Sidor, Raymond F., Trustee v. Board of Assessors of the City of Taunton (May 23, 2025))

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
RAYMOND F. SIDOR, TRUSTEE 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
CORINTHIAN R.T. 	THE CITY OF TAUNTON
Docket No. F310224 	Promulgated:
May 23, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	heard 	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 	City 	of 	Taunton 	(“appellee” 	or
“assessors”) 	to 	abate 	taxes 	on 	land 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed 	to
Raymond F. Sidor, Trustee Corinthian R.T. (“appellant”) for fiscal
year 2023 (“fiscal year at issue”).1
Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	(“Presiding 	Commissioner”) 	heard 	this
appeal and, in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.32,
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 1.34.
Raymond Sidor, pro se, for the appellant.
Richard Conti, assessor, for the appellee.
The 	appellant 	originally 	filed 	this 	appeal 	under 	the 	informal 	procedure.
However, the appellant subsequently filed a Request to Change Procedure to the
formal procedure, which Chairman DeFrancisco granted.
ATB 2025-129
1

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 date for the fiscal
year at issue, the appellant was the owner of a 6,098-square-foot
parcel 	of 	land 	located 	at 	53 	R 	Washington 	Street 	(a/k/a 	53 	1/2
Washington 	Street) 	in 	the 	City 	of 	Taunton 	improved 	with 	a 	two-
story, two-family home, built in 1900 with an effective year built
of 	1992, 	and 	containing 	3,903 	square 	feet 	of 	living 	area, 	with 	a
total 	of 	twelve 	rooms, 	including 	four 	bedrooms, 	as 	well 	as 	two
full 	bathrooms 	(“subject 	property” 	and 	“subject 	home,”
respectively. The subject home is graded as above average.
For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject
property 	at 	$442,900 	and 	assessed 	a 	tax 	thereon, 	at 	the 	rate 	of
$12.05 per $1,000, in the amount of $5,336.95. The appellant timely
paid the tax due without incurring interest. On January 31, 2023,
prior to the due date of the second installment of the semi-annual
tax bill, the appellant timely filed an abatement application with
the 	assessors, 	which 	the 	assessors 	denied 	on 	April 	25, 	2023. 	On
July 19, 2023, the appellant seasonably filed a petition with the
Board. Based on these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and
ruled 	that 	the 	Board 	had 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and 	decide 	the
instant appeal.
ATB 2025-130

The 	appellant 	presented 	his 	case 	through 	his 	testimony 	and
documentary evidence. The appellant was concerned with conditions
in the subject property’s vicinity that, in his opinion, negatively
impacted the subject property’s fair cash value.
The 	appellant 	first 	contended 	that 	there 	were 	environmental
issues from groundwater contamination originating from a property
adjacent to the subject property, and further, that the high water
table and flooding from nearby Mill River contributed to the impact
of residual contamination at the subject property. The appellant’s
submissions 	included 	a 	surface 	investigation 	report, 	newspaper
articles, 	and 	a 	letter 	from 	a 	Taunton 	Planning 	Board 	meeting 	to
document the contamination. These items dated from as far back as
1992 	up 	to 	2016; 	none 	of 	the 	evidence 	related 	to 	conditions
existing during the fiscal year at issue.
The appellant further claimed that alleged illicit activities
at another adjacent property as well as noxious odors from nearby
businesses 	have 	negatively 	impacted 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the
subject 	property. 	To 	support 	this 	claim, 	the 	appellant 	submitted
numerous newspaper articles and photographs documenting dumpsters,
foot traffic, and nefarious characters from the neighborhood over
the span of a few decades up to the fiscal year at issue.
The appellant also maintained that the subject home suffered
from 	items 	of 	deferred 	maintenance. 	The 	appellant 	submitted
ATB 2025-131

photographic evidence depicting rotting of the deck, gutters, and
soffit at the subject property.
The appellant next submitted a comparable-assessment analysis
using 	four 	nearby 	properties. 	Three 	of 	the 	comparison 	properties
had 	sold 	in 	arms’-length 	transactions 	for 	prices 	ranging 	from
$520,00 	to 	$570,000, 	and 	the 	comparison 	properties 	were 	assessed
from 	$428,100 	to 	$482,400 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	The
appellant argued that the subject property was inferior to each of
these 	properties 	because 	of 	its 	location 	as 	well 	as 	its 	items 	of
deferred maintenance.
On cross examination, the appellant conceded that the subject
home featured some high-end finishes to its exterior, like wrought-
iron 	rails 	above 	the 	entryway 	door 	and 	front 	porch 	and 	carved
embellishments 	above 	the 	windows. 	The 	appellant 	also 	conceded 	to
recent 	investment 	in 	the 	subject 	property’s 	neighborhood,
specifically 	a 	newly 	constructed 	three-unit 	condominium 	building
across the street that recently sold for about $500,000.
The appellee presented its case in chief through the testimony
of 	assessor 	Richard 	Conti 	as 	well 	as 	documentary 	evidence,
including 	the 	requisite 	jurisdictional 	documents. 	The 	property
record 	card 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	noted 	an 	Environmental
Protection 	Act 	(“EPA”) 	issue 	with 	the 	abutter 	and 	further 	noted
reductions 	in 	value 	to 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	external
obsolescence as well as functional obsolescence.
ATB 2025-132

The 	appellee 	next 	offered 	a 	comparable-sales 	analysis 	using
five purportedly comparable two-family properties from the subject
property’s neighborhood that had sold during the period from July
2022 	to 	December 	2022; 	two 	of 	these 	properties 	were 	used 	by 	the
appellant in his comparable-assessment analysis. After adjustments
for 	land 	condition, 	living 	area, 	extra 	features, 	and 	additional
outdoor structures, the purportedly comparable properties yielded
adjusted 	fair 	cash 	values 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	ranging 	from
$546,400 	to 	$679,800, 	far 	greater 	than 	the 	subject 	property’s
assessed value of $442,900.
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	presented, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
found 	that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	sustain 	his 	burden 	of 	proving
a fair cash value for the subject property that was less than its
assessed 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	Most 	of 	the
appellant’s evidence was not contemporaneous with the fiscal year
at 	issue, 	dating 	back 	as 	far 	as 	the 	1990s. 	The 	appellant 	further
failed 	to 	show 	that 	the 	assessors 	did 	not 	appropriately 	consider
environmental 	and 	other 	external 	conditions, 	as 	well 	as 	deferred
maintenance issues with the subject property itself, when setting
the 	subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash 	value, 	particularly 	when 	its
property 	record 	card 	included 	references 	to 	EPA 	issues 	and
obsolescence 	discounts. 	Additionally, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
found 	that 	the 	subject 	home 	had 	some 	high-end 	finishes 	that
enhanced the subject property’s fair cash value.
ATB 2025-133

The 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	additionally 	found 	that 	the
appellant 	failed 	to 	provide 	evidence 	of 	any 	actual 	diminution 	in
value to the subject property directly resulting from the condition
of 	the 	neighboring 	properties. 	In 	fact, 	the 	evidence 	of 	recent
investment 	in 	the 	area, 	across 	the 	street 	from 	the 	subject
property, 	undermined 	the 	appellant’s 	contention 	that 	the 	subject
property’s location decreased its fair cash value.
Finally, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	that 	the
appellant’s comparable-assessment analysis without adjustments was
unpersuasive for challenging the subject property’s assessment and
that 	the 	appellee’s 	comparable-sales 	analysis 	was 	a 	persuasive
indicator of the subject property’s fair cash value.
Therefore, for the reasons stated more fully in the following
Opinion, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the
appellant 	did 	not 	meet 	his 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	fair 	cash
value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	lower 	than 	its 	assessed 	value
for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued a decision for
the appellee.
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
ATB 2025-134

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).
The 	appellant 	has 	the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	their 	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)). “[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. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Lynn, 	393 	Mass. 	591, 	598 	(1984) 	(quoting
Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
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., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon
v. 	Assessors 	of 	Holliston, 	389 	Mass. 	848, 	855 	(1983)). 	In 	this
appeal, 	the 	appellant 	attempted 	to 	provide 	evidence 	of
environmental 	contamination 	and 	other 	unsavory 	conditions 	within
the 	subject 	property’s 	vicinity, 	as 	well 	as 	defects 	with 	the
subject property itself, to undermine the assessors’ valuation of
the 	subject 	property. 	However, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found
ATB 2025-135

that much of the appellant’s evidence related to time periods far
removed 	from 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	Further, 	the 	Presiding
Commissioner 	found 	that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	prove 	that 	the
subject property’s assessed value did not already account for these
issues, 	particularly 	where 	the 	property 	record 	card 	noted 	an 	EPA
issue with the abutting property and further enumerated reductions
in 	value 	for 	external 	and 	functional 	obsolescence. 	Moreover, 	the
Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	included
high-end finishes that enhanced its fair cash value.
The lack of any quantifiable impact on the subject property’s
fair 	cash 	value 	resulting 	from 	its 	surroundings 	was 	a 	critical
shortcoming 	to 	the 	appellant’s 	evidence. 	“Not 	every 	nuisance
resulting from living near neighbors must result in a reduction in
fair 	market 	value.” 	Nelson 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Wilmington, 	Mass. 	ATB
Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2013-320, 	342. 	Unlike 	Pistorio 	v.
Assessors of Boston, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2010-
206, 	215-16, 	where 	the 	taxpayer 	credibly 	established 	that 	“the
increase in activity at [a neighboring property] led to increased
vacancies 	and 	decreased 	rental 	values 	at 	the 	subject 	property,”
the 	appellant 	here 	provided 	no 	evidence 	by 	which 	the 	Presiding
Commissioner 	could 	directly 	attribute 	the 	condition 	of 	the
neighboring 	properties 	to 	a 	decrease 	in 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the
subject 	property. 	In 	fact, 	recent 	investment 	in 	the 	subject
property’s 	neighborhood, 	specifically 	the 	sale 	of 	the 	newly
ATB 2025-136

developed 	condominium 	building 	across 	the 	street, 	undermined 	the
appellant’s 	contention 	that 	claimed 	defects 	adversely 	affected
nearby properties.
The 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	also 	found 	that 	the 	appellee’s
comparable-sales 	analysis 	was 	a 	persuasive 	indicator 	of 	the
subject property’s fair cash value. 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 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the 	property 	at 	issue. 	Graham
v. 	Assessors 	of 	West 	Tisbury, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and
Reports 	2007-321, 	400, 	aff'd, 	73 	Mass. 	App. 	Ct. 	1107 	(2008). 	The
appellee 	here 	provided 	properties 	from 	the 	subject 	property’s
neighborhood 	that 	were 	sufficiently 	similar 	to 	the 	subject
property 	and 	then 	applied 	appropriate 	adjustments 	to 	those
properties 	to 	account 	for 	differences 	with 	the 	subject 	property.
The subject property’s assessed value was significantly less than
the 	average 	adjusted 	sale 	prices 	of 	those 	properties, 	supporting
the conclusion that the subject property’s assessed value for the
fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	did 	not 	exceed 	its 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the
fiscal year at issue.
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	of 	record, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	meet 	his 	burden 	of
proving 	a 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	that 	was 	less
than its assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.
ATB 2025-137

Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner 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 2025-138