James A. Kerrigan, Jr. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Marshfield (August 15, 2008)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



JAMES A. KERRIGAN, JR. 	  v.		BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
THE TOWN OF MARSHFIELD


Docket No. F289450				Promulgated: 
							August 15, 2008

					
	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 appellee to abate taxes on real estate located in the Town of Marshfield, owned by and assessed to the appellant under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2007.
	Commissioner Mulhern ("Presiding Commissioner") heard the appeal under G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and issued a single-member 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 1.32.  

	James A. Kerrigan, Jr., pro se, for the appellant.
	Elizabeth Bates, assessor, for the appellee.  





FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

	On the basis of the testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
	On January 1, 2006, James A. Kerrigan, Jr., ("appellant") was the assessed owner of a 0.138-acre parcel of real estate located at 58 Bayview Street in the Town of Marshfield ("subject property").  The parcel is improved with a wood-framed, bungalow-styled structure with 760 square feet of finished living area, and is located less than 1000 feet from a local Marshfield beach.  The area is developed with similarly styled properties. A recent inspection by the assessors revealed that the dwelling is in average condition.    
	For fiscal year 2007 ("fiscal year at issue"), the Board of Assessors of Marshfield ("assessors") valued the subject property at $298,500 and assessed a tax thereon at a rate of $8.14 per thousand, for a total amount of $2,429.79.  Of the total assessed value, $203,200 was attributable to the subject property's land area and $95,300 was attributable to the residence.  The appellant timely filed an abatement application with the assessors on January 31, 2007, which the assessors denied on March 26, 2007.  On June 7, 2007, the appellant seasonably filed his appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  Based on these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
	The appellant submitted a position paper which included a spread sheet comparing the subject property with ten allegedly similar properties.  Attached to the spread sheet were computer-generated property record cards.  In his comparative analysis, the appellant focused on such building characteristics as number of baths, number of bedrooms, heating type, dwelling square-footage, assessed value per square-foot of dwelling area, and whether each dwelling housed a garage.  In addition, the appellant highlighted the year-over-year percentage change in building value assessments for each comparable property.  The appellant testified that based on this data, the building component of the subject property's assessment was too high.  The appellant, however, furnished no comparable analysis for land value or overall assessments.      
	In support of their assessment on the subject property for the fiscal year at issue, the assessors provided sales data for three comparable properties in Marshfield.  Each of the three sales occurred in 2005 and had sales prices that ranged between $295,000 and $325,000.
	On the basis of all the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant failed to carry his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue.  Specifically, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant failed to provide information or data to refute the validity of the assessor's comparable sales data. The Presiding Commissioner also found that the appellant's comparative assessment data was limited to only one component of the assessment and lacked any land or overall assessment analysis.  Consequently, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant's comparable assessment argument was incomplete because it only measured part of, and not the entire, assessment.  
Furthermore, the Presiding Commissioner found that the sales of 19 Sheridan Drive and 83 Mayflower Lane were the best evidence of the subject property's value for fiscal year 2007.  Both sale properties were of reasonably similar size to the subject property at 0.115 and 0.146 acres and 1170 and 720 square feet of living area, respectively.  In addition, the Presiding Commissioner found that these two sale properties were substantially similar to the subject property in most other respects including their locations near Marshfield beaches.      
	In sum, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant failed in his burden of proving that the subject property as a whole was overvalued for fiscal year 2007.  The Presiding Commissioner also found that the assessors' comparable sales analysis supported the assessment.  The Presiding Commissioner, therefore, decided this appeal for the appellee.                            
OPINION
	Assessors are required to value and 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, §§ 2A and 38.  "The 'fair cash value' of real property, for tax purposes, is the price that an owner willing but not compelled to sell ought to receive from one willing but not compelled to buy."  Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Bd. Of Assessors of Agawam, 428 Mass. 261, 262 (1998).  
The taxpayer has the burden of proving overvaluation of real property.  Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 428 Mass. at 261 (1998); Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974)(citation omitted). "A taxpayer may prove a right to an abatement by either introducing affirmative evidence of fair cash value, or by proving that the assessors erred in their method of valuation."  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 600 (1984)(citation omitted).  
"In an abatement appeal, the only relevant inquiry is whether the overall assessment of the subject property . . . is excessive."  Mass. General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921).  Moreover, "'the question is whether the assessment for the parcel of real estate, including both the land and the structures thereon, is excessive. The component parts, on which that single assessment is laid, are each open to inquiry and revision by the appellate tribunal in reaching the conclusion whether that single assessment is excessive.'" Finigan v. Assessors of Belmont, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2004-533, 542 (quoting Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921)).  A taxpayer does not conclusively establish a right to an abatement merely by showing that his building is overvalued.  "'The tax on a parcel of land and the building thereon is one tax . . . although for statistical purposes they may be valued separately.'" Hinds v. Assessors of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2006-771, 778 (quoting Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Insurance Co., 310 Mass. 300, 317 (1941)).  
In the present appeal, the appellant failed to analyze land and overall assessment data in support of his claim for abatement. Instead, the appellant relied upon comparative building assessment data alone to prove his right to abatement for the period at issue.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant's comparable assessment analysis was incomplete because it only measured part of, and not the entire, assessment.    
 "[S]ales of property usually furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller."  Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982).  Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable time of the assessment date contain credible data and information for determining the value of the property at issue.  McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929).  In addition, "[r]eliable comparable sales data will ordinarily trump comparable assessment information for purposes of finding a property's fair cash value."  Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 403.     
	In the present appeal, the Presiding Commissioner found that the comparable sales information provided by the assessors supported the subject property's assessment.  The appellant, conversely, submitted no comparable sales information to support his contention that the subject property was overvalued. Moreover, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant's submission of comparable assessment analyses was limited to only one component of the assessment and completely omitted analyses of attendant land and overall assessments.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant failed to address the fair cash value of the subject property as a whole.  The Presiding Commissioner, therefore, ruled that the appellant failed to carry his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued and also ruled that the assessors adequately supported their assessment on the subject property for the fiscal year at issue.  On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner decided this appeal for the appellee. 
 
						  APPELLATE TAX BOARD 
              
				  By: _________________________________
					  Thomas J. Mulhern, Commissioner
A true copy,
Attest: ______________________________
	         Clerk of the Board

ATB 2008-1088