Cole Family Irrevocable Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Ipswich (September 26, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
COLE FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF IPSWICH
Docket No. F349107 	Promulgated:
September 26, 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 	Ipswich 	(“appellee” 	or
“assessors”) 	to 	abate 	a 	tax 	on 	real 	estate 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed
to the Cole Family Irrevocable Trust (“appellant”) for fiscal year
2023 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner Elliott heard this appeal. Chairman DeFrancisco
and 	Commissioners 	Good, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	him 	in 	the
decision for the appellant.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to
requests by the appellant and the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13
and 831 CMR 1.34.
Robert Cole, pro se, for the appellant.
Ellen M. Hutchinson, Esq., for the appellee.
ATB 2025-311

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, 	2022, 	the 	relevant 	valuation 	and 	assessment
date for the fiscal year at issue, the appellant was the owner of
a 	single-family 	condominium 	unit 	situated 	on 	a 	3,000-square-foot
parcel 	of 	land 	of 	which 	the 	appellant 	has 	exclusive 	use, 	located
at 39 Middle Road in Ipswich (“subject property”).
For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject
property 	at 	$822,600 	and 	assessed 	a 	tax 	thereon, 	at 	the 	rate 	of
$12.23 	per 	$1,000, 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$10,060.40. 	The 	appellant
timely paid the tax due without incurring interest. On January 3,
2023, the appellant timely filed an abatement application with the
appellee. 	On 	April 	3, 	2023, 	the 	appellee 	granted 	a 	partial
abatement, 	reducing 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	to
$754,600. Not satisfied with that reduction, on June 28, 2023, 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 part of a condominium complex on the
peninsula 	of 	Little 	Neck 	in 	Ipswich 	that 	consists 	of 	167 	units.
The 	units 	are 	of 	varying 	sizes 	and 	conditions, 	and 	most 	were
originally designed as fishing cabins and then seasonal cottages.
ATB 2025-312

The 	Little 	Neck 	condominium 	complex 	is 	served 	by 	a 	common 	tight-
tank 	waste 	treatment 	plant 	that 	requires 	pumping 	several 	times 	a
week during the off-season and usually twice a day during the peak
season, 	from 	May 	to 	August. 	Common 	amenities 	for 	the 	condominium
complex include a basketball court, soccer field, baseball field,
pickleball 	court, 	clubhouse 	with 	postal 	boxes, 	a 	children’s
playground, 	and 	a 	dock 	with 	moorings 	that 	are 	owned 	by 	the 	town
and leased to the condominium residents.
The subject property is a one-and-a-half story and basement,
wood-frame, 	seasonal 	cottage-style 	dwelling 	that 	was 	constructed
in 	1920 	and 	contains 	a 	total 	finished 	area 	of 	690 	square 	feet,
which 	is 	comprised 	of 	five 	rooms, 	including 	three 	bedrooms, 	as
well 	as 	one 	half 	bathroom. 	The 	shower 	is 	outdoors. 	There 	is 	a
fireplace 	in 	the 	living 	room. 	The 	subject 	property 	also 	includes
a 252-square-foot porch surrounding the dwelling at the front and
right 	side. 	The 	subject 	property 	is 	not 	equipped 	for 	heat 	or 	air
conditioning. 	The 	subject 	property’s 	condition 	is 	stated 	as
average.
The 	Little 	Neck 	peninsula 	extends 	from 	the 	Great 	Neck
neighborhood 	and 	is 	bound 	by 	the 	Ipswich 	River, 	Neck 	Creek, 	and
Ipswich Bay. Each house on Little Neck has a water view, but there
are varying degrees of view obstruction. The subject property does
not 	have 	water 	frontage. 	It 	has 	obstructed 	views 	of 	the 	Ipswich
River.
ATB 2025-313

The 	appellant 	presented 	its 	case 	through 	the 	testimony 	of
Christine Lally, a trustee of the appellant, and the submission of
documents. Ms. Lally testified that the subject property was built
by her great-grandfather for use as a seasonal cottage. The subject
property 	has 	remained 	as 	originally 	constructed, 	with 	no
insulation or heat, no drywall, exposed beams, and upstairs walls
at 	3/4 	height. 	Ms. 	Lally 	testified 	that 	she 	or 	members 	of 	her
family 	had 	been 	inside 	nearly 	every 	property 	on 	Little 	Neck 	and
that the subject property is unique in that it has had no updates
or changes since being built.
Ms. 	Lally 	completed 	a 	sales-comparison 	analysis 	using 	three
arms’-length 	sales 	of 	properties 	on 	Little 	Neck 	ranging 	in 	size
from 	1,032 	square 	feet 	to 	1,703 	square 	feet 	of 	living 	area. 	The
sales occurred from July 2020 to May 2021 for prices from $649,000
to 	$1,275,000 	with 	the 	most 	expensive 	sale 	as 	the 	outlier. 	Ms.
Lally 	stated 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	is 	very 	unlike 	her
comparison 	properties 	in 	that 	all 	three 	properties 	are 	finished,
with 	at 	least 	two 	properties 	having 	heating 	and 	air 	conditioning
and 	one 	property 	being 	a 	year-round 	residence. 	Ms. 	Lally 	further
opined that all three properties enjoy better water views than the
subject 	property; 	the 	appellant 	offered 	pictures 	taken 	from 	the
subject 	property’s 	interior 	that 	showed 	obstructed 	views 	of
Ipswich River. Making no adjustments to her comparison properties,
Ms. Lally derived from these sales an average sale price per square
ATB 2025-314

foot 	of 	$649. 	Applying 	this 	figure 	to 	the 	subject 	property’s 	690
square feet yielded an opinion of fair cash value of $447,810.
The 	appellee 	presented 	its 	case 	in 	chief 	and 	offered 	the
testimony 	and 	appraisal 	report 	of 	Mark 	Tyburski, 	whom 	the 	Board
qualified 	as 	an 	expert 	witness 	in 	the 	field 	of 	real 	estate
valuation. Mr. Tyburski testified that he had experience in valuing
waterfront 	and 	water-view 	properties, 	including 	properties 	on
Little 	Neck. 	Mr. 	Tyburski 	presented 	an 	appraisal 	report 	for 	the
subject 	property 	as 	well 	as 	an 	addendum. 	The 	appraisal 	of 	the
subject property was part of an appraisal that included eight other
properties 	in 	Little 	Neck. 	Mr. 	Tyburski 	testified 	that 	he 	made
exterior inspections of many comparison properties on Little Neck
and was provided with interior photographs taken by the appellee.
The 	addendum 	to 	Mr. 	Tyburski’s 	report 	included 	an 	extensive
analysis 	regarding 	the 	location 	of 	the 	Little 	Neck 	properties,
including 	the 	subject 	property, 	and 	included 	maps 	coded 	by 	color
with several categories for waterfront and water view with varying
types of views and indicating which bodies of water. Mr. Tyburski
ranked 	the 	subject 	property 	in 	the 	third 	highest 	appeal 	category
for view. He testified that in his opinion, Little Neck properties
on the east, southeast, and south side, like the subject property,
had 	the 	greatest 	appeal. 	Mr. 	Tyburski 	included 	additional 	maps
comparing grade and elevation and ranking the subject property in
the 	above 	average 	and 	average 	categories, 	respectively. 	Mr.
ATB 2025-315

Tyburski 	testified 	that 	all 	these 	factors 	affect 	a 	property’s
appeal and therefore, its ultimate value.
Mr. Tyburski performed a comparable-sales analysis using the
same 	three 	comparison 	properties 	used 	by 	the 	appellant 	in 	its
comparable-sales 	analysis. 	As 	previously 	mentioned, 	the 	sale
properties 	ranged 	in 	size 	from 	1,032 	square 	feet 	to 	1,704 	square
feet of living area, and they sold from July 2020 to May 2021 for
prices from $649,000 to $1,275,000. Mr. Tyburski applied multiple
adjustments 	for 	categories 	including: 	date 	of 	sale; 	water 	view
(which considered the level of obstruction as well as the direction
of the view); slope of property; age and condition of improvement;
gross 	living 	area 	as 	well 	as 	the 	number 	of 	rooms, 	bedrooms, 	and
bathrooms; 	and 	extra 	features. 	These 	three 	sales 	thus 	yielded
adjusted 	sale 	values 	from 	$735,100 	to 	$774,766. 	Mr. 	Tyburski’s
opinion 	of 	the 	subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash 	value 	based 	on 	these
adjusted 	sale 	values 	was 	$755,000, 	thus 	supporting 	the 	subject
property’s assessed value as abated.
According to Mr. Tyburski’s analysis, the sales yielded per-
square-foot 	sales 	values 	from 	$535.03 	to 	$748.68 	and 	per-square-
foot 	adjusted 	values 	from 	$431.65 	to 	$750.74. 	By 	comparison, 	the
subject property’s assessment as abated yielded a per-square-foot
value 	of 	$1,093.62. 	The 	Board 	agreed 	with 	Mr. 	Tyburski’s 	opinion
that 	the 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	in 	large 	measure 	resulted
from 	its 	location 	on 	Little 	Neck. 	However, 	based 	on 	its 	own 	view
ATB 2025-316

of 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	of 	Little 	Neck, 	the 	Board 	found
persuasive the appellant’s testimony that the subject property was
smaller, 	not 	updated 	since 	being 	built, 	and 	its 	obstructed 	views
were inferior to several of the comparable properties cited by the
parties. Even assuming, as will be explained in the Opinion, that
as 	a 	property’s 	size 	decreases 	its 	per-square-foot 	value
increases, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the 	assessment 	of 	the 	subject
property was not in line with these comparable properties.
The 	Board 	also 	noted 	that, 	cited 	within 	Mr. 	Tyburski’s
appraisal report but not utilized for the comparable-sale analysis
for 	the 	subject 	property, 	was 	the 	sale 	at 	5 	Gala 	Way 	on 	Little
Neck. This property is a 3,000-square-foot parcel improved with a
seasonal 	cottage 	built 	in 	1930 	having 	748 	square 	feet 	of 	living
space 	comprised 	of 	five 	rooms, 	including 	two 	bedrooms, 	and 	one
bathroom. Amenities of this property include a fireplace, a deck,
and 	an 	enclosed 	porch. 	The 	property 	has 	an 	obstructed 	secondary
ocean 	view, 	which 	the 	Board 	found 	to 	be 	similar 	to 	the 	subject
property. This property sold on October 31, 2022 for $725,000. The
Board found this property to be a better comparison for the subject
property 	than 	the 	properties 	used 	in 	Mr. 	Tyburski’s 	analysis,
particularly 	the 	property 	that 	sold 	for 	$1,275,000 	and 	required
adjustments amounting to 46.62 percent of its sale value.
Considering adjustments to that sale price, as well as other
evidence 	of 	record, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	$670,000 	reflected 	the
ATB 2025-317

fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at
issue.
Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellant
granting abatement in the amount of $1,034.66.
OPINION
Assessors are required to 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, 	§ 	38. 	Fair 	cash 	value 	is 	defined 	as 	the 	price
upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller will agree if both
are 	fully 	informed 	and 	under 	no 	compulsion. 	Boston 	Gas 	Co. 	v.
Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	334 	Mass. 	549, 	566 	(1956). 	An 	appellant 	has
the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	property 	has 	a 	lower 	fair 	cash 	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.
ATB 2025-318

591, 	600 	(1984) 	(quoting 	Donlon 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Holliston, 	389
Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
In the instant appeal, the appellant persuasively argued that
the 	subject 	property 	was 	smaller 	and 	less 	updated 	than 	other
properties 	on 	Little 	Neck, 	and 	that 	it 	had 	obstructed 	views 	that
were inferior to several of the comparable properties cited by the
parties. The appellant also presented a sales-comparison analysis.
Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within
a 	reasonable 	time 	of 	the 	assessment 	date 	generally 	contain
probative 	evidence 	for 	determining 	the 	value 	of 	the 	property 	at
issue. Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of
Fact and Reports 2007-321, 399-400 (citing McCabe v. Chelsea, 265
Mass. 494, 496 (1929), aff’d, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008)). Even
taking 	into 	account 	that 	smaller 	properties 	ordinarily 	have 	a
higher value per square foot than larger ones (see A PPRAISAL INSTITUTE,
THE A PPRAISAL OF R EAL E STATE (15th ed, 172)), the Board found persuasive
the 	appellant’s 	argument 	that 	the 	per-square-foot 	differential
between 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	and 	that 	of 	the
comparison properties’ sale prices was unjustifiable, considering
that the subject property’s views were inferior to several of the
comparable properties cited by the parties.
The Board further found that the subject property’s assessed
value 	was 	inconsistent 	with 	the 	sale 	of 	5 	Gala 	Way, 	a 	property
that 	was 	a 	very 	suitable 	comparison 	to 	the 	subject 	property 	and
ATB 2025-319

provided useful evidence of valuation. Considering adjustments to
that 	sale 	price, 	as 	well 	as 	other 	evidence 	of 	record, 	the 	Board
determined a fair cash value for the subject property of $670,000
for the fiscal year at issue.
In reaching its opinion of fair cash value in these appeals,
the 	Board 	was 	not 	required 	to 	believe 	the 	testimony 	of 	any
particular witness or to adopt any particular method of valuation.
Rather, the Board could accept those portions of the evidence that
the 	Board 	determined 	had 	more 	convincing 	weight. 	Foxboro 	Assocs.
v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 683 (1982); New Boston
Garden 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	383 	Mass. 	456, 	473 	(1981);
Assessors of Lynnfield v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 362 Mass.
696, 	702 	(1972). 	In 	evaluating 	the 	evidence 	before 	it, 	the 	Board
selected 	among 	the 	various 	elements 	of 	value 	and 	formed 	its 	own
independent judgment of fair cash value. General Electric Co., 393
Mass. 	at 	605; 	North 	American 	Philips 	Lighting 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors
of Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 300 (1984).
Having considered the record in its entirety, the Board found
and 	ruled 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the
fiscal year at issue was $670,000.
ATB 2025-320

Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellant
ordering abatement in the amount of $1,034.66.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ______________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-321