McCracken, Beth A. & Kenneth H. Jr. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Boxborough (April 17, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
KENNETH H. MCCRACKEN, JR.
& BETH A. MCCRACKEN
v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
Docket No. F350869
THE TOWN OF BOXBOROUGH
Promulgated:
April 17, 2026
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 Town of
Boxborough (“assessors” or “appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and
assessed to Kenneth H. McCracken Jr. and Beth A. McCracken (“appellants”) for fiscal
year 2024 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Good 	heard 	the 	appeal. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and
Commissioners Elliott, Metzer, and Bernier joined her in the decision for the appellee.1
These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants
under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Kenneth H. McCracken, pro se, for the appellants.
Kelly Szocik, Assessor, for the appellee.
1 Initially, a single-member decision was issued in this appeal. Due to the amount of the assessment in this
appeal, a full-member decision is contemporaneously issued with these findings of fact and report.
ATB 2026-166

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing of this appeal, the
Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On January 1, 2023, the appellants were the owners of a 2,511-square-foot,
Colonial-style home (“subject home”) on a 1.38-acre parcel at 987 Depot Road in
Boxborough (together, “subject property”). The subject home was built in 1999 and has
ten rooms, including four bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a half bathroom, as well as a
two-car garage.
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $953,700,
and assessed a tax thereon at the rate of $14.99 per thousand, in the total amount of
$14,295.96, exclusive of the Community Preservation Act surcharge. The tax due was
timely paid without incurring interest. On January 30, 2024, the appellants timely filed an
abatement application with the assessors, which was denied on February 6, 2024. The
appellants timely filed this appeal with the Board on May 6, 2024. Based on these facts,
the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
II. The appellants’ case
In addition to their testimony, the appellants introduced a presentation in support
of their case and a response to the appellee’s comparable properties. The appellants did
not dispute the subject property’s land value for the fiscal year at issue, only arguing that
the 	building 	value 	was 	“disproportionately 	assessed” 	compared 	to 	other 	nearby
properties.
The appellants’ presentation in support of their case noted that the subject home
was largely unchanged since 1999, with its original kitchen, bathrooms, and flooring. It
ATB 2026-167

included 	numerous 	charts 	and 	graphs 	that 	analyzed 	building 	information 	for 	the
appellants’ comparable Colonial-style homes, specifically building-assessment figures for
the fiscal year at issue, age of the homes, square footage of the homes, and the building
assessment per square foot of the homes. Additionally, the presentation compared the
subject property’s Zillow estimate of $1,079,500 as of January 4, 2023, to the Zillow
estimates of the appellants’ comparison properties on Depot Road, which ranged from
$1,041,800 to $1,362,200. This information was offered in an attempt to show that the
assessment percentage differential between these properties and the subject property
was greater than the Zillow value percentage differential between these properties and
the subject property.2
In their response to the appellee’s comparable properties, as discussed further
below, the appellants contended that the properties selected by the assessors were much
further away from the subject property and that the subject home still had the highest per-
square-foot building value amongst the comparables submitted by the assessors.
The appellants concluded an opinion of value of $823,957 for the fiscal year at
issue, determined by retaining the subject property’s assessed land value and applying a
$210 per-square-foot rate to the subject home, a rate that the appellants believed was
more in line with properties closer in age to the subject home.
2 The appellants stated, for instance, that 983 Depot Road was assessed by the town at only 12 percent
higher than the subject property, but that Zillow valued 983 Depot Road at 19 percent higher than the
subject property, and that since Zillow is updated more frequently it is a better representation of actual
property value and demonstrates that the subject property is valued higher than it should be relative to
these neighboring properties.
ATB 2026-168

III. The appellee’s case
The appellee presented jurisdictional documents as well as a chart of five
comparable sales of properties located in Boxborough. These properties sold in August
and September 2022, with lot sizes ranging from 0.92 acres to 2.29 acres and homes
ranging from 2,881 square feet to 3,968 square feet. After adjustments, the sale prices
for these properties ranged from $998,000 to $1,066,000.
IV. The Board’s findings
Based upon the record in its entirety, the Board found that the appellants failed to
establish that the fair cash value of the subject property was lower than its assessed value
for the fiscal year at issue.
Though they asserted that the subject property was “disproportionately assessed,”
the appellants introduced no evidence of any intentional scheme by the assessors of
valuing comparable properties or classes of properties at a lower percentage of fair cash
value than the subject property, as discussed in the Opinion below.
In concentrating almost exclusively on the building value, the appellants provided
no explanation as to why the assessed value as a whole exceeded the fair cash value.
Further, the appellants’ focus on per-square-foot values lacked any adjustments for
economies of scale, ignoring the well-established principle that as size increases, unit
prices decrease. The subject home’s square footage was lower than most of the
comparable 	properties 	in 	the 	appellants’ 	presentation. 	The 	appellants 	made 	no
adjustments to their comparable properties to take into account differences between
these properties and the subject property.
Conversely, the Board found that the assessors’ comparable-sales analysis
comfortably supported the subject property’s assessed value. The assessors selected
ATB 2026-169

comparable properties and made appropriate adjustments to account for differences
between these properties and the subject property.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.
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).
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).
The 	appellants 	contended 	that 	the assessors disproportionately assessed the
subject property, compared to the purportedly comparable properties selected by the
appellants. “[T]o obtain relief on the basis of disproportionate assessment, a taxpayer
must show that there is an ‘intentional policy or scheme of valuing properties or classes
of property at a lower percentage’ of fair cash value than the taxpayer's property.” Brown
v. Assessors of Brookline, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 327, 328 (1997) (quoting Shoppers'
World, 	Inc. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Framingham, 	348 	Mass. 	366, 	377 	(1965)). See
ATB 2026-170

also Wardwell v. Assessors of Wellesley, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports
2021-160, 165-66; Scullane v. Assessors of Wellesley, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and
Reports 2001-85, 95. There was no evidence offered by the appellants in this appeal to
demonstrate that the assessors engaged in such a policy or scheme.
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)). Here, the appellants provided no evidence of flaws or errors
in the assessors’ method of valuation and failed to present affirmative evidence of
overvaluation.
“[R]eliance on unadjusted assessments of assertedly comparable properties . . .
[is] insufficient to justify a value lower than that” assessed. See Antonino & DiMare v.
Assessors of Shutesbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-54, 70. The
appellants made no attempt at adjusting their comparable properties, including for
economies of scale. See Appraisal Institute, THE A PPRAISAL OF REAL E STATE 172 (15th ed.,
2020) (“Generally, as size increases, unit prices decrease.”).
In challenging the assessments, the appellants focused almost exclusively on the
building value. However, a taxpayer “does not conclusively establish a right to an
abatement merely by showing that his land or building 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.’” Hinds v. Assessors of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Mass. ATB
Findings of Fact and Reports 2006-771, 778 (quoting Assessors of Brookline v.
ATB 2026-171

Prudential Insurance Co., 310 Mass. 300, 316-17 (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, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	1990-110,
119; Jernegan v. Assessors of Duxbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-
39, 49.
[This space intentionally left blank.]
ATB 2026-172

~~
~tfrf~
The Board found that the appellee’s comparable-sales properties were persuasive
indicators of the subject property’s fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue. 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 fair cash value
of the property at issue. Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of
Fact and Reports 2007-321, 400, aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008) (Rule 1:28
Decision). 	The 	appellee’s 	analysis 	provided 	properties 	in 	Boxborough 	that 	were
sufficiently similar to the subject property and then applied appropriate adjustments to
those properties to account for differences with the subject property. The subject
property’s assessed value of $953,700 was within the range of the average adjusted sale
prices of those properties. In contrast, the appellants provided no such evidence in their
favor, thereby supporting the Board’s conclusion that the subject property’s assessed
value for the fiscal year at issue did not exceed its fair cash value for the fiscal year at
issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision in favor of the appellee.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-173