The Washington Post article A few weeks ago, I was driving down I-66 through New Jersey when I noticed that there were no signs warning of a new state tax that would increase the amount of property taxes that landlords could charge tenants for rental equipment.
This was surprising to me, because New Jersey has a low property tax rate and a high property tax credit for renters.
The credit was established in the late 1990s as part of a federal effort to reduce the number of foreclosures in the state, but the credit has been steadily eroded as rental rates have risen in recent years.
The tax credit is now only worth a little over half what it was back then, so when I found a rental property with no signage that said “Rentals Only,” I was surprised to find that it had a credit of $0.40 per month.
As I was traveling through the state this weekend, I found myself at a home with no sign that indicated the tax credit was there, and I noticed no signs in the rental property’s website or on the rental properties website that said it was “No Rental Tax.”
The only way I could tell that the rental was being charged a rental tax was if I asked, and it seemed unlikely that the person who rented the property had paid a rental fee.
The state has not updated its website or website for renters since 2009, when the credit was first created.
The new tax was passed in the Republican-led legislature, and the governor, Chris Christie, signed it into law in January.
But despite the law’s passage, the tax on rental equipment was not passed by the legislature.
Instead, it was passed by a legislative committee in the fall of 2016.
The legislation was referred to a legislative budget committee, which, by the state’s rules, is the legislative branch that approves any budget.
In the summer of 2017, the committee voted to approve the tax, but it was not until September of that year that the full House and Senate passed the bill.
The bill passed the Senate on March 23, but Christie vetoed it.
In September, the House approved the bill, but in December the Senate approved the legislation again.
The Senate version passed in February of 2018 and the House bill passed in May.
It was passed again by the House in March and passed the state Senate in June, and Christie signed the legislation into law.
But it was also signed into law by Christie’s administration on July 6, 2018, and was immediately challenged by the New Jersey attorney general’s office.
The attorney general argued that the law violated the New York Supreme Court’s ruling that the state was not a “state.”
The state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the attorney general, and two days later the state Supreme court overturned that ruling.
The legal battle lasted more than a year, and eventually Christie agreed to a settlement in which the New England attorney general agreed to give up the case against the state and allow the state to continue to collect the tax.
The lawsuit against the governor was dropped on August 16, 2019, after the New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated the governor’s veto.
The New Hampshire attorney general was the first to file an amicus brief in support of the tax repeal, which the attorney General’s Office released on September 22, 2020, and argued that there was no legitimate state interest in requiring that rental equipment owners pay a rental payment, and that the tax was in fact not a rental.
In its filing, the New Mexico attorney general also argued that this was an unconstitutional violation of the New Yorkers’ constitutional rights.
“The New York court held that a tax imposed by the Legislature in New York is not a tax because it is imposed for the purpose of providing a public benefit, and therefore does not qualify as a tax for purposes of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,” the New New Mexico AG wrote.
The case is being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In November of 2018, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed an amended complaint against the New Yorker for failing to pay property taxes on rental property in the city, arguing that the city did not have a compelling interest in preventing the rental equipment owner from charging tenants for equipment.
Schneiderman claimed that the lack of a tax meant that the owner of a property would not have to pay the property tax.
He said the owner’s ability to use the equipment to rent out the space was not directly related to the tenant’s use of the equipment.
The AG argued that since the city had a significant tax credit program, it had an interest in ensuring that the property owner would not charge tenants fees.
Schneidermen also claimed that because the tax law does not specify that the landlord must pay property tax, it would be possible for the city to deny rental payments to tenants and then claim that the tenant was not paying the rent because the landlord was not collecting property taxes.
Schneidermans filing also noted that New York does not require that landlords pay property assessments or rent taxes
