Perez, Harmony v. Board of Assessors of the City of Boston (September 29, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
HARMONY PEREZ 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE CITY OF BOSTON
Docket No. F348162 	Promulgated:
September 29, 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 	City 	of 	Boston 	(“appellee” 	or
“assessors”) 	to 	abate 	a 	tax 	on 	real 	estate 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed
to Harmony Perez (“appellant”) for fiscal year 2023 (“fiscal year
at issue”).
Commissioner Good heard this appeal. Chairman DeFrancisco and
Commissioners 	Elliott, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	her 	in 	the
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 1.34.
Harmony Perez, pro se, for the appellant.
Laura Caltenco, Esq., for the appellee.
ATB 2025-322

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 	4,500-square-foot 	parcel 	of 	land 	improved 	with 	a 	single-family
home 	located 	at 	11 	Loring 	Place 	in 	the 	Hyde 	Park 	neighborhood 	of
Boston (“subject property”).
For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject
property 	at 	$723,500. 	After 	application 	of 	the 	residential
exemption, the assessed value was reduced to $401,666. The appellee
assessed 	a 	tax 	thereon, 	at 	the 	rate 	of 	$10.74 	per 	$1,000, 	in 	the
amount 	of 	$4,346.29, 	inclusive 	of 	the 	Community 	Preservation 	Act
surcharge. The appellant timely paid the tax due without incurring
interest. 	On 	January 	30, 	2023, 	the 	appellant 	timely 	filed 	an
abatement 	application 	with 	the 	appellee. 	On 	April 	7, 	2023, 	the
appellee denied the appellant’s abatement request. On May 8, 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 	improved 	with 	a 	single-family, 	two-
story 	Colonial-style 	home 	containing 	approximately 	2,900 	square
feet 	of 	living 	area 	(“subject 	home”). 	The 	subject 	home 	was
ATB 2025-323

originally 	constructed 	in 	1889, 	with 	significant 	updating 	and
expansion 	in 	2016. 	The 	subject 	home 	has 	four 	bedrooms 	and 	three
full bathrooms and is equipped with central air conditioning. The
kitchen 	and 	bathrooms 	are 	rated 	as 	modern. 	The 	subject 	home’s
additional 	amenities 	include 	a 	garage 	and 	a 	shed. 	The 	appellant
also owns an abutting parcel of the same size, 4,500 square feet,
located 	directly 	behind 	the 	subject 	property. 	The 	subject 	home
straddles 	both 	parcels. 	No 	information 	regarding 	the 	back 	parcel
was entered into the record other than a handwritten note claiming
that it was assessed for $33,200 for the fiscal year at issue. The
assessment of the back parcel is not at issue in this appeal.
The 	appellant 	presented 	her 	case 	through 	her 	own 	testimony
and 	offering 	several 	documents, 	including 	a 	written 	statement
summarizing her position and sales and assessment information for
several 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties. 	Ms. 	Perez 	contended
that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	had 	dramatically
increased for the past few fiscal years while numerous neighboring
properties’ 	assessed 	values 	remained 	stable 	or 	increased 	only
slightly. Ms. Perez further testified that, a few years prior, she
and 	her 	husband 	had 	tried 	to 	sell 	the 	subject 	property, 	together
with 	the 	back 	parcel. 	She 	reported 	that 	they 	listed 	the 	combined
properties for $900,000 but did not receive a single offer, which,
in her opinion, demonstrated that the subject property’s assessed
value was greater than its fair cash value.
ATB 2025-324

The 	appellant 	next 	presented 	a 	list 	of 	sales 	of 	purportedly
comparable 	properties. 	These 	consisted 	of 	a 	variety 	of 	property
styles, 	many 	of 	which 	were 	not 	two-story 	Colonials, 	had 	far 	less
living area than the subject home, or were multi-family homes, and
almost all had fewer bedrooms and bathrooms than the subject home.
Her 	comparison 	property 	sales 	all 	occurred 	in 	2023 	and 	2024 	and
thus 	were, 	in 	large 	part 	measure, 	not 	contemporaneous 	with 	the
relevant 	assessment 	date 	of 	January 	1, 	2022. 	The 	sales 	of
properties containing over 1,500 square feet of living area ranged
from 	$350,000 	to 	$790,000. 	The 	appellant 	offered 	no 	evidence 	to
suggest that the comparison properties had been recently expanded
or extensively renovated like the subject property.
Based 	on 	her 	evidence, 	the 	appellant’s 	opinion 	of 	fair 	cash
value for the subject property was $670,000 for the fiscal year at
issue.
The 	appellee 	presented 	its 	case 	through 	the 	testimony 	of
Assessor 	Joe 	O’Malley 	and 	the 	submission 	of 	documents, 	including
the 	requisite 	jurisdictional 	documents, 	as 	well 	as 	aerial 	photos
of 	the 	subject 	property 	showing 	the 	addition, 	a 	sales-comparison
analysis, 	and 	property 	record 	cards 	and 	deeds 	for 	the 	assessors’
comparable-sales properties.
As 	an 	initial 	matter, 	the 	appellee 	pointed 	out 	that 	the
property 	record 	card 	for 	the 	subject 	property, 	upon 	which 	the
assessment 	was 	originally 	based, 	erroneously 	stated 	1,948 	square
ATB 2025-325

feet 	of 	living 	area. 	Assessor 	O’Malley 	testified 	that 	upon
conducting 	an 	inspection 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	in 	preparation
for this appeal, the assessors noted nearly 1,000 additional square
feet of living area beyond the figure noted on the property record
card.
The 	appellee 	presented 	a 	comparable-sales 	analysis 	using
three 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties 	improved 	with 	single-
family Colonial-style homes from the Hyde Park neighborhood. These
properties 	ranged 	in 	land 	size 	from 	3,450 	square 	feet 	to 	12,156
square 	feet 	and 	ranged 	in 	living 	area 	from 	1,680 	square 	feet 	to
2,070 square feet. The properties sold from April 2021 to December
2021 	for 	prices 	from 	$635,000 	to 	$775,000. 	After 	adjusting 	for
differences 	including 	but 	not 	limited 	to 	lot 	size, 	property
condition, 	living 	area, 	and 	room 	count, 	the 	assessors 	derived 	an
average indicated value of $735,300. The assessors thus maintained
that 	sales 	of 	comparable 	properties 	supported 	the 	subject
property’s assessment for the fiscal year at issue.
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	of 	record, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the
appellant 	provided 	insufficient 	evidence 	to 	meet 	her 	burden 	of
proving her entitlement to an abatement. The Board found that the
appellant’s sales-comparison analysis consisted of properties that
were 	sold 	too 	far 	removed 	in 	time 	from 	the 	relevant 	assessment
date of January 1, 2022, and the properties – improved with homes
of 	various 	styles 	and 	much 	smaller 	than 	the 	subject 	property 	-
ATB 2025-326

were 	not 	sufficiently 	similar 	to 	the 	subject 	property 	to 	provide
persuasive information on the subject property’s fair cash value.
Moreover, the appellant’s observation that the subject property’s
assessed 	value 	had 	increased 	more 	than 	other 	properties 	in 	her
vicinity 	was, 	without 	more, 	not 	a 	persuasive 	indicator 	that 	the
subject property was unfairly valued, considering that the subject
property 	had 	undergone 	a 	significant 	expansion 	and 	renovation
while 	there 	was 	no 	evidence 	that 	the 	comparison 	properties 	had
likewise 	been 	renovated 	or 	expanded. 	Finally, 	the 	appellant’s
testimony 	regarding 	her 	difficulty 	in 	attempting 	to 	sell 	the
subject 	property, 	together 	with 	the 	additional 	back 	lot, 	for
$900,000, 	several 	years 	prior 	to 	the 	relevant 	assessment 	date,
does 	not 	support 	the 	conclusion 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	was
overvalued at the far lower figure of $723,500 for the fiscal year
at issue.
By contrast, the Board found the appellee’s comparable-sales
analysis to be persuasive evidence of the subject property’s fair
cash 	value. 	The 	appellee 	chose 	three 	properties 	from 	the 	subject
property’s 	neighborhood 	that, 	like 	the 	subject 	property, 	were
improved 	with 	single-family, 	Colonial-style 	homes 	and 	that 	sold
close 	in 	time 	to 	the 	relevant 	assessment 	date. 	The 	appellee 	then
provided 	what 	the 	Board 	found 	to 	be 	appropriate 	adjustments 	to
these 	properties’ 	sale 	prices. 	After 	adjustment, 	the 	Board 	found
that 	the 	comparable 	properties’ 	average 	indicated 	value 	of
ATB 2025-327

$735,300 	supported 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	of
$723,500 for the fiscal year at issue.
Therefore, the Board found and ruled that the appellant failed
to 	meet 	her 	burden 	of 	proving 	a 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	subject
property 	that 	was 	lower 	than 	its 	assessed 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal
year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in
the instant appeal.
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). The appellant has
the burden of proving that her 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)). 	“[T]he 	board 	is 	entitled 	to 	‘presume
that 	the 	valuation 	made 	by 	the 	assessors 	[is] 	valid 	unless 	the
taxpayers 	. 	. 	. 	prov[e] 	the 	contrary.’” 	General 	Electric 	Co. 	v.
ATB 2025-328

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)). 	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)). Properties
are 	“comparable” 	to 	the 	subject 	property 	when 	they 	share
“fundamental similarities” with the subject property. See Lattuca
v. 	Robsham, 	442 	Mass. 	205, 	216 	(2004). 	The 	appellant 	bears 	the
burden of “establishing the comparability of . . . properties [used
for 	comparison] 	to 	the 	subject 	property.” 	Silvestri 	v. 	Assessors
of 	Lowell, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2012-926, 	935.
Accord 	New 	Boston 	Garden 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	383 	Mass.
456, 470 (1981).
In 	the 	present 	appeal, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the 	appellant’s
comparable-sales 	analysis 	relied 	on 	comparison 	properties 	that
ATB 2025-329

were 	too 	dissimilar 	in 	style 	and 	size, 	and 	there 	was 	no 	evidence
that they had been recently renovated and expanded like the subject
property. 	These 	dissimilar 	properties 	failed 	to 	furnish 	reliable
evidence 	of 	the 	subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash 	value. 	See 	Sears,
Robuck & Co. v. Assessors of Cambridge, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact
and 	Reports 	2019-112, 	136 	(disregarding 	taxpayer’s 	comparison
analysis that was “culled from properties that were too dissimilar
from and inferior to it”).
The 	Board 	likewise 	found 	that 	the 	reported 	$900,000 	listing
price 	for 	the 	subject 	property, 	together 	with 	the 	adjacent 	back
parcel, 	did 	not 	constitute 	persuasive 	evidence 	that 	the 	subject
property 	was 	overvalued, 	particularly 	given 	that 	the 	listing 	was
remote 	in 	time 	from 	the 	relevant 	assessment 	date 	and 	the
substantial difference between the listing price and the $723,500
assessment 	value. 	See 	Sands 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Bourne, 	Mass. 	ATB
Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-1098, 1103 (“[L]isting prices of
unsold 	properties 	. . . 	are 	not 	reliable 	indicators 	of 	the 	fair
cash 	value 	of 	a 	property.”). 	The 	Board 	further 	found 	that 	the
record 	contained 	probative 	evidence 	offered 	by 	the 	appellee
supporting 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal
year at issue.
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the
appellant 	failed 	to 	meet 	her 	burden 	of 	proving 	a 	fair 	cash 	value
ATB 2025-330

for the subject property that was less than its assessed value for
the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellee
upholding the subject property’s assessment for the fiscal year at
issue.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ______________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-331