Stephen E. Szymczak v. Board of Assessors of the City of Worcester (November 5, 2014)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



STEPHEN E. SZYMCZAK	      	v.		 BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
								 THE CITY OF WORCESTER

Docket No. F318450	      			 Promulgated:
		  						 November 5, 2014


	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 City of Worcester ("assessors" or "appellee") to abate taxes on certain real estate owned by and assessed to Stephen E. Szymczak ("appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2012 ("fiscal year at issue").
	Commissioner Rose ("Presiding Commissioner") heard the appeal under G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.20 and 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 1.32.

	Stephen E. Szymczak, pro se, for the appellant.
	William Ford, assessor, for the appellee.
	

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	Based on the testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
	On January 1, 2011, the appellant was the assessed owner of a parcel of real estate located at 24 Suffield Street in Worcester ("subject property"). During November of 2010, a fire destroyed the dwelling that had been situated on the subject property and rebuilding was undertaken thereafter. 
	For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $205,600.  The assessors arrived at their valuation by adding the value of the land to a value representing the percentage of the rebuilt dwelling they determined had been completed as of June 30, 2011. 
The appellant timely paid the tax assessed without incurring interest and timely filed an abatement application with the assessors, which was denied. The appellant thereafter seasonably filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board"). On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
	At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant argued that the subject property was overvalued because the dwelling had not been rebuilt to the extent that the assessors determined as of June 30, 2011. In support of his argument, the appellant submitted photographs of the property that he stated were taken during June of 2011. The Presiding Commissioner found, however, that the photographs did not undermine the assessors' determination or credibly establish a percentage of completion. The appellant presented no other credible evidence to support his assertion that the subject property was overvalued. 
  	Based on the foregoing, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue. Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued a single-member decision for the appellee in this appeal.

OPINION
	 The 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 in a free and open market will agree if both of them 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 the subject property had a lower value than that assessed. "'The burden of proof is upon the [appellant] to make out [his] right as a matter of law to 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)).
General Laws chapter 59, section 2A provides, in pertinent part, that "buildings and other things erected on or affixed to land during the period beginning on January second and ending on June thirtieth of the fiscal year preceding that to which the tax relates shall be deemed part of such real property as of January first." In other words, improvements to the subject property existing as of June 30, 2011, the last day of fiscal year 2011, which preceded the fiscal year at issue, are deemed to have been part of the subject property on the relevant assessment date for the fiscal year at issue. 
The assessors valued the subject property for the fiscal year at issue by adding the value of the land to a value representing the percentage of the dwelling they determined had been rebuilt as of June 30, 2011. The appellant's argument that the subject property was overvalued rested on his assertion that the dwelling had not been rebuilt to the extent determined by the assessors. In support of his assertion, the appellant submitted photographs of the subject property, which the Presiding Commissioner found did not undermine the assessors' determination or credibly establish a percentage of completion. Having concluded that the appellant's photographic evidence was lacking, and absent other credible evidence supporting the appellant's argument of overvaluation, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant failed to sustain his burden of proving that the subject property's fair cash value was lower that its assessed value for the fiscal year at issue. 
Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued a single-member decision for the appellee in this appeal.
  		
					   THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
			 
    
By:			          	____
				  	   James D. Rose, Commissioner 



A true copy,

Attest:					
    Clerk of the Board

ATB 2014-833