Maloney, Jason v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Ipswich (September 26, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
JASON MALONEY 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF IPSWICH
Docket No. F310131 	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 Jason Maloney (“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 	a
request by the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Jason Maloney, pro se, for the appellant.
Ellen M. Hutchinson, Esq., for the appellee.
ATB 2025-301

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 2 Plum Sound Road in Ipswich (“subject property”).
For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject
property at $1,261,000 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of
$12.23 	per 	$1,000, 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$15,422.03. 	The 	appellant
timely paid the tax due without incurring interest. On January 25,
2023, the appellant timely filed an abatement application with the
appellee. 	On 	March 	27, 	2023, 	the 	appellee 	granted 	a 	partial
abatement, 	reducing 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	to
$1,185,900. 	Not 	satisfied 	with 	that 	reduction, 	on 	June 	14, 	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 	that
consists 	of 	167 	units 	located 	on 	the 	peninsula 	of 	Little 	Neck 	in
Ipswich. 	The 	units 	are 	of 	varying 	sizes 	and 	conditions, 	and 	most
were 	originally 	designed 	as 	fishing 	cabins 	and 	then 	seasonal
ATB 2025-302

cottages. 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-three-quarter story, wood-
frame, 	cottage-style 	dwelling 	that 	was 	constructed 	in 	1920, 	with
a partial, unfinished basement and contains a total finished area
of 	1,328 	square 	feet, 	which 	is 	comprised 	of 	six 	rooms, 	including
three bedrooms, as well as one full bathroom and one three-quarter
bathroom. The subject property also includes two side decks and a
roof deck. The subject property is equipped partially with electric
mini-split 	heaters 	and 	baseboard 	heating. 	The 	subject 	property’s
condition 	was 	rated 	as 	good 	on 	the 	original 	property 	record 	card
for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	but 	was 	downgraded 	to 	average 	upon
the 	appellant 	filing 	an 	abatement 	request 	with 	the 	appellee,
resulting in the partial abatement.
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
ATB 2025-303

are 	varying 	ranges 	of 	view 	obstruction. 	The 	subject 	property 	has
unobstructed views of the Ipswich River.
The 	appellant 	presented 	his 	case 	through 	his 	own 	testimony
and 	that 	of 	his 	wife, 	Kira 	Kay, 	as 	well 	as 	the 	submission 	of
documents. The appellant testified to his belief that the subject
property 	would 	be 	considered 	a 	tear-down 	structure 	in 	the 	open
market, 	as 	it 	is 	outdated 	in 	its 	furnishings 	and 	layout 	and
further, as it lacks full insulation and full heating, it is merely
seasonal 	and 	cannot 	be 	used 	year 	round. 	The 	appellant 	also 	cited
condominium 	restrictions 	that 	were 	in 	effect 	at 	the 	time 	of
assessment, 	stating 	that 	any 	expansion 	of 	the 	Little 	Neck
condominium 	properties 	would 	require 	approval 	of 	any 	abutters
whose water views would be affected by the expansion. The appellant
opined 	that 	these 	restrictions 	made 	expansion 	of 	the 	subject
property 	virtually 	impossible. 	The 	appellant 	further 	testified
that the subject property is on a sloping plot, with its basement
below street level, which results in basement flooding during heavy
rainstorms. 	Finally, 	the 	appellant 	testified 	that 	the 	subject
property was built precariously close to the street, and in fact,
has been hit a few times by passing cars and trucks, as evidenced
by photographs reflecting damage to the subject property.
The 	appellant 	completed 	a 	sales-comparison 	analysis 	using
sales 	of 	properties 	both 	from 	the 	Great 	Neck 	as 	well 	as 	Little
Neck 	communities. 	The 	appellant 	emphasized 	his 	opinion 	that 	the
ATB 2025-304

subject property was similar to some of the comparison properties
in that, in his opinion, the subject property would be considered
a tear down by a potential buyer. Other comparison properties, the
appellant 	argued, 	were 	far 	superior 	to 	the 	subject 	property 	yet
the subject property’s assessed value was not consistent with the
sales prices obtained for these properties on the open market. The
appellant also cited six properties on Great Neck for a comparable-
assessment 	analysis, 	arguing 	in 	similar 	fashion 	that 	the 	subject
property 	was 	inferior 	to 	the 	comparison 	properties 	and 	yet 	was
assessed at a rate inconsistent with these comparison properties.
Making no adjustments to his comparison properties’ sale prices or
assessed 	values, 	the 	appellant 	derived 	an 	opinion 	of 	fair 	cash
value for the subject property of $888,000 for the fiscal year at
issue.
Next, 	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 	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.
ATB 2025-305

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 	highest 	appeal 	category 	for
view, 	which 	in 	Mr. 	Tyburski’s 	opinion 	greatly 	enhanced 	its 	fair
cash value.
Mr. Tyburski performed a comparable-sales analysis using four
comparison 	properties 	located 	on 	Little 	Neck, 	two 	of 	which 	were
the same as used by the appellant in his comparable-sales analysis.
The sale properties ranged in size from 1,032 square feet to 1,703
square feet of living area, and they sold from July 2020 to August
2022. 	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); 	age 	and
condition of improvement; gross living area as well as the number
of rooms, bedrooms, and bathrooms; and extra features. These four
sales 	thus 	yielded 	adjusted 	sale 	values 	from 	$1,180,025 	to
$1,356,040. Mr. Tyburski’s opinion of the subject property’s fair
cash 	value 	based 	on 	these 	adjusted 	sale 	values 	was 	$1,230,000,
thus supporting the subject property’s assessed value as abated.
The 	Board 	found 	that 	the 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property
resulted primarily from its location on Little Neck, particularly
ATB 2025-306

considering the subject property’s location and water view, which
were 	amongst 	the 	best 	on 	Little 	Neck. 	The 	Board 	thus 	found 	that
the 	appellant’s 	comparison 	to 	properties 	on 	Great 	Neck 	had 	no
persuasive value. Instead, the Board reviewed the two Little Neck
properties relied upon by both parties for their comparable-sales
analysis, 	finding 	them 	to 	be 	appropriate 	for 	comparison 	to 	the
subject property.
The 	Board 	found 	persuasive 	the 	appellant’s 	argument 	that,
despite 	its 	location 	on 	Little 	Neck 	and 	its 	coveted 	views, 	the
dwelling’s 	proximity 	to 	the 	street 	was 	a 	significant 	negative
factor that impacted the subject property’s fair cash value.
Based on a review of the evidence presented by both parties,
the 	Board 	found 	that 	$1,070,000 	reflected 	the 	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 $1,417.46.
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
ATB 2025-307

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.
591, 	600 	(1984) 	(quoting 	Donlon 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Holliston, 	389
Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
In the instant appeal, the appellant presented a comparable-
sales 	analysis 	and 	a 	comparable-assessment 	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)). Assessments
of comparable realty can likewise be used as probative evidence of
fair cash value. G.L. c. 58A, § 12B (“[a]t any hearing relative to
the 	assessed 	fair 	cash 	valuation 	or 	classification 	of 	property,
ATB 2025-308

evidence 	as 	to 	fair 	cash 	valuation 	or 	classification 	of 	property
at 	which 	assessors 	have 	assessed 	other 	property 	of 	a 	comparable
nature or class shall be admissible”).
The Board found that the properties on Great Neck offered by
the 	appellant 	were 	not 	sufficiently 	comparable 	to 	the 	subject
property 	to 	have 	persuasive 	value 	and 	thus 	disregarded 	these
comparable-sale 	and 	comparable-assessment 	properties. 	The 	Board
instead 	relied 	upon 	the 	parties’ 	Little 	Neck 	comparable
properties.
The 	Board 	found 	persuasive 	the 	appellant’s 	testimony 	that,
despite 	the 	subject 	property’s 	coveted 	views, 	its 	dwelling’s
location 	precariously 	close 	to 	the 	street 	was 	a 	detriment 	to 	the
subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash 	value. 	Based 	on 	this 	testimony, 	as
well as its own view of the subject property and consideration of
the 	Little 	Neck 	comparable 	sales 	submitted 	by 	both 	parties, 	the
Board 	determined 	that 	an 	adjustment 	to 	the 	subject 	property’s
assessed value was warranted.
Considering the evidence before it, the Board thus determined
that the subject property’s fair cash value for the fiscal year at
issue was less than its assessed value as abated. 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
ATB 2025-309

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 $1,070,000.
Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellant
ordering abatement in the amount of $1,417.46.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ______________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-310