Firm News & Blog

Tax Court Alert: New Jersey Tax Court Limits ″Interests of Justice″ Relief in Direct Property Tax Appeals

8/12/2026

The New Jersey Tax Court recently issued an important published opinion addressing a question concerning the statutory requirement that taxpayers pay property taxes while pursuing a tax appeal.

In Zivkovic, Dragomir & Koviljka v. Borough of Ridgefield, decided August 6, 2026, the Tax Court held that it lacks statutory authority to relax the tax payment requirement in the “interests of justice” when a taxpayer files a Direct Appeal with the Tax Court, rather than first appealing to the County Board of Taxation. The Tax Court further found that the “interests of justice” exception is not met simply by offering an appraisal report that presumes an assessment reduction.

The motion was successfully argued on behalf of the Borough of Ridgefield by Partner of the Firm, Robert Guanci, Esq. and Associate, Jacob Kenter, Esq.

Key Takeaways for Property Owners:

The Legislature's Silence Was Significant

The Court's conclusion was reinforced by its review of the legislative history of the 1999 amendments to N.J.S.A. 54:3-27. The legislative amendments created a specific mechanism through which a taxpayer could seek tax payment relief, (i.e. invoke the “interests of justice”), before the local County Board of Taxation and, if necessary, obtain review of the decision below by the State Tax Court. The court noted that the Legislature had opportunities to expressly provide the Tax Court with broader authority in direct appeals but did not do so, ultimately concluding that it was not appropriate for the judiciary to add language to the statute that the Legislature had not enacted.

           An Appraisal Does Not Eliminate the Payment Requirement

Taxpayer presented an appraisal, which in their opinion, supported a substantial reduction in the assessed value. The court nevertheless rejected the proposition that evidence of a potentially excessive assessment, standing alone, justified relief from the tax payment requirement. An appraisal is evidence of value—not a final determination of the correct assessment. The taxpayer must still comply with applicable payment requirements while the assessment is being litigated, reaffirming New Jersey's longstanding “pay now, litigate later” principle. Likewise, “inability to pay” is insufficient to meet the “interests of justice.”     

The decision provides valuable guidance to New Jersey commercial property owners and their counsel—and highlights the importance of carefully evaluating procedural strategy before initiating a property tax appeal. For advice related to this issue or any other tax planning strategy, please reach out with any questions.

For an in depth review, the full 45-page opinion can be found at the following: Zivkovic, Dragomir & Koviljka v. Borough of Ridgefield.

Joseph G. Ragno, Esq. (201) 330-7465
jragno@lawwmm.com

Robert J. Guanci, Esq. (201) 330-7463
rguanci@lawwmm.com

Jacob B. Kenter, Esq. (201) 319-5741
jkenter@lawwmm.com