Guo, Ting v. Board of Assessors of the City of Boston (June 17, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
TING GUO 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE
Docket No. F348029
CITY OF BOSTON
Promulgated:
June 17, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	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 	Boston 	(“assessors” 	or
“appellee”) 	to 	abate 	a 	tax 	on 	certain 	real 	estate 	owned 	by 	and
assessed 	to 	Ting 	Guo 	(“appellant”) 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2023 	(“fiscal
year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Bernier 	(“Presiding 	Commissioner”) 	heard 	this
appeal 	and 	issued 	a 	single-member 	decision 	for 	the 	appellee 	in
accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.32.
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.
Ting Guo, pro se, for the appellant.
Laura Caltenco, Esq., for the appellee.
ATB 2025-181

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	the 	testimony 	and 	exhibits 	entered 	into 	evidence
at 	the 	hearing 	of 	this 	appeal, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	made
the following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On 	January 	1, 	2022, 	the 	relevant 	date 	of 	valuation 	for 	the
fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	the 	appellant 	was 	the 	assessed 	owner 	of 	a
condominium 	unit 	located 	at 	5 	Cypress 	Road, 	Unit 	504, 	in 	the
City 	of 	Boston 	(“subject 	property”). 	The 	appellant 	purchased 	the
subject property for $439,000 on November 15, 2021.
The 	assessors 	valued 	the 	subject 	property 	at 	$432,900 	for
the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	A 	tax 	was 	assessed 	thereon 	in 	the
amount 	of 	$10.74 	per 	$1,000, 	for 	a 	tax 	due 	of 	$4,649.35,
exclusive 	of 	the 	Community 	Preservation 	Act 	surcharge. 	The
appellant 	paid 	the 	tax 	due 	without 	incurring 	interest. 	The
appellant 	filed 	an 	abatement 	application 	on 	January 	6, 	2023,
which 	the 	assessors 	denied 	on 	April 	4, 	2023. 	The 	appellant 	filed
a 	petition 	with 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board 	(“Board”) 	on 	May 	2,
2023.
Based 	on 	these 	facts, 	the Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	and
ruled 	that 	the 	Board 	had 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and 	decide 	this
appeal.
ATB 2025-182

II. The appellant’s case
The 	appellant 	presented 	her 	own 	testimony 	and 	a 	written
analysis. 	The 	appellant 	claimed 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	in
average 	or 	below-average 	condition 	and 	that 	the 	assessed 	value
of 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	more 	than 	30 	percent 	higher 	than 	any
other 	unit 	in 	the 	Market 	Court 	Condominium 	building
(“building”).
The 	appellant 	maintained 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	had 	not
been 	renovated 	in 	the 	past 	fifteen 	years; 	the 	windows 	were
approximately 	thirty 	years 	old; 	the 	bathroom 	contained 	an 	old
bathtub 	and 	tiles; 	and 	the 	floor 	had 	signs 	of 	wearing. 	Her
written 	analysis 	featured 	a 	chart 	of 	all 	six 	units 	in 	the
building, 	including 	the 	subject 	property, 	with 	assessed 	values
from 	2020 	to 	2023. 	She 	alleged 	an 	unexplained 	“huge 	discrepancy
on 	assessed 	value 	between 	the 	[subject 	property] 	and 	the 	rest 	of
[the] comparable units since 2021.”
The 	appellant’s 	opinion 	of 	value 	for 	the 	subject 	property
was $335,400 for the fiscal year at issue.
III. The appellee’s case
The 	appellee 	presented 	jurisdictional 	documents 	and 	posed
several 	questions 	to 	the 	appellant, 	specifically 	concerning 	the
lack 	of 	any 	property 	record 	cards 	or 	evidence 	of 	the 	condition
of 	the 	other 	units 	in 	the 	building. 	The 	appellee 	otherwise
rested on the presumed validity of the assessed value.
ATB 2025-183

IV. The Presiding Commissioner’s findings
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	presented, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	establish 	that 	she
was entitled to an abatement.
The 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	the 	sale 	price 	of 	the
subject 	property 	in 	an 	arm’s-length 	transaction 	that 	was
proximate 	in 	time 	to 	the 	date 	of 	valuation, 	to 	be 	the 	most
relevant 	evidence 	in 	the 	record 	as 	to 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the
subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	The 	appellant
purchased 	the 	subject 	property 	less 	than 	two 	months 	prior 	to 	the
relevant 	date 	of 	valuation, 	at 	a 	purchase 	price 	higher 	than 	the
assessment 	amount 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	The 	record
contained 	no 	evidence 	of 	any 	diminution 	in 	value 	subsequent 	to
the purchase date.
The 	appellant’s 	chart 	itemizing 	other 	units 	in 	the 	building
and 	their 	assessed 	values 	for 	fiscal 	years 	2020 	to 	2023 	- 	with
no 	detail 	as 	to 	the 	conditions 	of 	the 	other 	units, 	no
adjustments, 	and 	no 	property 	record 	cards 	– 	lacked 	probative
worth.
Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	and 	ruled
that 	the 	appellant 	did 	not 	meet 	her 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the
fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	lower 	than 	the
assessed 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and 	issued 	a
decision for the appellee in this appeal.
ATB 2025-184

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 	will
agree 	if 	both 	are 	fully 	informed 	and 	under 	no 	compulsion. 	Boston
Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
A 	taxpayer 	has 	the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	property 	at
issue 	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 	taxpayer[]
sustain[s] 	the 	burden 	of 	proving 	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)).
ATB 2025-185

The 	Board 	considered 	the 	information 	submitted 	by 	the
appellant, 	but 	found 	that 	it 	was 	not 	useful 	for 	determining 	the
fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property. See North 	American
Philips 	Lighting 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Lynn, 	392 	Mass. 	296, 	297-
299 (1984).
Actual 	sales 	of 	the 	particular property 	at 	issue 	are 	“very
strong 	evidence 	of 	fair 	market 	value, 	for 	they 	represent 	what 	a
buyer 	has 	been 	willing 	to 	pay 	to 	a 	seller 	for 	[the] 	particular
property 	[under 	appeal].” New 	Boston 	Garden 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors
of 	Boston, 	383 	Mass. 	456, 	469 	(1981) 	(quoting First 	Nat'l
Stores, 	Inc. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Somerville, 	358 	Mass. 	554, 	560
(1971)). 	In 	the 	present 	appeal, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found
and 	ruled 	that 	the 	most 	probative 	evidence 	of 	the 	subject
property’s 	fair 	cash 	value 	was 	the 	purchase 	price 	that 	the
appellant 	paid 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	slightly 	less 	than 	two
months 	prior 	to 	the 	assessment 	date. See Kane 	v. 	Assessors 	of
Topsfield, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2000-409, 	411
(finding 	that 	the 	sale 	price 	that 	the 	appellants 	paid 	for 	the
subject 	property 	approximately 	three 	months 	before 	the 	relevant
assessment 	date 	was 	the best evidence 	of 	the 	subject 	property’s
fair 	cash 	value 	absent 	any 	evidence 	of 	compulsion). See
also Kernan 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Great 	Barrington, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings
of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2022-133, 	135 	(noting 	that 	the 	purchase
price 	exceeded 	the 	assessed value) 	and 	Rigopoulos 	v. 	Assessors
ATB 2025-186

of 	Leominster, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2005-675,
679 	(finding 	that 	“the 	appellants 	failed 	to 	prove 	that
the subject property diminished 	in 	value 	since 	the 	date 	of
purchase”).
Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	and 	ruled
that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	meet 	her 	burden 	of 	providing 	that
the 	subject 	property 	was 	overvalued 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue
and 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellee 	in 	this 	appeal 	for 	the
fiscal year at issue.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	_____ 	____________________ 	_
Nicholas D. Bernier, Commissioner
A true copy,
Attest: 	________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-187