Opinion · Supreme Court of New Jersey

R. H. MacY & Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation

41 N.J. 3

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction
New Jersey
Date
1963-10-21
Topic
labor-and-employment

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that the Division of Taxation has discretion to value taxpayer corporation's net worth by a method other than that used by the taxpayer as long as it conforms to "sound accounting principles"
  • recognizing that the Director of the Division of Taxation could not be expected to personally carry out all of the agency's legislatively-required functions, without delegating to subordinates
  • statute providing for determination “in the opinion of the Director” construed to require “reasonable judgment of an administrator making an objective judgment of the matter”
  • when adequate legislative standard exists for administrative guidance, general rule is not required
  • discussing delegation of decision-making authority

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed R. H. MacY & Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
52 opinions
Pee Cubiam:.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed by Judge Conford in his opinion for the Appellate Division. See 77 N. J. Super. 155 (1962). That opinion declined to pass on the issue of discrimination because it had *4 not been raised before tbe Division of Tax Appeals; we note that the issue was similarly not included in the points set forth in the brief filed by the appellant in this court. Although we have subscribed to the Appellate Division’s treatment of the final issue captioned “Administrative Rule-Making by Adjudication” (77 N. J. Super., at p. 179), we take this occasion to repeat Justice Burling’s caution to administrative agencies in Butler Oak Tavern v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 20 N. J. 373, 383 (1956), that they should always be alert to their rule-making powers and not permit them to remain idle when their fair and timely exercise may suffice to avoid the suggested burdens of individual quasi- judicial determinations.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weiíxtraub, and Justices Jacobs, Eranois, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haxte-man—7.

For reversal—Hone.