Sullivan, Mark and Kara v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Ipswich (March 6, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
MARK AND KARA SULLIVAN 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS
OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH
Docket No. F350281 	Promulgated:
March 6, 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 Ipswich
(“assessors” or “appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and assessed to Mark
and Kara Sullivan (“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 requests by the appellants
and the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Mark and Kara Sullivan, pro se, for the appellants.
Ellen M. Hutchinson, Esq., for the appellee.
ATB 2026-133

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and documents admitted into evidence at the hearing of
this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On January 1, 2022, the relevant valuation and assessment date for the fiscal year
at issue, the appellants were the assessed co-owners1 of a 690-square-foot condominium
unit built circa 1919, situated on a 3,700-square-foot parcel, located at 8 Cliff Road in
Ipswich in the Little Neck condominium complex (“subject property”). The subject property
has a primarily wood-shingled exterior and contains five rooms, with three bedrooms and
one and a half bathrooms.
For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject property at $1,079,600,
and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $12.23 per $1,000, in the amount of
$13,203.51. The appellants timely paid the tax due without incurring interest. On January
30, 2023, the appellants timely filed an abatement application with the appellee. The
appellee reduced the assessed value to $948,700 on March 27, 2023. Seeking a further
reduction, the appellants timely filed this appeal with the Board on June 27, 2023. Based
on these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this
appeal.
II. The parties’ contentions
A. The appellants’ case
The 	appellants 	presented 	their 	case 	through 	their 	own 	testimony 	and 	the
submission of documents, offering an opinion of value of $675,000. In addition to property
1 Additional co-owners were Christopher and Jessica Sullivan, though this appeal was filed in the name of
Mark and Kara Sullivan.
ATB 2026-134

record cards, photos, and a written statement, they submitted various spreadsheets of
allegedly comparable properties, both within and outside the Little Neck condominium
complex. They made no adjustments to account for differences between these properties
and the subject property.
The appellants stressed that the lack of any furnace, insulation, or heat in the
subject property, renders it useable only from May to October. They also alluded to the
Little Neck building restrictions prohibiting current and future residents from going outside
the “envelope” of the home in any way; limited parking in Little Neck; and limited updates
to the subject property since 1910, such as the enduring knob and tube wiring,2 an attic
consisting of two bedrooms with knee walls,3 and a dirt crawl space in the basement.
B. The assessors’ case
The assessors questioned the appellants as to their comparables methodology
and otherwise rested on the presumed validity of the assessed value.
III. The Board’s findings
Based on a review of the evidence, the Board ruled that the appellants met their
burden of proving overvaluation and found that $775,000 reflected the fair cash value of
the subject property for the fiscal year at issue. The Board made its own independent
judgment as to evidence concerning other properties in the Little Neck complex and it
was persuaded by the appellants’ arguments regarding the condition of the subject
2 Defined in Merriam-Webster as “open electric-wiring work in which the wires are supported on knobs or
cleats and encased in tubes where they pass through beams or partitions.” https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/knob%20and%20tube%20wiring (last visited January 5, 2026).
3 Defined in Merriam-Webster as “a partition for supporting roof rafters when the span is great or for forming
a 	side 	wall 	(as 	of 	a 	second-story 	room) 	under 	a 	pitched 	roof.” 	https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/knee%20wall (last visited January 23, 2026).
ATB 2026-135

property. In particular, the Board took into account the forced seasonality due to the lack
of any heating features, dated features, the building restrictions, and the limited parking.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellants, granting an abatement
in the amount of $2,124.35.
OPINION
Assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value as of the first
day of January preceding the fiscal year at issue. 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). An appellant has the burden of proving that 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 [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)).
In reaching its opinion of fair cash value in these appeals, the Board could accept
those portions of the evidence that the Board determined had more convincing weight.
Foxboro Assocs. v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 683 (1982); New
ATB 2026-136

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). 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).
Here, in coming to its decision, the Board considered the condition of the subject property,
including its seasonality due to lack of heating features, as well as building restrictions
and limited parking.
Having considered the record in its entirety, the Board ruled that the appellants met
their burden of proving overvaluation and found that the fair cash value for the subject
property for the fiscal year at issue was $775,000. Accordingly, the Board issued a
decision for the appellants, granting an abatement in the amount of $2,124.35.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-137