John & Ruthanne Igoe v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Mattapoisett (November 5, 2014)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



JOHN & RUTHANNE IGOE	      v.		BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
								THE TOWN OF MATTAPOISETT

Docket No. F318123				   	Promulgated:
		  						November 5, 2014


	This is an appeal filed under the informal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the Town of Mattapoisett ("assessors" or "appellee") to abate taxes on certain real estate owned by and assessed to John and Ruthanne Igoe ("appellants") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2012 ("fiscal year at issue").
	Commissioner Chmielinski heard the appeal and was joined in the decision for the appellee by Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Rose and Mulhern.   
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.
	John Igoe, pro se, for the appellants.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	Based on the testimony and exhibits offered into evidence, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
	On January 1, 2011, the appellants were the assessed owners of a waterfront parcel of real estate located at 5 Avenue A in Mattapoisett that was improved with a single-story, four-room dwelling. ("subject property"). 
	For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $902,400 and assessed a tax in the amount of $10,788.52. The appellants timely paid the tax due without incurring interest and on February 1, 2012, filed an abatement application with the assessors, which was denied on May 16, 2012. The appellants seasonably filed an appeal with the Board on August 14, 2012. On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
	At the hearing of the appeal, the appellants argued that the subject property was overvalued, primarily because the assessors had placed too high a value on the land component of the contested assessment. In support of their argument, the appellants offered into evidence data relating to the assessed values of several properties as well as photographs of properties and photographs taken from a boat depicting shoreline views near the subject property.
	Most of the properties presented for comparison with the subject property were not waterfront properties. The appellants did not establish that these properties were comparable to the subject property and made no adjustments to account for the differences, locational or otherwise, between the properties and the subject property. The appellants also offered an unadjusted comparison of two waterfront properties, which had substantially larger lots than the subject property and whose land values exceeded the value placed on the subject property's lot. The Board found that absent appropriate adjustment, the comparison did not undermine the subject property's assessed value for the fiscal year at issue. Finally, the Board found that the photographs offered by the appellants provided virtually no evidence of the subject property's fair cash value. 
	Based on the foregoing, the Board found and ruled that the appellants failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue. Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.


OPINION
	 The 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 in a free and open market will agree if both of them 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 subject property had a lower value than that assessed. "'The burden of proof is upon the [appellants] to make out [their] 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)).
The appellants supported their overvaluation argument primarily through the submission of assessment data relating to purportedly comparable properties. Ordinarily, reliable comparable sales data will trump comparable assessment information for purposes of determining the fair cash value of property. See Buckley v. Assessors of Cambridge, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2006-227, 236-37. However, G.L. c. 58A, § 12B provides, in pertinent part, that "at any hearing relative to the assessed fair cash valuation or classification of property, evidence as to fair cash valuation or classification of property at which assessors have assessed other property of a comparable nature or class shall be admissible." Thus, evidence of assessed values must relate to properties that are comparable to the subject property, i.e.,   properties that share "fundamental similarities" with the subject property, including similar age, location, and size.  See Lattuca v. Robsham, 442 Mass. 205, 216 (2004). Moreover, "without appropriate adjustments . . . the assessed values of [comparable] properties [do] not provide reliable indicator[s] of the subject's fair cash value." Lupacchino v. Assessors of Southborough, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-1253, 1269. 
 	The appellants' claim of overvaluation depended on assessment data from purportedly comparable properties. However, as previously noted, most of the properties presented were not waterfront properties and the appellants did not establish that these properties were comparable to the subject property. Further, they offered no adjustments to account for the differences between the properties and the subject property. Finally, the appellants' unadjusted comparison of two waterfront properties, which were distinct from the subject property in lot size and land valuation, did not undermine the subject property's assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.  These facts, coupled with the absence of other evidence establishing the fair cash value of the subject property, inevitably led to the conclusion that the appellants failed to sustain their burden of proving that the subject property's fair cash value was lower that its assessed value for the fiscal year at issue. 
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal. 
 		
					 THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
			 
    
                       By:			          	____
				  	 Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman 



A true copy,

Attest:					
    Clerk of the Board

 Within thirty days of the service of the appeal, the Town of Mattapoisett, in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 7A, elected to have the appeal heard under he formal procedure. 
 The assessors did not appear at the hearing of the appeal.
 On May 1, 2012, pursuant to G.L. c. 59, § 64, the appellants consented in writing to a three-week extension of time for consideration of their abatement application.  

ATB 2014-828