Steiner, Thomas & Maureen F. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Egremont (March 31, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
THOMAS & MAUREEN F. STEINER 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF EGREMONT
Docket No. F351660 	Promulgated:
March 31, 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
Egremont (“appellee” or “assessors”) to abate a real estate tax assessed against Thomas
and Maureen F. Steiner (“appellants”) for fiscal year 2024 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Good 	heard 	this 	appeal. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and
Commissioners Metzer, Elliott, and Bernier joined her in the decision for the appellee.
These findings of fact and report are made at the request of the appellants
pursuant to 831 CMR 1.34.
Dennis G. Egan, Jr., Esq., for the appellants.
Harald M. Scheid, Regional Tax 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 valuation and assessment date for the fiscal year at issue,
the appellants were the owners of a 144.5-acre, improved parcel of real estate located at
ATB 2026-148

109 Baldwin Hill Road (“subject property”). The subject property is primarily valued under
G.L. c. 61A except for the one-acre prime residential site and its improvement. For the
fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject property at $5,653,700 and assessed
a tax thereon, at the rate of $6.16 per $1,000, in the total amount of $34,826.80. The
appellants timely paid the tax due. On January 25, 2024, the appellants timely filed an
abatement application with the appellee. On March 19, 2024, the appellee partially
granted the abatement application, reducing the subject property’s assessed value to
$4,892,400. 	Not 	satisfied 	with 	that 	reduction, 	on 	June 	18, 	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 improved with a single-family, Colonial-style home built in
2016 (“subject home”). The property record card on file with the appellee originally
reported the subject home as containing 9,232 square feet of above-grade living space,
but after an inspection conducted in conjunction with the abatement application, the
appellee reduced the living space to 9,000 square feet and also reduced the construction
grade from A+ to A. The subject home is comprised of twelve rooms, including six
bedrooms, as well as seven full bathrooms and two half bathrooms. The subject home
features high ceilings, a “luxury” grade kitchen, “modern” grade bathrooms, three
fireplaces, and 3,200 square feet of finished basement area.
The appellants’ main contention was that the subject property’s assessment had
increased at a greater percentage over the last few years as compared with comparably
sized homes in Egremont. The appellants submitted a comparable-assessment analysis
using five purportedly comparable properties, which compared the relative percentage
ATB 2026-149

increases in assessed value among these properties and the subject property for fiscal
years 2021 through the fiscal year at issue. According to their analysis, the subject
property experienced a 127.5-percent increase in assessed value during this period while
the other purportedly comparable properties experienced increases from 46.1 percent to
97.9 percent for an average of 74.7 percent in comparison. The appellants also continued
to dispute the accuracy of the square footage reported on the property record card. Mr.
Steiner testified that he served as the architect for the subject home (although he admitted
to not being a professional architect), and he believed that the above-grade living area of
the 	subject 	home 	was 	8,400 	square 	feet. 	Finally, 	the 	appellants 	disputed 	the
characterization of 3,200 square feet of the basement area as “finished basement,”
claiming that while the area was painted and had flooring, it lacked windows and was
used only for storage, so in their opinion, it was not living area.
A review of the underlying data of the five purportedly comparable properties in
Egremont1 revealed the subject property to be not only one of the largest in parcel size
as well as living area, but also the newest construction, with the next youngest being
nearly two decades older.
The appellee presented its case through the testimony and valuation report of
Regional Tax Assessor Harald Scheid. Assessor Scheid described the subject property
as located in one of Egremont’s premiere locations with sweeping views of the Berkshire
Mountains. Assessor Scheid further described the subject home as extraordinary, with
high ceilings and dramatic finishes. Assessor Scheid opined that the subject property’s
1 The appellants’ original chart listing these comparison properties did not provide any data for comparison, including
size, age, living area, and amenities. The presiding Board member kept the hearing record open to allow the appellants
to supplement their information. As agreed to by the parties, the appellee subsequently provided the property record
cards for the comparison properties.
ATB 2026-150

large parcel size and the grandeur of the subject home together create a showcase
property that is not comparable to other properties in Egremont. He did, however, create
a comparable-assessment analysis with information for nine other properties improved
with sizeable homes in Egremont. These properties ranged in lot size from 5.42 acres to
62.6 acres, as compared with the subject property’s 144.55 acres, and were improved
with homes ranging in living area from 6,092 square feet to 8,945 square feet, as
compared with the subject home’s 9,000 square feet. These large properties yielded
assessed 	values 	ranging 	from 	$2,385,700 to 	$4,312,800, 	which Assessor 	Scheid
believed supported the subject property’s assessed value as abated of $4,892,400.
Based on the evidence of record, the Board found that the appellants failed to
produce sufficient evidence to prove that the subject property was over assessed for the
fiscal year at issue. The appellants presented no market evidence to suggest that the
subject property was assessed for more than its fair cash value. As will be further
explained in the following Opinion, a complaint about relative percentage increases in
value of the subject property as compared with others is not informative of the subject
property’s fair cash value. Moreover, even if there were an error in the square footage of
the subject home’s assessment, the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that
such error actually led to an assessed value that exceeded the subject property’s fair
cash value.
Furthermore, as compared with the properties advanced by the appellants for
comparison, the subject property is one of the largest in living area and the largest in lot
size, and the subject home is the newest by nearly two decades. The appellants’ analysis
was lacking in properties that were more appropriately comparable to the subject
ATB 2026-151

property. The appellants additionally failed to consider and adjust for any differences
between their comparison properties and the subject property that could impact fair cash
value. 	Without 	making 	appropriate 	adjustments 	to 	the 	assessed 	values 	of 	their
comparison properties, the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that the
subject property was over assessed. Therefore, the Board found that the appellants failed
to meet their burden of proving their entitlement to an abatement for the fiscal year at
issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.
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)).
ATB 2026-152

The appellants’ case was based primarily on their claim that the assessed value of
the subject property increased by a higher percentage than those for other properties in
the community. However, the appellants did not demonstrate that any such deviation
resulted in an assessed value for the subject property that was greater than its fair cash
value for the fiscal year at issue. “The fact that appellant's assessment may have
increased at a percentage greater than the percentage increase in the assessments of
other houses is not determinative of the issue. ... The test is fair cash value or market
value.” Loomis v. Assessors of Boston, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2023-
18, 24-25 (quoting Burke et al. v. Assessors of Peru, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and
Reports 1983-1, 6).
Additionally, even if the appellants proved an error in the square footage of the
subject home’s assessment, this alone does not carry the appellants’ burden of proof.
The appellants failed to demonstrate any errors on the property record card that adversely
affected the appellee’s assessment of the subject property’s fair cash value. See, e.g.,
Allia v. Assessors of West Newbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2021-
369, 373.
The appellants presented evidence consisting of the assessed values of several
purportedly comparable properties in Egremont. The fair cash value of property may be
determined by evidence of assessed values of comparable properties. See G.L. c. 58A,
§ 12B; see also Chouinard v. Assessors of Natick, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and
Reports 1998-299, 307-308. However, a persuasive comparable-assessment analysis
will 	include 	properties 	sufficiently 	similar 	to 	the 	subject property. 	See 	Sterling 	v.
Assessors of Arlington, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2021-76, 93-4
ATB 2026-153

(appellant bears the burden of establishing that comparable assessment properties share
fundamental similarities with the subject property). As credibly noted by Assessor Scheid,
the 	properties 	advanced 	by 	the 	appellants 	for 	comparison 	were 	not 	sufficiently
comparable with the subject property to provide reliable indicators of its fair cash value.
Moreover, the appellants failed to account for any differences between their
purportedly comparable properties and the subject property. See Graham v. Assessors
of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 402 (“The
assessments in a comparable assessment analysis, like the sale prices in a comparable
sales analysis, must . . . be adjusted to account for differences with the subject.”), aff'd,
73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008) (Rule 1:28 Decision); Lupacchino v. Assessors of
Southborough, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-1253, 1269 ("[W]ithout
the appropriate adjustments, . . . the assessed values of [comparable] properties [do] not
provide reliable indicator[s] of the subject's fair cash value.").
Based on the foregoing, the Board found and ruled that the appellants failed to
meet their burden of proving a fair cash value for the subject property that was less than
its assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee upholding the subject
property’s assessment for the fiscal year at issue.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-154