Wilson, Scott & Janet v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Stow (August 17, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
SCOTT & JANET WILSON 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF STOW
Docket No. F353061 	Promulgated:
August 17, 2026
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 Stow
(“appellee” or “assessors”) to abate a real estate tax assessed to Scott and Janet Wilson
(“appellants”) for fiscal year 2024 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Good 	heard 	this 	appeal. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and
Commissioners Elliott, Metzer, and Bernier joined her in the decision for the appellants.
These findings of fact and report are made at the request of the appellants
pursuant to 831 CMR 1.34.
Scott and Janet Wilson, pro se, for the appellants.
Kristen Fox, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2026-317

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, 2023, the valuation and assessment date for the fiscal year at issue,
the appellants were the owners of a 1.23-acre, improved parcel of real estate located at
32 Dunster Drive in Stow (“subject property”). For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee
valued the subject property at $1,190,900 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of
$16.97 per $1,000, in the amount of $20,209.57, plus a Community Preservation Act
(“CPA”) surcharge of $555.38. The appellants timely paid the tax due without incurring
interest and timely filed an abatement application with the appellee.1 On May 21, 2024,
the appellee granted a partial abatement, reducing the subject property’s assessed value
to $1,082,900. Not satisfied with that reduction, on August 5, 2024, the appellants
seasonably filed an appeal with the Board.2 Based on these facts, the Board found and
ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
The subject property is improved with a single-family residence classified on
the property record card as a Cape Cod-style home that was built in 1977 that contains
3,560 square feet of living area comprised of eleven rooms, including four bedrooms as
well as two full bathrooms and one half bathroom (“subject home”). The interior of the
subject
1 Although the abatement application was stamped as received by the assessors on February 5, 2024, the Board found
that the application was timely mailed. Where, as here, the assessors receive an abatement application after the due
date, the date of postmark is deemed to be the date of filing. See G.L. c. 59, § 59. In the event that a postmark is
missing, the Board may make such inferences concerning the postmark as are consistent with the purposes of statute.
See 831 CMR 1.11(4). Accordingly, the Board ruled that the appellant's abatement application was timely filed.
2 Pursuant to G.L. c. 59, § 64, an abatement application is deemed denied if not acted on within three months of filing
unless the taxpayer consents in writing to an extension of time. There is no evidence in the record of the appellants’
consent to an extension of time. Ordinarily, a petition to the Board is due within three months of the deemed denial of
an abatement application. G.L. c. 59, §§ 64, 65. However, pursuant to G.L. c. 59, § 65C, if the assessors fail to send
required notice to the appellants of their inaction within ten days, and the appellants fail to file an appeal within three
months of the deemed denial, the appellants have an additional two months within which to file a petition with the Board.
See Cardaropoli v. Assessors of Springfield, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2001-913, 917.
ATB 2026-318

home includes an open floor plan, vaulted ceiling, large walls of windows, and a catwalk.
The subject home is equipped with central air conditioning. Other amenities include an
attached two-story barn, an attached one-story structure assessed as a garage, and an
inground pool.
The appellants presented their case through their testimony and the submission of
documents. The appellants testified and submitted prior year property record cards to
illustrate that the subject home had historically been classified as a Contemporary-style
home. For the fiscal year at issue, the subject home was reclassified as a Cape Cod-style
home. Along with this reclassification came a significant increase in the subject property’s
assessed value, jumping from $743,800 in the prior fiscal year to $1,190,900 in the fiscal
year at issue before being partially abated to $1,082,900. The appellants contested the
reclassification of the subject property, claiming that it should have remained classified as
a Contemporary-style home as it fit within their knowledge of this style, particularly the
open-concept floor plan, large windows, and skylights. The appellants also addressed
what they believed to be errors on the property record card, including but not limited to:
increases 	to 	the 	construction 	grade 	from 	B- 	to 	B 	with 	no 	improvements 	made;
assessments for basement and attic space and a shed, which the subject property does
not have; changing the depreciation code from good to very good with no improvements
made; and an increase to the inground pool’s valuation. The appellants noted that the
appellee granted the partial abatement based on corrections to reflect the lack of
basement area and shed at the subject property as well as decreases in the subject
property’s construction grade and the valuation of the inground pool.
ATB 2026-319

The appellants next offered property record cards for purportedly comparable
properties in the subject property’s neighborhood. The appellants highlighted the property
at neighboring 26 Dunster Drive, a property similar to the subject property in lot size and
its improvement’s style, age, and living area, but lacking the subject property’s inground
pool and two-story barn. For the fiscal year at issue, the improvement at 26 Dunster Drive
remained 	classified 	as 	a 	Contemporary 	home, 	and 	the 	assessed 	value 	for 	this
comparison property was $768,100. The appellants also pointed to the differences in unit
cost in the “building sub-area summary” shown on the property record cards of their
comparable properties.
Based on their evidence, particularly their reliance on 26 Dunster Drive, the
appellants’ opinion of value for the subject property was $768,100 for the fiscal year at
issue.
The appellee presented its case through the testimony of Kristen Fox, Assessor
for 	Stow, 	and 	the 	submission 	of 	documents, 	including 	the 	requisite 	jurisdictional
documents. 	Assessor 	Fox 	presented 	a 	sales-comparison 	analysis 	together 	with
supporting property record cards. The appellee also presented additional property record
cards for both Cape Cod and Contemporary-style homes located in the subject property’s
neighborhood 	together 	with 	additional 	photographs 	to 	demonstrate 	the 	difference
between Cape Cod and Contemporary-style homes.
With respect to the sales-comparison analysis, the appellee presented three
purportedly comparable properties – two from the subject property’s neighborhood - that
sold from March 2022 to October 2024 for prices ranging from $640,000 to $975,000.
After adjustments for differences between the subject property and the comparison
ATB 2026-320

property for features including, but not limited to, lot size, condition, grade, living area, air
conditioning, and inground pool, the appellee arrived at adjusted sale prices ranging from
$1,071,893 to $1,162,000. Noting that the subject property’s assessed value as abated
fit within this range, the appellee opined that the subject property’s assessment as abated
did not exceed its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.
In reviewing the evidence of record, the Board found the comparable-sale property
at 39 Kirkland Drive, which was part of the appellee’s analysis, to be informative regarding
the subject property’s fair cash value as it was located in the same neighborhood and it
was improved with a home that was highly comparable in style, living area, lot size, and
age to the subject property. This property also had an inground pool and attached garage.
However, 39 Kirkland Drive had five full bathrooms as compared with the subject
property’s two full and one half bathrooms, as well as 1,488 square feet of additional living
space in its basement. This comparison property sold for $975,000 in September 2022.
The Board also looked to 109 Kirkland Drive, another property located in the
subject property’s neighborhood and whose property record card the appellee offered into
evidence. This property was improved with a home of a similar age and with similar layout
as the subject home, consisting of seven rooms with four bedrooms and three full
bathrooms, but with a smaller living area of 2,100 square feet. The property also had a
drive-under garage along with an unfinished basement. This comparison property sold for
$761,000 in late August 2021. The property record card noted several updates to this
property prior to its sale.
ATB 2026-321

After making appropriate adjustments to the above comparable properties, and
considering the record in its entirety, the Board found that the fair cash value for the
subject property was $950,000 for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellants and ordered abatement
in the amount of $2,322.97, which includes the appropriate portion of the CPA surcharge.
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 on which a willing seller and a willing buyer will
agree if both are fully informed and under no compulsion. Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors
of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956). “The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to
make out its right as [a] matter of law to [an] 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 the Board, a 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)).
Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable
time of the assessment date generally contain probative evidence for determining the
value of the property at issue. Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB
Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 399-400 (citing McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass.
ATB 2026-322

494, 496 (1929)), aff’d, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008)). Properties are “comparable” to
the subject property when they share “fundamental similarities” with the subject property.
See Lattuca v. Robsham, 442 Mass. 205, 216 (2004). Once appropriate comparable-
sale properties are selected, “[a]djustments must be made to . . . sales data to account
for differences between the subject property and the properties offered for comparison.”
Doherty v. Assessors of Lee, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2013-174, 181.
In addition to comparable-sale properties, evidence of comparable assessments
can also be instructive. General Laws c. 58A, § 12B provides in pertinent part that “[a]t
any hearing relative to the assessed fair cash valuation or classification of property,
evidence as to the fair cash valuation or classification of property at which assessors have
assessed other property of a comparable nature or class shall be admissible.” “The
introduction of ample and substantial evidence in this regard may provide adequate
support for abatement.” Chouinard v. Assessors of Natick, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact
and Reports 1998-299, 307-8 (citing Garvey v. Assessors of West Newbury, Mass. ATB
Findings of Fact and Reports 1995-129, 135-36; Swartz v. Assessors of Tisbury, Mass.
ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1993-271, 279-80). The assessments in a comparable-
assessment analysis, like the sale prices in a comparable-sales analysis, must also be
adjusted to account for differences with the subject property. See Heitin v. Assessors of
Sharon, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2002-323, 334.
In the present appeal, the Board reviewed the properties offered by the parties for
comparison with the subject property. After making appropriate adjustments to their
values, the Board arrived at $950,000 as the fair cash value for the subject property for
the fiscal year at issue.
ATB 2026-323

The fair cash value of property cannot be proven with “mathematical certainty and
must ultimately rest in the realm of opinion, estimate and judgment.” Assessors of
Quincy v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941). In reaching its opinion of
fair cash value in this appeal, the Board was not required to believe the testimony of any
particular witness or to adopt any particular method of valuation. Rather, the Board could
accept those portions of the evidence that it determined had more convincing weight.
Foxboro Associates 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).
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellants and ordered abatement
of $2,332.97, which includes the appropriate portion of the CPA surcharge.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-324