Christopher Browning v. Board of Assessors of the City of Boston (April 1, 2009)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


CHRISTOPHER BROWNING 	   v.	   BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
	 		   THE CITY OF BOSTON

Docket No. F294055 				   Promulgated:									   April 1, 2009

		 
This is an appeal under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 59, § 64 and 65, from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the City of Boston ("assessors") to grant a residential exemption pursuant to G.L. c. 59, § 5C to Christopher Browning ("appellant") for fiscal year 2008.
Commissioner Mulhern ("Presiding Commissioner") heard the appeal.  Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Egan and Rose joined him in the decision for the appellant.  
These findings of fact and report are made at the request of the appellee pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR § 1.32.

Christopher Browning and Lisa Browning, pro se, for the appellant.

Nicholas Ariniello, Esq. and Laura Caltenco, Esq. for the appellee.


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of testimony and exhibits entered into evidence at the hearing of this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2007, the appellant was an owner of property located at 145 Englewood Avenue, Unit 27, in the Brighton section of Boston ("subject property"). The appellant resided at the subject property from August of 2005 to the date of the hearing of this appeal, and maintained no other residence during this time. 
On November 1, 2007, the appellant filed a Residential Exemption Application with the assessors for fiscal year 2008.  The assessors denied the application on December 31, 2007, and mailed notice of the denial to the appellant on the same day. On February 7, 2008, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the appellant seasonably appealed the denial by filing a Petition Under Formal Procedure with the Board.  Accordingly, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.  
Both the appellant and Lisa Browning, his mother, testified at the hearing of the appeal. Their testimony, which was uncontroverted, indicated that the appellant was an owner of the subject property, to which the assessors stipulated. The testimony also indicated that the appellant used the property as his principal residence on January 1, 2007, the relevant assessment date. Based on this testimony, and documentary evidence including three federal and Massachusetts income tax returns relating to calendar years 2006 and 2007, each of which reflect the subject property as the appellant's address of record, the Board found and ruled that the appellant sustained his burden of demonstrating that he owned and occupied the subject property as his principal residence for income tax purposes as of January 1, 2007.  On this basis, the Board found and ruled that the appellant qualified for the residential exemption under G.L. c. 59, § 5C, and issued a decision in his favor, granting an abatement in the amount of $1488.57.  

OPINION
	The sole issue presented for the Board's consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to a residential exemption under G.L. c. 59, § 5C ("§ 5C") for fiscal year 2008. The operative language of § 5C provides that "an exemption shall be applied only to the principal residence of a taxpayer as used by the taxpayer for income tax purposes."  The assessors construed this language to require submission of a Massachusetts income tax return to substantiate a claim for exemption, without which, they argued, the exemption should be denied. With regard to a residential exemption relating to fiscal year 2008, the assessors required a 2006 Massachusetts income tax return, and argued that a 2007 Massachusetts income tax return was not only insufficient, but irrelevant to establishing principal residence as of January 1, 2007, the relevant assessment date for fiscal year 2008. The assessors' position was summarized by counsel during the course of the hearing:
Essentially our argument is consistent with our objections in that there was no 2006 state income tax information available for that address, and so there is no ability to determine the owner's principal residence as of the lien date, which is January 1, 2007.

Hearing Transcript, p. 10.
	The Board rejected a similar argument in Wiggins v. Board of Assessors of the City of Boston, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2009-34.  In Wiggins, the Board considered the assessors' denial of a taxpayer's Residential Exemption Application based solely on the taxpayer's failure to report the address at which he claimed residency as the address on his Massachusetts income tax return. The Board rejected this "mechanical analysis," finding that the assessors' challenge had no basis in § 5C. The Board stated that "[t]he clear legislative intent in limiting the residential exemption to the taxpayer's principal residence is to prevent the taxpayer from qualifying for the exemption for multiple properties," and cited several tax benefits afforded under the Internal Revenue Code and Massachusetts tax law that are associated with and limited to one's "principal residence." Id. at 48-50. The Board observed that for both federal and Massachusetts income tax purposes, principal residence is determined "based on an analysis of all the facts and circumstances present in each case." Id. at 51. Considering this "well established principle," and absent legislative intent indicating a contrary result, the Board adopted a facts and circumstances analysis to determine whether the taxpayer had used the property for which the exemption was sought "in such a manner as to qualify it as his principal residence for income tax purposes." Id. at 48, 51. 
The instant appeal is distinct from Wiggins in certain respects, but none that favors the assessors. The similarities are, however, dispositive. In both cases, the assessors ignored uncontroverted credible evidence of principal residence and maintained a singular focus within § 5C. In the current matter, the assessors required a 2006 Massachusetts income tax return from the appellant, without which they refused to grant a residential exemption for fiscal year 2008. This demand is without foundation in § 5C.
Consistent with the Board's analysis in Wiggins, the Board here found and ruled that the assessors cannot deny a residential exemption solely because an applicant does not submit a Massachusetts income tax return to substantiate a claim for exemption. 
Applying the facts and circumstances analysis articulated in Wiggins, the Board reviewed the evidence of record in the present appeal, which included uncontroverted testimony, evidence that the appellant was an owner of the subject property, two federal income tax returns relating to calendar years 2006 and 2007, and a Massachusetts income tax return relating to calendar year 2007, each of which delineate the subject property as the appellant's address of record. Moreover, no evidence indicated that the appellant maintained any other residence after August of 2005. Thus, the Board found and ruled that the appellant presented ample, credible evidence that the subject property was his principal residence as of January 1, 2007. 
In sum, the Board found and ruled that the assessors could not require a Massachusetts income tax return as the sine qua non for granting a residential exemption. The Board also found that the appellant sustained his burden of demonstrating that he used the subject property as his principal residence as of January 1, 2007. On this basis, the Board found and ruled that the appellant was entitled to the residential exemption under § 5C for fiscal year 2008, and issued a decision granting an abatement in the amount of $1488.57.

				   APPELLATE TAX BOARD
	
					By:________________________________
					   Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ____________________________
	       Clerk of the Board

 The assessors offered jurisdictional documents into evidence. The appellant submitted copies of his 2006 and 2007 Form 1040 U.S. Individual Tax Returns, as well as a copy of his 2007 Form 1 Massachusetts Resident Income Tax Return. The appellant was not required to and did not file a 2006 Massachusetts income tax return because his 2006 income did not meet the statutory filing requirement.  See G.L. c. 62C, § 6(a). 
  The assessors objected to the admission of the appellant's 2006 and 2007 federal tax returns as well as his 2007 Massachusetts return on the basis of relevancy. The Presiding Commissioner overruled the objections and admitted the returns into evidence. 
  It is noteworthy, but not necessary to the Board's findings in this appeal, that the appellant did not file a 2006 Massachusetts income tax return because he was not required to do so under the laws of the Commonwealth. The assessors' demand that he file a return solely to substantiate his claim for a residential exemption finds no support in law.

1133


	ATB 2009-247