Iyer, Shruti, Krishnamoorthy, Aditya Dharapuram v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Stow (June 18, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
ADITYA DHARAPURAM KRISHNAMOORTHY, 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
SHRUTI IYER 	THE TOWN OF STOW
Docket No. F353002 	Promulgated:
June 18, 2025
This is an appeal originally filed with the Appellate Tax Board
(“Board”) 	by 	Aditya 	Dharapuram 	Krishnamoorthy 	and 	Shruti 	Iyer
(“appellants”) under the informal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A,
§ 	7A 	and 	G.L. 	c. 59, 	§§ 	64 	and 	65 	from 	the 	refusal 	of 	the 	Board of
Assessors 	of 	the 	Town 	of 	Stow 	(“appellee” 	or 	“assessors”) 	to 	abate
taxes 	on 	real 	estate 	assessed 	to 	Phu 	Linh 	and 	Shearin 	Andrew 	for
fiscal year 2024 (“fiscal year at issue”).1 In accordance with G.L.
c. 58A, § 7A, the assessors timely elected to have the appeal heard
under the formal procedure. See G.L. c. 58A, § 7.
Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	heard 	the 	appeal. 	Commissioners 	Good,
Elliott, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	him 	in 	the 	decision 	for 	the
appellants.
These findings of fact and report are made by the Board on its
own motion.
Shruti Iyer, pro se, for the appellants.
Kristen Fox, Assessor, for the appellee.
1 The appellants purchased the property that is the subject of this appeal
on 	June 	23, 	2023, 	from 	Phu 	Linh 	and 	Shearin 	Andrew. 	In 	accordance 	with
G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellants are treated as the assessed owners and
may prosecute an abatement action.
ATB 2025-188

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on testimony and documents admitted into evidence during
the hearing of this appeal, the Board made the following findings of
fact.
The 	property 	at 	issue 	is 	a 	2.96-acre 	parcel 	improved 	with 	a
colonial-style, 	single-family 	residence 	containing 	3 	bedrooms, 	3
bathrooms, 	and 	2,716 	square 	feet 	of 	living 	area 	located 	at 	276
Harvard 	Road 	in 	Stow 	(“subject 	property”). 	The 	appellants
purchased the subject property on June 23, 2023, for $898,300.
For 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	with 	a 	valuation 	and 	assessment
date 	of 	January 	1, 	2023, 	the 	assessors 	valued 	the 	subject 	property
at 	$928,000 	and 	assessed 	a 	tax 	thereon, 	at 	a 	rate 	of 	$16.97 	per
$1000, 	in 	the 	total 	amount 	of 	$16,169.69, 	inclusive 	of 	a 	Community
Preservation 	Act 	(“CPA”) 	surcharge. 	The 	appellants 	timely 	paid 	the
tax due without incurring interest.
On 	January 	30, 	2024, 	the 	appellants 	timely 	filed 	an 	abatement
application, 	which 	the 	assessors 	denied 	on 	April 	9, 	2024, 	without
conferring 	with 	the 	appellants 	or 	providing 	an 	explanation 	for 	the
denial. 	On 	July 	8, 	2024, 	the 	appellants 	timely 	filed 	their 	appeal
with 	the 	Board. 	On 	the 	basis 	of 	these 	facts, 	the 	Board 	found 	and
ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
At the outset of the hearing, the presiding Board member asked
the testifying assessor (“assessor”) whether she had considered, or
would 	consider, 	settling 	the 	appeal, 	given 	that: 	(1) 	the 	assessor
had acknowledged that home values in Stow were appreciating between
ATB 2025-189

the January 1, 2023, valuation date and the June 23, 2023, purchase
date; (2) the assessed value of $928,000 exceeded the $898,300 price
paid 	by 	the 	appellants; 	and 	(3) 	factoring 	in 	an 	appreciation 	rate
between 	the 	valuation 	and 	purchase 	dates 	resulted 	in 	an 	indicated
value as of the assessment date that exceeded the property’s assessed
value.
In response, the assessor did not directly address the subject
property’s 	fair 	cash 	value 	on 	the 	assessment 	date, 	instead 	stating
that: 	(1) 	the 	Massachusetts 	Department 	of 	Revenue 	(“DOR”) 	only
requires, 	for 	mass 	appraisal 	and 	certification 	purposes, 	that
assessments 	be 	within 	90 	to 	110 	percent 	of 	fair 	cash 	value 	and 	the
this 	assessment 	was 	within 	that 	range; 	(2) 	the 	sale 	of 	the 	subject
property 	occurred 	in 	2023 	and 	the 	assessors 	consider 	calendar 	year
2022 	sales 	to 	be 	the 	relevant 	period 	for 	setting 	fiscal 	year 	2024
values;2 and (3) the assessor had no authorization from the assessors
to resolve the appeal through settlement. In light of the assessor’s
refusal 	to 	consider 	resolving 	the 	appeal, 	the 	evidentiary 	hearing
continued.
Ms. 	Iyer 	credibly 	testified 	on 	behalf 	of 	the 	appellants. 	She
stated 	that 	she 	had 	made 	several 	attempts 	to 	discuss 	the 	subject
assessment 	with 	the 	assessors 	throughout 	the 	abatement 	and 	appeal
process, all of which the assessors rejected without an explanation.
2 Later, during cross examination conducted by Ms. Iyer, the assessor acknowledged
that the DOR allows consideration of sales within six months after the assessment
date.
ATB 2025-190

She also offered to pursue mediation with the assessors in accordance
with 	the 	Board’s 	Rules 	under 	831 	CMR 	1.18, 	but 	the 	offer 	was
rejected, again without explanation.
Ms. 	Iyer 	went 	on 	to 	describe 	her 	purchase 	of 	the 	subject
property. She and her husband had been looking and saving for their
first 	home 	for 	approximately 	four 	years 	when 	they 	made 	an 	offer 	on
the 	subject 	property. 	She 	credibly 	testified, 	with 	support 	from 	an
excerpt 	from 	Multiple 	Listing 	Service 	entries, 	that 	the 	subject
property 	was 	originally 	listed 	for 	sale 	in 	April 	of 	2023 	for
$924,900. 	There 	were 	multiple 	offers, 	and 	the 	subject 	property 	was
under 	agreement 	as 	of 	May 	2, 	2023, 	but 	the 	buyer 	backed 	out. 	The
subject property went back on the market in May of 2023.
Ms. 	Iyer 	was 	advised 	by 	the 	seller’s 	broker 	that 	there 	were
multiple offers for the subject property and that the appellants had
to 	make 	their 	best 	offer 	if 	they 	wanted 	to 	secure 	the 	subject
property. 	Having 	considered 	this 	advice, 	they 	offered 	$898,300,
which the sellers accepted.
On 	the 	basis 	of 	the 	foregoing, 	and 	in 	the 	absence 	of 	any
evidence 	to 	the 	contrary, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the
appellants 	purchased 	the 	subject 	property 	in 	an 	arm’s-length
transaction on June 23, 2023.
After 	testifying 	concerning 	the 	purchase 	of 	the 	subject
property, 	Ms. 	Iyer 	reviewed 	seventeen 	sales 	of 	single-family 	homes
in 	Stow. 	These 	sales 	were 	provided 	by 	the 	town 	in 	response 	to 	the
ATB 2025-191

appellants’ interrogatories asking for 2022 sales that the assessors
considered comparable. Upon investigation, the appellants determined
that these sales represented all sales of Colonial-style properties
in Stow during 2022, regardless of age, condition, location, number
of rooms, and number of bathrooms.
Of 	the 	seventeen 	properties, 	the 	appellants 	determined 	that
only 	two 	properties 	approximated 	the 	features 	of 	the 	subject
property: 52 Whitman Street and 41 Gates Lane. The property located
at 	52 	Whitman 	Street 	sold 	for 	$790,000 	on 	April 	21, 	2022, 	and 	was
assessed for $792,000 for the fiscal year at issue. The property at
41 	Gates 	Lane 	sold 	for 	$791,000 	on 	June 	14, 	2022, 	and 	was 	assessed
for 	$719,100 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	After 	adjusting 	for
differences between these two comparables and the subject property,
Ms. 	Iyer 	arrived 	at 	an 	indicated 	value 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	of
slightly 	more 	than 	$856,000, 	which 	was 	the 	appellants’ 	opinion 	of
value for the fiscal year at issue.
The 	assessor 	declined 	to 	offer 	affirmative 	evidence 	of 	the
subject property’s fair cash value on the relevant assessment date,
offering as a defense of the disputed assessment only the contentions
relating 	to 	mass 	appraisal 	and 	DOR 	requirements 	referenced 	above.
The 	assessor 	did 	however 	acknowledge, 	as 	previously 	noted, 	that
single-family 	home 	values 	in 	Stowe 	were 	increasing 	between 	the
valuation 	date 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and 	the 	appellants’
purchase 	date 	and 	that 	the 	sale 	price 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	was
ATB 2025-192

less than its assessed value. Further, the assessor did not dispute
that 	the 	appellants’ 	purchase 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	qualified 	as
an arm’s-length transaction
On the basis of all the evidence of record, the Board found and
ruled 	that 	the 	appellants 	met 	their 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the
assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value
as 	of 	the 	January 	1, 	2023, 	valuation 	date 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at
issue. 	In 	the 	absence 	of 	evidence 	to 	the 	contrary, 	the 	Board 	found
that 	the 	purchase 	price 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	in 	an 	arm’s-length
sale nearly six months after the assessment date in an appreciating
market 	for 	less 	than 	the 	assessed 	value 	definitively 	established
that 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	overvalued 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at
issue. 	The 	appellants’ 	credible 	valuation 	analysis 	also 	supported
their 	opinion 	of 	value 	of 	slightly 	more 	than 	$856,000. 	Thus, 	the
Board 	determined 	that 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property
for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	was 	$860,000. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Board
issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellants 	and 	granted 	an 	abatement 	of
$1,188.57, inclusive of the CPA surcharge.
[This space intentionally left blank.]
ATB 2025-193

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 	appellants 	have 	the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	subject
property has a lower value than that assessed. “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)).
Here, 	the 	appellants 	presented 	the 	timely 	sale 	of 	the 	subject
property 	in 	an 	arm’s-length 	transaction 	approximately 	six 	months
after 	the 	relevant 	assessment 	date 	in 	an 	appreciating 	market. 	The
actual sale of the subject property itself is “very strong evidence
of 	fair 	market 	value, 	for 	[it] 	represent[s] 	what 	a 	buyer 	has 	been
ATB 2025-194

willing 	to 	pay 	to 	a 	seller 	for 	[the 	property 	under 	appeal].” 	New
Boston 	Garden 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	383 	Mass. 	456, 	469
(1981)(quoting First Nat’l Stores, Inc. v. Assessors of Somerville,
358 	Mass. 	554, 	560 	(1971)). 	See, 	e.g., 	Freniere 	v. 	Assessors 	of
Wellesley, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2012-124, 129-30.
Lacking 	evidence 	to 	the 	contrary, 	the 	price 	paid 	for 	the 	subject
property nearly six months after the relevant assessment date in an
appreciating market compels the conclusion that the fair cash value
of 	the 	subject 	property 	is 	not 	only 	less 	than 	its 	assessed 	value,
but less than its purchase price.
Despite 	this 	uncontroverted 	evidence 	of 	value, 	the 	assessor
maintained that the assessment should be upheld based on assertions
that the assessment was within the margin of error as prescribed by
DOR 	and 	was 	appropriately 	based 	on 	sales 	occurring 	before 	the
relevant 	valuation 	date. 	The 	Board 	found 	that 	these 	assertions
evidenced a fundamental misunderstanding of the abatement and appeal
process and addresses this misunderstanding as follows.
I. 	THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Assessors are required to assess property at its fair cash value
as of the January first preceding the relevant fiscal year. See G.L.
c. 59, §§ 11 and 38. Prior to sending out tax bills, assessors must
submit data to the DOR for either the DOR’s five-year certification
or the DOR’s interim year approval that the assessors are assessing
at full and fair cash value. This data includes sale prices paid in
ATB 2025-195

the 	municipality 	for 	the 	various 	categories 	of 	property 	and
assessment-to-sales 	ratios 	establishing 	that 	the 	proposed
assessments are between 90 and 110 percent of the sales prices. See
Information 	Guideline 	Release 	(“IGR”), 	N O. 	23-8, 	April 	2023 	(for
fiscal year 2024) pg. 5. See also G.L. c. 40, § 56.
As 	previously 	noted, 	the 	assessors 	maintained 	that 	they
followed 	appropriate 	procedures 	in 	valuing 	the 	subject 	property 	by
not considering the sale of the subject property because it did not
occur 	prior 	to 	the 	assessment 	date, 	and 	because 	the 	assessed 	value
derived by the assessors fell within the requisite 90 to 110 percent
range.
As 	to 	the 	subject 	property’s 	sale 	date, 	the 	assessor 	conceded
under 	cross 	examination 	that 	the 	DOR 	allows 	consideration 	of 	sales
within 	six 	months 	after 	the 	assessment 	date, 	substantially
undermining her prior assertion that post-assessment date sales are
not relevant. More importantly, with respect to the DOR’s acceptable
range 	of 	values, 	the 	assessors 	conflated 	the 	process 	of 	setting
values 	and 	having 	them 	approved 	by 	the 	DOR 	with 	the 	appeal 	process
in which the Board is charged with determining whether a property’s
assessed 	value 	exceeded 	its 	fair 	cash 	value 	on 	the 	relevant
assessment date.
II. 	ABATEMENT AND APPEAL PROCESS
Once 	assessors 	have 	the 	approval 	of 	DOR 	and 	they 	send 	out 	tax
bills 	to 	the 	owners 	of 	property 	in 	a 	municipality, 	taxpayers 	may
ATB 2025-196

file an abatement application if they believe, inter alia, that their
property has been assessed “in excess of its fair cash value.” G.L.
c. 	59, 	§ 	59. 	If 	the 	assessors 	agree, 	they 	“shall 	make 	a 	reasonable
abatement.” 	If 	the 	assessors 	do 	not 	agree 	and 	decline 	to 	issue 	an
abatement, a “person aggrieved by the refusal . . . to abate a tax”
may appeal to the Board and if “on hearing the board finds that the
property 	has 	been 	overrated 	. 	. 	. 	it 	shall 	make 	a 	reasonable
abatement.” G.L. c. 59, §§ 64, 65.
In determining whether a taxpayer is aggrieved by the assessors’
refusal 	to 	grant 	an 	abatement, 	the 	Board’s 	function 	is 	not 	to
determine 	whether 	assessors 	have 	complied 	with 	various 	elements 	of
the 	DOR’s 	certification 	and 	approval 	process; 	rather, 	the 	Board
conducts 	a 	“de 	novo 	determination 	of 	value” 	to 	determine 	whether 	a
taxpayer’s 	property 	has 	been 	assessed 	at 	more 	than 	its 	fair 	cash
value.
[O]rdinarily 	an 	‘appeal’ 	to 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board
results in a trial of all the issues raised by the petition
and the answer. The board hears testimony from all parties
and 	forms 	an 	independent 	judgment 	of 	value 	based 	on 	all
the 	evidence 	received. 	In 	reaching 	its 	conclusion, 	the
board may select any method of valuation that is reasonable
and that is supported by the record.
In re MCI Consolidated Central Valuation Appeals: Boston and Newton,
Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2008-255, 	345 	(quoting
Assessors of Sandwich v. Commissioner of Revenue, 393 Mass. 580, 586
(1984)). 	Accordingly, 	the 	question 	before 	the 	Board 	is 	whether 	the
assessed value of the property at issue exceeds its fair cash value
ATB 2025-197

as of the assessment date, taking into consideration all the evidence
of record.
In 	reaching 	its 	de 	novo 	determination 	of 	value, 	the 	Board 	may
consider “evidence from after the assessment date.” Boston Gas Co.,
458 	Mass. 	at 	740 	(2011); 	see 	also 	Sidor 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Taunton,
Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2025-129, 	137. 	In 	reaching
its 	decisions, 	the 	Board 	has 	often 	relied 	on 	evidence 	of 	post-
assessment 	sales 	offered 	by 	both 	boards 	of 	assessors 	(see, 	e.g.,
Sidor, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	at 	133-34; 	Kwan 	v.
Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2024-
52, 55, 57) and taxpayers (see, e.g. Labudovic & Vucetic v. Assessors
of 	Belmont, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2022-9, 	11-12,
14).
This is sensible given that timely sales preceding and following
the 	assessment 	date 	are 	both 	probative 	of 	value 	when 	appropriately
adjusted. See, e.g., New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston,
383 	Mass. 	at 	470; 	Wardwell 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Wellesley, 	Mass. 	ATB
Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2021-160, 	166. 	Moreover, 	case 	law 	is
replete 	with 	instances 	of 	the 	Board 	relying 	on 	the 	purchase 	price,
properly 	adjusted, 	of 	the 	property 	at 	issue 	as 	the 	best 	indication
of the property’s fair cash value. See, e.g., Kernan v. Assessors of
Great 	Barrington, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2002-133,
137-38 and cases cited.
ATB 2025-198

As discussed above, the assessors argued that the sale price of
the 	subject 	property 	should 	not 	be 	considered 	during 	the 	abatement
and appeals process because the sale took place after the assessment
date 	and, 	in 	any 	event, 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	was
within 	the 	valuation 	range 	prescribed 	by 	the 	DOR. 	These 	arguments
are misplaced at a Board hearing. The first argument seeks to exclude
evidence 	relevant 	to 	determine 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the 	subject
property 	on 	the 	assessment 	date, 	which 	was 	not 	only 	probative, 	but
the best evidence of value in the instant appeal. The second argument
would impose artificial constraints on the Board’s determination of
fair cash value, a result that would preclude granting an abatement
where, 	as 	here, 	the 	evidence 	unquestionably 	established
overvaluation.
In highlighting the distinction between the assessors’ role in
setting 	values 	for 	an 	entire 	municipality 	with 	the 	Board’s 	role 	in
determining 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	individual 	properties 	under
appeal, 	the 	Board 	does 	not 	intend 	to 	minimize 	or 	criticize 	the
assessors’ actions in the initial assessment of the subject property.
Rather, 	the 	point 	is 	that 	considering 	all 	relevant 	evidence 	of 	the
subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash 	value, 	a 	task 	that 	is 	impractical 	at
the assessment stage, is the province of the Board and the assessors
should 	have 	considered 	this 	evidence 	at 	the 	abatement 	and 	appeal
stages.
ATB 2025-199

In 	this 	appeal, 	the 	appellants 	provided 	relevant 	and
uncontroverted 	evidence, 	in 	the 	form 	of 	the 	purchase 	price 	of 	the
subject 	property, 	which 	was 	supported 	by 	their 	comparable-sales
analysis, 	to 	establish 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value
exceeded 	its 	fair 	cash 	value 	on 	the 	assessment 	date. 	Having
considered 	this 	evidence, 	the 	Board 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellants 	met
their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for
the fiscal year at issue and found that its fair cash value for the
fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	was 	$860,000. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a
decision 	for 	the 	appellants 	and 	granted 	an 	abatement 	of 	$1,188.57,
inclusive of the CPA surcharge.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By:
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest:
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-200