Case Name: ATLANTIC CITY SHOWBOAT INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT; OUR LADY OF LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2013-12-24
Citations: 28 N.J. Tax 335
Docket Number: 
Parties: ATLANTIC CITY SHOWBOAT INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. OUR LADY OF LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Tax Court Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 335–337

Head Matter:
ATLANTIC CITY SHOWBOAT INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. OUR LADY OF LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued September 18, 2013
Decided December 24, 2013
Before Judges Lihotz, Maven and Hoffman.
Leah Samit Robinson (McDermott Will & Emery, LLP) argued the cause for appellant Atlantic City Showboat, Inc. (Ms. Robinson and Peter L. Faber, of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Ms. Robinson and Mr. Faber, on the briefs).
Jonathan M. Korn, argued the cause for appellant Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc. (Blank Rome LLP, attorneys; Mr. Korn, on the brief).
Heather Lynn Anderson, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Director, Division of Taxation (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheind-lin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jill C. McNally, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated cases, plaintiffs Atlantic City Showboat, Inc. and Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc. (collectively plaintiffs) appeal from the Tax Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Director, Division of Taxation (Director). In both cases, plaintiffs sought refunds of a portion of the sales tax paid on purchases of electricity and related delivery services, challenging the Director's application of the Sales and Use Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:32B-1 to -55.
Specifically, plaintiffs claim the court erred in holding the amount charged by an electric public utility for the distribution of electricity to a consumer through the local distribution infrastructure is subject to sales tax. Plaintiffs also challenge the court's ruling that sales tax is imposed on various charges authorized by the Legislature and Board of Public Utilities (BPU).
After careful review, we find no merit to plaintiffs' contentions and determine the findings and conclusions of the Tax Court are fully supported by the evidence of record and applicable law. We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the comprehensive opinion of Judge Patrick DeAlmeida of the Tax Court reported at 26 N.J.Tax 234 (2012). R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).
Affirmed.