Tinney, Thomas & Cynthia v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Adams (June 4, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
THOMAS & CYNTHIA TINNEY 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF ADAMS
Docket No. F347682 	Promulgated:
June 4, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	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 	Town 	of 	Adams 	(“appellee” 	or
“assessors”) 	to 	abate 	taxes 	on 	real 	estate 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed
to 	Thomas 	and 	Cynthia 	Tinney 	(“appellants”) 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2023
(“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Elliott 	heard 	the 	appeal. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco
and 	Commissioners 	Good, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	him 	in 	the
decision for the appellants.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request by the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Thomas and Cynthia Tinney, pro se, for the appellants.
Paula Wheeler, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2025-159

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	testimony 	and 	documents 	admitted 	into 	evidence
during 	the 	hearing 	of 	this 	appeal, 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board
(“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2022, the relevant valuation date for the fiscal
year 	at 	issue, 	the 	appellants 	were 	the 	owners 	of 	a 	three-acre
improved 	parcel 	of 	land 	located 	at 	100 	Walling 	Road 	in 	Adams
(“subject 	property”). 	For 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	the 	appellee
valued the subject property at $504,900 and assessed a tax thereon,
at a rate of $18.55 per $1,000, in the total amount of $9,365.90.
The 	appellants 	timely 	paid 	the 	taxes 	due 	without 	incurring
interest. On October 24, 2022, prior to the due date of the first
installment of the semi-annual real estate tax bill, the appellants
timely filed an abatement application for the subject property. On
December 	12, 	2022, 	the 	appellee 	denied 	the 	appellants’ 	abatement
request. 	On 	December 	21, 	2022, 	the 	appellants 	seasonably 	filed
their 	appeal 	with 	the 	Board. 	Based 	on 	the 	information 	in 	this
paragraph, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	it 	had 	jurisdiction 	to
hear and decide this appeal.
The 	subject 	property 	is 	improved 	with 	a 	single-family, 	one-
and-a-half-story 	modified 	Cape-Cod 	style 	home 	built 	in 	2007 	and
containing 3,431 square feet of living area with a total of twelve
rooms, 	including 	five 	bedrooms, 	as 	well 	as 	three 	full 	bathrooms
and a one-half bathroom, plus a two-car detached garage (“subject
ATB 2025-160

home”). 	This 	square 	footage 	includes 	an 	in-law 	apartment 	that
contains five rooms, including two bedrooms and a kitchen, as well
as one full bathroom. The subject home also has a 320-square-foot
farmer’s porch at the front, and a 264-square-foot wooden deck at
the rear.
The 	appellants 	presented 	their 	case 	through 	their 	testimony
and 	the 	submission 	of 	documents, 	including 	an 	appraisal 	report
completed 	by 	Appraiser 	Norman 	S. 	Haas. 	The 	appraiser 	was 	not
presented 	as 	a 	witness 	in 	these 	proceedings 	and 	thus 	was 	not
available for cross-examination by the appellee or questioning by
the 	Board. 	Therefore, 	the 	appraisal 	report 	was 	unsubstantiated
hearsay 	and 	accordingly 	was 	not 	probative 	evidence 	of 	the 	fair
cash value of the subject property.
The 	appellants 	provided 	several 	documents, 	including 	an
assessment 	history 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	starting 	from 	2014.
Between 2018 to 2022, the assessed values for the subject property
ranged 	from 	$399,600 	to 	$437,700, 	with 	the 	increase 	to 	$504,900
for the fiscal year at issue representing a 15% increase from the
prior fiscal year, which the appellants argued was unusually high.
The appellants’ opinion of fair cash value for the subject property
for the fiscal year at issue was $470,000.
The appellee presented its case through the testimony of its
witness, Assessor Paula Wheeler. Assessor Wheeler first presented
a 	chart 	comparing 	the 	subject 	property 	to 	three 	purportedly
ATB 2025-161

comparable 	properties 	from 	the 	same 	neighborhood 	to 	rebut 	the
appellants’ 	assessment 	history 	of 	the 	subject 	property. 	Her
purportedly 	comparable 	properties 	ranged 	in 	size 	from 	0.52 	acres
to 69 acres and were improved with homes with living areas ranging
from 	2,166 	square 	feet 	to 	2,777 	square 	feet. 	Her 	chart 	indicated
that, between 2010 and 2023, the subject property’s assessed value
increased by 6.23% while the average increase in assessed value of
the other three properties was 33%.
The 	assessor 	also 	provided 	property 	record 	cards, 	maps, 	and
a 	sales-comparison 	grid 	for 	three 	other 	purportedly 	comparable
properties 	in 	the 	subject 	property’s 	neighborhood. 	The 	grid
provided 	a 	simple 	assessment-to-sales 	ratio 	but 	specified 	no
adjustments to values for differences between the subject property
and the three purportedly comparable properties for features that
affect 	fair 	cash 	value. 	Moreover, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the
purportedly comparable properties were so dissimilar from the much
larger subject property that the analysis lacked persuasive value.
Therefore, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the 	appellee’s 	chart 	was 	not
probative of the subject property’s fair cash value.
Based on a review of the evidence presented by both parties,
including 	the 	appellant’s 	opinion 	of 	value, 	the 	Board 	found 	that
$480,000 reflected the fair cash value of the subject property for
the fiscal year at issue.
ATB 2025-162

Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellants,
granting abatement in the amount of $461.90.
OPINION
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
upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller will agree if both
are 	fully 	informed 	and 	under 	no 	compulsion. 	Boston 	Gas 	Co. 	v.
Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	334 	Mass. 	549, 	566 	(1956). 	The 	appellants
have the burden of proving that the property has a lower fair cash
value 	than 	that 	assessed. 	“The 	burden 	of 	proof 	is 	upon 	the
petitioner to make out its right as [a] matter of law to abatement
of the tax.” Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass.
243, 	245 	(1974) 	(quoting 	Judson 	Freight 	Forwarding 	Co. 	v.
Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)).
In 	appeals 	before 	this 	Board, 	“[t]he 	taxpayer 	may 	present
persuasive 	evidence 	of 	overvaluation 	either 	by 	exposing 	flaws 	or
errors 	in 	the 	assessors’ 	method 	of 	valuation, 	or 	by 	introducing
affirmative 	evidence 	of 	value 	which 	undermines 	the 	assessors’
valuation.” 	General 	Electric 	Co. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Lynn, 	393 	Mass.
591, 	600 	(1984) 	(quoting 	Donlon 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Holliston, 	389
Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
In reaching its opinion of fair cash value in these appeals,
the 	Board 	could 	accept 	those 	portions 	of 	the 	evidence 	that 	the
ATB 2025-163

Board 	determined 	had 	more 	convincing 	weight. 	Foxboro 	Assocs. 	v.
Assessors 	of 	Foxborough, 	385 	Mass. 	679, 	683 	(1982); 	New 	Boston
Garden 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	383 	Mass. 	456, 	473 	(1981);
Assessors of Lynnfield v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 362 Mass.
696, 	702 	(1972). 	In 	evaluating 	the 	evidence 	before 	it, 	the 	Board
selected 	among 	the 	various 	elements 	of 	value 	and 	formed 	its 	own
independent judgment of fair cash value. General Electric Co., 393
Mass. 	at 	605; 	North 	American 	Philips 	Lighting 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors
of Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 300 (1984).
Having considered the record in its entirety, the Board found
and 	ruled 	that 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	for
the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	was 	$480,000. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Board
issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellants, 	granting 	abatement 	in 	the
amount of $461.90.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	_____ 	_____________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: 	___________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-164