Fairlane Homes Realty Trust, Peter Knox, Trustee v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Shirley (September 22, 2011)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD

    FAIRLANE HOMES REALTY TRUST,    v.         BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
    PETER KNOX, TRUSTEE				   	  THE TOWN OF SHIRLEY

    Docket No. F304235					  Promulgated:	
									  September 22, 2011	

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 Town of Shirley ("assessors" or "appellee") to abate taxes on certain real property located in Shirley and assessed to Fairlane Homes Realty Trust, Peter Knox, Trustee ("Fairlane Trust" or "appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2009 ("fiscal year at issue").  
Commissioner Rose heard the appeal.  He was joined in the decision for the appellee by Commissioners Scharaffa, Egan, and Mulhern.  
These findings of fact and report are made at the request of the appellant pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.


Gregg S. Haladyna, Esq. for the appellant.

Rebecca Caldbeck, principal assessor, for the appellee.


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of the testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2008, Fairlane Trust was the assessed owner of a 2.38-acre parcel of land known as Briarwood Mobile Home Park ("subject property"), which contained 40 mobile home units.  The subject property was located in Shirley, a community of about 6,118 residents which is located 39 miles northwest of Boston.  For zoning purposes, the subject property was located in the Shirley Village and Residential R3 zoning districts, which permitted a wide range of business, retail, and residential uses, as well as religious, municipal, educational and agricultural uses.  The subject property's use as a mobile home park was a legal, nonconforming use.  
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property in the total amount of $674,600, and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $11.43 per thousand, in the total amount of $7,710.68.  Of the total $674,600 assessed value, $290,300 was allocated to the subject property's land value and $384,300 was allocated to "yard items," or the value of the mobile home pads.  Although the appellant's fourth quarter tax payment was late, the appellant had paid an amount in excess of the average of its assessed property taxes for the preceding three fiscal years by May 1, 2009, and therefore late payment of the taxes was not an impediment to the Board's jurisdiction in this appeal. G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65.  
The appellant filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors on January 29, 2009.  The appellant's abatement application was denied by vote of the assessors on April 27, 2009, and the assessors gave notice of their denial to the appellant on the same day.  The appellant filed an appeal with the Board on July 24, 2009.  The Board therefore found that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.  
In its abatement application and petition, the appellant argued that the assessors improperly assessed the subject property's 40 mobile homes which were exempt from taxation under G.L. c. 59, § 5, cl. 36 ("Clause 36"); however, the appellant did not advance that argument at the hearing and appears to have abandoned it.  In any event, the Board found and ruled that the argument was without merit because the assessors did not assess the subject property's mobile homes.  Rather, in addition to its land, the assessors assessed the subject property's 40 mobile home pad sites as "yard items," which they valued at $384,300.  Although mobile homes are exempt from tax under Clause 36, the pad sites are not, and the Board found that the assessors properly assessed the pad sites.  See Chelmsford Mobile Home Park Properties, LLC, successor to LJR Real Estate, LP v. Assessors of Chelmsford, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2011-646, 662.  
The appellant additionally argued that the assessors overvalued the subject property.  The evidence presented by both parties on this point is set forth below.  
		 The Appellant's Valuation Evidence
The appellant presented its case primarily through the testimony and summary appraisal report of Jonathan Avery, a certified real estate appraiser who is a member of the Counselors of Real Estate and the Appraisal Institute.  At the time of the hearing of this appeal, Mr. Avery had more than 40 years of appraisal experience and was a principal of the real estate appraisal firm Avery Associates.  The Board qualified him as an expert real estate appraiser.  
To prepare for his appraisal, Mr. Avery conducted an inspection of the subject property on August 28, 2009 and on several occasions thereafter.  Mr. Avery also reviewed relevant deeds and land plans.  To begin his appraisal, Mr. Avery determined the highest and best use of the subject property, both as vacant and as improved.  Mr. Avery concluded that the highest and best use of the subject property was its continued use as a mobile home park, in part because such use was a legal non-conforming use, allowing for greater density of development than would be permitted under current zoning laws.
To value the subject property, Mr. Avery considered the three usual approaches to value, the cost-reproduction approach, the sales-comparison approach, and the income-capitalization approach.  Mr. Avery rejected the cost-reproduction approach because it is usually used for new, nearly new, or special-purpose properties, and he rejected the sales-comparison approach because of the lack of available comparable-sales data.  He ultimately selected the income-capitalization approach because of the subject property's long history as an income-producing property. 
To determine appropriate market rents for his income-capitalization analysis, Mr. Avery examined rents at fourteen other mobile home parks located in Shirley or in towns located in close proximity to Shirley.  The fourteen mobile home parks selected for comparison by Mr. Avery ranged in size from 13 units to 176 units.  Some of the parks restricted residence to adults age 55 and over.  During the period relevant to this appeal, rent at the subject property was $595 per month, and that fee included the rental of both the pad site and mobile home.  Rents at the fourteen mobile home parks examined by Mr. Avery were rents for pad sites alone, and did not include the rental of a mobile home.  Rents for pad sites at these parks ranged from $253 per month to $461 per month.  Based on this data, Mr. Avery formed a base opinion of market pad site rent of $300 per month.  
In determining his estimated fair market rent for the subject property, Mr. Avery relied heavily on the first of his fourteen selected comparison properties ("comparable number one").  Comparable number one was a 39-unit mobile home park located on a two-acre parcel of land in Ayer, a community that abuts Shirley.  Mr. Avery opined that comparable number one provided a good indication of fair market rent for the subject property because of their similarities in size and density.  Comparable number one's rent was $253 per month, and this comparatively low rent reflected, in Mr. Avery's opinion, the lack of desire in the market for high-density mobile home parks in suburban settings.  Because the subject property also was a high-density mobile home park located in a suburban setting, Mr. Avery opined that the fair market rent for the subject property would be considerably lower than his base market rent of $300 per month.  
Additionally, after discussion with the subject property's owner, Mr. Avery concluded that it experienced some functional obsolescence due to the fact that it restricted the size of its mobile homes to 50 feet in length.  According to Mr. Avery, the current market trend is for larger mobile homes which span up to 70 feet in length, and Mr. Avery concluded that the subject property's size restriction would have a negative impact on rents for pad sites. Specifically, Mr. Avery concluded that rents at the subject property should be reduced by 29 percent because 50-foot mobile homes were 29 percent smaller than 70-foot mobile homes.  Thus, Mr. Avery deducted 29 percent, or $87, from his $300 estimated fair market rent to arrive at a final, rounded fair market rent of $215 per month for the subject property.  
The next step in Mr. Avery's income-capitalization analysis was to estimate appropriate operating expenses for the subject property.  To determine appropriate expenses, Mr. Avery consulted several industry publications, including The 16th Annual Allen Report and The Texas A&M Survey, which reported expenses for mobile home communities.  The publications cited by Mr. Avery indicated that typical expense ratios in the industry ranged from 37.5% to 40%.   
To further assist in his determination of operating expenses for the subject property, Mr. Avery reviewed the subject property's reported operating expenses for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.  For fiscal year 2006, the reported expenses were $1,905 per pad site, and for 2007, they were $1,935 per pad site.  After reviewing the subject property's reported expenses and the market data, Mr. Avery ultimately used expenses of $1,507 per pad site.    
The next step in Mr. Avery's income-capitalization analysis was the selection of appropriate vacancy and collection loss rates, management fees, and replacement reserves.  Mr. Avery's appraisal report noted that national surveys indicated vacancy rates at mobile home parks ranging from 5% to 10%, while the subject property had experienced vacancy rates between 8% and 12%.  Mr. Avery further indicated that other competing mobile home parks experienced little vacancy.  Accordingly, Mr. Avery selected a vacancy rate of 5%.  Mr. Avery used a figure of 7.5% for management fees, which he noted also included administrative expenses.  These figures were based on the industry surveys that he consulted, which indicated that management fees for mobile home parks were usually around 5% and administrative costs were typically around 2.5%.  Mr. Avery additionally estimated 3% for replacement reserves.   
After deducting all of these items and operating expenses from gross income, Mr. Avery calculated a net-operating income ("NOI") of $37,748 for the subject property.  The final step in Mr. Avery's income-capitalization analysis was the selection of an appropriate capitalization rate.  Mr. Avery chose a capitalization rate by looking at six mobile home park sales which occurred between January 31, 2003 and April 16, 2008.  Five of the six mobile home parks were located in the Massachusetts towns of Westboro, Attleboro, Plainville, Easton, and Chesire, and the sixth was located in Jaffrey, New Hampshire.  The capitalization rates derived from these sales ranged from 6.0% to 13.7%.  Mr. Avery testified that the subject property was a slightly riskier investment because of its legal non-conformity and its smaller size.  Mr. Avery therefore selected a capitalization rate of 10.5%, which was toward the higher end of that range, to account for the subject property's increased risk.  To this capitalization rate, Mr. Avery added the Shirley 2009 tax rate of $11.43 per thousand for a loaded capitalization rate of 11.64%.  After applying that rate to his NOI, Mr. Avery's final opinion of the subject property's fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue was $320,000.
  		The Assessors' Valuation Evidence
The assessors presented their case-in-chief through the testimony of principal assessor Rebecca Caldbeck and the submission of a valuation report prepared by her, along with relevant jurisdictional documents and current marketing materials for mobile homes from a number of mobile home manufacturers.  The marketing materials introduced by the assessors showed mobile homes available in a variety of styles with varying layouts, finishes, and amenities.  The sizes of the mobile homes featured in the marketing materials ranged from under 40 feet in length to over 80 feet in length.  
  Ms. Caldbeck's valuation report included an "Income & Expense Worksheet," which featured five separate income-capitalization analyses, including (1) an analysis using the subject property's reported income and expense data for calendar year 2007; (2) an analysis using market data; (3) an analysis using the average rents for mobile home park pad sites located in Shirley along with the subject property's reported expenses for calendar year 2007; (4) an analysis using market income data and the subject property's reported expenses for calendar year 2007; and (5) an analysis using the average rents for mobile home park pad sites located in Shirley along with market expenses.  
Of their derived estimates of fair cash value, it was the assessors' opinion that the value derived by using the townwide average pad site rent and the expenses reported for the subject property provided the most reliable indication of the subject property's fair cash value.  Thus, the assessors' opinion of fair market rent for the subject property was $350 per pad site.  Further, as discussed in their valuation report, the capitalization rate used by the assessors was selected after consulting a variety of sources, including several national industry surveys, as well as a variety of methods, including the market extraction and mortgage equity methods.  On average, these sources and methods produced capitalization rates ranging from 7.5% to 10.5%.  The assessors ultimately selected a capitalization rate of 9.5%, to which they added the applicable tax factor, for a loaded capitalization rate of 10.643%.  After incorporating their selected rent estimate, a vacancy rate of 5%, the subject property's reported expenses, and their selected capitalization rate into their income-capitalization analysis, the assessors' opinion of the subject property's fair cash value was $872,498.36, an amount which exceeded its assessed value.  
The assessors' income-capitalization analyses are substantially reproduced in the following chart:

Assessors' Income & Expense Analyses
 					 			              Town Ave. MH Site    		   
			 		    			                       Rental Rate/      
                  SP's Reported Data	         Market Data         Reported Expenses  

 	Monthly rental rate                 200.00	             599.00	            350.00	
 	Total rental income		   96,000.00	         287,520.00	        168,000.00
 	Less vacancy/collection loss (5%)                -     14,376.00	          8,400.00
 	Effective gross income           96,000.00            273,144.00	        159,600.00		

 	Management			    9,600.00				          9,600.00			
 	Utilities			   15,348.00				         15,348.00  
 	Common area maintenance	    5,940.00		       		          5,940.00  
 	Snow removal			    3,190.00				          3,190.00	
 	Trash removal                     7,576.00				          7,576.00
 	Betterment interest               3,999.00 				          3,999.00 
 	Betterment principal             12,497.00 				         12,497.00 
 	Fire insurance                    1,090.00				          1,090.00
	
 	Total expenses		           59,240.00	         81,943.20              59,240.00
 								 (30% egi)
 	Less replacement reserves          7,500.00           13,657.20	          7,500.00
 								  (5% egi)

 	Net Operating Income              29,260.00          177,543.60 		   92,860.00

 	Cap Rate 	                   0.10643               0.10643		     0.10643

 	Fair Cash Value                274,922.48          1,668,172.51		  872,498.36

				  
						               Town Ave. MH Site
   		        Market Income/         Rental Rate/          
             		Reported Expenses     Market Expenses       

Monthly rental rate                 599.00               350.00		  	
Total rental income		  287,520.00           168,000.00
Less vacancy &  
Collection loss  (5%)            14,376.00             8,400.00
Effective gross income          273,144.00  	        159,600.00	
	
Management			    9,600.00					
Utilities			   15,348.00					      
Common area maintenance	    5,940.00					       
Snow removal			    3,190.00				              	
Trash removal                     7,576.00					       
Betterment interest               3,999.00 				              
Betterment principal             12,497.00 					     
Fire insurance                    1,090.00					      

Total expenses			   59,240.00	         47,880.00	
 (30% egi)
less replacement reserves         7,500.00             7,980.00		 
  (5% egi)

Net Operating Income            206,404.00           103,740.00	     

Cap Rate	                  0.10643                0.10643			
	
Fair Cash Value               1,939,340.41           974,725.17


	 
In further support of the assessment, the assessors offered assessment data for seven mobile home parks located in the vicinity of the subject property.  The table of summary assessment data for these properties is substantially reproduced below.

   Park      Subject       Shirley	             Fairlane    Hillside     Suburban     Green         Clarks
   Name       Shirley, MA     Wayside     Acme      Park         Park       Village      Acres       Retirement
 
   Location    Shirley	       Shirley   Shirley   Lunenburg     Ayer       Pepperell    Pepperell     Pepperell

   Proximity	  -	         1.1	    4.38       5.05       3.79        11.21        11.17         11.24
   to Subject 
   (mi)

   Circa        1960           1964       1970       1963       1970         1960        1985          1985

   Acres        2.38            19        7.16       11.1       11.1         11.28        2.6	     30.46  

   Number of
   Pad Sites	  40		  64         13         18	     39           60          20            73

   FY 2009      674,000   1,134,000    366,100    452,400     615,100      432,100      317,300     1,149,500
   Assessment 
  ($)  

   Per Site      16,850      17,731     28,162      25,133     15,722	  7,202    15,865    15,747       Value
   ($)


The Board's Valuation Findings
In reaching its conclusion of fair cash value, the Board found that the highest and best use of the subject property was its continued use as a mobile home park.  This use was financially feasible and physically possible because the subject property had been so used for decades and it was a legal, non-conforming use under applicable zoning laws.  This use was also maximally productive because it allowed for a greater density of residential units than would otherwise be allowed by zoning laws.  Additionally, the Board, like the parties, found that the income-capitalization approach was the most reliable method with which to value the subject property, given its long history as an income-producing property.  
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found that the appellant failed to prove that the assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  In particular, the Board found the appellant's estimate of fair market rent for the subject property's pad sites - $215 - to be severely understated.  
The appellant's expert witness, Mr. Avery, began with a base rent estimate of $300 per month, which was at the low-end of the range of his comparable rents.  He further reduced this base estimate by an additional 29%.  The Board found that there was insufficient support in the record for this dramatic reduction in rent.  Mr. Avery's fair market rent was based in part on his conclusion that because the subject property restricted the size of its mobile homes to 50 feet in length, as opposed to allowing more modern mobile homes of up to 70 feet in length, rents at the subject property would be negatively impacted.  Thus, Mr. Avery reduced his estimates of fair market rent by 29%, an amount which he arrived at because 50-foot mobile homes are 29% smaller than 70-foot mobile homes.  
As an initial matter, Mr. Avery's bare assertion that the modern trend in mobile homes was for larger, 70-foot mobile homes was not in itself adequate evidence of this fact.  He introduced no additional evidence to corroborate this statement, nor did he offer evidence establishing that any of his 14 comparison mobile home parks in fact permitted 70-foot mobile homes, unlike the subject property.  In fact, the marketing materials introduced by the assessors undercut Mr. Avery's assertion about modern mobile home trends, as those materials showed mobile homes ranging in size from under 40 feet in length to over 80 feet in length.  Even assuming arguendo that Mr. Avery had sufficiently demonstrated the negative impact on rent created by the subject property's size restriction, there was no evidence in the record to support a reduction in value corresponding directly to the size difference between 50-foot mobile homes and 70-foot mobile homes, and the Board is not aware of any appraisal principles supporting such an adjustment.  Moreover, assuming arguendo that the subject property's size restriction created functional obsolescence, the Board found that Mr. Avery accounted for this fact by selecting a rent from the lower end and a capitalization rate from the higher end of the range of rates.  The Board found that by both decreasing his market rent and using a higher capitalization rate, Mr. Avery in effect double counted for the supposed functional obsolescence attributable to the subject property's size restriction.  
Furthermore, Mr. Avery selected an expense ratio which far exceeded both market expense ratios and the subject property's reported expense ratios for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.  Again, the Board found that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the use of such increased expense estimates.  The Board thus found that Mr. Avery's estimate of the subject property's fair cash value, $320,000, was premised upon unreliable estimates of fair market rent and expenses and therefore was not a reliable estimate of the subject property's fair cash value.  
In contrast, the Board found that the evidence offered by the assessors provided ample support for the assessment.  Like the appellant, the assessors used the income-capitalization approach to value the subject property, and the Board found that there was adequate support in the record for the data used by the assessors, including their selected capitalization rate and market rent of $350 per pad site.  With the exception of the analysis using the subject property's reported data, the assessors' income-capitalization analyses produced fair cash values significantly higher than the assessed value of the subject property.  Additionally, the comparable-assessment data offered by the assessors revealed that the subject property's per-unit assessed value was squarely within the range of per-unit assessed values of other local mobile home parks.  
Moreover, the sales data included by Mr. Avery in his appraisal report provided further evidence that the assessed value of the subject property did not exceed its fair cash value.  Of the six mobile home parks which Mr. Avery analyzed in order to determine the capitalization rate, the park most comparable to the subject property was a park with 47 units on five acres of land located in Westboro.  That park sold on April 16, 2008, relatively close in time to the relevant date of assessment, for a sale price of $1,050,000.  The Board found that the sale price of this park provided a reliable indication that the assessed value of the subject property did not exceed its fair cash value.
In conclusion, on the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found that the appellant failed to prove that the assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.

		            OPINION
The assessors have a statutory and constitutional obligation to assess all real property at its full and fair cash value.  Part II, c. 1, § 1, art. 4, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth; art. 10 of the Declaration of Rights; G.L. c. 59, §§ 38, 52.  See Coomey v. Assessors of Sandwich, 367 Mass. 836, 837 (1975) (citations omitted).  Fair cash value means fair market value, which is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer 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 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 board is entitled to 'presume that the valuation made by the assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayer[] . . . prov[es] 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, 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).  
The ascertainment of a property's highest and best use is a prerequisite to valuation analysis. See Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 429 (2004); Irving Saunders Trust v. Assessors of Boston, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 838, 843 (1989). "A property's highest and best use must be legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive." Northshore Mall Limited Partnership v. Assessors of Peabody, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2004-195, 246, aff'd, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 (2005).  In the present appeal, the Board agreed with the parties that the subject property's highest and best use was its continued use as a mobile home park.  This use was financially feasible and physically possible because the subject property had been so used for decades, and it was a legal, non-conforming use under applicable zoning laws.  This use was also maximally productive because it allowed for greater density of housing units than would otherwise be allowed under current zoning laws.  Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the subject property's highest and best use was its continued use as a mobile home park.  
The fair cash value of property may often best be determined by recent sales of comparable properties in the market.  See Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Authority, 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978); McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929).  Actual sales generally "furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller."  Foxboro Associates v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982); New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 469 (1981); First National Stores, Inc. v. Assessors of Somerville, 358 Mass. 554, 560 (1971).  
However, the income-capitalization method "is frequently applied with respect to income-producing property."  Taunton Redev. Assocs. v. Assessors of Taunton, 393 Mass. 293, 295 (1984).  In the present appeal, the Board, like the parties, used the income-capitalization approach to determine the subject property's fair market value.  The Board found and ruled that the income-capitalization approach was the most reliable method with which to value the subject property given its long history as an income-producing 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).  Net-operating income is obtained by subtracting market expenses from a market-derived gross income.  Id. at 523.  Income and expense figures and capitalization rates, therefore, are the essential building blocks of the income-capitalization method; the ultimate reliability of an estimate of fair cash value depends in large part on the individual reliability of these components.  
In the present appeal, the Board found that neither Mr. Avery's market rents nor his expense estimates for the subject property were supported by the market data.  The evidence showed his market rent of $215 per pad site to be significantly lower than even the lowest market rent, while it showed that his expense estimate far exceeded both market expense ratios and the reported expenses for the subject property for prior fiscal years.  Moreover, Mr. Avery selected a slightly higher capitalization rate of 10.5% to account for the functional obsolescence supposedly created by the subject property's size restriction.  However, the Board found and ruled that Mr. Avery had already significantly reduced his estimates of fair market rent to account for the alleged negative impact of the subject property's size restriction, and was effectively double counting for this factor by using an increased capitalization rate.  Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that Mr. Avery's opinion of fair cash value, $320,000, was not a reliable estimate of the subject property's fair cash value because it was premised on largely unsupported and unreliable data.  
In contrast, the Board found that the assessors presented ample evidence to support the assessment.  The assessors' evidence included numerous income-capitalization analyses, each of which used reliable market data, which yielded fair cash values in excess of the subject property's fair cash value.  The Board found and ruled that the assessors' income-capitalization analyses provided persuasive evidence that the subject property's assessed value did not exceed its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.
Additionally, the assessors introduced comparable assessment data for seven mobile home parks located in the vicinity of the subject property.  Evidence of the assessed values of comparable properties may provide probative evidence of fair cash value.  G.L. c. 58A, § 12B.  "The introduction of such evidence may provide adequate support for either the granting or denial of an abatement." John Alden Sands v. Assessors of Bourne, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-1098, 1106-07, (citing Chouinard v. Assessors of Natick, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-299, 307-08).  The comparable assessment data offered by the assessors showed that the assessed value of the subject property was well within the range of assessed values of other local mobile homes, and the Board found and ruled that this evidence provided additional support for the assessment.
The Board need not specify the exact manner in which it arrived at its valuation. Jordan Marsh v. Assessors of Malden, 359 Mass. 196, 110 (1971). The fair cash value of property cannot be proven with "mathematical certainty and must ultimately rest in the realm of opinion, estimate and judgment." Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60,  72 (1941). "The credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the Board." Cummington School of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977). 
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found and ruled that the appellant did not meet its burden of proving that the assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal. 
 
  	    APPELLATE TAX BOARD
               
				         By: ___________________________________
					        Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman


A true copy:
Attest: undefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefined____________________________
	            Clerk of the Board

  Under G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the accrual of interest for the fiscal year at issue is not a jurisdictional impediment where a taxpayer has timely paid an amount equal to or greater than the average of the taxes assessed for the three years preceding the fiscal year at issue.  
  The Board noted that the expense ratio selected by Mr. Avery exceeded the subject property's reported expense ratios for fiscal year 2006 and 2007 and the expense ratios reported by industry publications.  Industry publications reported expense ratios ranging from 37.5% to 40%.  For fiscal year 2006, the subject property reported income of $6,190 and expenses of $1,905 per pad site, which was an expense ratio of 30.7%, while in 2007 it reported income of $6,238 and expenses of $1,935 per pad site, which was an expense ratio of 31.0%.  In his analysis, Mr. Avery used an income of $2,580 per pad site with expenses of $1,507 per pad site, which was an expense ratio of 58.4%.  
 Figures are reported in dollars unless otherwise indicated.

ATB 2011-793