Smarz, George v. Board of Assessors of the City of West Springfield (September 14, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
GEORGE SMARZ 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE
CITY OF WEST SPRINGFIELD
Docket Nos. F350262 & F350867 	Promulgated:
September 14, 2026
These are appeals 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 West
Springfield (“appellee” or “assessors”) to abate a real estate tax assessed against George
Smarz (“appellant”) under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38 for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 (“fiscal
years at issue”).1
Commissioner 	Metzer 	heard 	these 	appeals. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and
Commissioners Good, Elliott, and Bernier joined her in the decisions for the appellant.
These findings of fact and report are made at the request of the appellant pursuant
to 831 CMR 1.34.
John E. Pearson, Esq., for the appellant.
Jenna Wellhoff, Esq., for the appellee.
1 The appellant originally filed the appeal for fiscal year 2023 under the informal procedure. Within thirty days of service
of the Statement Under Informal Procedure, the assessors elected to transfer the proceedings to the formal docket.
See G.L. c. 58A, § 7A.
ATB 2026-333

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of these
appeals, the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
Jurisdictional information and subject property description
On both January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2023, the relevant valuation and
assessment dates for the fiscal years at issue, the appellant was the assessed owner of
a retail property with an address of 777 Riverdale Street in West Springfield (“subject
property”). Relevant jurisdictional facts are summarized in the following tables.
Fiscal
year
Assessed
value
Tax
amount 2
Taxes
timely
paid?
Abatement
application
filed
Date of
denial
Petition
filed at the
Board
2023 	$706,300 	$21,784.06 	Y 	01/31/2023 	04/20/2023 	07/17/2023
2024 	$737,700 	$22,173.49 	Y 	01/31/2024 	03/27/2024 	05/06/2024
Based on these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction over these
appeals.
The subject property is located on Riverdale Street/Route 5. Its neighborhood is a
primary commercial corridor, an area that includes a variety of shopping centers, large
retailers, hotels, restaurants, movie complexes, automotive dealerships, and some
offices. Up the street to the north is Riverdale Shops, a 273,000-square-foot shopping
center anchored by Kohl’s and Super Stop & Shop that includes several national
restaurant properties and national retail tenants. To the south on Route 5 is Raymour &
Flanagan Furniture Retail with an adjacent restaurant and supermarket. Both complexes
2 Tax amounts are inclusive of Community Preservation Act (“CPA”) surcharge.
ATB 2026-334

provide commercial attraction to the neighborhood, which has experienced commercial
vacancy of 5 percent or less for several years prior to the fiscal years at issue.
The subject property consists of an improved 32,613-square-foot lot that includes
30,000 square feet of prime lot plus 2,613 square feet of additional land. The subject
property has frontage along Riverdale Street/Route 5. The parcel is irregular in shape as
its eastern and northern property lines are delineated by Baker Brook. The rear of the
parcel slopes steeply downward towards Baker Brook. The property record cards include
the notation “wetland buffers.”
The subject property is improved with a one-story, multi-tenanted retail building,
rebuilt in 2009, and comprised of three units – a right-side unit, a middle unit, and a left-
side unit (“retail building”). The property record cards indicate a total leasable area in the
retail building of 4,812 square feet plus additional garage space of 576 square feet. There
is an asphalt paved parking lot for fourteen vehicles in front of the retail building. The
subject property is serviced by electricity, gas, and town water, but it has an on-site private
septic system instead of public sewer service.
The appellant’s evidence
The appellant testified on his own behalf and also offered the testimony of
Benedetto R. DiMichele, a Massachusetts-licensed real estate appraiser.
Mr. Smarz testified that he has owned the subject property since September 2009.
He purchased it for $395,000 and had the prior building torn down and replaced by the
retail building. Mr. Smarz’s business, ProSigns, occupied the right-side unit for both fiscal
years at issue. Mr. Smarz testified that 40 percent of the subject property is wetlands
located in a floodplain and thus unusable. Mr. Smarz further testified to other issues that
ATB 2026-335

he believes impact the value of the subject property, including its limited parking and its
connection to a septic system. Upon cross-examination, Mr. Smarz stated that he had
provided income and expense data to the appellee but not copies of the leases for the
subject property’s tenants.
Next, the appellant presented his valuation witness, Mr. DiMichele, whom the
Board qualified as an expert in commercial real estate valuation. Mr. DiMichele prepared
an appraisal report for the subject property for each of the fiscal years at issue. He testified
that he personally inspected and measured the retail building in the performance of his
appraisals.
As noted above, the retail building is comprised of three units. The left-side unit
contains approximately 1,100 square feet and consists of a lobby/waiting area; two all-
purpose rooms; a storage room; and a half bathroom. The middle unit contains
approximately 1,500 square feet and consists of a reception area with a service counter;
an open service area with a conveyer system; two small changing rooms; and a
lavatory/storage room with vinyl tile flooring, toilet, and sink. The right-side unit contains
approximately 2,763 square feet and consists of a reception area; office space; a lavatory
with vinyl tile flooring, toilet and sink; a small private office; and a 576-square-foot
garage/shop 	space. 	The 	entire 	retail 	building 	is 	equipped 	with 	heating 	and 	air
conditioning. The office spaces throughout the retail building are improved with luxury
vinyl tile (“LVT”) flooring or carpet flooring, drywall, drop-tile ceilings, and recessed light-
emitting diode (“LED”) lighting. The garage/shop space has 16-foot ceilings and one 8-
foot by 12-foot glass overhead door through which vehicles can enter the space. The
ATB 2026-336

garage/shop space has poured concrete floors, drywall, exposed insulation ceiling, and
strip LED lighting.
At all relevant times for both fiscal years at issue, the middle unit was occupied by
Omega Cleaners pursuant to an annual lease at $24 per square foot, net of utilities. As
of the relevant assessment date for fiscal year 2023, the left-side unit was vacant. Starting
on August 1, 2022, the unit was occupied by Body Sculpting by Nelly pursuant to an
annual lease at $21.81 per square foot, net of utilities. At all relevant times for both fiscal
years at issue, the right-side unit was occupied by the owner for his sign-making business,
ProSigns.
Mr. DiMichele first opined that the highest and best use of the subject property for
both fiscal years at issue was as it was currently improved for its use as a multi-tenanted
retail-use property.
Mr. DiMichele next considered the three approaches to valuation – the cost
approach, the sales-comparison approach, and the income-capitalization approach. Mr.
DiMichele rejected the cost approach, because he opined that buyers are looking for well-
maintained 	properties 	that 	can 	be 	purchased 	at 	prices 	that 	are 	typically 	below
reproduction 	or 	replacement 	cost. 	Therefore, 	Mr. 	DiMichele 	did 	not 	develop 	that
approach. However, the property record cards indicate that the cost approach was used
by the assessors in developing the value of the subject property for both fiscal years at
issue.
Mr. DiMichele primarily relied upon the income-capitalization approach, opining
that the typical buyer of a multi-tenanted retail property places considerable emphasis on
ATB 2026-337

estimated cash flow, and that if the subject property is managed correctly, it should
produce a relatively stable income stream over a lengthy investor holding period.
To determine the potential gross income for the subject property, Mr. DiMichele
researched purportedly comparable retail leases and garage/shop leases, culling the data
from retail properties in West Springfield and the surrounding communities. Using the
same comparable leases for both fiscal years at issue, Mr. DiMichele’s comparable retail
leases ranged from $13.20 to $27.78 per square foot with an average of approximately
$19 per square foot, and his comparable garage/shop leases ranged from $7.00 to $16.49
per square foot with an average of approximately $10 per square foot.
Based on this information, Mr. DiMichele concluded that the Omega Cleaners’
lease – at $24-per-square-foot - reflected market rate for the 1,500-square-foot middle
unit for both fiscal years at issue. Mr. DiMichele also used $24 per square foot to value
the 1,100-square-foot vacant space for fiscal year 2023. However, Body Sculpting by
Nelly had moved into the vacant space prior to the valuation date for fiscal year 2024, at
an actual rent of $21.81 per square foot, which Mr. DiMichele found to reflect a market
rate for that space. Mr. DiMichele thus used $21.81 per square foot to value the left-side
unit for the fiscal year 2024 calculation.
Mr. DiMichele measured the owner’s unit to be 2,763 square feet. For this space,
used as a sign shop, Mr. DiMichele opined that, since it had poured concrete floors,
exposed steel and metal panel ceilings, and since vehicles could directly enter the space
through the garage door, the entire 2,763-square-foot space should be categorized as
shop/garage space, which typically commands a much lower lease rate than retail space.
Mr. DiMichele acknowledged that the unit included some office space, but he explained
ATB 2026-338

that he did not separately value the office space, because the primary use for the entire
unit was for sign making and should be treated as garage/warehouse space. Mr.
DiMichele concluded that the owner’s space would command a lease rate in the $12 to
$14-per-square-foot range, with the most likely rate being $13 per square foot. Mr.
DiMichele thus ascribed that income to the entire 2,763 square foot owner-occupied area
for both fiscal years at issue.
Mr. DiMichele’s rental figures produced potential gross income of $98,319 for fiscal
year 2023 and $95,919 for fiscal year 2024.
For vacancy and credit loss, Mr. DiMichele considered the rental history of the
subject property, which for the last ten years operated between fully occupied to 52-
percent vacant, with an average of 19.5 percent vacant. Mr. DiMichele acknowledged that
there was little retail vacancy in the subject property’s vicinity. However, he noted that the
limited parking at the subject property restricts tenancies to low-traffic tenants. Weighing
these considerations, Mr. DiMichele selected a 10 percent vacancy and credit loss rate
for both fiscal years at issue.
For expenses, Mr. DiMichele reported that ownership had submitted actual
expenses for calendar years 2020 and 2021 and, for fiscal year 2024, actual expenses
for calendar year 2022 as well. He compared this data to the expenses for other
purportedly comparable properties. Mr. DiMichele used the reported expenses that he
deemed reasonable while others he estimated by comparing expenses for comparable
properties. Mr. DiMichele’s expenses for each fiscal year are detailed below:
ATB 2026-339

Expense category 	Fiscal year
2023
Fiscal year
2024
Flood insurance 	$ 4,500 	$ 5,000
Property insurance 	$ 2,800 	$ 2,900
Common area maintenance 	$ 7,700 	$ 7,700
Management (@ 6% of effective gross income) 	$ 5,309 	$ 5,295
Administrative (@ 3% of effective gross income) 	$ 2,655 	$ 2,647
Reserves for replacement (@ $0.25 psf) 	$ 1,340 	$ 1,340
Total 	$24,304 	$24,882
After deducting his expenses, Mr. DiMichele calculated net operating incomes of
$64,183 for fiscal year 2023 and of $61,445 for fiscal year 2024.
For his capitalization rates, Mr. DiMichele reviewed sales of retail properties in the
greater Springfield area. He relied on twelve sales for fiscal year 2023 and eleven sales
for fiscal year 2024, with nine sales applying to both fiscal years. For fiscal year 2023, the
capitalization rates ranged from 7.06 percent to 10.99 percent with an average of 8.51
percent. For fiscal year 2024, the capitalization rates ranged from 7.42 percent to 10.99
percent 	with 	an 	average 	of 	8.59 	percent. 	Mr. 	DiMichele 	also 	consulted 	the
RealtyRates.com Market Survey, considering rates for the fourth quarter of 2021 for fiscal
year 2023 and for the fourth quarter of 2022 for fiscal year 2024. 	Mr. DiMichele further
opined that the subject property, being in a good retail location, presented an average
investment risk to an investor, but that it also had limitations affecting its value including
restricted parking, no national tenants, location in a flood plain, and being connected to
septic rather than sewer. Based on his data and risk considerations, Mr. DiMichele
selected a base capitalization rate of 9 percent for both fiscal years at issue, to which he
added the full tax factor for each fiscal year at issue to reflect the landlord’s responsibility
for paying real estate taxes on the entire subject property.
ATB 2026-340

Mr. DiMichele’s calculations produced opinions of value of $532,197 for fiscal year
2023, which he rounded to $530,000, and $512,896 for fiscal year 2024, which he
rounded to $510,000.
While he did not primarily rely on it, Mr. DiMichele also conducted a sales-
comparison analysis for each fiscal year at issue, opining that market data reveals that
properties like the subject property are often purchased based on a value indicated by
comparable market sales. For both fiscal years at issue, Mr. DiMichele used four
purportedly comparable sales, three from Springfield and one from West Springfield, with
three sales being the same for both years. After applying adjustments for date of sale,
location, land area, parking, year built, building condition and utility, and building area, Mr.
DiMichele arrived at adjusted sale prices per square foot as follows: ranging from $77.77
per square foot to $115.22 per square foot with an average of $94.38 per square foot for
fiscal year 2023; and from $80 per square foot to $115.22 per square foot with an average
of $95.17 per square foot for fiscal year 2024. Mr. DiMichele opined that the subject
property warranted a per-square-foot value toward the average and midpoint of the range
indicated by the adjusted sale prices and thus assigned a value of $95 per square feet
for both fiscal years at issue, which produced a rounded value of $510,000 for both fiscal
years at issue. Mr. DiMichele found that this value supported the values obtained through
his income-capitalization analysis.
Mr. DiMichele thus concluded that $530,000 represented the market value of the
subject property for fiscal year 2023 and that $510,000 represented the market value of
the subject property for fiscal year 2024.
ATB 2026-341

The appellee’s evidence
The appellee presented its case through the testimony of its witness, Lauren J.
Elliott, a real estate valuation appraiser who works as a consultant for the appellee and
is the Assessor for Greenwich, Connecticut. The appellee also presented the requisite
jurisdictional documents as well as photographs of the subject property and supporting
documents detailing Ms. Elliott’s valuation analysis.
Ms. Elliott described the subject property, which was a tire shop before being rebuilt
in 2009. She admitted on cross examination that while she had been at the subject
property numerous times over the years, she had not been inside the retail building in the
last four or five years.
Ms. Elliott prepared an income-capitalization analysis. She did not prepare a sales-
comparison analysis or a cost-approach analysis.
Ms. Elliott researched market rents in the area and selected $24 per square foot
as the market rent for the subject property for both fiscal years at issue, which she
ascribed to 4,812 square feet, her measurement for the subject retail building excluding
576 square feet of garage space. Ms. Elliott testified that she considered the majority of
the owner’s unit to be finished area, not what she would consider to be warehouse space.
Ms. Elliot treated only 576 square feet as garage/shop space, which she valued at $10
per square foot for both fiscal years at issue.
For her vacancy and credit loss rate, Ms. Elliott considered the subject property’s
vibrant retail location and the low vacancy rate in the market area, particularly Riverdale
ATB 2026-342

Street. She selected 5 percent as her vacancy and credit loss rate for both fiscal years at
issue.
Next, Ms. Elliott testified that she determined expenses to the best of her ability,
as she was provided actual expenses by the appellant but not the leases at the subject
property. While Ms. Elliott’s expense categories and amounts varied somewhat from Mr.
DiMichele’s categories and amounts, her total expense figure of $24,019 for both fiscal
years at issue was very similar to Mr. DiMichele’s total expense figure of $24,304 for fiscal
year 2023 and of $24,882 for fiscal year 2024.
With respect to her capitalization rates, Ms. Elliott again considered the favorable
Riverdale Street retail environment. For fiscal year 2023, Ms. Elliott selected a base
capitalization rate of 7.44 percent, to which she added the full tax factor to represent the
owner’s responsibility for real estate taxes, for a total 10.5 percent capitalization rate. For
fiscal year 2024, Ms. Elliott selected a base capitalization rate of 7.52 percent, to which
she again added the full tax factor, for a total 10.5 percent capitalization rate. These
capitalization rates produced a rounded value of $871,000 for both fiscal years at issue.
As Ms. Elliott’s opinion of value was greater than the assessed value for the subject
property for both fiscal years at issue, the appellee concluded that the subject property
was not overvalued for the fiscal years at issue.
The Board’s ultimate findings
In reviewing the evidence, the Board first concluded that the highest and best use
for the subject property was its current use as a multi-tenanted retail property.
The Board next concluded that the income-capitalization approach was the proper
method for valuing the subject property. This approach valued the income-producing
ATB 2026-343

potential of the subject property rather than valuing the retail building and its parcel as
separate components.
With respect to potential gross income, the Board agreed that the Omega Cleaners
and Body Sculpting by Nelly leases each reflected market rates for their respective units
for fiscal year 2024. The Board further agreed with Mr. DiMichele’s method of applying
the Omega Cleaners rental lease to the left-side unit for fiscal year 2023, because this
lease represented the best evidence of a market lease as of the relevant valuation date.
With 	respect 	to 	the 	owner-occupied 	space, 	the 	Board 	adopted 	Mr. 	DiMichele’s
measurement of 2,763 square feet, finding him knowledgeable about the size and
features of the retail building. The Board further found persuasive Mr. DiMichele’s
reasoning that this unit should be valued as warehouse space in its entirety. However, the
Board found that $14 per square foot better reflected this unit’s market value and thus
ascribed rent of $14 per square foot to the owner-occupied unit for both fiscal years at
issue.
Next, the Board agreed with Ms. Elliott that the subject property’s immediate
neighborhood was a robust location for retail business. The Board thus agreed that a 5
percent vacancy and credit loss rate was appropriate for both fiscal years at issue.
The parties did not materially differ in their calculations of expenses. The Board
adopted Mr. DiMichele’s figures for flood insurance, building insurance, and common area
maintenance figures. The Board also adopted Mr. DiMichele’s choices of 6 percent of
effective gross income for management and 3 percent of effective gross income for
general/administration, as well as his $0.25 per square foot for reserves.
ATB 2026-344

Finally, with respect to capitalization rates, the Board agreed with Mr. DiMichele
that, while the subject property was in good condition and was located in a robust retail
area, it nonetheless had its drawbacks, including a disproportionately large portion of
warehouse space as compared with office space, limited parking, septic system as
opposed to sewer, and location next to a wetlands buffer. The Board agreed with Mr.
DiMichele that certain of these complications were reflected in the subject property’s
actual vacancy rates over the years. Considering this evidence and the fact that
capitalization rates increased only marginally between fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year
2024, the Board found that an 8 percent capitalization rate was appropriate for both fiscal
years at issue. To this base rate, the Board added the full amount of the appropriate tax
factors for both fiscal years at issue to reflect the owner’s responsibility for real estate
taxes.
Applying these calculations, the Board derived a fair cash value for the subject
property of $640,000 for fiscal year 2023 and $620,000 for fiscal year 2024. The Board’s
analysis is summarized below:
ATB 2026-345

Fiscal year 2023
Potential Gross Income
Omega Cleaners
1,500 ft @ $24.00 psf = $36,000
Owner’s Space
2,763 ft @ $14.00 psf = $38,682
Vacant Unit
1,100 ft @ $24.00 psf = $26,400
Total Potential Gross Income 	$101,082
Vacancy and Credit Loss @ 5% 	($ 	5,054)
Effective Gross Income 	$ 	96,028
Expenses
Flood Insurance
Insurance
Common area maintenance
Management @ 6% EGI
General & Admin. @ 3% EGI
Reserves @ $0.25 psf
($4,500)
($2,800)
($7,700)
($5,762)
($2,881)
($1,341)
Total Expenses 	($ 24,984)
Net Operating Income 	$ 	71,044
Capitalization Rate
Base rate 8% plus 2023 tax factor 	11.06%
Fair Cash Value 	$640,000
Assessed Value 	$706,300
Overvaluation 	$ 66,300
Tax rate = 	$30.58/ $1,000
Plus CPA surcharge: 	$20.28
Abatement 	$ 2,047.73
ATB 2026-346

Fiscal year 2024
Potential Gross Income
Omega Cleaners
1,500 ft @ $24.00 psf = $36,000
Owner’s Space
2,763 ft @ $14.00 psf = $38,682
Body Sculpting by Nelly
1,100 ft @ $21.81 psf = $23,991
Total Potential Gross Income 	$ 98,673
Vacancy and Credit Loss @ 5% 	($ 4,934)
Effective Gross Income 	$ 93,739
Expenses
Flood Insurance
Insurance
Common area maintenance
Management @ 6% EGI
General & Admin. @ 3% EGI
Reserves @ $0.25 psf
($5,000)
($2,900)
($7,700)
($5,624)
($2,812)
($1,341)
Total Expenses 	($ 25,377)
Net Operating Income 	$ 	68,362
Capitalization Rate
Base rate 8% plus 2023 tax factor 	10.98%
Fair Cash Value 	$620,000
Assessed Value 	$737,700
Overvaluation 	$117,700
Tax rate: 	$29.80/$1,000
Plus CPA surcharge: 	$35.07
Abatement 	$3,542.53
ATB 2026-347

Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellant and ordered abatement
of $2,047.73 for fiscal year 2023 and $3,542.53 for fiscal year 2024, inclusive of the
appropriate portions of the CPA surcharge.
OPINION
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).
In determining fair cash value, all uses to which the property was or could
reasonably be adapted on the relevant assessment dates should be considered. Irving
Saunders Trust v. Assessors of Boston, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 838, 843 (1989). The goal
is to ascertain the maximum value of the property for any legitimate and reasonable use.
Here, the Board found and ruled that the highest and best use of the subject property for
the fiscal years at issue was its existing use as a multi-tenanted retail property.
Generally, real estate valuation experts, the Massachusetts courts, and this Board
rely upon three approaches to determine the fair cash value of property: income
capitalization, sales comparison, and cost reproduction. Correia v. New Bedford
Redevelopment Authority, 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978). “The board is not required to
adopt any particular method of valuation.” PepsiCola Bottling Co. v. Assessors of
Boston, 397 Mass. 447, 449 (1986). The income capitalization method “is frequently
applied with respect to income-producing property.” Taunton Redevelopment Assocs.
v. Assessors of Taunton, 393 Mass. 293, 295 (1984). The Board thus agreed with the
ATB 2026-348

appellant’s valuation expert that it was the most reliable method with which to determine
the fair cash value of the subject property.
Under the income-capitalization approach, valuation is determined by dividing net
operating income by a capitalization rate. See Assessors of Brookline v. Buehler, 396
Mass. 520, 522- 23 (1986). Imputing rental income to the subject property based on fair
market rentals from comparable properties is evidence of value if, once adjusted, they
are indicative of the subject property’s earning capacity. See Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.,
397 Mass. at 451. In determining the earning capacity of the subject property, rents may
be used only if they reflect fair market rents. Alstores Realty Corp. v. Assessors of
Peabody, 391 Mass. 60, 68 (1984); Library Services, Inc. v. Malden Redevelopment
Authority, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 877, 878 (1980). The Board has previously found that the
actual rents of a property represent its earning capacity. See, e.g., Beacon Oread LP v.
Assessors of Worcester, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2020-258, 279-80.
In the present appeals, the Board adopted Mr. DiMichele’s selected rental figures
for the middle and left-side units for the fiscal years at issue, finding persuasive his
determination that the Omega Cleaners and Body Sculpting by Nelly rentals reflected
market value, and that the left-side unit should be valued according to its actual lease for
fiscal year 2024. The Board further found persuasive Mr. DiMichele’s measurement of the
owner-occupied unit as well as its valuation as warehouse/garage space in its entirety.
However, the Board found that a $14 per-square-foot valuation better reflected the market
value for this space. Choosing an appropriate gross income figure for establishing an
income stream was within the board’s discretion and expertise. See Fox Ridge Assocs.
v. Assessors of Marshfield, 392 Mass. 652, 654 (1984).
ATB 2026-349

With respect to the vacancy and credit loss rate, the Board found Ms. Elliott’s
vacancy and credit loss figure of 5 percent to better reflect the subject property’s condition
as well as its favorable retail location.
After accounting for vacancy and credit losses, the net operating income is
obtained by deducting the landlord’s appropriate expenses. General Electric Co. v.
Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 610 (1984). The expenses should also reflect the
market. See Olympia & York State St. Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 428 Mass. 236,
239 (1998). In the present appeals, the Board took into consideration the actual operating
expenses, which were relied upon by both parties, and primarily relied upon Mr.
DiMichele’s expense calculations, with minor adjustments.
The final step in the income-capitalization approach is the selection of an
appropriate capitalization rate. The capitalization rate selected should consider the return
necessary to attract investment capital. Taunton Redevelopment Assocs., 393 Mass.
at 295. In addition, in an income-capitalization approach, the capitalization rate is adjusted
by adding the appropriate tax factor to account for the landlord’s responsibility for real
estate taxes on the subject property. See, e.g., Market Forge Industries, Inc. v.
Assessors of Everett, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2014-186, 201 Here, in
considering the subject property’s favorable location and its condition as well as its
drawbacks, the Board determined that a base capitalization rate of 8 percent was
appropriate for both fiscal years at issue. To this base rate, the Board applied the full tax
factor for both fiscal years to account for the owner’s responsibility to pay the real estate
taxes on the entire subject property.
ATB 2026-350

The above calculations produced a rounded fair cash value of $640,000 for fiscal
year 2023 and of $620,000 for fiscal year 2024.
The Board need not specify the exact manner in which it arrived at its valuation.
Jordan Marsh Co. v. Assessors of Malden, 359 Mass. 106, 110 (1971). “The market
value of the property [can] not be proved with mathematical certainty and must ultimately
rest in the realm of opinion, estimate, and judgment . . . . The board [can] select the
various elements of value as shown by the record and from them form . . . its own
independent judgment.” Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 309
Mass. 60, 72 (1941). See also North American Philips Lighting Corp. v. Assessors of
Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 300 (1984); New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston,
383 Mass. 456, 473 (1981); Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass. at 110. “The credibility of
witnesses, the weight of evidence, and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are
matters 	for 	the 	Board.” 	Cummington 	School 	of 	Arts, 	Inc. 	v. 	Assessors 	of
Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977).
ATB 2026-351

Because the Board’s income-capitalization approach ultimately yielded final,
rounded fair cash values for the subject property that were less than its assessed values
for both fiscal years at issue, the Board issued decisions for the appellant and ordered an
abatement of $2,047.73, inclusive of the appropriate CPA surcharge, for fiscal year 2023
and $3,542.53, inclusive of the appropriate CPA surcharge, for fiscal year 2024.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-352