Court Opinion

ID: 9960119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 14:07:34.536382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:11.511103
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF
                         THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

                                     TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

                                                                                 495 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Floor 4
MARY SIOBHAN BRENNAN                                                                     Newark, New Jersey 07102
        JUDGE                                                                             609 815-2922, Ext. 54560
                                                                                             Fax: 609 815-3079

                                                     April 12, 2024

   Yawar Syed
   Self-Representing Plaintiff
   159 W Wilkes Barre Street
   Easton, PA 08042

   Timothy M. Kawira, Deputy Attorney General
   Attorney for Defendant, Director, Division of Taxation
   25 Market Street
   PO Box 106
   Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0106

   Via ECourts

          RE:     YAWAR SYED V DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION
                  Docket Nos.: 010253-2023

   Dear Mr. Syed and DAG Swan:

          This letter opinion sets forth the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on Director,

   Division of Taxation’s (“Defendant” or “Division”) R. 4:64 motion for summary judgment

   dismissing the Complaint as untimely.

   Background and Procedural History

          Yawar Syed (“Plaintiff”) is a New Jersey resident employed in the State of New York.

   Plaintiff filed timely New Jersey Gross Income Tax (“NJGIT”) returns for tax years 2013, 2014,

   2015, 2016 and 2017. In 2018, the Division advised Plaintiff that there were errors on his NJGIT

   tax returns related to withholding tax. Subsequently, it was determined that Plaintiff’s accountant

  ml                             ADA
                                 Americans with
                                 Disabilities Act
                                                               ENSURING
                                                               AN OPEN DOOR TO

                                                               JUSTICE
had reported Plaintiff’s New York withholding tax as New Jersey withholding tax. Plaintiff’s

accountant filed amended tax returns to the New York Division of Taxation and a schedule J with

the Division for the 2013-2017 tax years.

       Unfortunately for Plaintiff, New York denied Plaintiff’s refunds for 2013, 2014, 2015 and

2016 as time barred. New York did honor Plaintiff’s 2017 refund. Plaintiff’s attempts to resolve

his outstanding tax obligations with the Division have been unsuccessful and have resulted in the

escalation of penalties and interest. Plaintiff’s position is that the Division is responsible for both

the outstanding tax obligations from 2013 through 2016 and the associated interest and penalties

due to the Division’s delay in advising him of his accountant’s error.

       On July 28, 2022, the Division issued a Final Determination letter to Plaintiff, which was

sent by the United States Postal Service certified mail return receipt requested. The Final

Determination letter was sent to Plaintiff’s last known address at the time, which was 2828

Kennedy Blvd, Apt. 426, Jersey City, NJ 07306-3919. The communication reads as follows:

               This is the FINAL DETERMINATION by the Division of
               Taxation with regard to your protest and/or request for a hearing
               dated August 25, 2021.

               After giving careful consideration to the information provided by
               you, the Division's file, and your telephone conference held on May
               24, 2022; it has been determined that the Division's Denial Notice
               dated May 24, 2021, is upheld (please see enclosed citations). You
               filed 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 Amended Form NJ-1040X's
               showing tax amounts due that have not yet been paid. Interest has
               been assessed on these deficiency amounts from the original due
               date of the Form NJ-1040. The interest on the underpayment of tax
               is required under the State Tax Uniform Procedure Law as per
               N.J.S.A.54A:9-5. The Division has abated the penalty amounts.

                                                  2
                   Tax   Period       Tax     Penal       Interest to        Prior               Credits       Total
                                                                            Refund Issued
                                                          8/15/2022

                 GIT     2013     $ 126.00    $0.00   $ 985.40          $1,580.00           ($ 401.00)     $ 2,290.40
                 GIT     2014     $ 195.00    $0.00   $1,601.86         $2,292.00           ($   0.00)     $ 4,088.86

                 GIT     2015     $   0.00    $0.00   $1,441.86         $3,027.00           ($   0.00)     $ 4,468.86

                GIT      2016     $ 966.00    $0.00   $      0.00       $    0.00           ($ 966.00)     $     0.00
                GIT      2017     $   0.00    $0.00   $ 319.73          $ 948.00            ($   0.00)     $ 1,267.73

                TOTAL             $1,287.00   $0.00   $4,348.85         $7,847.00           ($1,367.00)    $12,115.85

               The current amount due is $12,115.85. Please make your payment
               online at: httns://www.state.nj.us/treaswy/taxation/payments-
               notices.shtml or make your check payable to the "State of New
               Jersey'' and send it to the Division of Taxation, Conference and
               Appeals Branch, P.O. Box 198, Trenton, New Jersey 08695-0198,
               Attention: Christine Masiello by August 15, 2022.

               You are reminded that interest continues to accrue at the statutory
               rate as long as any balance remains unpaid. Statutory interest has been
               calculated to August 15, 2022. Except as otherwise specifically
               provided in N.J.S.A. 54A:9-14, this matter will be forwarded to the
               Division's Special Procedures Branch for collection upon expiration
               of the time for all further appeals consistent with the provisions of
               N.J.S.A. 54A:9-10.

               Please be advised that further collection service fees may be imposed
               should the balance remain unpaid. The 5% penalty and the collection
               service fee are in addition to all penalties, interest and other costs
               authorized 'by law.

               If you do not agree with the above determination, you may file a
               complaint with the Tax Court of New Jersey. The Tax Court must
               receive the complaint, along with the required fee relative to this
               determination, within 90 days from the date of this notice in
               accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:51A-13 et seq.

       Approximately fifteen months later, on November 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint with

the Tax Court. Because of the Division’s perceived untimeliness in discovering the accountant’s

error, Plaintiff requests that his tax credit be transferred to New York. Plaintiff also requests that

this court waive the amounts, penalties, and interest from 2013 through 2017, and that the court

                                                      3
adjust the 2018 and 2019 refunds from the owed amounts of 2017 along with removal of the

penalties and interest.

       On January 29, 2024, the Division filed an Answer to the Plaintiff’s complaint.

Subsequently on February 5, 2024, the Division filed the within motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

Legal Analysis

       The Division moves pursuant to R. 4:46-1 to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 4:46-1 allows a party to move for summary judgment

in its favor before the case is tried. The Court can grant the motion if, from the pleadings,

depositions, answers, admissions, and/or certifications, it appears that there is “no genuine issue

as to any material fact challenged.” R. 4:46-2. Summary judgment shall be granted where “there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact . . . and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment

or order as a matter of law.” R. 4:46-2(c).

       The movant bears the “burden to exclude any reasonable doubt as to the existence of any

genuine issue of material fact” regarding the claims asserted. Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust,

17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has cautioned that, “a court should

deny a summary judgment motion only where the party opposing the motion has come forward

with evidence that creates a ‘genuine issue as to any material fact challenged.’” Brill v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 529 (1995) (emphasis in original; quoting R. 4:46-2(c)). “That

means a non-moving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment merely by pointing to

any fact in dispute.” Ibid. (emphasis in original). Moreover, “when the evidence is so one sided

that one party must prevail as a matter of law the trial court should not hesitate to grant summary

judgment.” Id. at 540 (quotations omitted).

                                                  4
        “Subject-matter jurisdiction involves the threshold determination as to whether the court is

legally authorized to decide the question presented.” See Carroll v. United Airlines, 325 N.J.

Super. 353, 357 (App. Div. 1999) (citing Gilbert v. Gladden, 87 N.J. 275, 280-81 (1981)). As a

threshold determination, any issues regarding subject matter jurisdiction “must be addressed

before considering the substantive merits of the matter.” See New Jersey Citizen Action v. Riviera

Motel Corp., 296 N.J. Super. 402, 411 (App. Div. 1997).

        Judicial review of Taxation’s actions “with respect to any tax matter” is governed by

N.J.S.A. 54:51A-13 to-20 of the State Uniform Tax Procedure Law (“TPL”). That statutory

provision establishes the ninety-day appeal period granted to taxpayers to contest actions of the

Division, stating that “all complaints shall be filed within 90 days after the date of the action sought

to be reviewed.” N.J.S.A. 54:51A-14(a). The TPL further prescribes that “the appeal provided by

this [Act] shall be the exclusive remedy available to any taxpayer for review of an action of the

Director . . . with respect to any tax matter . . . .” N.J.S.A. 54:51A-16.

        Insofar as the subject of the Plaintiff’s Final Determination concerns deficient NJGIT

liabilities, see also N.J.S.A. 54A:9-1 (TPL applies to taxes imposed under GIT Act except where

a specific NJGIT Act provision conflicts with the TPL) and N.J.S.A. 54A:9-10(a) (appeals to Tax

Court must be filed within 90 days of “any decision, order, finding, assessment or action of . . .

Taxation . . . in accordance with the provisions of the [TPL].”); R. 8:4-1 (“Complaints seeking to

review actions of [] Taxation . . . with respect to a tax matter . . . shall be filed within 90 days after

the date of the action to be reviewed”); R. 8:4-2 (The 90-day limitations period is “calculated from

the date of service of the decision or notice of the action taken”). “The right of appeal . . . is purely

statutory and all applicable statutory requirements must be complied with to sustain such appeal.”

City of Newark v. Fischer, 3 N.J. 488, 493 (1950).

                                                    5
       Specifically, the Appellate Division has explained that a “statutory time prescription for

the filing of an appeal has uniformly been held to constitute a non-relaxable jurisdictional

requirement attended by the consequence of preclusion of the action if not complied with.” F.M.C.

Stores Co. v. Morris Plains, 195 N.J. Super. 373, 381 (App. Div. 1984). Moreover, the “language

with regard to the ninety day time requirement is plain and unambiguous; and [w]here statutory

language is plain, unambiguous and uncontrolled by another part of the act or other legislation, a

court may not give it a different meaning.” Off v. Div. of Taxation for the State of N.J., 16 N.J.

Tax 157, 164 (Tax 1996) (citing Schneider v. City of E. Orange, 196 N.J. Super. 587, 592 (App.

Div. 1984) (internal quotations omitted.).

       The policy considerations that require strict compliance with statutory limitations for

challenging administrative actions are instructive, well established, and reflect the importance of

establishing a clear point in time at which an administrative determination becomes fixed and final.

The failure to file a timely administrative protest or Tax Court appeal is a fatal defect given the

Tax Court’s limited jurisdiction. See F.M.C. Stores v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418

(1985) (held, the August 15 statutory deadline for tax appeals is a nonmodifiable jurisdictional

requirement; affirmed bar of tax appeal following untimely appeal). And see Leake v. Bullock,

104 N.J. Super. 309, 313 (App. Div. 1969).

       Statutes of limitations embody important public policy considerations in that they stimulate

activity and punish negligence and promote repose by giving security and stability to human

affairs. Kyle v. Green Acres at Verona, Inc., 44 N.J. 100, 108 (1965). They are intended to run

against those who are neglectful of their rights and who fail to use reasonable and proper diligence

in the enforcement thereof. Ibid. Notably, statutes of limitation are so strictly enforced that this

court has held that it cannot relax the statutory time period by even one day. Mayfair Holding

                                                 6
Corp. v. N. Bergen Tp., 4 N.J. Tax 38 (Tax 1982); Prospect Hill Apts. v. Boro. of Flemington, 1

N.J. Tax 224 (Tax 1979).

       The Tax Court has recognized that this result is mandated because “[c]ompliance with

statutory filing requirements is an unqualified jurisdictional imperative, long sanctioned by our

courts.” Mayfair Holding, 4 N.J. Tax at 40. In short, N.J.S.A. 54A:9-10(a), N.J.S.A. 54:51A-14,

R. 8:4-1, and R. 8:4- 2 require that Tax Court complaints must be filed within 90-days of service

of Taxation’s final determination letter. See Sahaya v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 29 N.J. Tax 18, 23

(Tax 2015) (“the [90-day] period begins to run upon receipt of the [final determination letter]”)

(citing Liapakis v. State, 363 N.J. Super. 96 (App. Div. 2003), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 369 (2004)).

       In the case at hand, Plaintiff filed his Tax Court complaint on November 28, 2023. Plaintiff

attached the July 28, 2022, Final Determination Letter issued by the Division. This is consistent

with the Division’s records, which further confirm the Final Determination letter was delivered to

Plaintiff by USPS Certified Mail on August 1, 2022. Ninety (90) days from the date of the Final

determination would set the deadline to file an appeal on Monday, October 31, 2022

       The failure to timely file an appeal to the Tax Court is a fatal defect, as the Tax Court’s

jurisdiction to review the Division’s determination is limited. While the circumstances of a missed

deadline are regretful, they cannot serve as an adequate basis to overcome the lack of jurisdiction

this court faces. Plaintiff’s failure to timely submit a complaint pursuant to the applicable statutes,

court rules, and case law deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal.

Conclusion

       The court grants the Division’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint as untimely.

                                                  7
    /s/ Mary Siobhan Brennan
    Hon. Mary Siobhan Brennan, J.T.C.

8