David J. Valchuis v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Concord (September 26, 2008)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



DAVID J. VALCHUIS              v. 		BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
			THE TOWN OF CONCORD

	
Docket No. F288104		Promulgated:
		September 26, 2008 
	

	This is an appeal under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 ad 65, from the refusal of the appellee to abate taxes on certain real estate located in the Town of Concord owned by and assessed to David J. Valchuis ("appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2007.
	Chairman Hammond heard the appeal.  Commissioners Scharaffa and Egan joined him in the decision for the appellee.
	These findings of fact and report are promulgated pursuant to a request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	David J. Valchuis, pro se, for the appellant.
	Lynn Masson, 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 Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2006, the appellant was the assessed owner of a 1.05-acre parcel of real estate located at 1756 Monument Street, Concord ("the subject property"). The parcel is improved with a single-family, colonial-style dwelling.  Originally built in 1969, the home was most recently renovated in 2006.  The dwelling has thirteen rooms, including four bedrooms, and also three full bathrooms and two half bathrooms. The Concord/Carlisle town line runs through the dwelling at an angle, with approximately twenty-five percent of the dwelling situated in Carlisle.   
For fiscal year 2007, the Board of Assessors of Concord ("assessors") valued the subject property at $1,922,800 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $10.56 per thousand, in the amount of $20,304.77, which the appellant timely paid without incurring interest.  On January 22, 2007, the appellant timely filed an application for abatement with the assessors, which was denied on March 22, 2006.  On April 17, 2007, the appellant seasonably filed his appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction over this appeal.
The appellant argued that the subject property was overvalued because the assessors erroneously included land and part of the dwelling, which is situated in Carlisle.  In support of his argument, the appellant offered into evidence a plot plan dated September 12, 2005, which showed the Concord/Carlisle town line running through the subject dwelling at an angle.  According to the plot plan, the subject property is approximately one-half of a larger two-acre parcel of real estate located in both Concord and Carlisle.  The appellant also offered into evidence a breakdown of the subject dwelling's living area which totaled 7,464 square feet.  He testified, however, that roughly twenty-five percent of the dwelling's living area is located in Carlisle.  Based on this evidence, the appellant argued that the land value of the subject property's assessment should be reduced by forty-nine percent and the building value should be reduced by twenty-five percent.  The appellant offered no further evidence of overvaluation.
In defense of their assessment, the assessors offered into evidence the testimony of Lynn Masson, the town appraiser.  Ms. Masson testified that for fiscal year 2007, the assessors valued only the 1.05 acres of land located in Concord and that they also "applied a 20% reduction to reflect the section [of the subject dwelling] that was located in Carlisle."  Therefore, the assessors maintained, no further reduction was warranted. 
Ms. Masson also presented a sales-comparison analysis, which cited three sales of properties that she deemed comparable to the subject property and which occurred during the period June 2005 to September 2005.  Comparable sale number one, located at 1643 Monument Street, sold on September 2, 2005, for $2,479,000.  The property is a 1.56-acre parcel of real estate improved with a 5,436-square-foot dwelling.  Comparable sale number two, located at 204 Nashatuc Road, sold for $2,330,000 on August 18, 2005.  This property is a 1.00-acre parcel improved with a conventional-style dwelling with 3,008 square feet of living area.  Lastly, comparable sale number three, located at 179 Nashatuc Road, sold on June 30, 2005 for $2,300,000.  This property is a 1.11-acre parcel improved with a ranch-style dwelling with 3,242 square feet of living area.
Noting that all three sales occurred within six months of the relevant assessment date, Ms. Masson determined that no adjustment for time was necessary.  She did, however, make adjustments for the variance in living area, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and attached versus detached garage.  Also, comparable sale number three was adjusted for its condition rating of "very good" compared to the subject property's rating of "excellent."  Ms. Mason arrived at adjusted sale prices for her comparable properties that ranged from $2,437,250 to $2,478,550.  The assessors maintained that these adjusted sale prices supported the subject property's fiscal year 2007 assessment.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the subject property had a fair cash value less than that assessed for fiscal year 2007.  The Board found that although the Concord/Carlisle town line runs across the appellant's land, dividing in half a larger parcel of real estate owned by the appellant, the assessors valued only that portion located in Concord, approximately 1.05 acres.  The Board further found that although the town line runs directly through the subject dwelling at an angle, the assessors properly valued only that portion of the dwelling located in Concord.  Moreover, the Board found that the assessors' sales-comparison analysis supported the subject property's fiscal year 2007 assessment.
On this basis, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.

OPINION
"All property, real and personal, situated within the commonwealth . . . shall be subject to taxation."  G.L. c. 59, § 2.  The assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value determined as of the first day of January of each year.  G.L. c. 59, §§ 2A and 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer in a free and open market will agree if both are fully informed and under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
	The taxpayer has 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)).  "[T]he [B]oard 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 this 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 the present appeal, the Board ruled that the appellant offered little or insufficient evidence of overvaluation.  
In the present appeal, the appellant argued that the assessors failed to account for the fact that the Concord/Carlisle town line runs through the subject property.  Specifically, the appellant argued that the subject property's land value be reduced by forty-nine percent and that the building value be reduced by twenty-five percent to account for that portion of the subject property which is located in Carlisle.  The Board, however, found that the appellant failed to show that the lot and dwelling size used by the assessors in their fiscal year 2007 assessment were inaccurate.  According to appellant's plot plan, the subject parcel is approximately half of a larger two-acre parcel which is divided by the Concord/Carlisle town line; Concord valued only the 1.05-acre part which is located in Concord.  Further, pursuant to the appellant's submission, the subject dwelling has a total living area of 7,464 square feet of which approximately twenty-five percent is located in Carlisle; the assessors valued only 5,627 square feet.  The Board therefore found that the assessors valued only that portion of the land and dwelling which is located in Concord and that no further reduction was warranted.  
The Board, further found that the appellant failed to offer comparable sales or any other affirmative evidence indicating that the subject property's fair market value as of January 1, 2006, was less than the fiscal year 2007 assessment.  Moreover, the Board found that the assessors' sales-comparison analysis supported the assessed value.
Based on the foregoing, the Board found that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2007.  Accordingly, the Board decided this appeal for the appellee. 	

					              THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD


					 By:			_____________  ______   	
			    		    Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman





A true copy,


Attest:				______	
           Clerk of the Board

ATB 2008-1201