Roger E. Morin, Trustee, EPC Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors of the City of Everett (June 17, 2014)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
	
ROGER E. MORIN, TRUSTEE         v.     	  BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
EPC REALTY TRUST		 	  THE CITY OF EVERETT

Docket Nos.: F310886	 	   	 	  Promulgated:
	        F314804			 	  June 17, 2014

 
	These are appeals filed under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the City of Everett ("assessors" or "appellee"), to abate taxes on certain real estate located in the City of Everett owned by and assessed to Roger E. Morin, Trustee of the EPC Realty Trust ("appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38 for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 ("fiscal years at issue").
	Commissioner Rose heard these appeals and was joined by Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Mulhern and Chmielinski in the decisions for the appellee.
 These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

Matthew A. Luz, Esq. for the appellant.

Carl Surabian, assistant assessor, for the appellee.  


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of these appeals, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact. 
On January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011, the relevant valuation and assessment dates for the fiscal years at issue, the appellant was the assessed owner of a 0.345-acre parcel of land improved with a 6,625-square-foot office building located on the appellee's Map B0 at Block 04, Lot 00009 and with an address of 602 Broadway in Everett ("subject property").  
For fiscal year 2011, the appellee valued the subject property at $748,500 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $43.74 per $1,000, in the total amount of $32,739.39.  The appellant paid the tax without incurring interest.  On January 18, 2011, the appellant filed an abatement application with the assessors, which the assessors denied on April 11, 2011.  The appellant seasonably filed his Petition Under Formal Procedure with the Board on April 22, 2011.  On the basis of the preceding facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction over the appeal for fiscal year 2011.
For fiscal year 2012, the appellee valued the subject property at $761,200 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $41.66 per $1,000, in the total amount of $31,711.59.  The appellant paid the tax without incurring interest.  On January 10, 2012, the appellant filed an abatement application with the assessors, which the assessors denied on January 23, 2012.  The appellant seasonably filed his Petition Under Formal Procedure with the Board on February 14, 2012.  On the basis of the preceding facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction over the appeal for fiscal year 2012.
The subject property is located in the City of Everett, which is about four miles from Boston.  Its local streets connect to State Routes 16 and 99/Broadway, providing convenient access to Interstate 93.  The subject property is situated in the retail and shopping district on Broadway, which spans from Route 16 to the Malden City line.  Public water, sewer, gas and electrical service are available at the site of the subject property.
The subject property is a one-story professional office building, which is currently being used as a medical office building ("subject building").  The subject building was built in 1920 and is of average masonry-type construction.  It has a flat membrane roof and a stucco exterior.  Interior finishes include carpeted floors and suspended acoustic ceilings with recessed fluorescent lighting, and the ceiling heights are about eight to ten feet.  It has a basement area under the front portion of the building, which houses the HVAC heating system, hot water storage tanks, sump pumps, central vacuum and electrical meters.  There is also additional space for storage.  Electricity is provided by a 200-amp individual system.  
The main floor of the subject building consists of a waiting room, offices, laboratory facilities, an x-ray room, an examination room, and a small kitchenette.  The rear of the floor is used as a rehabilitation suite, and is equipped for that purpose.  The rear also contains another examination room, laundry area and a second kitchenette.  The subject building has four half bathrooms.  Paved parking is available onsite at the rear of the building.  
The appellant presented his appeal through the testimony and appraisal report of Donald J. Griffin, a certified appraiser whom the Board qualified as an expert in the area of real estate valuation.  Mr. Griffin valued the subject property as of the relevant valuation and assessment dates for both fiscal years at issue.  
Mr. Griffin first determined that the highest and best use of the subject property as improved was its current use as a professional office/retail building.  Mr. Griffin then considered the three approaches to value -- cost, sales-comparison, and income-capitalization.  Mr. Griffin rejected the cost approach, finding that the lack of similar land sales and the age of the subject building rendered this approach unreliable for valuing the subject property.  He next considered the income-capitalization approach.  Mr. Griffin's development of that approach is detailed below.
Mr. Griffin first developed a gross rental revenue for the subject property.  He testified that, at all relevant times, most rents in the Broadway/Everett market area were under modified-gross-lease terms with the tenant responsible for paying utilities on the rented areas.  However, for his income-capitalization approach, Mr. Griffin converted his comparable leases to net terms in which the tenant was also responsible for paying all expenses including taxes.  He testified that this approach was preferable because then taxes would not have to be allocated and a tax factor did not have to be computed into the capitalization rate.  
Mr. Griffin first investigated the market rate of expenses that would be paid by the tenants.  These expenses would be subtracted from the modified-gross-term "base rents" determined by Mr. Griffin to convert the modified gross leases to net leases.  Mr. Griffin calculated expenses per square foot using the following assumptions:  
Insurance:		  $0.60 psf
Water/sewer:		  $0.20 psf
Repairs/maintenance:  $0.40 psf
Snow/trash removal:	  $0.20 psf


Mr. Griffin testified that these figures were "based on my years of experience in working with properties like this and having done surveys in the past."  Mr. Griffin did not present the actual expenses of the subject property for comparison with his above assumptions.
	Mr. Griffin also determined real estate taxes per square foot.  Mr. Griffin first looked to six sales of purportedly comparable properties, three occurring in fiscal year 2011 and the other three in fiscal year 2012.  Four of the sales were from Broadway in Everett while the remaining two sales were from Malden.  From these sales, he determined that the real estate taxes during the relevant time period ranged from a high of $3.85 per square foot to a low of $2.14 per square foot, with an average of $3.04 per square foot.  Mr. Griffin reconciled the taxes at $3.50 per square foot.  The actual taxes for the subject property were $4.94 per square foot for fiscal year 2011 and $4.79 per square foot for fiscal year 2012.  
	Mr. Griffin's estimate of total expenses including real estate taxes totaled $4.90 per square foot, which Mr. Griffin rounded up to $5.00 per square foot.  His appraisal report does not distinguish between expenses for fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012; he used the same $5.00-per-square-foot deduction for both fiscal years at issue.
After determining the expenses, Mr. Griffin next determined the market "base rent" for the subject property.  He selected six purportedly comparable rental properties, five of which were actual rentals and one of which was a listing.  Three of the rentals were for the fiscal year 2011 valuation and the other three were for the fiscal year 2012 valuation.  Mr. Griffin's analyses are summarized in the tables below:
Fiscal Year 2011
	Subject	Comparable 1	Comparable 2	Comparable 3	
Property address	602 Broadway, Everett	171 Tremont St., Melrose	520 Franklin St. #2, Melrose	639 Broadway, Malden	
Tenant	 	Rented	Rented	Rented	
Base rent psf		$13.99	$14.04	$8.67	
Terms		Mod. Gross	Mod. Gross	Net	
- Adjustment to convert to net lease		($5.00)	($5.00)	$0	
Unit size 	6,625 sf
Average	4,737 sf
Average	940 sf
Smaller	3,600 sf
Average	
- Size adjustment		0%	(10%)	0%	
Condition/appeal 	Average	Average	Average	Average	
- Condition adjustment		0%	0%	0%	
Adjusted annual rent psf		$8.99	$8.14	$8.67	

Fiscal Year 2012
	Subject	Comparable 4	Comparable 5	Comparable 6	
Property address	602 Broadway, Everett	369 Broadway, Everett	787 Broadway, Everett	491 Broadway, Everett	
Tenant		Listing	Rented	Rented	
Base rent psf		$14.40 (asking)
adj. (10%) to
$12.96	$12.62	$7.80	
Terms		Mod. Gross	Mod. Gross	Net	
- Adjustment to convert to net lease		($5.00)	($5.00)	($0)	
Unit size	6,625
Average	2,500
Average	1,711
Average	10,728
Average	
- Size adjustment		0%	0%	0%	
Condition/appeal 	Average	Inferior	Inferior	Inferior	
- Condition adjustment		10%	10%	10%	
Adjusted annual rent psf		$8.76	$8.39	$8.58	

Mr. Griffin's rental amounts per square foot thus ranged as follows:
                FY 2011	     FY 2012
Low:			  $8.14		 $8.39
Average:		  $8.60		 $8.57
High: 		  $8.99		 $8.76
Reconciled:	  $8.60		 $8.57

Mr. Griffin applied the reconciled $8.60-per-square-foot and $8.57-per-square-foot net-term rental figures to the subject property's building area of 6,625 square feet and determined a gross rental revenue of $57,000 (rounded) for both fiscal years at issue.
Mr. Griffin next determined a vacancy rate.  He testified that the subject property had a 0% vacancy rate as of the relevant time period.  After considering the relevant market for properties similar to the subject property, Mr. Griffin selected a stabilized vacancy rate of 5% for both fiscal years at issue.
Mr. Griffin then determined operating expenses.  Because he had assumed a net lease for the subject property, Mr. Griffin's analysis did not include taxes, insurance, utilities, water and sewer, repairs and maintenance, and trash and snow removal, as these expenses were the tenants' responsibility.  The only operating expense that Mr. Griffin considered was management, which he determined to be $0.41 per square foot for both fiscal years at issue, for a total operating expense of $2,708.  
For the capitalization rate, Mr. Griffin first performed a market-rate analysis.  He surveyed sales in the Middlesex, Suffolk, and Essex counties and determined six sales to be relevant for his fiscal year 2011 analysis and another six to be relevant for his fiscal year 2012 analysis.  Capitalization rates extracted from those sales ranged from 7.42% to 9.80% with an average rate of 8.37% for fiscal year 2011, and they ranged from 8.10% to 12.00% with an average rate of 9.76% for fiscal year 2012.  Mr. Griffin also considered a band-of-investment approach, which assumed mortgage loans at 70% of fair cash value, based on a 20-year amortization schedule at an annual interest rate of 7.0%.  Mr. Griffin determined that an annual equity return of 13.0% was sufficient to induce investment under those conditions.  After adopting all of these assumptions for his band-of-investment analysis, Mr. Griffin arrived at an  overall capitalization rate of  9.1% under this approach.    Mr. Griffin also considered  the  national surveys of rates provided by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in their Korpacz Market Survey ("Korpacz"), which reported average rates for retail properties of 11.31% for fiscal year 2011 and 10.66% for fiscal year 2012.  Mr. Griffin reconciled these figures derived from the three different methods (market rate average, band-of-investment and Korpacz) to arrive at the following capitalization rates: 9.00% for fiscal year 2011 and 9.75% for fiscal year 2012.  As he had explained, Mr.  Griffin did not add a tax factor to his capitalization rate, testifying that he had accounted for the tax factor by converting the leases to net terms and thereby folding taxes into the rent. 
A summary of Mr. Griffin's analysis is reproduced below:
Fiscal Year 2011
Building square foot area		  6,625
Net-term Market rent    		$8.60 psf
Gross rental revenue (rounded)      $57,000
Vacancy/collection (@ 5%)	     ($ 2,850)
Effective gross income			$54,150
Operating expenses (@ $0.41 psf)   ($ 2,708)
Net operating income		      $51,442
Capitalization rate			/9.000%
Capitalized value				$571,578
Rounded					$572,000

Fiscal Year 2012
Building square foot area		  6,625
Net-term Market rent                $8.57 psf
Gross rental revenue (rounded)      $56,760
Vacancy/collection (@ 5%)	     ($ 2,838)
Effective gross income			$53,922
Operating expenses (@ $0.41 psf)   ($ 2,696)
Net operating income		      $51,226
Capitalization rate			/9.750%
Capitalized value	       	    	$525,395
Rounded					$525,000

Mr. Griffin thus arrived at the following values using the income-capitalization approach:  $572,000 for fiscal year 2011 and $525,000 for fiscal year 2012.
Mr. Griffin next performed a comparable-sales analysis for the subject property.  He found six sales to be relevant for his analysis - three for fiscal year 2011 and the other three for fiscal year 2012.  His analyses are summarized in the tables below:

Fiscal Year 2011
	Subject	Sale 1	Sale 2	Sale 3	
Address	602 Broadway, Everett	789 Broadway, Everett	154 Highland Ave., Malden	23-27 Cross Street, Malden	
Building area	 6,625 sf	1,780 sf	4,071 sf	3,116 sf	
Land area	15,047 sf	4,792 sf	4,886 sf	3,526 sf	
Sale price psf of building area	N/A	$185.39	$116.68	$86.65	
Sale date		6/26/2008	4/29/2009	6/30/2010	
Quality/appeal	Average	Average	Average	Inferior	
   -Adjustment		0%	0%	10%	
Location	Average	Average	Average	Inferior	
   -Adjustment		0%	0%	10%	
Land/building ratio	2.27	2.69	1.20	1.13	
   -Adjustment		(0.42%)	1.07%	1.14%	
Size % difference	Average	(0.73)	(0.39)	(0.52)	
   -Adjustment		(29%)	(15%)	(21%)	
Condition	Average	Superior	Inferior	Inferior	
   -Adjustment		(10%)	10%	10%	
Basement/Finish	Part./Unfin.	Full/Unfin.	Full/Unfin.	Full/Unfin.	
   -Adjustment		0%	0%	0%	
Adjusted Price psf of building area	N/A	$111.84	$111.60	$95.27	


Fiscal Year 2012

	Subject	Sale 4	Sale 5	Sale 6	
Address	602 Broadway, Everett	491 Broadway, Everett	512 Broadway, Everett	496-508 Broadway, Everett	
Building area	6,625 sf	10,728 sf	5,582 sf	4,635 sf	
Land area	15,047 sf	 9,583 sf	6,303 sf	5,470 sf 	
Sale price psf of building area	N/A	$102.54	$79.72	$129.45	
Sale date		2/25/2012	1/12/2012	4/23/2012	
Quality/appeal	Average	Equal	Inferior wrt 2 stories	Average	
   -Adjustment		0%	10%	0%	
Location	Average	Average	Average	Average	
   -Adjustment		0%	0%	0%	
Land/building ratio	2.27	0.89	1.13	1.18	
   -Adjustment		1.38%	1.14%	1.09%	
Size % difference	Average	0.62	(0.16)	(0.30)	
   -Adjustment		25%	(6%)	(12%)	
Condition	Average	Superior	Inferior	Average	
   -Adjustment		(15%)	20%	0%	
Basement Finish	Part./Unfin.	Full/Pt. Fin.	Full/Unfin.	None	
   -Adjustment		(5%)	0%	0%	
Adjusted Price psf of building area		$108.84	$99.53	$115.31	



In addition to the adjustments listed above, Mr. Griffin also applied the following adjustments to all of the purportedly comparable properties uniformly:  differences in land-to-building ratio @ 1%; differences in size @ 0.4%; and differences in effective age @ 1%.  Mr. Griffin's report indicated that he extracted these adjustments from the relevant market and applied them on a uniform basis to all of his purportedly comparable properties, which he maintained caused the range of indicated values to converge.  
	After his adjustments, Mr. Griffin's purportedly comparable properties yielded a range of indicated value per square foot as follows:  
                FY 2011	     FY 2012
Low:			 $ 95.27		$ 99.53
Average:		 $106.24		$107.89
High: 		 $111.84		$115.31
Reconciled:	 $106.24		$107.89

At a gross building area of 6,625 square feet, these yielded indicated values of $658,000 for fiscal year 2011 and $715,000 for fiscal year 2012.
Mr. Griffin summarized his findings and made the following conclusions.  For fiscal year 2011, he relied primarily upon the value derived from his income-capitalization approach ($567,000), and he placed little weight on the value derived from his sales-comparison approach ($658,000) "because of the difficulty in finding very similar sales."  Mr. Griffin thus concluded that the fair cash value for the subject property for fiscal year 2011 was $575,000.  For fiscal year 2011, Mr. Griffin again relied primarily upon the value derived from his income-capitalization approach ($523,000), and he placed little weight on the value derived from his sales-comparison approach ($715,000).  Mr. Griffin concluded that the fair cash value for the subject property for fiscal year 2012 was $550,000.  
On cross-examination, Mr. Griffin admitted that, with respect to his income-capitalization analyses, two of his purportedly comparable rental properties - 787 Broadway and 369 Broadway -- had no on-site parking, while a third -- 520 Franklin Street #2 in Melrose -- had only two deeded parking spots.  Mr. Griffin did not make any adjustments to his purportedly comparable rental properties for lack of off-street parking.
The appellee did not present a case-in-chief, aside from submitting into evidence the requisite jurisdictional documents, and instead rested on the validity of the subject assessments. 
The Board considered the evidence of record and found several flaws in the valuation analysis of the appellant's expert.  First, the Board found that Mr. Griffin failed to justify why he converted the purportedly comparable leases to net terms, when he admitted that the leases in the subject property's market were typically modified gross terms and the subject property itself was leased on modified gross terms.  The Board found that his explanation -- avoiding the additional step of adding a tax factor -- was not an adequate justification for converting the leases to terms that were not typical of the subject property's market.  
Moreover, Mr. Griffin selected purportedly comparable rental properties from both Everett and Malden, but when he calculated the tax amount to be included in tenant expenses, and thus applied to his net rental figure, Mr. Griffin simply calculated an average tax amount per square foot of his comparable rents.  This procedure failed to take into account the specific tax rate for the subject property's market and thus, the Board found that it was not a reliable method of calculating expenses in the subject property's market.
Furthermore, Mr. Griffin gave no actual expenses for the subject property so as to compare them with his opinion of market expenses.  Mr. Griffin also gave no basis for his opinion of market expenses other than his reliance on his experience.  The Board thus had no figures with which to compare Mr. Griffin's opinion so as to arrive at its own determination of the validity of his assumptions.
The Board further found several flaws with Mr.  Griffin's comparable rents.  One of his comparable rental properties, Comparable 4 for fiscal year 2012, was merely a listing, not an actual rental, and therefore carried no weight.  Only three of his comparable rental properties included off-street parking, and the Board found that Mr. Griffin erred in not providing an adjustment to account for this important difference.  Further, other rental properties which Mr. Griffin used varied widely in lot size and gross building area, thus diminishing their comparability to the subject property.  
Overall, the Board found Mr. Griffin's analyses lacked important details and his purportedly comparable properties lacked basic comparability with the subject property and thus, Mr. Griffin's analyses lacked credibility.  Therefore, the Board found that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving values for the subject property that were less than the assessments at issue.  Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellee.
OPINION
The assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value.  G.L. c. 59, § 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer in a free and open market will agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
In determining fair cash value, all uses to which the property was or could reasonably be adapted on the relevant assessment dates should be considered.  Irving Saunders Trust v. Assessors of Boston, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 838, 843 (1989).  The goal is to ascertain the maximum value of the property for any legitimate and reasonable use.  Id.  If the property is particularly well-suited for a certain use that is not prohibited, then that use may be reflected in an estimate of its fair market value.  Colonial Acres, Inc. v. North Reading, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 384, 386 (1975).  "In determining the property's highest and best use, consideration should be given to the purpose for which the property is adapted."  Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2002-573, 617 (citing Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 315-316 (12th ed., 2001)), aff'd, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428 (2004).   
On the basis of these principles, the Board ruled that the highest-and-best use of the subject property during the fiscal years at issue was, as the appellant's real estate valuation expert recommended, its existing use as a professional office/retail building.  In making this ruling, the Board considered, among other factors, the subject property's history, size, location, and layout, as well as the uses of properties similar to the subject property and located in its market area.  The assessors also valued the subject property as a professional office/retail building.      
Generally, real estate valuation experts, the Massachusetts courts, and this Board rely upon three approaches to determine the fair cash value of property: income capitalization, sales comparison, and cost reproduction.  Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Authority, 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978).  "The board is not required to adopt any particular method of valuation."  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 397 Mass. 447, 449 (1986).  In these appeals, the Board ruled that neither the sales-comparison nor cost approaches were appropriate under the circumstances.  The Board accepted the premise advanced by the appellant's real estate valuation expert that there were not enough fee-simple market sales of reasonably comparable properties to meaningfully estimate the value of the subject property using a sales-comparison technique.  The use of the income-capitalization approach is appropriate when reliable market-sales data are not available.  Assessors of Weymouth v. Tammy Brook Co., 368 Mass. 810, 811 (1975); Assessors of Lynnfield v. New England Oyster House, 362 Mass. 696, 701-702 (1972); Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 67 (1941).  It is also an appropriate technique to use for valuing income-producing property.  Id. at 64-65.  In these appeals, the Board agreed with the appellant's expert that the income-capitalization approach was the appropriate method of valuing the subject property.   
"The direct capitalization of income method analyzes the property's capacity to generate income over a one-year period and converts the capacity into an indication of fair cash value by capitalizing the income at a rate determined to be appropriate for the investment risk involved."  Olympia & York State Street Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 428 Mass. 236, 239 (1998).  "It is the net income that a property should be earning, not necessarily what it actually earns, that is the figure that should be capitalized."  Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 436 (2008) (emphasis in original).  Accordingly, the income stream used in the income-capitalization method must reflect the property's earning capacity or economic rental value.  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 397 Mass. at 451.  Imputing rental income to the subject property based on fair market rentals from comparable properties is evidence of value if, once adjusted, they are indicative of the subject property's earning capacity.  See Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Auth., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 289, 293-94 (1977), rev'd on other grounds, 375 Mass. 360 (1978); Library Services, Inc. v. Malden Redevelopment Auth., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 877, 878 (1980)(rescript).  After accounting for vacancy and rent losses, the net-operating income is obtained by deducting the landlord's appropriate expenses.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 610 (1984).  These expenses should reflect the relevant market.  Id.; see Olympia & York State Street Co., 428 Mass. at 239 and 245.
In the instant appeals, the Board found several flaws in the appellant's expert's valuation analyses.  First, Mr. Griffin failed to justify why he converted his purportedly comparable leases to net terms, when those terms were not typical of the subject property's market.  Next, in calculating market expenses, Mr. Griffin failed to take into account the specific tax rate for the subject property's market when he selected purportedly comparable properties from both Everett and Malden and applied to the rents a simple average of the tax per square foot paid on all of these properties combined.  Mr. Griffin also gave no basis for his opinion of market expenses, nor did he present the actual expenses for the subject property so as to compare them with his opinion of market expenses.  
The Board also found several flaws with Mr. Griffin's calculation of a fair market "base rent" for the subject property, including the inclusion of a listing, the failure to adjust for his comparable properties' lack of off-street parking, and the wide variations in size that diminished these properties' comparability to the subject property. 
"'[E]vidence of a party having the burden of proof may not be disbelieved without an explicit and objectively adequate reason.'"  New Boston Garden v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 473 (1981) (quoting L.L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 607 (1968)).  However, the mere qualification of a person as an expert does not endow his testimony with any magic qualities.  Boston Gas Co., 334 Mass. at 579.  The Board found numerous objective reasons for disregarding the value that the appellant's valuation expert derived for the subject property for the fiscal years at issue using his income-capitalization approach.  Overall, the Board found Mr. Griffin's analyses to lack crucial detail and his purportedly comparable properties lacked basic comparability with the subject property or were not adequately adjusted, and thus, Mr. Griffin's analyses lacked credibility.  Accordingly, the Board ruled that his value was without adequate foundation and, therefore, was unreliable and without merit.       
"'The burden of proof is upon the [appellant] to make out its right as a matter of law to abatement of the tax.'"  Schlaiker v. Board of Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974) (quoting Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)).  The appellant must show that it has complied with the statutory prerequisites to its appeal, Cohen v. Assessors of Boston, 344 Mass. 268, 271 (1962), and that the assessed valuation of its property was improper.  See Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 691 (1982).  The assessment is presumed valid until the taxpayer sustains its burden of proving otherwise.  Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245.  The Board ruled here that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for either of the fiscal years at issue in these appeals.
The Board applied these principles in deciding these appeals. Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellee. 
					     THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD




				     By: __________________________________
					    Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman



A true copy,


Attest: ____________________________
	      Clerk of the Board

ATB 2014-422