John & Leslie Wilson, Trustees of the 155 Irving Avenue Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Barnstable (August 12, 2010)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD

JOHN & LESLIE WILSON,         v.     BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
TRUSTEES OF THE 155 IRVING	  THE TOWN OF BARNSTABLE
AVENUE REALTY TRUST
	
Docket Nos.: F278361, F287613		  Promulgated:  
             F297599, F302176        August 12, 2010

                            						  
These are appeals 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 Barnstable ("appellee" or "assessors") to abate taxes on certain real estate in Barnstable, owned by and  assessed to John and Leslie Wilson, Trustees of the 155 Irving Avenue Realty Trust, (together, "appellants") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38 for fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 ("fiscal years at issue").
Commissioner Egan heard these appeals.  Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Rose, and Mulhern joined her in decisions for the appellants.  
These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.
David R. Sullivan, Esq. and Darah Schofield, Esq. for the appellants. 
Jeffrey Rudziak, Assessor, for the appellee.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

Introduction and Jurisdiction
On the basis of the testimony and exhibits offered into the record in the hearing of these appeals, and on the basis of the view taken by the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") of the real property at issue, the Board made the following findings of fact.    On January 1, 2004, January 1, 2005, January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008, the relevant dates of assessment for the fiscal years at issue, the appellants were the assessed owners of a 3.02-acre parcel of land, improved with two dwellings, located at 151 Irving Avenue in Hyannisport ("subject property").  
The first dwelling ("main house") is a Colonial-style mansion constructed in 1914 which contains 7,948 square feet of gross living area.  The main house has a white clapboard exterior.  It is divided into three sections, with two wings converging into a central section.  Tall pillars and an open front porch comprise the exterior of the central section.  The main house has 18 total rooms, including seven bedrooms.  It also has seven full bathrooms and one half bathroom.  Interior finishes include carpeted and hardwood flooring, with ceramic tile flooring in the bathrooms.  Walls are plaster with painted crown moldings.  Additional interior features include built-in bookcases and two fireplaces.  The main house also has an enclosed porch, a wood deck, a patio, and an in-ground pool.  
The second dwelling ("guest house") is a Cape Cod-style home constructed in 1955 which contains 4,220 square feet of living area.  It is a classic Cape Cod-style house, with a natural wood-shingled exterior and dormered windows emerging from a gabled roof.  The guest house has a total of eight rooms, including four bedrooms.  It has three full bathrooms and one half bathroom.  The guest house also has a fireplace, a patio and an attached, two-car garage.   
The subject property is an oceanfront property.  It is located adjacent to the Kennedy compound on Hyannis Harbor, and enjoys direct ocean views and beach access.  The subject property also abuts the Hyannisport Golf Club.  
The appellants purchased the subject property for $6,000,000 in 2000.  The valuation of the subject property, tax rate, and total tax assessments for each of the fiscal years at issue are summarized in the following table.



Fiscal 
 Year	Valuation
($)	Tax Rate ($/1000)	Total Tax Assessed
($)	
 2005	8,377,700  	  6.05	64,939.74	
 2006	8,972,500	  6.31	72,760.70	
 2008	8,435,500	  6.58	70,077.08	
 2009	7,964,500	  6.90	70,780.51	
	
The relevant jurisdictional information for each of the fiscal years at issue is set forth in the following table. 
Fiscal 
Year	Actual Tax 
Bill Mailed 	Abatement App. Filed	Abatement App. Denied	Petition 
Filed	
2005	 10/22/04	11/22/04	 2/15/05	 5/13/05	
2006	  3/17/06	 4/28/06	 7/25/06	10/24/06	
2008	 12/31/07	 1/31/08	  4/8/08	  7/7/08	
2009	 12/31/08	 1/30/09	 4/28/09	 6/15/09	

Based on the foregoing, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide these appeals. 
  B. The Appellants' Case-in-Chief
The appellants presented two grounds for abatement in these appeals.  First, the appellants argued that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal years at issue.  Second, the appellants contended that they were entitled to an abatement because the subject property was disproportionately assessed.  
The appellants presented the valuation component of their case-in-chief through the testimony of John Wilson and through the testimony and appraisal report of certified real estate appraiser James K. Saben.  Mr. Saben opined that the highest and best use of the subject property was its continued use as a single-family residential property with guest house.  To form his opinion of the subject property's fair cash value, Mr. Saben considered the three usual approaches to value.  He declined to use the cost approach because of the age of the subject property.  Similarly, he rejected the income-capitalization approach because homes in the same price range and type of neighborhood as the subject property are typically purchased for personal use, not to produce income.  Mr. Saben therefore relied upon the sales-comparison approach to form his opinion of value.  
Mr. Saben conducted four separate sales-comparison analyses, determining the subject property's fair cash value as of January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006, January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008.  The Board notes that Mr. Saben apparently erred as to the relevant assessment dates; although his assessment dates correspond to three out of the four years at issue, one of his dates, January 1, 2006, is not at issue in this appeal and one of the relevant assessment dates, January 1, 2004, is not covered by a report.  
For his sales-comparison analysis as of January 1, 2005, Mr. Saben selected three waterfront properties located on Cape Cod.  Two of the properties are oceanfront properties while the third is a bayfront property.  The sale prices of these three properties ranged from $3,900,000 to $5,200,000.  After making adjustments to account for differences with the subject property, Mr. Saben's adjusted sale prices for these three properties ranged from $5,965,250 to $6,386,000.  
For his sales-comparison analysis as of January 1, 2006, Mr. Saben selected four waterfront properties located on Cape Cod.  Two of the properties are oceanfront properties and two are bayfront properties.  The sale prices of these four properties ranged from $3,600,000 to $6,150,000.  After making adjustments to account for differences with the subject property, Mr. Saben's adjusted sale prices for these properties ranged from $5,626,200 to $6,591,200.  
For his sales-comparison analysis as of January 1, 2007, Mr. Saben again selected four waterfront properties located on Cape Cod.  Three of the properties are oceanfront properties while one is a bayfront property.  The sale prices of these four properties ranged from $5,400,000 to $7,250,000.  After making adjustments to account for differences with the subject property, Mr. Saben's adjusted sale prices for these properties ranged from $6,599,100 to $7,116,750.    
Finally, for his sales-comparison analysis as of January 1, 2008, Mr. Saben selected six waterfront properties located on Cape Cod.  Four of the properties are oceanfront properties, one is a bayfront property, and one is located on a river.  The sale prices of these six properties ranged from $5,400,000 to $7,250,000.  After making adjustments to account for differences with the subject property, Mr. Saben's adjusted sale prices for these six properties ranged from $6,362,300 to $7,215,150.  
Based on his sales-comparison analyses, Mr. Saben's opinion of value for the subject property was: $6,000,000 as of January 1, 2005; $6,200,000 as of January 1, 2006; $6,800,000 as of January 1, 2007; and $6,500,000 as of January 1, 2008.  
	In support of their disproportionate assessment argument, the appellants introduced a line graph depicting the increase in assessed value of the subject property, as compared to the assessed values of its ten closest neighboring properties, over the time period spanning from 1973 through 2007.  The chart showed that the assessed value of the subject property has increased at a marginally higher pace than the ten closest neighboring properties.  No information about the ten neighboring properties was entered into the record. 
	In addition, Mr. Wilson stated that the subject property lacked privacy because of its location next door to the Kennedy compound, which tends to attract attention.  Mr. Wilson opined that this lack of privacy negatively impacted the value of the subject property.  Mr. Wilson also stated that nearly one and a half acres of the subject property were covered with sand dunes, and he believed that this portion of the subject property should be valued as residual land.
The Assessors' Case-in-Chief
The assessors presented their case-in-chief through the testimony of Jeffrey Rudziak, the Director of Assessing for Barnstable, and the submission of numerous exhibits.  Among those exhibits were two sales-comparison analyses.  The first analysis ("land valuation analysis") was conducted to highlight the land values of waterfront property on Cape Cod.  The land valuation analysis featured six properties on Cape Cod, which sold between 2002 and 2007.  Following the sale of each of the properties, the dwellings on the properties were demolished for the construction of a new home.  The six properties have an average lot size of 2.8 acres, as compared to the subject's 3.02 acres, and an average sale price of $5,076,667.  Each of the properties is a waterfront property; however, they are located on the bay, rather than, like the subject property, on the ocean.  According to the analysis submitted by the assessors, oceanfront properties sold, on average, for approximately ten percent more than properties located on the bay.  
The second analysis was a sales-comparison analysis involving fifteen waterfront properties on Cape Cod which sold between 2003 and 2008.  That analysis is substantially reproduced in the following chart:


  Address	Style	 Year 
 Built	 Acres	Living
Area 
 (sq. ft.)	Location	  Sale     	  Sale  Price ($)	
38 Sand Point	Conventional	 1928	 0.81	  7,502	Bay	 9/12/03	6,900,000	
165 Ocean View	Conventional	 1951	 1.44	  9,007	Bay	  7/1/03	6,600,000	
21 Wianno Head Rd.	Ranch	 1935	 1.44	  2,280	Bay	  7/2/04	5,200,000	
459 Sea View Rd.	Colonial	 1907	 1.76	  4,545	 Ocean	11/15/04	5,502,000	
1071 Old Post Rd.	Colonial	 1997	 7.54	  6,217	Bay	 6/15/06	6,500,000	
99 Island Ave.	Colonial	 1965	 1.18	  4,367	 Ocean	12/19/06	6,495,000	
33 Maywood Ave.	Colonial	 1929	 1.43	  3,264	 Ocean	12/27/06	5,895,000	
149 Island Ave.	Colonial	 1912	 4.25	  3,379	 Ocean	  5/1/07	7,250,000	
11 Cove
Lane	Colonial	 1960	 1.94	  8,577	Bay	 6/28/07	8,125,000	
119 Island Ave.	Modern/Cont.	 1992	 0.78	  4,294	 Ocean	  8/8/07	6,625,000	
285 Seapuit Rd.	Cape Cod	 1990	 2.85	  4,966	Bay	  9/5/07	6,075,000	
233 Seapuit River Rd.	Colonial	 1930	 1.7	  5,416	 Ocean	10/31/07	9,000,000	
347 Sea View Ave.	Modern/Cont.	 1973	 2.0	  4,032	 Ocean	 1/11/08	7,300,000	
134 Great Bay Rd.	Cape Cod	 2002	 1.23	  8,394	Bay	  6/3/08	7,600,000	
83 Oyster Way	Cape Cod	 1998	 2.0	  5,116	Bay	10/31/08	7,450,000	

According to the assessors' sales-comparison analysis, the average land value of comparable oceanfront properties was $6,124,350, while the average land value of comparable bayfront properties was $5,285,450.  The land value component of the subject property's assessments for the fiscal years at issue ranged from $5.6 million to $5.7 million.  
In addition, Mr. Rudziak testified that in 2008, the assessors conducted a site visit of the subject property, after which they relisted all of the improvements on the subject property.  The assessors conceded at the hearing of these appeals that, as a result of the updated information gathered during the site visit, they determined that the subject property's assessed value for each of the fiscal years at issue did not accurately reflect its fair cash value.  The assessors determined anew the fair cash value for the subject property for each of the fiscal years at issue, and those values, along with the assessed values, appear in the following table.	
Fiscal 
 Year 	Assessed 
Value ($)	Fair Cash Value 
as Determined 
by the Assessors in 2008 ($)	
 2005	8,377,700	  7,130,600	
 2006	8,972,500	  7,130,600	
 2008	8,435,500	  7,065,600	
 2009	7,964,400	  7,087,400	

Accordingly, the assessors' opinion of value for the subject property for the fiscal years at issue was $7,130,600 for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, $7,065,600 for fiscal year 2008, and $7,087,400 for fiscal year 2009.  
D. The Board's Findings of Value
The Board found that the highest and best use of the subject property was its continued use as a residential property.  The Board also found that the sales-comparison approach was the most reliable method to value the subject property because of its age and the fact that it is a single-family, residential property, and therefore less likely to be an income-producing property.  
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found that the assessed value of the subject property for each of the fiscal years at issue exceeded its fair cash value.  The Board therefore issued decisions for the appellants in these appeals.  However, the Board did not find the valuation analyses offered by the appellants' expert witness to be reliable evidence of the subject property's fair cash value and it therefore did not adopt his opinions of value.
Mr. Saben's appraisal reports contained numerous errors, beginning with his use of incorrect dates of assessment.  In several instances, the data used by Mr. Saben in his analyses conflicted with the information reflected on the property record cards offered into evidence.  For example, Mr. Saben listed the main house on the subject property as having ten total rooms, while the property record card states that it has eighteen.  
Mr. Saben used 459 Sea View Avenue in Osterville as a comparable property for three out of his four sales-comparison analyses.  The property record card for that property states that it has ten rooms, including six bedrooms, with a total living area of 4,545 square feet.  The property record card also states that the home has five full bathrooms and one half bathroom.  Mr. Saben, by contrast, listed 459 Sea View Avenue as having twelve rooms, three full bathrooms and two half bathrooms, with a total living area of 4,940 square feet.  
Similarly, Mr. Saben used 119 Island Avenue in Hyannisport as a comparable property for his sales-comparison analysis as of January 1, 2008.  Like the subject property, 119 Island Avenue has a main house and a guest house.  The property record card for 119 Island Avenue lists the main house as having 2,998 square feet of living area, and the guest house as having 1,296 square feet of living area, for a combined total living area of 4,294 square feet.  In his analysis, Mr. Saben listed 119 Island Avenue as having 5,276 square feet of living area.  
In addition to these errors, the Board found several flaws in the adjustments used by Mr. Saben in his sales-comparison analyses.  For example, in his sales-comparison analysis as of January 1, 2005, Mr. Saben made a positive adjustment of $260,000 to the sale price of 21 Wianno Head Road in Osterville because it is located on the bay, rather than the ocean.  However, Mr. Saben made no adjustments to account for the difference between oceanfront and bayfront properties in any of his subsequent sales-comparison analyses.  The Board found Mr. Saben's failure to account for the difference between oceanfront and bayfront properties undermined the reliability of his analyses, as there was ample evidence showing that oceanfront properties consistently sold for a significant amount more than bayfront properties.  
Additionally, most of Mr. Saben's chosen sales-comparison properties do not have a guest house, unlike the subject property.  Mr. Saben made a positive adjustment of $200,000 to the sale prices of properties that do not have a guest house to account for this difference.  The Board found that this adjustment was insufficient, particularly in light of the fact that the guest house at the subject property is a 4,220 square-foot home with four bedrooms, three full bathrooms, one half bathroom, and a two-car garage.  
Moreover, some of the sales-comparison properties have docks, but no guest house.  In these instances, Mr. Saben made no adjustment to account for the lack of a guest house because he apparently considered the value of a guest house and a dock to be equivalent.  There was no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that a dock and a guest house should be valued equally.  The Board found Mr. Saben's interchangeable use of dock and guest house for valuation purposes further undermined the reliability of his analyses.  
In some instances, Mr. Saben's opinions of value seemed to ignore the uncontroverted evidence.  For example, the appellants paid $6,000,000 for the subject property in 2000.  Further, they took out building permits for $185,000 in 2003.  Despite his acknowledgement that property values increased between 2000 and 2004, Mr. Saben's opinion of value as of January 1, 2005 was $6,000,000.  The Board found that Mr. Saben's opinion of value did not take into account appreciation in the market or the improvements that the appellants made to the subject property, and therefore, it was neither credible nor supported by the record.   
With respect to the appellants' disproportionate assessment argument, the Board found that the appellants failed to introduce sufficient evidence to make out a claim of disproportionate assessment.  To prevail on a claim of disproportionate assessment, taxpayers must show that the assessors engaged in an intentional and widespread scheme whereby they valued a class of properties more favorably than the property in question.  In support of their disproportionate assessment claim, the appellants offered only a line graph comparing the assessed value of the subject property to the assessed values of its ten closest neighboring properties.  The appellants did not even allege, let alone prove, that the assessors engaged in a deliberate scheme of assessing other properties at lower assessment-to-fair-cash ratios.  They did not specifically identify the ten neighboring properties, nor did they offer any information about them apart from the increase in assessed values over time.  The Board therefore found that the appellants introduced insufficient evidence to establish disproportionate assessment in these appeals.  
In contrast, the assessors presented ample, credible evidence supporting their opinions of value.  The assessors' sales-comparison analysis featured fifteen sales of properties located in the vicinity of the subject property.  Most of these fifteen properties are smaller in gross living area and lot size than the subject property, and eight of them are bayfront, rather than oceanfront, properties.  These sales occurred between July of 2003 and October of 2008 and the sale prices ranged from $5,200,000 to $9,000,000.  The assessors' opinions of value - $7,130,600 for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, $7,065,600 for fiscal year 2008, and $7,087,400 for fiscal year 2009 - fell squarely in the middle of this range, despite the fact that the subject property enjoyed several advantages over most of the sales-comparison properties.  The Board found the assessors' sales-comparison analysis to be reliable evidence that the opinions of fair cash value which were offered by the assessors at the hearing of these appeals were accurate representations of the subject property's fair cash value for each of the fiscal years at issue.  
Similarly, the Board found the land valuation analysis presented by the assessors to be a persuasive indicator that the assessors' opinions of fair cash value did not exceed the subject property's actual fair cash value for the fiscal years at issue.  The assessors' land valuation analysis featured six properties with improvements, which were demolished following these properties' sale for the construction of a new home.  The sales of these six bayfront properties occurred between April of 2002 and November of 2007 and the average sale price was $5,076,667.  These six properties are located on the bay, rather than the ocean, and the evidence showed that oceanfront properties sold, on average, for approximately ten percent more than properties located on the bay.  For the fiscal years at issue, the land component of the subject property's assessment ranged from $5.6 to $5.7 million, or approximately ten percent more than the average sale price of the six comparison properties.  Moreover, four out of six of the properties are smaller in acreage than the subject property.  Based on these facts, the Board found that the market data provided strong support for the land valuation component of the subject property's assessment for the fiscal years at issue.  
Further, the Board found that the assessors' land valuation analysis provided additional support for the assessors' overall opinions of value for the subject property.  The land component of the subject property's assessment ranged from $5.6 to $5.7 million for the fiscal years at issue.  The assessors' opinions of value for the subject property ranged from $7.0 to $7.1 million, or approximately $1.5 million more than the land value.  The market data entered into the record in these appeals provided ample support for the conclusion that two homes with a combined gross living area of 12,168 square feet, and which together had a total of 11 bedrooms, ten full bathrooms, and two half bathrooms, contributed at least $1.5 million to the value of the subject property.  
Based on the foregoing, the Board found that the evidence offered by the assessors provided the most reliable indication of the subject property's fair cash value.  The Board therefore adopted the assessors' opinions of fair cash value and found that the fair cash value of the subject property was $7,130,600 for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, $7,065,600 for fiscal year 2008, and $7,087,400 for fiscal year 2009.  Because the assessors' opinions of fair cash value were less than the assessed values of the subject property, the Board decided these appeals for the appellants and granted abatements in the following amounts: $9,666.89 for fiscal year 2005, $14,936.52 for fiscal year 2006, $11,380.31 for fiscal year 2008, and $7,794.79 for fiscal year 2009.  
	
				 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)).  
Real estate valuation experts, the Massachusetts courts, and this Board rely primarily upon three approaches to determine a property's fair cash value: income-capitalization, sales comparison, and depreciated reproduction or replacement cost.  Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Authority, 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978).  The fair cash value of property may often best be determined by recent sales of comparable properties in the market.  See Correia, 375 Mass. at 362; 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).  
In the present appeals, given the subject property's age and single-family, residential character, the Board found and ruled that the cost-reproduction and income-capitalization approaches were not reliable methods to determine its fair cash value.  The Board found and ruled that the sales-comparison approach was the best method to determine the fair cash value of the subject property.  
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found and ruled that the fair cash value of the subject property was lower than its assessed value for each of the fiscal years at issue.  However, the Board found that the evidence offered by the appellants did not provide a reliable indication of the fair cash value of the subject property, and therefore, did not adopt their opinions of value.  
As detailed in the Board's findings above, the appraisal reports offered by the appellants' appraiser contained numerous errors and inconsistencies.  In his sales-comparison analysis as of January 1, 2005, Mr. Saben made an adjustment of $260,000 to the sale price of a comparable property to account for its location on the bay, which is inferior to the subject property's oceanfront location.  However, in his sales-comparison analyses, he made no adjustment to the sale prices of other bayfront properties to account for this difference.  The Board found that Mr. Saben's failure to make similar adjustments for bayfront properties across the board was not only inconsistent, but constituted serious error, as there was ample, credible evidence showing that oceanfront properties consistently sold for more than otherwise comparable bayfront properties.  
Similarly, many of Mr. Saben's adjustments were contradicted by the market data entered into the record.  Most of the sales-comparison properties lacked guest houses.  To account for this difference from the subject property, Mr. Saben made an adjustment of only $200,000 to the sale prices of the comparison properties.  Given the facts that the subject property's guest house is as large as most of the comparison properties used by both parties and those properties each sold for millions of dollars, the Board found that Mr. Saben's adjustment was wholly insufficient.  Moreover, for comparable properties that have docks but not guest houses, Mr. Saben made no adjustment because he evidently considered the value of a guest house and dock to be equal.  There was simply no evidence to support the finding that a dock and guest house should be valued equally.  The Board found and ruled that Mr. Saben's adjustments were not supported by the market data or other evidence, and therefore, lacked probative force.  
Taxpayers may also establish their right to an abatement by proving disproportionate assessment.  Coomey, 367 Mass. at 838 (citing Shoppers' World, Inc. v. Assessors of Framingham, 348 Mass. 366, 377-78 (1965)).  To prevail in a claim of disproportionate assessment, taxpayers must show that the assessors engaged in an "intentional widespread scheme of discrimination."  Stilson v. Assessors of Gloucester, 385 Mass. 724, 727-28 (1982).  To demonstrate this widespread scheme, taxpayers must present evidence concerning a statistically significant number of properties in the vicinity of the property at issue.  See Beardsley v. Assessors of Foxborough, 369 Mass. 855, 859 n.6 (1976).  In the present appeals, the appellants claimed disproportionate assessment, however, they failed to offer a cogent, detailed, or organized presentation supporting their claim.  The appellants offered no evidence showing intent on the part of the assessors to discriminate against their property or any other real estate, residential or otherwise, in Barnstable.  The appellants also failed to introduce the necessary comparison of assessment-to-market-value ratios to demonstrate disproportionate assessment.  Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 391, aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008).  The Board therefore found and ruled that the appellants did not prove their claim of disproportionate assessment.  
In contrast, the assessors presented substantial, credible evidence to support their opinions of value.  The two analyses offered by the assessors provided ample support for the land value component of the subject property's assessment and for their opinions of value in general.  "The board [is] not required to believe the testimony of any particular witness but it [can] accept such portions of the evidence as appear to have the more convincing weight.  Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941).  "The credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, and 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).  "The market value of a property c[an] not be proved with mathematical certainty and must ultimately rest in the realm of opinion, estimate, and judgment . . . . The board [c]an select from among the various elements of value as shown by the record and from them form . . . its own independent judgment." Boston Consolidated Gas Co. 309 Mass.  at 72 (citations omitted).  See also  North American Philips Lighting Corp. v. Assessors of Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 300 (1984); New Boston Garden Corp., 383 Mass. at 473; Jordan Marsh Co. v. Assessors of Malden, 359 Mass. 106, 110 (1971).  Therefore, the Board found and ruled that the fair cash values of the subject property were the values offered by the assessors, which were: $7,130,600 for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, $7,065,600 for fiscal year 2008, and $7,087,400 for fiscal year 2009. 
 Accordingly, the Board decided these appeals for the appellants and granted abatements in the following amounts: $9,666.89 for fiscal year 2005, $14,936.52 for fiscal year 2006, $11,380.31 for fiscal year 2008, and $7,794.79 for fiscal year 2009.  
				      APPELLATE TAX BOARD
		  	         By:				______________
  Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman
A true copy,

Attest:		______	_____	
	      Clerk of the Board

 During its view of the subject property, the Board observed that a jetty protrudes from the subject property's beach into the water.
 These amounts also include a Community Preservation Act Tax and a District Tax.  
 For fiscal year 2009, the assessors initially valued the subject property at $8,664,000.  In response to the appellants' Application for Abatement, the assessors reduced the valuation to $7,964,500 and granted a partial abatement of tax in the amount of $6,216.46.  

ATB 2010-733