Case Name: Indian Head National Bank of Portsmouth v. City of Portsmouth
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1977-11-16
Citations: 117 N.H. 954
Docket Number: No. 7837
Parties: Indian Head National Bank of Portsmouth v. City of Portsmouth
Judges: Lampron, J., did not participate in the decision of this case; Bois, J., dissents in part.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 954–957

Head Matter:
Rockingham
No. 7837
Indian Head National Bank of Portsmouth v. City of Portsmouth
November 16, 1977
Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern, of Portsmouth (Mr. Gregory D. Robbins orally), for the plaintiff.
Peter J. Loughlin, city solicitor of Portsmouth, by brief and orally, for the defendant city of Portsmouth.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
Petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief whereby the plaintiff seeks to have the taxation of its building and leasehold interest in land at Pease Air Force Base declared illegal and unconstitutional. The case was submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts and was reserved and transferred without ruling by Goode, J.
The sole question before us is whether a municipality may tax land, and a building built thereon, to a private party leasing from an instrumentality of the federal government.
Briefly, the facts are as follows: Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Secretary of the United States Air Force for the purpose of erecting and operating a branch bank at the military installation in defendant city. It is noted that at the end of the leasehold term (fifteen years subject to a ten-year extension) title to all improvements would vest in the United States (at its option) without any compensation to the lessee. Construction was completed; the land and building appraised in the sums of $29,500 and $116,500, respectively; and a tax of $6,424 assessed. As scheduled, but under protest, the plaintiff paid one-half of the taxes and then refused to pay the balance when it became due.
Plaintiff's contention that the building is not taxable is foreclosed by our holding in Lin-Wood Development Corp. v. Lincoln, 117 N.H. 709, 378 A.2d 741 (1977).
Although under federal law and the terms of the lease the leasehold interest in the land might be subject to taxation, there is no authority in this state for the taxation of ordinary leasehold interests. In this state, taxation must be authorized by statute. King Ridge, Inc. v. Sutton, 115 N.H. 294, 299, 340 A.2d 106, 109-110 (1975); Verney Corporation v. Peterborough, 104 N.H. 368, 371-372; 188 A.2d 50, 53-54 (1963). Only real estate has been made subject to tax under RSA 72:6. Leaseholds for a term of years are considered personalty and not taxable to the lessee. Gowen v. Swain, 90 N.H. 383, 10 A.2d 249 (1939). Swan v. Bill, 95 N.H. 158, 59 A.2d 346 (1948); see Piper v. Meredith, 83 N.H. 107, 139 A. 294 (1927). Although leaseholds in perpetuity may be taxed as real estate, Piper v. Meredith supra, no such lease exists in this case. We conclude therefore that the leasehold interest may not be taxed to the plaintiff in this case.
We also hold, as the city properly argues, that plaintiff's claim of over-valuation of the property, advanced only in its brief and on oral argument, should have been raised in a petition for abatement of the taxes imposed and not by a proceeding for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
We conclude that under the facts of the instant case only the building in issue is properly taxable.
Plaintiff's appeal reversed in part and sustained in part.
Lampron, J., did not participate in the decision of this case; Bois, J., dissents in part.