Court Opinion

ID: 9635747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:02:22.832896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:59.159692
License: Public Domain

Vanderbilt, C. J.
(concurring). I come to the same ultimate conclusion as the majority in this ease because the present state of our law is that unlawful discrimination *576against a taxpayer may be remedied by the courts or by the proper administrative agency even though accomplished below the standard of true value prescribed by law and even though to do so it is necessary to disregard the statutory mandate requiring assessment at true value — all because we believe in the dominance of the fundamental principle of equality, Baldwin Construction Co. v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 16 N. J. 329 (1954); Gibraltar Corrugated Paper Co. v. North Bergen Township, 20 N. J. 213 (1955); see also City of Passaic v. Passaic County Board of Taxation, 18 N. J. 371 (1955). While it is nevertheless the law, I feel it necessary to indicate that so long as there are means by which uniformity of tax treatment and equality in the imposition of the tax burden can be achieved without sacrificing the statutory direction to assess all property at true value, every power must be exerted toward that end.
The fact that it has been necessary to effectuate a remedy in cases where at one particular stage strict compliance with the statutory mandate would work the evil sought to be avoided and would be contrary to the “just and ultimate purpose of the law,” Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, supra, 260 U. S. 441, 43 S. Ct. 190, 67 L. Ed. 340 (1923), is not to say that the continued and universal violation of the statutory command to assess at true value is to be condoned. On the contrary, as is now conceded by all of the members of this court, Switz v. Township of Middletown, 23 N. J. 580 (1957), the statutory scheme contemplates that equality of treatment and burden be accomplished by local and initial assessments at true value. Had this been the accomplished fact here, there would have been no need for the present proceedings.
We are rapidly approaching the point where concerted and intentional efforts to disregard the positive commands of our law will no longer be tolerated merely because time appears too short or the size of the task appears too great to remedy the situation, Switz v. Township of Middletown, supra. So long as the law remains in its present state, a system founded upon the existing statutory provisions must *577be enforced and all property assessed at the same standard of value — its true value.
Vanderbilt, C. J., and Jacobs, J., concurring in result.
For affirmance and reversal — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Heher, Oliphant, Burling and Jacobs — 5.
For affirmance — Justice Wachenfeld — 1.