Case Name: MUTUAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. HAZEL FRANK GLUCK, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1988-05-19
Citations: 10 N.J. Tax 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: MUTUAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. HAZEL FRANK GLUCK, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Tax Court Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 234–236

Head Matter:
MUTUAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. HAZEL FRANK GLUCK, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued April 25, 1988
Decided May 19, 1988.
Before Judges J.H. COLEMAN, O’BRIEN and STERN.
Elmer M. Matthews argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent.
Mary R. Hamill, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant {W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General, attorney; Michael R. Clancy, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel; Mary R. Hamill on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Tax Court holding it liable for premium taxes under the New Jersey Insurance Premiums Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:18A-1 et seq., and assessments under the New Jersey Insurance Underwriting Association Act (IUAA), N.J.S.A. 17:37A-1 et seq. Plaintiff's appeal "is limited to the determination that the annual cost of the use of the deposit money is the perpetual insurance premium subject to tax by the state of New Jersey." The Commissioner of the Department of Insurance cross-appeals from that portion of the judgment "limiting taxable and assessable premiums to the [insured's] cost of foregoing the use of the premium deposit." The Commissioner contends that the deposits paid by insureds for perpetual homeowners' insurance are "premiums" subject to taxation and assessment under N.J.S.A. 54:18A-2 and -4 and N.J.S.A. 17:37A-2(g) and -6 because "these monies are the consideration for the insurance." Plaintiff, in essence, contends that no "premiums" are paid for their perpetual homeowners' policies, and therefore, that no tax or assessment is due thereon.
The Tax Court held that "neither N.J.S.A. 54:18A-1 et seq. nor N.J.S.A. 17:37A-1 et seq. imposes a tax on perpetual insurance policyholder deposits but both do impose a tax on the 'cost of the use of money' premiums" and "that the annual cost of the use of the deposit money is the perpetual insurance premium subject to tax by the State of New Jersey." 9 N.J.Tax at 65.
We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lasser in his opinion appearing at 9 N.J.Tax 55.