Options’ appeals of 

the Morris County Tax Board’s denial of the Subject Property’s charitable property 

tax exemption for all the years at issue. Options filed cross-motions for summary 

judgment entreating the court to grant the exemption. 

 For the reasons stated more specifically set forth herein, the court: (1) grants 

Options’ cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that Options has met its 

burden of satisfying the elements of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6; (2) denies the Township’s 

motion to dismiss Options’ appeals; and (3) finds that Options is organized in 

furtherance of its Certificate of Incorporation. 

Statement of Undisputed Facts

The facts are not in dispute.2 Options is a nonprofit New Jersey corporation 

and a Federal 501(c)(3) organization created in 2015 by Joseph DeSimone to provide 

support services to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Options 

is managed by its five-member Board of Trustees. Mr. DeSimone serves as the 

President of the Board of Trustees. 

2

 At argument, both counsel reaffirmed that no facts were in dispute in these matters.
3 

In furtherance of its charitable purposes, Options provides various New Jersey 

Department of Human Services, Division of Development Disabilities (DDD) 

recognized services3

to aid the moral and mental improvement of men, women, and 

children, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 54:4-36. Pursuant to Options’ amended Certificate 

of Incorporation, upon its dissolution, its assets will be distributed for tax exempt 

purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) or be distributed by federal, local, 

or state government for a public purpose. 

 The Subject Property is a residential two-bedroom condominium unit 

containing approximately 1,021 square feet of livable area; it was assessed for 

$150,000 for all years under appeal.4

 In September 2019, Options purchased the 

Subject Property from its President Mr. DeSimone for $220,000. The entirety of the 

Subject Property is exclusively used for independent living and rehabilitative 

services.5

 Since Options purchased the Subject Property in 2019, Mr. DeSimone’s 

autistic adult son was the only resident and lessee of one of the bedrooms.

6

 

However, it is anticipated that an additional DDD participant will occupy the second 

3

 Options provides services within the Subject Property and outside the Subject Property. The 

services include Community Based Supports (Supports Program), Community Inclusion Services, 

Day Habilitation, Individual Supports (Community Care Program), Prevocational Training, 

Respite, Support Coordination, Supported Employment, Support Brokerage, and Transportation. 

4

 The property tax for the Subject Property for the relevant years is as follows: $4,626.00 in 2020, 

$4,756.50 in 2021, $4,894.50 in 2022. 

5

 The Subject Property has operated at a loss for the preceding three years. 

6

 The rent for the Subject Property for the relevant years is as follows: $1,390 in 2020, $1,483 in 

2019. 
4 

bedroom at the Subject Property once his/her transition plans7are complete. 

Additionally, Options has the intention of acquiring and operating five group homes 

by 2025 in furtherance of its charitable purpose. 

 Before Options acquired the Subject Property, the current resident lived 

alone at the Subject Property and received Section 8 subsidies.8

 After the sale to 

Options, Mr. DeSimone transferred the Section 8 housing contract to Options. 

Additionally, Options receives in-home and service funding from various sources 

such as Medicaid Waiver Programs. The Subject Property’s home expenses are 

derived from resident funds and state funded housing programs.9 Options receives 

in-home and service funding from various sources such as Medicaid Waiver 

Programs. While the Subject Property itself is not yet approved by the DDD, the 

DDD has issued a Notice of Intent to License.10

 

Options, however, is approved and recognized by the DDD to provide services 

and support to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities enrolled in 

7

 The DDD’s Planning for Adult Life Project assists students with intellectual and developmental 

disabilities and their families in transitioning into adulthood. Transition plans are created when a 

student moves from the school system into the adult service system. A transition plan identifies 

services that aids youth in achieving their ideal future life goals. 

8

 The Division of Housing and Community Resources (DHCR) Section 8 Housing Program is a 

Housing Voucher program that assists low-income households in paying rent by reducing housing 

costs through direct subsidy payments to landlords. 

9

 Supportive Housing Vouchers from NJ Supportive Housing Alliance, and State Rental 

Assistance Programs (SRAP). SRAP is a state funded program that provides housing subsidies to 

very low-income New Jersey Residents. From September 2019 through December 2019, Options 

received SRAP subsidies totaling to $31,293. 

10

 Once the Subject Property is licensed by DDD, funding will be received in the form of 

Supportive Housing Vouchers from the Supportive Housing Alliance. 
5 

various Medicaid Waiver programs. Options provides twenty-four-hour support 

services at the Subject Property to enable DDD participants to live in the community. 

The current resident is enrolled in CCP and receives funding through programs 

administered by the DDD.11

 The current resident is cared for fulltime by four trained 

Options individual support employees at the Subject Property as outlined in his 

approved New Jersey Individual Service Plan (ISP).12

 Individual support services 

are direct aid to individuals in achieving an independent lifestyle. These services 

include assistance in performing everyday tasks, such as the development of social 

skills and basic self-care. Options provides individual support services only to CCP 

participants in the Subject Property as well as other locations within twenty-one 

counties in New Jersey. The DDD listed Options as a Support Coordination (SC) 

agency, specifically as a released agency.13

 Support Coordination is a DDD funded 

service that assists DDD participants in gaining access to needed programs and State 

plan services. 

Applicable Law

11

 The DDD developed and operates two Medicaid waiver programs: (1) The Supports Program 

(SP) and (2) The Community Care Program (CCP). The CCP is a DDD initiative that permits New 

Jersey to receive a federal match on a variety of approved waiver programs and supports Medicaid 

beneficiaries to live in the community and avoid institutionalization.

12

 Each CCP participant must have an Individualized Service Plan (ISP) developed according to 

the standards specified in the CCP policy manual and the Support Coordination Orientation. 

13

 Released agencies are agencies authorized to have their SC approve their own service plans 

because they met a minimum standard of delivering quality service plans. Therefore, released 

agencies do not have to submit service plans to the DDD for review and approval. 
6 

A motion for summary judgment should be granted in the absence of genuine 

issues of material facts. R. 4:46-2(c); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 

N.J. 520, 528-29 (1995) (summary judgment will be granted “if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the 

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 

challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter 

of law”). Denial is appropriate only where the evidence is such that reasonable 

minds could return a finding favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id. at 534, 

540. 

“In a proceeding in the Tax Court there is a presumption of correctness in 

favor of the County Board judgment which must be overcome by plaintiff’s 

introduction of sufficient competent evidence.” Glen Wall Assoc. v. Wall Twp., 6 

N.J. Tax 24, 28 (Tax 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 99 N.J. 265 (1985). 

“Exemption [from taxation] is justly sustained only upon the principle that the 

concession is due as quid pro quo for the performance of a service essentially public,

and which the state there-by is relieved pro tanto from the necessity of performing.” 

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. East Orange City, 17 N.J. Tax 298 (Tax 

1998). When making charitable exemption decisions, “it is the use of the property, 

not the status or character of its owner, that determines exemption.” Emanuel 

Missionary Baptist Church v. City of Newark, 1 N.J. Tax 264, 268 (Tax 1980). 
7 

N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 provides in pertinent part that: 

The following property shall be exempt from 

taxation . . . all buildings actually used in the work 

of associations and corporations organized 

exclusively for the moral and mental improvement 

of men, women and children, provided that if any 

portion of a building used for that purpose is leased 

to profit-making organizations or is otherwise used 

for purposes which are not themselves exempt from 

taxation, that portion shall be subject to taxation and 

the remaining portion only shall be exempt. 

[N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6] 

While value determinations by County Boards generally enjoy a presumption 

of validity, MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Borough of Mountain Lakes, 18 N.J. 

Tax 364, 373 (Tax 1998), “the determination of an exemption is more properly one 

of statutory and case law interpretation than one requiring any special expertise 

possessed of an assessor[;] . . . ‘statutory construction is ultimately a judicial 

function.’” Hertz v. Borough of Lincoln Park, 31 N.J. Tax 1, 12 (Tax 2019) (quoting 

O’Rourke v. Fredon, 25 N.J. Tax 443, 450 (Tax 2010)). “[T]ax exemption cases . . 

. are necessarily limited to their facts and are not controlling.” AHS Hosp. Corp. v. 

Town of Morristown, 28 N.J. Tax 456, 499 (Tax 2015) (citing Int’l Schs. Servs., Inc. 

v. West Windsor Twp., 207 N.J. 3, 22 (2011)). 

“The Supreme Court of New Jersey has set forth three criteria for whether a 

property qualifies for exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6: (1) the owner of the 

property must be organized exclusively for the tax-exempt purpose; (2) the property 
8 

must be actually used for the exempt purpose; and (3) the operation and use of the 

property must not be conducted for profit.” Borough of Hamburg v. Trs. of 

Presbytery of Newton, 28 N.J. Tax 311, 318 (Tax 2015) (citing Paper Mill Playhouse 

v. Millburn Twp., 95 N.J. 503, 506 (1984)). 

Because “all property shall bear its just and equal share of the public burden 

of taxation[,]” “[s]tatutes granting exemption from taxation represent a departure 

and consequently they are most strongly construed against those claiming 

exemption.” Princeton Univ. Press v. Borough of Princeton, 35 N.J. 209, 214 

(1961). Accordingly, “[t]he burden of proving a tax-exempt status is upon the 

claimant.” Ibid. However, “[t]he rule of strict construction must never be allowed 

to defeat the evident legislative design.” Soc’y of the Holy Child Jesus v. City of 

Summit, 418 N.J. Super. 365, 373 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting N.J. Carpenters 

Apprentice Training & Educ. Fund v. Borough of Kenilworth, 147 N.J. 171, 177-78 

(1996)). 

When determining whether a property is actually used for a tax-exempt 

purpose, the Tax Court evaluates whether the property is “reasonably necessary” for 

such tax-exempt purposes. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. East 

Orange City, 18 N.J. Tax 649, 653 (App. Div. 2000) (citing City of Long Branch v. 

Monmouth Med. Ctr., 138 N.J. Super. 524, 532 (App. Div. 1976), aff’d, 73 N.J. 179 

(1977)). When applying this test, the Court has held that “necessary” is not 
9 

interpreted to mean “absolutely indispensable.” Boys’ Club of Clifton, Inc. v. Twp. 

of Jefferson, 72 N.J. 389, 401 (1977). Eligibility for exemption is determined as of 

October 1 of the prior tax year. See Catholic Relief Servs., U.S.C.C. v. South 

Brunswick Twp., 9 N.J. Tax 25, 26-7 (Tax 1987), aff’d, 9 N.J. Tax 650 (App. Div. 

1987). 

Analysis

While property tax exemption determinations pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 

are inherently and typically fact sensitive, see AHS Hosp. Corp., 28 N.J. Tax at 499 

(citing Int’l Schs. Servs., Inc., 207 N.J. at 22), the court finds that summary judgment 

is appropriate in the present matters as there are no genuine disputes of material 

facts. Both parties agree that Options is using the property to care for the current 

resident and that Options is a nonprofit corporation organized for the moral and 

mental improvement of individuals in accordance with N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. 

Furthermore, the parties are in accord that Options is not using the Subject Property 

for profit. At issue, is the second prong of the Paper Mill test, i.e., whether the 

Subject Property is actually used in furtherance of its organizational purpose. 

Additionally, despite the parties having stipulated to Options organizational 

elements, the Township focused its argument on whether Options satisfied its 

charitable purpose by providing services to the public, given that Mr. Desimone’s

son was the only former and current resident of the Subject Property. 
10

1. The Use Test

For Options to meet the requirements under the use test, it must demonstrate 

that the Subject Property is “reasonably necessary for the accomplishment, and an 

integral part, of the taxpayer’s activities in pursuit of a function forming the basis of 

an exemption under N.J.SA. 54:4-3.6.” Fountain House of New Jersey v. Montague 

Twp, 13 N.J. Tax 387, 402 (Tax 1993) (citing Long Branch v. Monmouth Med. Ctr., 

138 N.J. Super. 524, 532 (App. Div. 1976), aff’d, 73 N.J. 179 (1977)).

Options contends that the Subject Property is entitled to tax exempt status 

because it is used in providing Mr. DeSimone’s son with DDD approved services 

and support, which use is consistent with Options’ charitable purpose. The 

Township disputes whether Options actually used the Subject Property in 

furtherance of its charitable purpose as of the relevant assessing dates. To that 

argument the Township asserts that because the Subject Property is not available to 

the public but rather, available only to the son of Options’ President, Options does 

not render a charitable benefit to the public. Accordingly, in the Township’s view, 

exemption of the Subject Property is inappropriate. 

The court finds that Options satisfied all the requirements for tax exemption. 

It is clear the Subject Property was used to provide the current resident with housing 

and DDD approved support services. This court has previously recognized that 

property used to house and provide substantial supportive services that encourage an 
11

independent lifestyle meets the standard for property tax exemption under N.J.SA. 

54:4-3.6. See Community Access Unlimited, Inc. v. City of Elizabeth, 21 N.J. Tax 

604 (Tax 2003) (where the court granted a charitable tax exemption to Community

Access, an organization that provided housing and supportive services to individuals 

with mental disabilities, finding that, similar to Options, its goal was to aid persons 

with mental disabilities in leading an independent lifestyle). 

The Subject Property is reasonably necessary and integral to the care and wellbeing of the current resident and provides him with the ability to lead an independent 

lifestyle within the community. The current resident receives assistance with 

community-based activities and aid in performing everyday tasks. Furthermore, 

Options is not limited to only housing Mr. DeSimone’s son. An additional DDD 

participant is anticipated to reside in the Subject Property and receive similar support 

services based on his or her ISP. When Mr. DeSimone’s son is no longer a resident, 

the Subject Property will continue to be reasonably necessary and integral to the care 

of other DDD participants. Both bedrooms at the Subject Property can continue to 

be leased by DDD participants in need of housing and supportive aid. Accordingly, 

the Court finds that Options does satisfy the requirements of the use test. 

2. Public Use 

There is nothing in the case law or controlling statutes to suggest that Options’ 

undisputed use of the property does not satisfy the requirements for exemption. 
12

While it is well settled that property tax exemption is an exception that must be 

strictly construed against the party seeking exemption, see Soc’y of the Holy Child 

Jesus, 418 N.J. Super. at 373, there is no requirement for an organization to be open 

to the general public and utilized by more than one individual at any given time. See

Princeton Univ., 35 N.J. at 214. Furthermore, it is not pertinent to the requirements 

of either the use test or N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 that Mr. DeSimone’s son is the sole 

resident. The Township’s argument that Options is ineligible for tax exemption 

because the Subject Property is not adequately used by the public conflates public 

use with public purpose. 

It has been held that our courts should not strictly define either public purpose 

or public use; “to be serviceable it must expand when necessary to encompass 

changing public needs of a modern dynamic society.” Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. Super.

191, 207 (1964). “The concept of public purpose is a broad one... it connotes an 

activity which serves as a benefit to the community as a whole, and which, at the 

same time is directly related to the functions of government. Moreover, it cannot be 

static in its implications.” Ibid. “[T]he term “public use” defies absolute definition 

because it changes with varying conditions of society and changing conceptions of 

the scope and functions of government.” Id. at 226. 

Here, Options is absorbing some costs that the taxpayers would otherwise 

have to bear by caring for an individual with developmental disabilities. Current 
13

available funding resources do not provide Options with full housing funds; Options 

operates at a loss, and resident funds contribute to a portion of the Subject Property’s 

expenses. The fact that there has been only one individual living at the Subject 

Property does not change the fact that Options is bearing a cost that the State must 

otherwise pay for the care of the current resident. Moreover, our jurisprudence has 

long established that a quantum of use is not required for a property to be tax exempt; 

nor is there any certain amount of benefit or relief from public expenses that must 

be met. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, 17 N.J. Tax at 311 (reasoning 

that “no courts in this state have ever suggested that the quantum, regularity, or 

consistency of religious activity are necessary prerequisites to [tax exemption]"). 

Options offers housing and supportive services to individuals who might 

otherwise be institutionalized at a higher cost to the public and provides them with 

a safe setting in which to thrive.14

 The Tax Court has found that organizations 

similar to Options are “playing a role in fulfilling an articulated State policy of 

14

 “The average cost to maintain one state hospital bed is $146,000 per annually. Almost half of 

the State’s mental health budget (or $483 million dollars ) pays for the cost of caring for an average 

3,300 patients in State and County facilities on any given day. Given that almost half of the State 

hospital patients are clinically ready for discharge, housing them in State hospitals is very 

expensive. Without a local system of care to coordinate an array of services and supports for 

persons who are seriously mentally ill, again, if we do nothing, the Task Force finds a significant 

number of State hospital beds (400) would need to be added given current admission, discharge 

and average daily population trends. Such a use of institutional care would be unfortunate and 

inappropriate. The lost potential in human terms is incalculable. Lives have been lost, spirits 

broken and families devastated.” 2005 Task Force on Mental Health Final Report, p. 6, available 

at THE FINAL EXEC SUMMARY 3 30 05 B.itb.doc (nj.gov); last visited Oct. 14, 2022. 
14

deinstitutionalizing the mentally disabled.” Advanced Housing, Inc. v. Twp. of 

Teaneck, 215 N.J. 549, 554 (2013) (citing Community Access Unlimited Inc., 21 

N.J. Tax at 617). The Governor’s 2005 Task Force on Mental Health Final report15

revealed that the cost of institutionalizing one individual is far more exuberant than 

providing services in a residence. Ibid. Consequently, Options’ existence relieves 

the state’s financial burden of institutionalizing individuals. 

This court rejects the Township’s arguments that there is a specific public use 

requirement and refuses to find such in the penumbra of the jurisprudence 

concerning property tax exemption. Because Options is bearing a cost that the State 

would otherwise pay, this court is satisfied that Options is operating in satisfaction 

of the requisite public purpose.

3. Operating in Furtherance of Options’ Organizational Purpose

 

 While the parties have stipulated to the organizational elements, the 

Township’s contention that Options was not created to provide residential services,

16

nevertheless suggests that Options is not acting within its organizational purpose. 

The court finds such a claim to be unfounded. While Options’ Certificate of 

15

 In 2005, the cost of maintaining one patient in a State psychiatric hospital was $146,000 per 

year, and in a group home $60,000 per year.

16

 The Township asserts as an undisputed fact that Options was not organized to provide residential 

services. 
15

Incorporation does not explicitly state that its creation is to provide residential 

services, it broadly outlines that Options’ primary purpose is to provide services and 

support to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities as well as 

conducting any other activity necessary in achieving its charitable purpose. 

 The court is satisfied that the support services Options provides at the Subject 

Property are necessary in achieving its charitable purpose. The current resident, and 

potentially future residents, receive the daily supportive aid necessary to lead an 

independent lifestyle. The Court rejects the Township’s argument and finds that 

Options is operating according to its organizational purpose. 

4. Public Policy Argument

As this court has discussed at length in Life With Joy v. Twp. of Green, 32 

N.J. Tax 580, 599-603 (Tax 2022), the legislature set forth an extensive statutory 

scheme through the DDD to provide for the caretaking of individuals with 

developmental disabilities. These elaborate government programs that are set up to 

fund the care and development of individuals with developmental disabilities proves 

the public benefit. When individuals and nonprofits act in accordance with state law 

and policy to care for individuals with developmental disabilities, they help relieve 

the state, and more importantly, the tax-paying public, from the financial cost of their 

care. The Supreme Court endorsed such reasoning when it cited a 2005 Task Force 

on Mental Health commissioned by Acting Governor Codey outlining the “dearth of 
16

affordable housing that offer[s] comprehensive support services.” Advanced 

Housing, Inc., 215 N.J. Super. at 554. The Court found that caring for “mentally 

disabled citizens, who otherwise would be dependent on government relief, is in 

furtherance of this State’s express policy.” Ibid. 

This court is empowered to find coexistence amongst promulgated statutes 

and thus finds that if the Subject Property is used in furtherance of an organization’s 

charitable goals and in furtherance of a public purpose such property will be exempt 

from taxation. Here, the court is satisfied that Options is actually using the Subject 

Property in furtherance of their charitable purpose in accordance with N.J.S.A. 54:4-

3.6 and is thus exempt from taxation. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, the court finds that the Subject Property is actually used in 

furtherance of Options’ charitable purpose and is thus exempt from taxation pursuant

to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 for the tax years at issue. The Township’s motions for summary 

judgment are denied and Options’ cross motions for summary judgment are granted. 

The Tax Court’s judgment and Final Order consistent with this opinion will be 

uploaded to eCourts.