Michael Lucarini v. Township of Moorestown

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF

THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Patrick DeAlmeida R.J. Hughes Justice Complex

Presiding Judge P.O. Box 975

25 Market Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0975

(609) 292-8108 Fax: (609) 984-0805

October 2, 2014

Richard J. Nocella, Esq.

Nocella & Hovdestad, PC

24 South Maple Avenue

Marlton, New Jersey 08053

Douglas L. Heinold, Esq.

Raymond, Coleman, Heinold, Norman, LLP

325 New Albany Road

Moorestown, New Jersey 08057

Re: Michael and Cynthia Lucarini v. Township of Moorestown

Docket No. 000103-2012

Docket No. 000104-2012

Dear Counsel

This letter constitutes the court s opinion on the parties cross-motions for summary judgment in the above-referenced matters. Plaintiffs challenge what has been characterized by the municipal tax assessor as an omitted added assessment for tax year 2010 and an added assessment for tax year 2011 on their real property. For the reasons stated more fully below, the court concludes that the assessor mischaracterized the assessments. Both assessments are properly described as omitted assessments. The court also concludes that the assessor s mischaracterization did not invalidate the assessments. The taxpayers received sufficient notice of the assessor s intent to place an assessment on improvements overlooked in the assessment process for all or part of two tax years. In addition, the taxpayers filed timely appeals of the assessments and had a full opportunity to challenge their validity. As a result of these conclusions, the court denies the taxpayers motion for summary judgment and grants the municipality s cross-motion for summary judgment. The two assessments are, in effect, affirmed.

I. Procedural History and Findings of Fact

The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based on the evidence and testimony admitted at an evidentiary hearing on the parties cross-motions.

These matters concern a parcel of real property in Moorestown Township. The parcel is designated in the records of the municipality as Block 7000, Lot 23.01 and is commonly known as 695 Garwood Road.

As of October 1, 2007, the parcel was vacant land owned by Will IV Enterprises, LLC. For tax year 2008, the municipal tax assessor assessed the property as follows

Land $ 400,400

Improvements $ 0

Total $ 400,400

On September 25, 2008, the Moorestown Township construction official issued a Certificate of Occupancy for a newly constructed, 4,877-square-foot residence on the property. It is the ordinary practice of the construction official to send a copy of a Certificate of Occupancy to the tax assessor, whose office records its receipt. The purpose of notification to the assessor is to alert him to the fact that an inspection of the new construction is needed for assessment purposes. According to the uncontested testimony at trial, there is no entry in the assessor s records indicating that the office received the September 25, 2008 Certificate of Occupancy for the subject property.

Issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy coincided with the September 25, 2008 purchase of the subject property by plaintiffs Michael Lucarini and Cynthia Lucarini for $1.2 million. The Lucarinis moved into the home on the property immediately after the transfer of title.

It is apparent from the record that shortly after the sale, the assessor came into possession of the deed memorializing plaintiffs purchase of the property. See N.J.S.A. 54:4-28 through 54:4-31 (establishing procedure through which tax assessors are provided with notice through submission of a deed or deed abstract of the sale of real property). The deed lists plaintiffs address as that of the subject property, suggesting that the parcel is not vacant land. In addition, the $1.2 million sales price, three times the assessed value of the property as vacant land, is listed on the deed. Despite these clues that the parcel was not vacant, the assessor took no steps to place an improvement value on the property.

Moreover, each year, the Director, Division of Taxation conducts a sales ratio study to determine the relationship between the assessed value of real property and the true market value of real property in each taxing district. See N.J.S.A. 54:1-35.1, et seq. For purposes of the study, each assessor is required to complete a form SR-1A for each sale of real property in the assessor s taxing district. N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.17(a). On December 2, 2008, the Moorestown Township assessor s office completed a SR-1A with respect to plaintiffs purchase of the subject property. The SR-1A indicates the $1.2 million sales price, as well as a floor area of 4,877 square feet and a year built of 2008. Notably, the SR-1A reflects the assessor s determination that the sale should not be used for the Director s sales ratio study because the property was substantially improved after the $400,400 vacant land assessment was placed on the property. N.J.A.C. 18:12-1.1(a)(7). This evidence establishes that the assessor s office was aware of the construction of the home on the subject property prior to the end of the 2008 tax year. Yet, no attempt was made by the assessor s office to inspect the property or place an improvement value on the parcel for assessment purposes for tax year 2008.

In addition, although a home had been constructed on the property prior to the October 1, 2008 valuation date for tax year 2009, the assessor continued to assess the property as vacant land for tax year 2009. For that year, the municipal tax assessor assessed the property as follows

Land $ 400,400

Improvements $ 0

Total $ 400,400

Similarly, although the home had been on the property for more than a year as of October 1, 2009, the valuation date for tax year 2010, the assessor continued to assess the property as vacant land for tax year 2010. For that year, the municipal tax assessor assessed the property as follows

Land $ 400,400

Improvements $ 0

Total $ 400,400

On July 9, 2010, the Moorestown Township construction official issued plaintiffs a permit to construct a deck on the home. A copy of the construction permit was forwarded to the assessor s office. The issuance of the permit did not trigger an inspection of the property or an inquiry into why a deck would be constructed on what had been assessed as vacant land. The assessor instead assigned a staff member to make periodic inquiries to determine when construction of the deck was completed.

On October 20, 2010, the deck s construction was completed. Once notified of the completion of the deck, the assessor arranged for an inspection of the subject property by a subcontractor of the municipality. He did not, however, change the assessment on the subject property for tax year 2011. For that year, the property was assessed as follows

Land $ 400,400

Improvements $ 0

Total $ 400,400

In March 2011, the results of the property inspection, which reported the existence of a nearly 5,000 square foot home, were returned to the assessor.

It was not until August 2011 that the assessor took steps to assess the improvements at the subject property. On August 1, 2011, the assessor issued two notices to plaintiffs. The first notice, entitled Notice of Added, Omitted Added and/or Omitted Assessment, indicated that the assessor had placed an Omit/Add Assessment of $775,800 for improvements on the property for tax year 2010. The notice also states that the omitted added assessment was prorated for all 12 months of 2010 and that plaintiffs additional tax liability for that year was $15,446.18.

The second notice, also entitled Notice of Added, Omitted Added and/or Omitted Assessment, indicated that the assessor has placed an Added Assessment of $775,800 for improvements on the property for tax year 2011. The notice also states that the added assessment was prorated for all 12 months of 2011 and that plaintiffs additional tax liability for that year was $15,446.18.

Both notices explained plaintiffs appeal rights as follows: Although the regular appeal deadline of April 1 has passed, the appeal deadline for ADDED ASSESSMENTS is December 1.

Plaintiffs paid the additional taxes and filed timely appeals with the Burlington County Board of Taxation challenging the assessments described in the August 1, 2011 notices.

On December 20, 2011, the county board issued two Judgments affirming the assessments described in the August 1, 2011 notices. The Judgments described the 2010 assessment as an omitted added assessment and the 2011 assessment as an added assessment.

On February 1, 2012, plaintiffs filed two Complaints in this court challenging the Judgments of the county board. The two matters have proceeded in tandem and have been consolidated for the purpose of this opinion.

The parties thereafter cross-moved for summary judgment. The court reserved decision on the motions in order to hold an evidentiary hearing.

II. Conclusions of Law

Summary judgment should be granted where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law. R. 4:46-2 (c). In Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995), our Supreme Court established the standard for summary judgment as follows

[W]hen deciding a motion for summary judgment under Rule 4:46-2, the determination whether there exists a genuine issue with respect to a material fact challenged requires the motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in consideration of the applicable evidentiary standard, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.

The express import of the Brill decision was to encourage trial courts not to refrain from granting summary judgment when the proper circumstances present themselves. Township of Howell v. Monmouth County Bd. of Taxation, 18 N.J. Tax 149, 153 (Tax 1999)(quoting Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 541). The court concludes that this matter is ripe for decision by summary judgment. There are no material facts in dispute between the parties. The court is presented with questions of statutory interpretation which can be determined by application of the law to the undisputed facts.

Generally, all real property in the State is assessed yearly. The assessed value is determined as of October 1 preceding the tax year. N.J.S.A. 54:4-23; Aperion Enterprises, Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn, 25 N.J. Tax 70, 86 (Tax 2009). The value of the land and improvements are listed separately and the combined value of the two components constitutes the assessment on the parcel. N.J.S.A. 54:4-26. Assessors are required to submit a tax list not later than January 10 of the tax year, establishing the assessment on each parcel reflecting its true market value as of October 1 of the preceding year. N.J.S.A. 54:4-35. There are three avenues of assessment added assessments, omitted assessments, and omitted added assessments that allow for the assessment of real property outside of the ordinary, annual assessment process. The parties cross-motions are predicated on the distinction between these types of assessments, which will be discussed in turn.

A. Added Assessments.

An added assessment is intended to capture any increase in value that occurs as a consequence of the completion of the erection, addition to or improvement of any building or structure after the October 1 valuation date for a particular tax year. American Hydro Power Partners, LP v. City of Clifton, 239 N.J. Super. 130, 138 (App. Div. 1989).

There are two added assessment statutes. The first, N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.2, provides for the making of an added assessment when a structure has been erected, added to or improved after the October 1valuation date and before the January 1 start of the tax year. In such a case, the assessor makes an added assessment for the entire subsequent tax year, and also an added assessment for a pro-rated portion of the tax year of completion from the first day of the month following completion through December 31.

The second added assessment statute, N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.3, allows for an added assessment where a structure has been erected, added to or improved after the October 1 valuation date for a particular tax year and between the following January 1 and October 1 of the tax year. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.3 provides that the assessor, after examination and inquiry, is to determine the taxable value of the improvements as of the first of the month following completion. If the value exceeds the assessment made as of the preceding October 1, the assessor makes the added assessment by multiplying the excess value by the number of whole months remaining in the tax year after completion of the improvements and dividing the result by 12. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.3. The purpose of this statute is to permit the taxation of real property which becomes taxable during the year following the assessment date of October 1 in order to avoid having properties escape taxation until the next assessment date arrives. Snyder v. Borough of South Plainfield, 1 N.J. Tax 3, 7 (Tax 1980).

An assessor must file with the county board of taxation an added assessment list by the October 1 first following the completion of the improvements. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.5. The county board examines the added assessment list, makes necessary revisions or corrections, and delivers a certified copy of the list to the municipality s tax collector on or before October 10. Ibid. The tax collector prepares, completes and delivers tax bills to the property owner based on the added assessment at least one week before November first. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.7. The tax due as a result of the added assessment is payable on November 1 of the tax year. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.8. Thus, the statute creates a 30-day window of opportunity to begin and to perfect the added assessment process. American Hydro, supra, 239 N.J. Super. at 133. An attempt to impose an added assessment outside of the statutory timeframe is invalid. Ibid. at 138-39.

B. Omitted Assessments.

Omitted assessments are authorized by N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31. That statute provides

In any tax year or in the next succeeding tax year the assessor of any taxing district, may in accordance with the provisions of this act, assess any taxable property omitted from the assessment list for the particular tax year. The taxable value of such property shall be determined as of October 1 of the preceding year.

[N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31.]

There are two methods for assessment of property that has been omitted from the tax list. Judge Pizzuto succinctly explained the two methods in Van Orden v. Township of Wyckoff, 22 N.J. Tax 31, 35 (Tax 2005)

The older method (N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.12 through 63.24) provides for a hearing before the county board of taxation, upon complaint of a municipal official or resolution by the board with notice to the property owner. Any omitted assessment is then made by judgment of the board. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.14. A municipality s omitted assessment list, as revised and corrected by the county board s judgments, is to be completed by October 10. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.17. The newer or alternative method (N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31 through 63.40) resembles the procedure for added assessments in that the omitted assessment is initiated by the assessor s filing of an omitted assessment list with the county board. After revision and correction by the board, the list is certified on or before October 10. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.32. Thereupon the assessor is to give notice to the affected property owners by certified mail, and tax bills are prepared. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.35, 36. Appeals from omitted assessments made under the alternative method may be filed with the county board before December 1. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.39.

Our Supreme Court long ago held that the omitted assessment procedure is intended to provide means whereby . . . property omitted from the tax rolls through design or inadvertence can be added and included and taxed . . . for the year in which it was omitted from the tax rolls. In re New York State Realty & Terminal Co., 21 N.J. 90, 97 (1956). The effect of the statute is to aid in accomplishing a proper and equitable distribution of the tax burden. Ibid. Taxes are the life blood of government and no taxpayer should be permitted to escape his or her just share of the cost of public services. Any procedure which would permit avoidance of such taxes when a substantial basis therefor exists is inequitable. Ibid.

A parcel need not be omitted entirely to qualify for inclusion on the omitted assessment list. For example, in Boardwalk Properties v. City of Atlantic City, 5 N.J. Tax 192, 198 (Tax 1983), Judge Rimm held that where an assessor overlooks an improvement on a parcel in that case a partially constructed building but places a value on the land as if vacant, the omitted assessment procedure may be used to remedy the omission. Any parcel or improvement not assessed by an assessor, whether the assessor intended to benefit a taxpayer or merely through inadvertence, may be placed on the tax rolls through an omitted assessment.

There are, however, limitations on the omitted assessment process. Where an assessor places a value on improvements that exist as of October 1 of the pre-tax year and subsequently attempts to increase that value, the omitted assessment procedure may not be used. 200 43rdStreet, LLC v. City of Union City, 16 N.J. Tax 138, 142 (Tax 1996)(omitted assessment procedure not permitted where assessor deliberately placed $0 value on improvements he believed worthless because the assessor s failure to make an assessment for improvements on the subject property . . . was not an oversight; it was a deliberate judgment that the improvement had no value. ); Glen Pointe Assocs. v. Township of Teaneck, 10 N.J. Tax 598 (Tax 1989)(assessor s failure to consider the full value of improvements about which he was aware when he placed assessment on those improvements is simply an erroneous determination of value on the assessing date which the assessor cannot correct through the omitted assessment procedure), aff d, 12 N.J. Tax 127 (App. Div. 1991); Boardwalk Properties, supra, 5 N.J. Tax at 198 (omitted assessment procedure permissible where the assessor did not determine that the improvements had no value as of valuation date but rather . . . omitted altogether to assess the improvements. ).

Nor can an assessor place a $1 fictitious omitted assessment on improvements as a placeholder in an attempt to delay reaching an opinion of value until the municipality files an appeal of the omitted assessment. Borough of Freehold v. Nestle USA, 21 N.J. Tax 138, 147-49 (Tax 2003). In addition, the Legislature has imposed time limits on the making of omitted assessments: they may be imposed in the year in which the property should have been assessed or in the next succeeding year. See N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.12 (the original method omitted assessment statute) and N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31 (the alternate method omitted assessment statute).

C. Omitted Added Assessment.

In New York State Realty, supra, the Supreme Court authorized the so-called omitted added assessment where an assessor through design or neglect fails to make an added assessment after the substantial completion of improvements on property. In that case, the property owner completed construction of new structures on its parcel on June 30, 1952. The assessor made no attempt to place an added assessment on the parcel for the six months of 1952 during which the improvements were in place. Nor did the assessor include the value of the improvements in the assessment for 1953, even though the improvements were in place as of October 1, 1952, the valuation date for tax year 1953. Id. at 92. In December 1953, the taxpayers were served with a notice of what the assessor called an omitted added assessment for the value of the improvements. The taxpayer challenged the assessor s action, arguing that his failure to impose an added assessment in the time required by statute precluded him from using the omitted assessment procedure to remedy the omitted added assessment. Id. 95-96.

The Supreme Court rejected the taxpayer s argument. The Court held that the added assessment statute and the omitted assessment statutes could be read together to allow an assessor to remedy a failure to make an added assessment. The Court explained that the two statutes had a similar purpose: to prevent avoidance of . . . taxes when a substantial basis therefor exists . . . . The guiding philosophy for the fair and just assessment and collection of taxes is found in the[] words of our statutes . . . . Id. at 96. To allow an overlooked added assessment to go without remedy

so obviously leaves open the possibility of corruption in the assessment and collection of municipal taxes and the temptation to favor new builders as to ascribe no such defect as being within the intent of the Legislature of this State.

[Ibid.]

D. The Tax Year 2010 Omitted Added Assessment.

Here, the assessor characterized the assessment for tax year 2010 as an omitted added assessment. It is plain that this characterization is not supported by law.

An added assessment for the subject property would have been appropriate for tax year 2008 for the three months of 2008 during which the improvements were completed. The improvements the construction of plaintiffs residence were completed on September 28, 2008. The home was not completed between the October 1 and January 1 so N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.2 does not apply. The improvements were completed between January 1 and October 1 of the 2008 tax year, making N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.3 applicable for the portion of tax year 2008 during which the improvements existed but were not assessed. An added assessment for a portion of tax year 2008, therefore, could have been made through the filing by the assessor of an added assessment list by October 1, 2008, the October 1 first following the completion of the improvements. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.5. The assessor failed to make this added assessment in the time permitted by statute.

It is true that by virtue of the assessor s failure in October 2008 to impose a timely added assessment for the last three months of tax year 2008, the added assessment, in effect, became an omitted added assessment for a portion of tax year 2008. Under the holding in New York State Realty, the assessor could have imposed an omitted added assessment in the year following the year in which the added assessment should have been made. In this case, an omitted added assessment could have been made by the assessor on October 1, 2009 for the last three months of tax year 2008. As Judge Menyuk explained in Nestle, supra, added assessments are made for the tax year in which an improvement is completed. When an assessor fails to discover an improvement in the year in which it is completed, he or she may, in the following year, make an omitted added assessment. 21 N.J. Tax at 153.

The assessor did not act on October 1, 2009, however. Having failed to make an added assessment in 2008 or an omitted added assessment in 2009, the assessor is without statutory authority to make an omitted added assessment for the improvements for tax year 2010.

E. The Tax Year 2011 Added Assessment.

As noted above, the correct timing and procedure for the imposition of an added assessment for the improvements at the subject property was through the issuance of an added assessment list on October 1, 2008. Here, the assessor did not seek to impose an added assessment until August 1, 2011, long after the time to do so had expired. As explained above, it is evident from the record that the reason for the delay in seeking to impose an added assessment is that the assessor did not become aware of the home on the subject property until he received the inspection report in March 2011. The added assessment statute, however, is linked to the date on which the improvement is completed. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.3 does not permit added assessment for the year in which an improvement is discovered. Nestle, supra, 21 N.J. Tax 138.

F. Treating the Tax Year 2010 and Tax Year 2011 Assessments as Omitted Assessments.

As of tax year 2009 the assessor s failure to assess the improvements on the subject property which were completed prior to the October 1, 2008 valuation date for tax year 2009 constituted an omitted assessment. Like the assessor in Boardwalk Properties, supra, the assessor here overlooked improvements and assessed the parcel as if it was vacant land. This omission was repeated in the assessments for tax years 2010 and 2011. On the relevant valuation dates for those tax years, the improvements were in place. Yet, the subject property was assessed as vacant land.

The municipality urges the court to revise the assessments into omitted assessments. The township argues that apart from the characterization of the assessments in the notices issued by the assessor, all of the statutory requirements for the imposition of omitted assessments were met: the taxpayers were provided with timely notice of the assessments, they were aware of the assessor s intention to place assessments on improvements which had been overlooked for two tax years, the taxpayers were provided with timely and accurate tax bills for each year, and the taxpayers filed timely appeals with the county board of taxation where they had a full opportunity to challenge the assessments.

The taxpayers argue that the procedural defect in the assessor s notices are fatal. The assessor, after failing to place an assessment on substantial improvements for several tax years, elected the incorrect statutory mechanisms for remedying his omissions. The assessor attempted to impose both an omitted added assessment and an added assessment, neither of which was supported by law. In addition, the taxpayers argue that even if the assessor s mischaracterization of the assessments could be overlooked, omitted assessments for tax years 2010 and 2011 would be untimely. According to the taxpayers, the improvements were first omitted in tax year 2009. They argue that N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31 allows for an omission in any tax year or in the next succeeding tax year of an omission. They interpret this statutory provision to allow for an omitted assessment in this case only in 2009 the year of the omission and 2010 the next succeeding tax year. The municipality counters this argument by asserting that the assessments on the improvements were omitted in every year that they were not included 2009, 2010 and 2011. Under the township s view of the statute, an omitted assessment can be made in 2011 for tax years 2010 and 2011 because the improvements were omitted in 2010. The municipality concedes that omitted assessments for the last three months of tax year 2008 and all of 2009 are barred by the time limit expressed in N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31.

The court agrees with the municipality s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31. By October 1, 2009, the valuation date for tax year 2010, the improvements at the subject property had been in place for more than a year. The value of the improvements should have been included in the tax year 2010 assessment. This constituted an omission, separate and apart from the omissions that took place in 2008 and 2009. In each year, a new omission took place.

The tax year 2010 omission is subject to correction in any tax year 2010 or in the next succeeding tax year 2011 for property omitted for the particular tax year 2010 according to N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31 (emphasis added). See Belles v. Township of East Amwell, 2 N.J. Tax 103 (Tax 1981)(noting the validity of omitted assessment made in 1977 for tax years 1976 and 1977 on improvements completed in 1973 and 1974 but never assessed). There is nothing in the statute or the cases interpreting its provisions that suggests that once an assessor overlooks an improvement he or she may correct that omission only in the first year that it is overlooked or the following year but never in a subsequent year. To interpret the statute in this fashion would permit a taxpayer rightfully subject to tax to escape taxation because an assessor s omission took place for more than two tax years in a row. Surely, this is not what the Legislature intended when it adopted N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31. There is a safeguard in the statute that protects taxpayers by limiting the time in which an omitted assessment can be made to the year of the omission and the following tax year. Here, plaintiffs benefitted from this protection, as the municipality concedes that it cannot impose an omitted assessment for the final three months of 2008 and all of 2009.

The court also agrees with the township that the assessor s characterization of the assessments as omitted added and added was an error without material consequence for plaintiffs. The Lucarinis were given timely notice of the assessor s intention to assess their home. The notice was labeled Notice of Added, Omitted Added and/or Omitted Assessment, suggesting that the same notice is used for each category of assessment. The correct appeal deadline for an omitted assessment was listed on the notices and plaintiffs filed a timely appeal with the county board of taxation. They had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the assessments. They offered no argument at the county board or before this court that the value attributed to the improvements exceeded market value. Their challenges rested on the substantive grounds discussed in this opinion. In light of the fact that there is no evidence of harm to plaintiffs, the court concludes that the assessor s inartful description of the assessments did not render his acts invalid.

It is of concern to the court that improvements of the scope at issue here could be overlooked by an assessor for several years. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the record establishes that the assessor was provided with the deed memorializing the sale of the property in 2008 and that members of the assessor s staff noted substantial improvements on the property at that time. Still, the record is void of any evidence suggesting malfeasance and the evidence suggests nothing more than an oversight in a municipal office charged with significant and detailed responsibilities. There is no suggestion by plaintiffs that the assessor intentionally valued the improvements at $0 believing they were worthless. Indeed, the record strongly suggests that the new home at the subject property had significant value on the two relevant valuation dates.

On balance, the assessor s errors are outweighed by the public interest in having all property owners bear their fair share of the cost of government. Plaintiffs already escaped taxation on their home for three months of tax year 2008 and all of 2009. It would be inequitable to insulate them from taxation on those improvements for all of 2010 and 2011 merely because the assessor misnamed the legally authorized assessments he sought to impose.1

In light of the above conclusions, both the tax year 2010 omitted added assessment and tax year 2011 added assessment on the subject property are revised to be omitted assessments. The court will enter Judgments accordingly.

Very truly yours,

Patrick DeAlmeida, P.J.T.C.

1 The evidentiary hearing revealed that the value of the home has been included in the assessment on the property for tax years 2012 and forward.

*