NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2515-02T3 GARY MOSHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION, Defendant-Respondent, Submitted December 16, 2003 - Decided FEB 1 7 2004 Before Judges Skillman and Wells. On appeal from a final decision of the Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket No. 1180-2002. Gary Mosher, appellant pro se. Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel, Mary J. Goldsmidt, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM Gary Mosher, a taxpayer, challenges on this appeal a ruling of the Tax Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the Director of the Division of Taxation (Director), that he is liable for tobacco and sales taxes, penalties and interest. There is no dispute that Mosher bought, via the internet, fifty-two cartons of cigarettes between August 1999 and March 2000, from Smoker's Advantage, an unlicensed seller of unstamped cigarettes located in Louisville, Kentucky. These cigarettes were for his own use and that of his friends. Pursuant to federal lav, -he Jenkins Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 375, Smoker s Advantage informed the Director of Mosher's purchases and the amount of each. Smoker's Advantage did not remit sales taxes to the Director. Beginning in September 2000, the Director, in a series of Demands for Payment and letters to Mosher, sought payment of taxes due on these cigarettes. By letter dated September 2000, Mosher protested and sought a hearing. The taxes cited by the Division were the Tobacco Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:40A-1 to -45, and the Sales and Use Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:32B-1 to -29. In January 2002, the Division issued a Final Determination deciding that the taxes imposed were due in the total sum of $569.82 inclusive of interest thereon to February 15, 2002. It further advised that interest would continue to accrue and that after ninety days, collection procedures would commence. The determination gave Mosher notice of his right to appeal to the Tax Court. Mosher filed a complaint in the Tax Court on March 22, 2002 challenging the Director's decision. In April 2002, Mosher was advised by letter that he was eligible for tax amnesty under N.J.S.A. 54:53-18a and that the amnesty period expired on June 10, 2002. At the end of May 2002, during a conference call among the parties and the Judge, Mosher was once again advised of the availability of tax amnesty and that a 5% penalty could be imposed should the taxes not be satisfied during the amnesty period. In June, Mosher moved to disqualify Tax Court Judge Kuskin in part because of the judge's discussion of tax amnesty during the May conference. Argument was heard on the motion on June 21, 2002 and the judge denied it. The Director moved for summary judgment dismissing Mosher's complaint which, following briefing and argument, the judge granted in an extensive bench opinion on November 22, 2002. Thereafter, on certification that Mosher had been noticed of the period of tax amnesty, the judge added a 5% penalty of $25.67 to the tax found due. Mosher raises the following points on appeal: ILLEGAL SUMMARY DISPOSAL; Blatant disregard for, and misapplication of, statutory requirements regarding summary disposal. PREJUDGMENT, DECEPTION, AND BIGOTED INTEMPERANCE: Judge Kuskin's violations of judicial temperament. THREAT BARGAINING; Unconstitutional Tax Amnesty provisions. "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL" OR "EXCESSIVE" TAXATION; The issue of "Excessive" taxation was not sufficiently (or at all) addressed in Judge Kuskin'.s decision. SALES TAX NON-EXEMPTION; The Judge provided no substantive defense of his decision rejecting my claims of 14th Amendment equal protection violations. "SEIZURE" OF PURCHASE INFORMATION; In his judgment of the constitutionality of the Jenkins Act, Judge Kuskin did not apply a constitutional test consistent with plaintiff's claims. STATE TAX COLLECTION PROCEDURES; Judge Kuskin gave plaintiff's claims no fair, require, or deserved consideration in his decision. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by Judge Kuskin in his bench rulings of June 21 and November 22. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law and find the above arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed. home