Court Opinion

ID: 3609304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:53:56.253277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:58.748115
License: Public Domain

Rents from real property located in New Jersey, as well as interest from mortgages on similar property is, in my opinion, taxable income when received by a resident of this State. The tax upon such income is not a tax on the New Jersey real estate. ThePollock case (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan  Trust Co.,157 U.S. 429) has not decided otherwise and should not be pushed to cover this point. Many cases have gone through the courts since that decision explaining and clarifying its limitations. What may be a "direct" tax under the Federal Constitution may be income (as it really is) for other purposes. *Page 356 
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the State Tax Commission affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. A question under the Federal Constitution was presented and necessarily passed upon by this court, viz.: Is section 359 of the Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended by chapter 933, Laws of 1935, in so far as it imposes an income tax upon rents received by a resident of this State from real property located in a foreign State repugnant to, and violative of any provision of the Constitution of the United States. This court held the sections of said Tax Law herein involved to be a valid exercise of legislative power.