Bouley, Gerald P. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Ipswich (June 24, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
GERALD P. BOULEY 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF IPSWICH
Docket No. F349126 	Promulgated:
June 24, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	filed 	under 	the 	formal 	procedure 	pursuant
to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 from the refusal
of 	the 	Board 	of 	Assessors 	of 	the 	Town 	of 	Ipswich 	(“appellee” 	or
“assessors”) 	to 	abate 	a 	tax 	on 	real 	estate 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed
to 	Gerald 	P. 	Bouley 	(“appellant”) 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2023 	(“fiscal
year at issue”).
Commissioner Elliott heard this appeal. Chairman DeFrancisco
and 	Commissioners 	Good, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	him 	in 	the
decision for the appellee.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Brian T. Akashian, Esq., for the appellant.
Ellen M. Hutchinson, Esq., for the appellee.
ATB 2025-201

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	testimony 	and 	documents 	admitted 	into 	evidence
during 	the 	hearing 	of 	this 	appeal, 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board
(“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
On 	January 	1, 	2022, 	the 	relevant 	valuation 	and 	assessment
date for the fiscal year at issue, the appellant was the owner of
a 	single-family 	condominium 	unit 	situated 	on 	a 	4,301-square-foot
parcel 	of 	which 	the 	appellant 	has 	exclusive 	use, 	located 	at 	25
Plum Sound Road in Ipswich (“subject property”).
For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject
property 	at 	$1,454,000 	and 	assessed 	tax 	thereon, 	at 	the 	rate 	of
$12.23 	per 	$1,000, 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$17,782.42. 	The 	appellant
timely paid the tax due without incurring interest. On January 23,
2023, the appellant timely filed an abatement application with the
appellee, which the appellee denied on March 27, 2023. On June 26,
2023, 	the 	appellant 	seasonably 	filed 	an 	appeal 	with 	the 	Board.1
Based 	on 	these 	facts, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	it 	had
jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant appeal.
The subject property is part of a condominium complex on the
peninsula 	of 	Little 	Neck 	in 	Ipswich 	that 	consists 	of 	167 	units.
1 While the petition was date stamped as having been received by the Board on
June 30, 2023, the envelope containing the petition bore a United States Postal
Service postmark of June 26, 2023. For purposes of determining jurisdiction, if
a petition is received after the due date, the date of mailing is deemed to be
the date of delivery. See G.L. c. 58, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65. The
Board thus found and ruled that the petition was mailed, and thus filed, timely.
ATB 2025-202

These 	units 	are 	of 	varying 	sizes 	and 	conditions, 	many 	of 	which
were 	originally 	designed 	as 	fishing 	cabins 	and 	then 	seasonal
cottages. The Little Neck condominium complex is served by a common
tight-tank 	waste 	treatment 	plant 	that 	requires 	pumping 	several
times a week during the off-season and usually twice a day during
the 	peak 	season, 	from 	May 	to 	August. 	Common 	amenities 	for 	the
condominium 	complex 	include 	a 	basketball 	court, 	soccer 	field,
baseball 	field, 	pickleball 	court, 	clubhouse 	with 	postal 	boxes, 	a
children’s playground, and a dock with moorings that are owned by
the town and leased to the condominium residents.
The 	subject 	property 	is 	a 	one-story, 	wood-frame,
contemporary-style 	ranch 	dwelling 	with 	a 	fully 	finished 	basement
that was constructed in 2005 and contains a total finished area of
2,358 	square 	feet, 	with 	1,241 	square 	feet 	on 	the 	first 	floor 	and
the 	remaining 	finished 	area 	in 	the 	basement. 	The 	living 	area 	is
comprised 	of 	six 	rooms, 	including 	three 	bedrooms, 	as 	well 	as 	one
full bathroom and one half bathroom on the main floor and a three-
quarter 	bathroom 	in 	the 	basement. 	The 	subject 	property 	also
includes 	a 	covered 	front 	entrance 	and 	a 	320-square-foot 	deck
overlooking 	the 	water 	at 	the 	rear. 	The 	subject 	property 	is 	fully
heated 	and 	air 	conditioned 	and 	has 	one 	fireplace. 	The 	subject
property’s condition is stated as average-good.
The 	Little 	Neck 	peninsula 	extends 	from 	the 	Great 	Neck
neighborhood 	and 	is 	bound 	by 	the 	Ipswich 	River, 	Neck 	Creek, 	and
ATB 2025-203

Ipswich Bay. Each house on Little Neck has a water view, but there
are varying ranges of view obstruction. The subject property does
not have water frontage but features excellent unobstructed views
of Ipswich Bay.
The 	appellant 	first 	offered 	the 	testimony 	and 	appraisal
report of Danielle Ouellette, whom the Board qualified as an expert
witness 	in 	the 	field 	of 	real 	estate 	valuation. 	Ms. 	Ouellette
completed 	a 	comparable-sales 	analysis 	using 	five 	purportedly
comparable 	properties 	that 	had 	sold 	from 	April 	2021 	to 	October
2021, with four properties located in the Great Neck neighborhood
and one located in the neighboring town of Rockport. After applying
adjustments to her purportedly comparable properties for features
including 	view, 	design, 	condition, 	gross 	living 	area, 	and 	below-
grade 	living 	area, 	Ms. 	Ouellette 	derived 	adjusted 	sale 	prices
ranging 	from 	$814,400 	to 	$1,064,400. 	Placing 	the 	most 	weight 	on
her 	second 	comparable 	property 	for 	its 	similar 	views 	and 	bedroom
count, 	and 	for 	warranting 	the 	fewest 	adjustments, 	Ms. 	Ouellette
arrived at a fair cash value of $1,000,000 for the subject property
for the fiscal year at issue. On cross examination, Ms. Ouellette
admitted 	that 	she 	did 	not 	rely 	upon 	any 	sales 	of 	properties 	that
were located on Little Neck.
The 	appellant 	next 	offered 	a 	self-prepared 	comparable-sales
analysis 	using 	three 	properties 	located 	on 	Little 	Neck. 	The
unadjusted 	sale 	prices 	ranged 	from 	$649,000 	to 	$1,275,000, 	with
ATB 2025-204

the 	highest-priced 	sale 	being 	the 	outlier. 	The 	appellant 	did 	not
make 	adjustments 	to 	the 	sale 	prices 	of 	these 	properties 	for 	any
differences with the subject property. The appellant calculated a
price-per-square-foot 	value 	that 	considered 	only 	the 	above-grade
living 	area 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	thus 	extrapolated 	a 	fair
cash 	value 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	of 	$805,409 	for 	the 	fiscal
year at issue.
Aside 	from 	cross-examining 	both 	witnesses, 	the 	appellee 	did
not 	present 	a 	case 	in 	chief 	and 	instead 	rested 	on 	the 	presumed
validity of the assessment.
Based on the evidence of record, as well as the Board’s view
of 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	of 	Little 	Neck, 	the 	Board 	found 	that
the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	prove 	a 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	subject
property that was less than its assessed value for the fiscal year
at issue. The Board found that Ms. Ouellette’s focus on Great Neck
properties 	was 	misplaced, 	as 	that 	was 	a 	different 	neighborhood
from 	Little 	Neck 	with 	different 	attributes 	contributing 	to
property values.
On the other hand, when the appellant did employ Little Neck
sale 	properties 	for 	comparison, 	he 	failed 	to 	demonstrate 	their
basic 	similarity 	with 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	further 	failed 	to
adjust their sale prices for differences between those properties
and the subject property for features that affect fair cash value,
including but not limited to size, location, and condition of the
ATB 2025-205

property. 	The 	subject 	property 	enjoys 	unobstructed 	water 	views,
superior to many of the properties on Little Neck, which the Board
found 	increased 	its 	overall 	fair 	cash 	value. 	Moreover, 	in 	his
analysis, 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	include 	in 	his 	calculation 	of
living area that part of the subject property that was designated
below 	grade, 	which 	further 	skewed 	his 	opinion 	of 	the 	subject
property’s fair cash value.
Accordingly, as will be explained more fully in the following
Opinion, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellee 	for 	the
fiscal year at issue.
OPINION
Assessors 	are 	required 	to 	assess 	real 	estate 	at 	its 	fair
cash 	value 	as 	of 	the 	first 	day 	of 	January 	preceding 	the 	fiscal
year at issue. G.L. c. 59, § 38. Fair cash value is defined as the
price 	upon 	which 	a 	willing 	buyer 	and 	a 	willing 	seller 	will 	agree
if both are fully informed and under no compulsion. Boston Gas Co.
v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
The 	appellant 	has 	the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	their 	property
has 	a 	lower 	fair 	cash 	value 	than 	that 	assessed. 	“The 	burden 	of
proof 	is 	upon 	the 	petitioner 	to 	make 	out 	its 	right 	as 	[a] 	matter
of 	law 	to 	[an] 	abatement 	of 	the 	tax.” 	Schlaiker 	v. 	Assessors 	of
Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974) (quoting Judson Freight
Forwarding 	Co. 	v. 	Commonwealth, 	242 Mass. 	47, 	55 	(1922)). 	“[T]he
ATB 2025-206

board 	is 	entitled 	to 	‘presume 	that 	the 	valuation 	made 	by 	the
assessors 	[is] 	valid 	unless 	the 	taxpayers 	. 	. 	. 	prov[e] 	the
contrary.’” 	General 	Electric 	Co. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Lynn, 	393 	Mass.
591, 598 (1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
In 	appeals 	before 	the 	Board, 	a 	taxpayer 	“may 	present
persuasive 	evidence 	of 	overvaluation 	either 	by 	exposing 	flaws 	or
errors 	in 	the 	assessors’ 	method 	of 	valuation, 	or 	by 	introducing
affirmative 	evidence 	of 	value 	which 	undermines 	the 	assessors’
valuation.” General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon
v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
Sales 	of 	comparable 	realty 	in 	the 	same 	geographic 	area 	and
within a reasonable time of the assessment date generally contain
probative 	evidence 	for 	determining 	the 	value 	of 	the 	property 	at
issue. Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of
Fact and Reports 2007-321, 399-400 (citing McCabe v. Chelsea, 265
Mass. 494, 496 (1929)), aff’d, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008)).
Properties are “comparable” to the subject property when they
share 	“fundamental 	similarities” 	with 	the 	subject 	property. 	See
Lattuca v. Robsham, 442 Mass. 205, 216 (2004). The appellant bears
the burden of “establishing the comparability of . . . properties
[used 	for 	comparison] 	to 	the 	subject 	property.” 	Silvestri 	v.
Assessors of Lowell, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2012-
926, 	935. 	Accord 	New 	Boston 	Garden 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Boston,
383 Mass. 456, 470 (1981). 	In the present appeals, the Board found
ATB 2025-207

that Ms. Ouellette’s comparable-sale analysis relied on comparison
properties 	that 	were 	too 	dissimilar 	to 	the 	subject 	property 	to
furnish 	reliable 	evidence 	of 	its 	fair 	cash 	value. 	None 	of 	the
comparison properties was located on Little Neck, and in fact, one
property was from a different town altogether. The Board thus found
and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appraisal 	report 	offered 	by 	the 	appellant 	was
not 	persuasive 	evidence 	of 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the 	subject
property.
The appellant offered his own comparable-sales analysis using
three 	properties 	located 	on 	Little 	Neck. 	However, 	he 	failed 	to
apply adjustments to those properties’ sale values to account for
differences between those properties and the subject property for
features that affect fair cash value. “Adjustments must be made to
. 	. 	. 	sales 	data 	to 	account 	for 	differences 	between 	the 	subject
property 	and 	the 	properties 	offered 	for 	comparison.” 	Doherty 	v.
Assessors of Lee, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2013-174,
181 (citing Lareau v. Assessors of Norwell, Mass. ATB Findings of
Fact and Reports 2010-879, 889-90).
One 	key 	feature 	that 	was 	crucial 	to 	valuing 	the 	subject
property 	was 	its 	unobstructed 	water 	view. 	The 	Board 	has
historically determined that properties with notable harbor views
command higher prices. See, e.g., Harbor Dreams, LLC v. Assessors
of 	Hingham, 	2004-56, 	60 	(noting 	that 	“[p]rices 	paid 	for 	homes 	in
the […] area vary widely depending on the views” of the harbor and
ATB 2025-208

]n,J)p~
~~
bay). 	The 	Board 	thus 	found 	that 	the 	lack 	of 	adjustments 	for 	the
subject 	property’s 	unobstructed 	harbor 	view 	substantially
undermined 	the 	validity 	of 	the 	appellant’s 	comparable-sales
analysis, thus rendering that analysis unpersuasive.
Moreover, the appellant failed to include in his calculation
of 	living 	area 	that 	part 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	that 	was
designated 	below 	grade, 	which 	further 	skewed 	his 	opinion 	of 	the
subject property’s fair cash value.
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the
appellant 	failed 	to 	meet 	his 	burden 	of 	proving 	a 	fair 	cash 	value
for the subject property that was less than its assessed value for
the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellee
upholding the subject property’s assessment for the fiscal year at
issue.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	_____ 	_____________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: 	_________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-209