For the prosecutor, Sandmeyer & Meisner.
For the city of Newark, John A. Matthews (Andrew B. Crummy, on the brief).
Before Justices Bodine, Heher and Perskie.
Prosecutor complains of a personal property assessment for taxation for the year 1935, made by the board of assessors of the city of Newark. The state board of tax appeals found error in the calculation of the taxable capital and accumulated surplus, and reduced the assessment to $1,361,113.90.
Prosecutor is a fire insurance corporation, created under the laws of this state. On the tax date, its registered office in this state was located in the city of Newark, but its business was conducted in the city of New York, in the State of New York, where, it seems to be conceded, its "assets and property [with certain minor exceptions] have an actual physical as well as a localized situs;" and the fundamental inquiry is whether, in such circumstances, the municipality had jurisdiction to levy the tax. This exercise of authority
was made under section 307 of the General Tax act of 1918. Pamph. L., pp. 847, 858.
The case in this respect is ruled by Newark Fire Insurance Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 118 N.J.L. 525, where this court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Perskie, held that such intangibles are under the circumstances here presented taxable at the domicile of the owner.
It is next urged that where foreign jurisdictions required appellant, as a prerequisite to the transaction of business therein, to make deposits of securities and property, such deposits have a situs for taxation at the place of deposit and are not taxable at the place of domicile.
We think the principle adverted to make such property taxable at the place of domicile. If such deposits have been taxed at the place of deposit within twelve months of the assessment date, they are exempt from taxation here under section 203 (1) (c) of the General Tax act of 1918, supra.
Thirdly, it is argued that prosecutor's reserve for unearned premiums is a deductable liability in the fixation of the taxable accumulated surplus. This point has been disposed of, adversely to prosecutor's contention, in Trenton v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 77 N.J.L. 757; Newark Fire Insurance Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, supra, and Commercial Casualty Insurance Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 119 Id. 94.
Next, it is maintained that prosecutor is entitled to a deduction from the assessment of the "equivalent to the difference between the 'convention' value or insurance department value at which the city assessed its securities and the true value of such securities." We find this claim to be untenable. The ruling principle was applied in Second National Bank and Trust Co. v. State Board of ...