In a case of first impression, New Jersey's Appellate Division reversed the Tax Court's decision in Gourmet Dining, LLC v. Union Township, 30 N.J. Tax 381 (Tax Ct. 2018), which denied a property tax exemption to a restaurant on Kean University's campus. Kean contracted, through a management agreement, with Gourmet Dining, LLC, for the "exclusive right to operate, manage and control" the restaurant in question for a 10-year period, wherein Gourmet was designated the "exclusive manager" for that period of time. The agreement required the annual payment by Gourmet to Kean of $250,000 for the first nine years and $500,000 for the 10th year. Gourmet also agreed to pay Kean's operating foundation 12.5 percent of the gross revenues derived from the restaurant. Revenue generated by the restaurant and paid to Kean was slated to fund scholarship programs, and since its opening the restaurant generated more than $377,000 for such programs. Moreover, more than 85 percent of the restaurant's employees were students of Kean.
The Tax Court denied the exemption on the ground that the restaurant was not used for public purposes, which is a statutory requirement for tax exemptions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3 and N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. The Appellate Division disagreed, noting, "We are convinced ... that the [tax] court took an unduly narrow view of the facts." The Appellate Division noted that "the restaurant is unique because it is located on-campus. The record shows that the University's students and their parents regularly dine at the restaurants. Moreover, the University views the restaurant as an important recruiting tool for students and faculty." The Appellate Division also concluded that the restaurant "provides students, other members of the University community, and visitors to the campus an alternative dining experience." Additional facts that weighed in favor of its public purpose were that the restaurant "provides revenues that are specifically earmarked for scholarships for University students," that "approximately eighty-five percent of the restaurant's employees are University students," and that "the restaurant will use produce grown on the University's property and will provide compostable waste for the University's science program, where it will be used for research by faculty and students."
The Appellate Division also emphasized "the concept of public purpose 'must expand when necessary to encompass changing public needs of a modern dynamic society.'" The court held that "when all of the relationships between the restaurant and the University are considered, they warrant the conclusion that the subject property is being used for a public purpose."
The Tax Court also denied the exemption on the grounds that the restaurant's management agreement was "functionally a lease" to a for-profit organization under N.J.S.A. 54:4-2.3 and N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, which also deprived the restaurant of an exemption. The Appellate Division again disagreed. In that regard, the Appellate Division noted, a lease is a possessory interest in land. The management agreement gave Gourmet the "exclusive right to operate, manage and control the restaurant, not the property," and was therefore more akin to a license which permits use, rather than a possessory interest in land. Therefore, the Appellate Division held that Gourmet was not subject to local property taxation under either N.J.S.A. 54:4-2.3 or N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. This holding has a much broader implication since N.J.S.A. 54:4-2.3 and N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 typically exclude from exempt status the leased portion of property if the lessees are not themselves nonprofit or nonexempt entities. Under the Tax Court's rationale, a license or a management agreement was the equivalent of a lease, which could deprive a property of exempt status. The Appellate Division has settled the issue and permits exemptions under management or similar agreements provided there is a continuum of the public use of the property.
Day Pitney Litigation Partner Stephen Catanzaro and Litigation Associate Erin Hodgson authored the article "Appellate Division Rejects Objectors' Attempt to Challenge Development Approvals," for the New Jersey Law Journal.
Day Pitney Real Estate Partner Steven J. Wernick is featured in RentCafe article "Unlocking Miami-Dade's Housing Potential."
Day Pitney Real Estate Partner Steven J. Wernick is featured in the South Florida Business Journal article "28-Story Tower With Over 100 Apartments Planned in Miami."
Day Pitney Florida Offices Managing Partner Manuel Garcia-Linares has been appointed to chair the firm's Litigation department. The news was featured in Miami Today.
Day Pitney Alert
Day Pitney Real Estate, Environmental and Land Use practice co-chair Craig Gianetti was featured in Gothamist article "Court Tells Wealthy NJ Town: We'll Decide Where You'll Put Affordable Housing."
Day Pitney Press Release
Day Pitney Litigation Partner Mark Salah Morgan's re-election to the firm's Executive Board and appointment to vice-chair of the Litigation department was featured in NJBiz.
Day Pitney Real Estate, Environmental and Land Use Partner Steven Wernick is featured in the Miami Herald article "The End of Single-Family-Only Home Suburbs? Miami-Dade Zoning Rule Impact Could Be 'Sweeping'."
Day Pitney Real Estate Partners Nicole Magdziak and Thomas Malman represented firm client Kushner, a real estate development and management firm headquartered in New York City, on a multimillion dollar mixed use residential and retail development in the Long Branch, NJ’s Lower Broadway redevelopment zone.
Copyright © 2024 Day Pitney LLP, all rights reserved.