Donaldson, Mary & Andrew v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Ipswich (November 4, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
MARY & ANDREW DONALDSON 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF IPSWICH
Docket No. F352097 	Promulgated:
November 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 Ipswich
(“appellee” or “assessors”) to abate a real estate tax assessed against Mary and Andrew
Donaldson (“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 pursuant to a request by the appellants
under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Mary & Andrew Donaldson, pro se, for the appellants.
Mary-Lou Ireland, Assessor, for the appellee.
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 relevant valuation and assessment date for the fiscal year
at issue, the appellants were the owners of a single-family condominium unit situated on
a 4,356-square-foot parcel located at 20 Middle Road in Ipswich (“subject property”).
ATB 2025-396

For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject property at $915,200
and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $11.38 per $1,000, in the amount of $10,414.98.
The appellants timely paid the tax due without incurring interest. On February 1, 2024,
the appellants timely filed an abatement application with the appellee. On April 8, 2024,
the appellee granted an abatement, reducing the subject property’s assessed value to
$869,500. Not satisfied with this reduction, on July 2, 2024, the appellants seasonably
filed an appeal with the Board. Based on these facts, the Board found and ruled that it
had jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant appeal.
The subject property is part of a condominium complex on the peninsula of Little
Neck in Ipswich that consists of 167 standalone units situated on parcels over which the
respective owners have unrestricted use. These units are of varying sizes and conditions,
most of which were originally designed as fishing cabins and then seasonal cottages.
Common amenities for the Little Neck condominium complex include a basketball court,
soccer field, baseball field, pickleball court, community center, children’s playground, boat
launch, and two private beaches for the community’s use.
The subject property is a one-story, wood-frame dwelling with a full, unfinished
basement that was built in 1900 and contains a total finished area of 1,064 square feet.
The living area is comprised of five rooms, including two bedrooms, as well as one full
bathroom. The subject property also includes a screened-in porch, a one-car garage, and
a wooden deck. The subject property’s condition is stated as C-average on the property
record card.
The Little Neck peninsula extends from the Great Neck neighborhood and is bound
by the Ipswich River, Neck Creek, and Ipswich Bay. Each house on Little Neck has a
ATB 2025-397

water view, but there are varying ranges of view obstruction. The subject property does
not have water frontage but features a reasonably good view of the Ipswich River, which
the assessors graded as “limited view-primary.”
The appellants presented their appeal through the testimony of appellant Mary
Donaldson 	(“Ms. 	Donaldson”), 	who 	also 	submitted 	a 	written 	statement, 	and 	the
presentation of evidence, including photographs of the subject property as well as
property record cards and photographs of comparison properties. Ms. Donaldson testified
that the subject property was built as a seasonal cottage, and it has been in her family
since 1946. She testified that the rules and regulations of Little Neck do not allow her to
change the footprint or make modifications to the subject property, which she believes
negatively affects its fair cash value. Ms. Donaldson further maintained that the subject
property is unique and not well matched with other properties that the assessors have
used as comparable properties to justify the subject property’s assessed value.
Ms. Donaldson testified that the appellants live in the subject property year-round,
an arrangement that is made quite difficult by the subject property’s limitations. Ms.
Donaldson offered pictures of the subject property showing rotting exterior shingles and
window trims; however, the interior pictures were the most informative of the subject
property’s shortcomings. Because of the poor heating system and even poorer insulation,
the appellants must take actions in the colder months by putting up a barricade of heavy
coats and blankets in front of the kitchen windows and door to keep the heat in, and by
keeping the kitchen cabinets open to prevent the under-sink pipes – located along an
outside wall - from freezing. The subject property’s bathroom has only one electrical
outlet, which is so outmoded that Ms. Donaldson must use an old hair dryer because
ATB 2025-398

present-day plugs will not fit in the outlet. Electric fixtures are also outdated in the kitchen,
where Ms. Donaldson testified the appellants can use only one electrical outlet at a time
or a fuse will blow. Pictures of the subject property’s interior further show cosmetic issues,
with extremely dated pink bathroom tiles and fixtures in the bathroom and original
cabinets and avocado green countertops in the kitchen.
The appellants contrasted the subject property with a few properties in the
community, opining that the subject property’s assessed value was not consistent with
the Little Neck properties that the appellee had used for comparison. The pictures Ms.
Donaldson offered of these properties showed homes that were completely renovated,
updated, and spacious, in stark contrast with the subject property.
Ms. Donaldson next offered a comparable-sales analysis using two sales of
properties that she opined to be the most similar to the subject property. Pertinent
information from the respective property record cards, which she offered into evidence, is
summarized in the following chart:
Address 	Year
built
Square
foot living
area
Rooms/beds/baths 	Notes 	Sale date 	Sale price
28 Eagle Hill
Road
1930 	1,200 	5/3/1 	Good view
of ocean
08/04/2022 	$625,000
24 	Island
Park Road
1959 	920 	5/3/1 	Kitchen
updated
2018
04/29/2022 	$585,000
The above properties, however, were not located on Little Neck and thus did not share a
locational similarity with the subject property such that they could provide persuasive
valuation evidence.
At the conclusion of her presentation, Ms. Donaldson expressed an opinion of fair
cash value of $605,500 for the subject property for the fiscal year at issue.
ATB 2025-399

The assessors presented their case through the testimony of Assessor Mary Lou
Ireland 	and 	the 	presentation 	of 	documents, 	including 	the 	requisite 	jurisdictional
documents. Assessor Ireland offered a full valuation report for the subject property,
including a sales-comparison analysis and additional information about many of the
properties discussed by both the appellants and the assessors. The properties selected
by Assessor Ireland were all located on Little Neck. Information about each of the
assessors’ comparable-sale properties is contained in the following chart:
Property 	19 Middle Road 	5 Plum Sound 	35 Hilltop 	5 Gala Way
Sale Price 	$1,100,000 	$1,100,000 	$1,550,000 	$725,000
Date of Sale
Adjustment
03/30/2023
-$24,750
11/03/2022
$16,500
09/25/2023
-$104,625
10/31/2022
$10,875
Quality of
construction
Adjustment
Average 	Average 	Good
-$216,806
Average
Age and
condition of
Superior 	Superior 	Superior 	Slightly Superior
property
Adjustment 	-$107,525 	-$111,650 	-$144,538
-$36,794
Living area
(square feet)
Adjustment
1,332
-$80,400
1024
$12,000
940
$37,200
748
$94,800
Rooms/
Beds/baths
Adjustment
7/4/2
-$7,500
4/2/1 	6/3/2
-$7,500
5/2/1
Water
enrichment
Adjustment
Limited primary
view
Limited primary
view
Limited primary view 	Limited secondary
view
$147,175
Garage or
basement
Garage 	None 	Full unfinished
basement
Full unfinished
basement
Adjustment 	$10,000
Net adjustments
Percentage
-$195,425
-18.2%
-$89,650
-8.0%
-$331,644
-22.9%
$205,181
28.3%
Adjusted 	sales
values
$879,825 	$1,026,850 	$1,113,731 	$941,056
Based on the above information, the appellee arrived at an indicated fair cash value of
the subject property of $950,000 for the fiscal year at issue. The appellee thus determined
that the fair cash value for the subject property for the fiscal year at issue was greater
ATB 2025-400

than its assessed value as abated and concluded that no further abatement was
warranted.
While the Board found that much of the value of a property on Little Neck is derived
from its location, specifically its water view, the Board also noted that the Little Neck
properties offered by the appellee for comparison were updated and so far superior to the
antiquated 	subject 	property 	that 	they 	required 	too 	many 	adjustments 	for 	useful
comparison. Of the properties in the record, the comparison property that the Board found
to be most comparable to the subject property is 5 Gala Way. The Board agreed that this
comparison property’s smaller size and less desirable water view merited upward
adjustments to its sale price and that its condition superior to that of the subject property
merited a downward adjustment. After applying adjustments to account for these
differences, the Board arrived at an indicated value of $775,000 for the subject property,
which the Board found to more appropriately reflect its fair cash value for the fiscal year
at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellant and ordered abatement
of $1,075.41 for the fiscal year at issue.
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
ATB 2025-401

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)). “[T]he board is entitled to ‘presume that the
valuation made by the assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayers sustain[] the burden of
proving the contrary.’” General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598
(1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
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., 393 Mass. at 600 (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.
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). In the present appeal, the Board found that most properties offered by the parties
for comparison with the subject property were not sufficiently similar to provide persuasive
information about the subject property’s fair cash value. The properties offered by the
appellants were not located on Little Neck, a neighborhood unique for its remarkable
ATB 2025-402

water view amenities. Yet most of the Little Neck properties offered by the appellee were
more updated and in far better condition than the subject property, rendering comparison
with those properties uninformative as well.
However, the Board found that 5 Gala Way, a comparable-sale property offered
by the appellee, was sufficiently comparable to the subject property to provide meaningful
evidence of the subject property’s value. After analyzing the available data, the Board
made 	adjustments 	to 	reflect 	the 	appellants’ 	persuasive 	evidence 	establishing 	the
shortcomings of the subject property vis-à-vis other Little Neck properties offered for
comparison. See New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456,
473 (1981). Having considered the evidence of record, the Board found that it supported
a fair cash value for the subject property of $775,000 for the fiscal year at issue. The
Board thus determined that the appellants had sustained their burden of demonstrating
that the subject property’s fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue was less than its
assessed value.
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 Consolidated 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., 383 Mass. at 473; Assessors of Lynnfield v.
New England Oyster House, Inc., 362 Mass. 696, 702 (1972). In evaluating the
ATB 2025-403

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 ordering abatement in
the amount of $1,075.41.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-404