Star Margit ETR c/o Star Sales & Distributing v. Board of Assessors of the City of Woburn (September 24, 2013)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD

STAR MARGIT ETR      	   v.	   BOARD OF ASSESSORS 	
c/o  STAR SALES &  	   OF THE CITY OF WOBURN
DISTRIBUTING

Docket Nos. F305788, F310888               Promulgated:
								   September 24, 2013
 
	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 appellee, Board of Assessors of the City of Woburn ("assessors" or "appellee"), to abate taxes on certain real estate located in the City of Woburn owned by and assessed to Star Margit ETR c/o Star Sales & Distributing ("appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38 for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 ("fiscal years at issue").
	Commissioner Mulhern heard these appeals.  Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Rose and Chmielinski joined him in decisions 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 1.32.
Matthew A. Luz, Esq. for the appellant.
Andrew Creen, Chief Assessor and John Connolly, Assessor, for the appellee.  

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of the Joint Stipulation of Facts and evidence entered into the record, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.  
On January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2010, the appellant was the assessed owner of a 5.1-acre parcel of land, improved with an industrial warehouse, identified on the assessors' Map 21 as Block 1, Lot 8 and located at 29 Commerce Way in Woburn ("subject property").  For fiscal year 2010, the assessors valued the subject property at $3,250,600 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $26.10 per thousand, in the total amount of $84,840.66.  The appellant timely paid the tax due without any interest.  On January 28, 2010, the appellant timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors, which the assessors denied on April 14, 2010.  On May 4, 2010, the appellant seasonably filed an appeal with the Board.  On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal for fiscal year 2010. 
For fiscal year 2011, the assessors valued the subject property at $3,220,600 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $26.34 per thousand, in the total amount of $84,830.60.  The appellant timely paid the tax due without any interest.  On January 6, 2011, the appellant timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors, which the assessors denied on April 4, 2011.  On April 22, 2011, the appellant seasonably filed an appeal with the Board.  On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal for fiscal year 2011.  
The subject property is a 5.1-acre, irregularly shaped parcel improved with an industrial facility, built in 1984, containing approximately 51,724 square feet.  It is located on Commerce Way, which is a very active commercial roadway that is developed with industrial and commercial properties.  Access to both Routes 128/95 and 93 is very convenient, making the area desirable for industrial and retail use.
The subject building is an irregularly shaped, one-story, masonry facility with a decorative split and painted concrete block exterior.  The facility has a mixed use, with 78% designed and used as a warehouse and 22% designed and used as an office and a small showroom used for business-to-business sales.  The interior of the office and showroom area includes carpeted and resilient flooring, painted partition drywall and a suspended acoustic ceiling with recessed fluorescent lighting.  The interior of the warehouse includes concrete flooring, an open truss ceiling, steel-frame support columns, some mezzanine storage, and 11 loading doors.  The building is equipped with 400-amp individual service and includes sprinklers throughout.  Paved on-site parking is adequate and the lot also allows for adequate truck access and turning.  The subject building is in overall average condition and is adequately maintained. 
The appellant presented its case-in-chief through the testimony and appraisal report of Donald Griffin, a real estate appraiser whom the Board qualified as an expert in the area of real estate valuation.  Mr. Griffin first determined that the highest and best use of the subject property as improved was its current use as an industrial building.  Mr. Griffin then developed both an income-capitalization approach and a sales approach to value the subject property.  Those approaches are detailed as follows.
Mr. Griffin first developed an income-capitalization approach for fiscal year 2011.  For his income-capitalization approach, Mr. Griffin cited 6 purportedly comparable rental properties, all located in Woburn and all at least 90% devoted to warehouse or manufacturing use, which ranged in size from 9,247 square feet to 60,000 square feet.  Mr. Griffin obtained five of his comparable properties' listings from the website, "LoopNet," and the sixth listing was from the MLS.  The listing dates ranged from November, 2009 through May, 2012, with the offerings ranging from asking rents of $5.50 to $7.00 per square foot.  Mr. Griffin did not adjust any of his comparable properties for time or terms of rental agreement, or for size or location of the real property.  However, he did make a 10% adjustment to his Comparables One, Two, Three and Four for their inferior conditions.  In all, Mr. Griffin's adjustments were as follows:
		Comparable	        Total Adjustment
One					10%
Two					10%
Three				10%
Four				     10%
Five					 0%
Six					 0%

After adjustment, his comparable properties' rental offerings ranged from $4.95 to $6.30.  From this range, Mr. Griffin selected a rate of $5.69 for the subject property's 40,434 square feet of warehouse space.
Mr. Griffin performed a similar survey for the subject property's office and showroom space, citing six purportedly comparable office rental properties all located in Woburn.  The comparable properties ranged in size from 1,230 square feet to 12,500 square feet.  Mr. Griffin obtained all six of his comparable properties' rental information from MLS or LoopNet; Comparables Three, Four and Six were asking rents, with the remainder actual rents.  The listing or rental dates ranged from April, 2008 through and including January, 2012, with the offerings or rentals ranging from asking or actual rentals of $9.95 to $16.95 per square foot.  Mr. Griffin did not adjust any of his comparable properties for time or size of property.  He adjusted Comparables Two, Three, Four, Five and Six for their terms of rental agreement, which were not triple-net leases like the subject property.  Mr. Griffin also adjusted his Comparable Five for its superior location.  He then adjusted his Comparables One, Two, and Three for their inferior condition and his Comparable Six for its superior condition.  In all, Mr. Griffin's adjustments were as follows: 
   Comparable		     Total Adjustment

One					10%
Two					20%
Three				10%
Four					 0%
Five				    -20%
Six				    -10%

After adjustment, his comparable properties' rents ranged from $8.60 to $10.95.  From this range, Mr. Griffin selected a rent of $9.59 for the subject property's 11,289 square feet of office space.
After applying his $5.69 rental rate to the subject building's 40,434 square feet of warehouse space and his $9.57 rental rate to the subject building's 11,289 square feet of office space, Mr. Griffin obtained a total annual rental income of $338,040, which produced an annual rent per square foot of $6.54.
Mr. Griffin next determined a vacancy rate.  The subject property had 0% vacancy at the time of the report.  However, Mr. Griffin stated that consideration of vacancy was appropriate to account for potential vacancies and uncollected rents.  He selected a 15% vacancy rate, based on his survey of Grubb & Ellis and Cushman & Wakefield market reports.  
Mr. Griffin next selected 5% of effective gross income for a management fee.  He also selected 3.9% as his reserves for replacements, which he determined by calculating costs to replace items including the roof, water heaters, heating and cooling units and office carpet.  Mr. Griffin did not consider other expenses, like taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance, stating that in a triple-net lease, the tenant assumes responsibility for those expenses.  Therefore, Mr. Griffin's total expenses were 8.9% of effective gross income.  
Mr. Griffin next described how he developed his capitalization rate.  He first extracted capitalization rates from the market.  In his market analysis, Mr. Griffin reported ten sales in Middlesex and Essex counties, which reported capitalization rates at an average of 10.12%.  Mr. Griffin next developed a band-of-investment approach.  Mr. Griffin reviewed what he deemed to be current commercial lending policies for a 20-year amortization schedule at an annual interest rate of 7.5%.  He determined that an annual equity return of 15% was deemed sufficient to induce investment.  He then reviewed returns from a range of alternative investment mixes in the stock and bond market over a 30-year period and he determined that investment in the subject property would be akin to investing in small cap stocks, which offered an average return of 14.7%.  Mr. Griffin determined that the conditions for appreciation over the anticipated holding period - increasing demand and shrinking supply - were not present in an industrial property; he therefore estimated appreciation at 0%.  From this data, Mr. Griffin determined an overall capitalization rate of 10.159%, which he rounded to 10.2%.  Finally, Mr. Griffin's third method for developing a capitalization rate was to review national surveys of rates provided by Korpacz reports from the fourth quarter of the year prior to the relevant assessment dates.  These rates were 8.28% for fiscal year 2010 and 10.79% for fiscal year 2011.  Mr. Griffin reconciled these figures at 10.0%, which he selected as his overall capitalization rate.  
Mr. Griffin's income-capitalization approach is summarized below:

FISCAL YEAR 2011

INCOME
  Potential gross income annually:  $6.54psf 			$  338,040
  Vacancy & collections   		15.0% 		     ($   50,706)
Effective gross income 							$  287,335

EXPENSES
  Management Fee				5%
  Reserves for replacements		3.9%
  Total expenses				8.9% 				$   25,554

NET OPERATING INCOME 							$  261,780

CAPITALIZATION RATE 		      10.0%				/10.0%

INDICATED VALUE   							$2,617,805

ROUNDED 									$2,618,000
  
Mr. Griffin next performed a sales-comparison analysis for fiscal year 2011.  Mr. Griffin testified that there were not many comparable sales in the Woburn market, but he did find three purportedly comparable sales of industrial warehouse properties in Woburn occurring from March, 2010 to June, 2010, slightly beyond the relevant assessment date but within what Mr. Griffin deemed a "reasonable period."  These warehouses, like the subject, included a percentage of office space, ranging between 14% and 38%, as compared with the subject's 22%.  Mr. Griffin did not make any adjustments for time of sale, finding that the market was stable between the assessment date and the dates of the comparables' sales.  However, he did make adjustments for land-to-building ratio, the building's effective age and condition, building height, and percentage of office space, with total adjustments between -0.57% and -10.74%.  With respect to his adjustments for percentage of office space, Mr. Griffin conceded that most warehouses do have an office component and that the adjustment to account for office space is a relatively small one, but he nonetheless included that in an attempt "to recognize that there are slight differences and try to be as accurate as possible."  
After adjustments, Mr. Griffin's comparable sales yielded adjusted sales prices between $53.33 to $59.24 per square foot, with an average of $57.27 per square foot.  Applying this to the subject property's 51,723 square feet yielded an indicated value of $2,962,176, which Mr. Griffin then discounted by 10% to reflect the comparable properties' exposure to the market before their sale, for an average of 1.7 years.  After the discount, the comparable-sale properties yielded a value of $2,665,959, which Mr. Griffin rounded to $2,666,000.
Mr. Griffin then reconciled his values obtained by the income-capitalization and sales-comparison approaches.  The reconciled value, which was Mr. Griffin's opinion of the subject's fair market value for fiscal year 2011, was $2,650,000.  Mr. Griffin testified that he gave more weight to the income-capitalization approach in his reconciliation of the values obtained by the two methods.  
Mr. Griffin developed the above analysis only for fiscal year 2011.  For fiscal year 2010, Mr. Griffin considered the capitalization rate as reported in Korpacz for the fourth quarter of 2008, the quarter preceding the relevant valuation date for fiscal year 2010.  Based on the Korpacz study, Mr. Griffin determined that there was a higher market value overall during fiscal year 2010, a difference of about 5% from fiscal year 2011.  Mr. Griffin adjusted the overall fiscal year 2011 valuation accordingly, which yielded an opinion of value of $2,789,000 for fiscal year 2010.
On cross-examination, Mr. Griffin admitted that, for his income-capitalization approach, his comparable leases from LoopNet and MLS were not executed leases but only listings.  With respect to the capitalization rate, Mr. Griffin also admitted that the subject property was in a very good location but that the properties that he utilized for his market analysis were situated in locations that were inferior to the subject property's location. 
The appellee presented its case-in-chief through the testimony and appraisal report of its expert witness, John F. Connolly, who is also a member of the assessors.  Mr. Connolly determined his opinion of value via the income-capitalization approach with limited support from the sales of industrial properties in the northern greater-Boston area.  Based on his study, which included fourteen leases conducted between 2008 through 2010, six of which were located on Commerce Way, Mr. Connolly stated that the market rents for industrial space on Commerce Way and nearby streets during 2009 and 2010 ranged from $6.15 to $10.50 per square foot on a triple-net basis.  Mr. Connolly selected $7.00 per square foot, which he applied to the subject property's entire 51,724 square feet for both fiscal years at issue.  Mr. Connolly explained that he did not segregate separate rates for warehouse and office spaces, because the industrial properties on the market were mixed office/industrial spaces, and he did not see evidence of segregation of rates in the industrial market; rather, the rents on the market were "blended rates" which took into account the mixed usage.
Mr. Connolly next determined a vacancy rate.  He reviewed a study by Jones Lang LaSalle of the Boston North market, which indicated that the vacancy was an average of 12.65% during the period from Quarter 4 of 2009 to Quarter 4 of 2011.  This study included several different communities.  In Mr. Connolly's opinion, the Woburn market remained in high demand during the relevant time period, because of its proximity to Routes 93 and 128/95.  The subject property in particular is located in a prime area, which fronts Route 93.  Based on this information, Mr. Connolly selected 10% as an appropriate vacancy and collection loss rate.
 Mr. Connolly next determined operating expenses.  Mr. Connolly studied expense data obtained from the marketplace to determine his expenses, and he decided upon the following: 
 
Management 				4% of effective gross income ("EGI")
Administration 			1% EGI
  (legal and accounting) 
Real estate taxes 		$1.64 per square foot of building area
Insurance 				$0.25 per square foot
Utilities 				$1.95 per square foot 
	Repairs/Maintenance 		$0.25 per square foot
 	Miscellaneous 			$0.10 per square foot
	Reserves for replacements  	$0.10 per square foot
	Lease commissions			1.8% of the lease
	Tenant improvements		$0.10 per square foot


Mr. Connolly determined that in the triple-net leases he reviewed, particularly leases for properties on Commerce Way, the tenant was responsible for management fees, administrative fees, real estate taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs and maintenance and other miscellaneous expenses, while replacement allowances, lease commissions for new tenants, and a small portion of tenant improvements would typically be paid by the landlord.  
Mr. Connolly next developed his capitalization rate.  He first extracted a rate from sales of industrial properties during the fiscal years at issue.  This study indicated capitalization rates ranging from 8% to 10%.  Mr. Connolly then synthesized the rates using the band-of-investment technique, which yielded a rate of 9.25% for both fiscal years at issue.  Mr. Connolly stated that this rate was supported by Korpacz and RealtyRates.com.  
Mr. Connolly's income-capitalization analysis is summarized below:
Income
51,724 sq. feet at $7.00 per square foot		$362,068
Vacancy at 10%					     ($ 36,207)
Effective Gross Income					$325,861

Expenses
Reserves						     ($  5,172)
Commissions						     ($  6,517)
Tenant improvements			           ($  5,172)

Total							     ($ 16,861)

Net operating income					$309,000
Capitalization rate	 @9.25%

Value estimate					    $3,340,540

Rounded						    $3,340,000

From the above analysis, Mr. Connolly determined a fair market value of $3,340,000 for both fiscal years at issue.  Mr. Connolly did not perform a sales-comparison approach, relying solely on the income-capitalization approach for valuing the subject property. 
On the basis of the evidence presented, the Board made the following ultimate findings of fact.  Both Mr. Griffin and Mr. Connolly relied most heavily on their findings derived from the income-capitalization approach.  The both found that there were an insufficient number of sales of reasonably comparable property to support a sales-comparison analysis for valuing the subject property, and therefore, the expert witnesses considered the sales-comparison approach merely as a check on their income-capitalization analysis.  The Board agreed with the real estate experts and likewise found that the income-capitalization method was the most appropriate for valuation of the subject property.
The Board next found that the comparable-rental properties presented by Mr. Connolly, which included rentals from the same street and thus the same desirable location as the subject property, were more comparable to the subject property than the appellant's comparable-rental properties.  The Board therefore gave greater weight to the appellee's $7.00-per-square-foot income projection, which the Board found was applicable to both fiscal years at issue.  The Board found credible Mr. Connolly's testimony that the rents for industrial properties in the relevant market were "blended" rates that included office and warehouse space, and the appellant failed to provide any evidence of segregation of rents for the different types of property.  The Board also found credible Mr. Connolly's testimony that the subject property's location was very good for industrial properties, and thus found Mr. Connolly's 10% vacancy rate was better supported than Mr. Griffin's 15% figure.  Using these figures, the Board obtained an effective gross income of $325,861 for both fiscal years at issue. 
Next, with respect to expenses, the Board found credible Mr. Connolly's testimony that management fees are passed back to the tenant and thus not part of the landlord's expense in a triple-net lease of this type of property in the relevant market.  However, the Board also found that Mr. Griffin's figure for the reserves expense was more credible than Mr. Connolly's figure.  The Board thus adopted Mr. Connolly's expenses for commissions and tenant improvements but adopted Mr. Griffin's expense for reserves.  This yielded total expenses of $22,876 for both fiscal years at issue.
Finally, the Board compared the experts' capitalization rates.  The Board found credible Mr. Connolly's testimony regarding the subject property's favorable location, which should be factored into a market analysis for determining the capitalization rate.  The Board thus adopted Mr. Connolly's lower capitalization rate of 9.25% for both fiscal years at issue.  The Board's analysis was thus as follows:

Income
51,724 sq. feet at $7.00 per square foot		$362,068
Vacancy at 10%					     ($ 36,207)
Effective Gross Income					$325,861

Expenses
Reserves						     ($ 11,187)
Commissions						     ($  6,517)
Tenant improvements			           ($  5,172)

Total							     ($ 22,876)

Net operating income					$302,985
Capitalization rate	    /9.25%

Value estimate for fiscal years 2010 and 2011  $3,275,514

Rounded						     $3,275,000


Assessed values:
	FY 2010 = $3,250,600
	FY 2011 = $3,250,600

				
Because the Board's calculation of fair market value exceeded the assessed value for both fiscal years at issue, the Board found that the appellant did not meet its burden of proving an entitlement to an abatement for either fiscal year at issue.  Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellee in these appeals.

OPINION
The 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 of them 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.  Id.  If the property is particularly well-suited for a certain use that is not prohibited, then that use may be reflected in an estimate of its fair market value.  Colonial Acres, Inc. v. North Reading, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 384, 386 (1975).  "In determining the property's highest and best use, consideration should be given to the purpose for which the property is adapted."  Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2002-573, 617 (citing Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate at 315-16 (12th ed., 2001)), aff'd, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428 (2004).   On the basis of these principles, the Board considered, among other factors, the subject property's history, size, location, and layout, as well as the uses of properties similar to the subject property and located in its market area.  The Board found and ruled that the highest-and-best use of the subject property during the fiscal years at issue was, as the appellant's real estate valuation witness recommended and the appellee's expert agreed, its existing use as an industrial building with a small portion reserved for office space and business-to-business sales.   
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."  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 397 Mass. 447, 449 (1986).  In these appeals, the real estate valuation experts determined that there were insufficient fee-simple market sales of reasonably comparable properties to meaningfully estimate the value of the subject property using a sales-comparison technique.  The Board agreed.  See Olympia & York State Street Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 428 Mass. 236, 247 (1998)("The assessors must determine a fair cash value for the property as a fee simple estate, which is to say, they must value an ownership interest in the land and the building as if no leases were in effect.").  With respect to the cost-reproduction method, the Board ruled that "[t]he introduction of evidence concerning the value based on [cost] computations has been limited to special situations in which data cannot be reliably computed under the other two methods."  Correia, 375 Mass. at 362.  The Board found here that no such "special situations" existed, because both experts were able to find suitable data to support an income-capitalization approach.  The use of the income-capitalization approach is appropriate when reliable market-sales data are not available.  Assessors of Weymouth v. Tammy Brook Co., 368 Mass. 810, 811 (1975); Assessors of Lynnfield v. New England Oyster House, 362 Mass. 696, 701-02 (1972); Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 67 (1941).  It is also recognized as an appropriate technique to use for valuing income-producing property.  Id. at 64-65.  In these appeals, the Board relied exclusively on the values determined from the income-capitalization approach.  
"Direct capitalization is widely used when properties are already operating on a stabilized basis and there is an ample supply of comparable [rentals] with similar risk levels, incomes, expenses, physical and locational characteristics, and future expectations."  Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 499 (13th ed., 2008).  The Board found that there were an adequate number of comparable rentals to support the use of a direct income-capitalization methodology to estimate the value of the subject property for the fiscal years at issue.  "The direct capitalization of income method analyzes the property's capacity to generate income over a one-year period and converts the capacity into an indication of fair cash value by capitalizing the income at a rate determined to be appropriate for the investment risk involved."  Olympia & York State Street Co., 428 Mass. at 239.  "It is the net income that a property should be earning, not necessarily what it actually earns, that is the figure that should be capitalized."  Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 436 (2008)(emphasis in original).  Accordingly, the income stream used in the income-capitalization method must reflect the property's earning capacity or economic rental value.  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 397 Mass. at 451.  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 Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Auth., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 289, 293-94 (1977), rev'd on other grounds, 375 Mass. 360 (1978); Library Services, Inc. v. Malden Redevelopment Auth., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 877, 878 (1980) (rescript).  After accounting for vacancy and rent 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.  Id.; see Olympia & York State Street Co., 428 Mass. at 239, 245.
In the instant appeals, the Board found that the appellee's data on projected rental income was based on data from properties more comparable to the subject property, and therefore better supported, than the appellant's data.  The Board thus ruled to adopt Mr. Connolly's $7.00 per square foot rental figure for its analysis.  The Board also found credible Mr. Connolly's testimony that the prime location for the subject property positively affected its rental potential.  The Board thus found and ruled Mr. Connolly's 10% vacancy expense to be more credible and therefore adopted that figure as well.  This calculation yielded an effective gross income of $325,861.
With respect to expenses, the Board found credible Mr. Connolly's testimony that management expenses were the responsibility of the tenant in a triple net lease for space in the relevant market.  However, the Board found more credible Mr. Griffin's reserves expense.  The Board thus adopted Mr. Connolly's expenses for commissions and tenant improvements and Mr. Griffin's expense for reserves, which yielded total expenses of $22,876.  Finally, the Board found that Mr.  Connolly's capitalization rate of 9.25% was more credible than Mr. Griffin's, because Mr. Connolly took into account the subject property's favorable location in his market analysis.  
The Board's analysis yielded a value estimate of $3,275,514, which it rounded to $3,275,000 for both fiscal years at issue.  This was higher than the assessed value of $3,250,600 for both fiscal years at issue.  
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 market value of [] 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 the various elements of value as shown by the record and from them form . . . its own independent judgment."  Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941). (citations omitted).  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 inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the [B]oard."   Cummington School of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977).

Based on the evidence presented in this appeal, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the Board found and ruled that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proving a fair cash value of the subject property that was lower than its assessed value for either fiscal year at issue. 
Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellee in these appeals. 

   THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD

				By: ________________________________
				   Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman 




A true copy,

Attest: ________________________
     Clerk of the Board

  Based on actual cost provided by tenant.

ATB 2013-972