Balbesi, Raed Y. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Dracut (December 11, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
RAED Y. BALBESI 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF DRACUT
Docket No. F351736 	Promulgated:
December 11, 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 Dracut
(“appellee” or “assessors”) to abate a real estate tax assessed against Raed Y. Balbesi
(“appellant” or “Mr. Balbesi”) for fiscal year 2024 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Metzer 	heard 	this 	appeal. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and
Commissioners Good, Elliott, and Bernier joined her in the decision for the appellee.
These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellant
under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Raed Y. Balbesi, pro se, for the appellant.
Karen Golden, Assessor, for the appellee.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on testimony and documents admitted into evidence during the hearing of
this appeal, as well as shortly thereafter, the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the
following findings of fact.
ATB 2025-432

On June 30, 2023, the appellant acquired title to a 20,759-square-foot parcel of
newly developed land located at 68 Hayfield Road in Dracut (“subject property”).1
For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject property at $739,100
and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $10.45 per $1,000, in the total amount of
$7,878.07, inclusive of a Community Preservation Act surcharge. The appellant timely
paid the tax due without incurring interest. On January 11, 2024, the appellant timely filed
an abatement application with the appellee. On April 3, 2024, the appellee denied the
abatement application. On June 26, 2024, the appellant 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 improved with a newly constructed Colonial-style home
with a total living area of 2,509 square feet consisting of seven rooms, including four
bedrooms, as well as two full bathrooms and a half bathroom (“subject home”). The
occupancy permit for the subject home was issued on June 28, 2023, and the appellant
purchased the subject property on June 30, 2023, for $730,000.
The appellant presented his appeal through his testimony and the submission of
documents. Mr. Balbesi protested the assessed value of the subject home as part of the
subject property’s overall assessment for the fiscal year at issue. He explained that as of
January 1, 2023, the statutory valuation and assessment date for the fiscal year at issue,
the subject property was a vacant plot of land. The appellant offered into evidence a
picture of the subject property taken in March 2023 that showed the subject home in a
1 As he was “a person who acquire[d] title to real estate after January first in any year,” the appellant was
“treated as a person upon whom a tax has been assessed,” and therefore had standing to bring this appeal.
G.L. c. 59, § 59.
ATB 2025-433

state of partial construction with only some siding attached. Mr. Balbesi testified that he
was in Florida at the time this picture was taken by his neighbor. The appellant argued
that the subject property should have been assessed for $170,000, the value ascribed to
the land for the fiscal year at issue.
The appellee presented its case through the testimony of Assessor Karen Golden
and the submission of documents, including the requisite jurisdictional documents.
Assessor Golden testified that, after the building permit was issued on December 16,
2022, the assessors visited the subject property to monitor the subject home’s progress
and observed the following development:
• 	January 3, 2023 – the foundation was poured
• 	March 17, 2023 – the framing installation had begun
• 	April 12, 2023 – siding, roof, windows and HVAC system had been installed
• 	April 27, 2023 – electricity and drywall had been installed; assessors
conducted a walk through
• 	May 16, 2023 – subject home was about 85% complete; painting was in
progress
• 	June 28, 2023 – certificate of occupancy was issued
• 	June 29, 2023 – property was complete; assessors conducted a site visit
Assessor Golden testified to her belief that the photo on the property record card, which
showed the completed subject home, was taken on June 29, 2023, during the assessors’
site visit. Assessor Golden further testified that, having concluded that the subject
property was fully completed on June 29, 2023, the appellee assessed the subject
property at $739,300, which the assessors deemed to be the subject property’s full fair
cash value as of June 29, 2023.
ATB 2025-434

The appellee subsequently provided a copy of Article 12 from the Warrant for the
Dracut Town Meeting that occurred on June 4, 1990.2 Article 12 provides in relevant part:
“To see if the Town will vote to accept the provisions of Section 40, Chapter 653 of the
Acts of 1989 [“Section 40 of Chapter 653”] regarding assessment date changes for new
growth.” The copy of the Warrant further provides that Section 40 of Chapter 653 was
accepted by majority vote at the Dracut Town Meeting.
As will be explained in the following Opinion, as a community that accepted the
provisions of Section 40 of Chapter 653, the Town of Dracut is allowed to assess growth
in the town that occurs during the timeframe of January 2 through June 30 prior to the
commencement of a fiscal year.
The Board found that the appellee established that the Town of Dracut had
accepted the provisions of Section 40 of Chapter 653. The Board further found that the
subject home was completed before June 30, 2023. The Board thus found and ruled that
the subject property was properly assessed as fully developed for the fiscal year at issue.
Moreover, the appellant did not contest the fair cash value ascribed to the subject property
as fully developed. The Board thus found that the appellant failed to meet his burden of
proving that the subject property was improperly assessed for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.
2 The record was left open at the conclusion of the hearing to allow the appellee to supplement with
additional documentation requested by the Board.
ATB 2025-435

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)). In
the instant appeal, the appellant attempted to meet his burden by contesting the
assessment of the subject property as developed. He contended that, by law, a property
is valued and assessed as it exists on January first preceding the fiscal year at issue.
The appellant correctly observed that G.L. c. 59, § 2A (“§ 2A”) provides that “[t]he
assessors of each city and town shall determine the fair cash valuation of such real
property for the purpose of taxation on the first day of January of each year.” However,
the next sentence of § 2A reads as follows:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in any city or town which accepts the
provisions of this sentence, buildings and other things erected on or affixed
to land during the period beginning on January second and ending on June
thirtieth of the fiscal year preceding that to which the tax relates shall be
deemed part of such real property as of January first.
ATB 2025-436

~
This sentence was added to § 2A by Section 40 of Chapter 653. As explained above, the
appellee established that the Town of Dracut adopted Section 40 of Chapter 653 by
majority vote at its town meeting on June 4, 1990, and therefore “accept[ed] the
provisions” of the referenced sentence.
The subject home was completed prior to the June 30 preceding the start of the
fiscal year at issue, which began on July 1, 2023. Therefore, the subject property was
properly assessed at its completed value for the fiscal year at issue. Furthermore, the
appellant did not challenge the appellee’s valuation of the subject property as completed.
“[T]he board is entitled to ‘presume that the valuation made by the assessors [is] valid
unless the taxpayers . . . prov[e] the contrary.’” General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 598
(quoting Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974)).
The Board found and ruled that the provisions of Section 40 of Chapter 653, which
have been adopted by the Town of Dracut, support the valuation of the subject property
as completed. The Board further found that the appellant failed to meet his burden of
proving that the valuation of the subject property by the appellee exceeded the property’s
fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-437