Koch Family Nominee Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Hinsdale (May 18, 2007)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



KOCH FAMILY NOMINEE			v.	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
TRUST						THE TOWN OF HINSDALE

Docket No. F281576				Promulgated:
							May 18, 2007


	This is an appeal filed under the informal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 from the refusal of the appellee to abate taxes on real estate assessed under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2005.
	Commissioner Gorton ("Presiding Commissioner") heard the appeal and, pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.30, issued a single-member decision for the appellee.
	These findings of fact and report are promulgated pursuant to a request by the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Carolyn S. Koch, pro se, for the appellant.
	Michael J. Britton, Assistant Assessor, for the appellee.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

On the basis of exhibits and testimony offered at the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
	On January 1, 2004, the Koch Family Nominee Trust ("appellant") was the assessed owner of a parcel of real estate located at 133 Hemlock Lane in the Town of Hinsdale ("subject property").  For fiscal year 2005 ("fiscal year at issue"), the Board of Assessors of the Town of Hinsdale ("assessors") valued the subject property at $387,300, which included a land value of $238,000 and a building value of $149,300. 
On January 17, 2005, the appellant timely filed an application for abatement with the assessors. The assessors denied the application on March 23, 2005, and on June 14, 2005, the appellant seasonably filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found that the Board had jurisdiction over this appeal.
The subject property consists of a 0.21 acre lake-front parcel of real estate located on a peninsula in a section of Hinsdale known as Ashmere Heights. The property is improved with a single-family, "embankment-ranch" style home, which contains 2,070 square feet of living space.  The home was constructed in 1968 and renovated in 1999, and the interior's finished area is comprised of five rooms, including three bedrooms, a living room/kitchen and two full bathrooms.  The home has electrical heating but no central air conditioning.  
The appellant maintained that the subject property was substantially overvalued, and that its value on the relevant valuation date was $209,300. To support its assertion, the appellant focused primarily on lower values for properties located in Ashmere Heights on and adjoining a peninsula projecting into Lake Ashmere approximately parallel to the peninsula upon which the subject property is situated. In particular, the appellant noted that the land portion of these assessments was lower than the land portion of assessments on Hemlock Lane, including the subject property. The appellant offered property record cards of the subject property and other properties to demonstrate alleged discrepancies in assessed land values among the lake-front properties. The appellant also submitted pictures of the claimed comparable properties and the subject property.  The table below summarizes pertinent facts from the property record cards upon which the appellant relied: 

Property Address	Total assessment	Land assessment	Total land area (acres)	
85 White Birch Lane	$215,300	$ 52,100	0.33	
147 White Birch Lane	$228,500	$ 50,500	0.27	
152 White Birch Lane	$161,300	$ 50,500	0.27	
40 Lakeview Circle	$139,400	$ 54,400	0.41	

The appellant asserted that these values reflect land values for properties within Ashmere Heights that were significantly lower than those on Hemlock Lane. Moreover, the appellant claimed that the properties on Hemlock Lane had, without explanation, experienced a recent increase in land values, while the purportedly comparable properties experienced a decrease.
In defense of their assessment, the assessors asserted that the total assessment of the land and the home which comprise the subject property represented its fair cash value as of January 1, 2004. The assessors submitted evidence of purportedly comparable sales of properties including one located on the same street as the subject property. This property, 129 Hemlock Lane, sold for $332,500 on July 13, 2004, close in time to the relevant valuation date for this appeal. The property contained 0.27 acres of land improved with a one-story, single-family, 912 square-foot home, which was considerably smaller than the dwelling on the subject property. After considering all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found that with appropriate adjustment, this property was reasonably comparable to the subject property and supported the subject property's overall assessment. In contrast, the appellant did not submit any evidence of comparable sales.
Based on the evidence submitted, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant did not meet its burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue.  In particular, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant did not demonstrate that the properties cited as comparable to the subject property, which were located on streets other than Hemlock Lane, were comparable to the subject property. Moreover, the appellant's evidence, which consisted primarily of several property record cards and photographs, failed to draw a sufficiently detailed comparison between these properties and the subject property. The claimed disparity in overall value was derived primarily from varying land values, which did not integrate the values of the homes.  Neither did the appellant indicate similarities or differences between the subject property and the purportedly comparable properties such as the condition and topography of their parcels or the condition of their dwellings. Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found that the assessed land values of the purportedly comparable properties were not sufficient to determine the overall fair cash value of the subject property, and the appellant's reliance on these unadjusted values to prove that the subject property was over-assessed was not persuasive.     
Based on the evidence presented, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued and issued a single-member decision for the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 1A.



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 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 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)). "A taxpayer may show that its property is overvalued by demonstrating that the assessors relied on inaccurate information contained in their property record cards that improperly increased the value of the subject property."  Kelly v. Board of Assessors of Bedford, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-941, 946; see also Olivieri v. Board of Assessors of Egremont, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-950, 955; Mason v. Board of Assessors of Lakeville, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-558, 566.   
Regarding valuation of land, a taxpayer does not establish the right to an abatement merely by showing that land is overvalued.  "The tax on a parcel of land and the building thereon is one tax . . . although for statistical purposes they may be valued separately."  Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Insurance Co., 310 Mass. 300, 317 (1941).  In abatement proceedings, "the question is whether the assessment for the parcel of real estate, including both the land and the structures thereon, is excessive.  The component parts, on which that single assessment is laid, are each open to inquiry and revision by the appellate tribunal in reaching the conclusion whether that single assessment is excessive."  Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921); see also Buckley v. Assessors of Duxbury, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-110, 119; Jernegan v. Assessors of Duxbury, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-39, 49.  
The appellant introduced evidence primarily challenging the value of the land component of the assessment at issue, but failed to introduce sufficient credible evidence showing that the overall assessment of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value as of the relevant assessment date. Further, the appellant offered no evidence of comparable sales to demonstrate a claim of overvaluation for the subject property. Finally, the property record cards and photographs for properties on streets other than Hemlock Lane failed to draw a sufficient comparison between these properties and the subject property. This evidence did not establish relevant similarities or differences which would support the appellant's claim that the subject property, viewed as a whole, was overvalued. In sum, the appellant did not undermine the assessor's valuation through the introduction of sufficient affirmative evidence of value or by establishing error on the part of the assessors. The Presiding Commissioner thus found and ruled that the evidence offered by the appellant failed to sufficiently support the appellant's claim of overvaluation.
Based on the evidence presented, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant did not meet its burden of proving that the subject property's overall assessment was excessive.  On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.
	
						APPELLATE TAX BOARD


				By:	___________________________________
					Donald E. Gorton, Commissioner


A true copy,

Attest:	____________________________
		Assistant Clerk of the Board

 Within thirty days of service of the appeal, the Town of Hinsdale, in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 7A, elected to have the appeal heard under the formal procedure. 
  A copy of the property record card for the subject property, which was submitted into evidence by the appellant, indicates that the residence has only two bedrooms. The Presiding Commissioner, however, adopted the appellant's written representation that the residence contains three bedrooms, based on the appellant's familiarity with the home in its state as of the relevant valuation date. There are other discrepancies between the property record card and the appellant's description of the subject property relating to the size of the parcel and the date of construction of the residence. However, the Presiding Commissioner found that the discrepancies between the property record card and the appellant's description of the subject property did not tend to prove that the property was overvalued.
  Although the appellant's Petition claimed "disproportionate assessment" of the subject property, the appellant made no argument relating to this contention and presented scant evidence to support a disproportionate assessment claim at the hearing of this appeal. Thus, the sole issue decided by the Presiding Commissioner was whether the assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value as of January 1, 2004. This fact notwithstanding, the Presiding Commissioner found that based on the evidence presented, the appellant did not sustain its burden of proving disproportionate assessment of the subject property.   

8


ATB 2007-288