Pinardi, Denise v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Montague (April 2, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
DENISE PINARDI 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF MONTAGUE
Docket Nos. F350338, F350339, 	Promulgated:
F350340 	April 2, 2025
These 	are 	appeals 	filed 	under 	the 	formal 	procedure 	pursuant
to 	G.L. 	c. 	58A, 	§ 	7 	and 	G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§§ 	64 	and 	65 	regarding 	real
estate 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed 	to 	Denise 	Pinardi 	(“appellant”) 	for
fiscal year 2023 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	(“Presiding 	Commissioner”) 	heard 	these
appeals and, in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1A, issued single-
member decisions for the appellee dismissing the appeals.
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.
David Pinardi and Chris Pinardi1 for the appellant.
Karen Tonelli, Assessor, for the appellee.
1 David Pinardi and Chris Pinardi are sons of the appellant. They appeared on
their mother’s behalf at her request and demonstrated appropriate familiarity
with the real estate at issue.
ATB 2025-71

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	testimony 	and 	documents 	admitted 	into 	evidence
during 	the 	hearing 	of 	these 	appeals, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2022, the relevant valuation date for the fiscal
year 	at 	issue, 	the 	appellant 	was 	the 	assessed 	owner 	of 	three
parcels of land totaling 34.406 acres and located on West Chestnut
Hill Road in Montague (collectively, the “subject property”).2 For
the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	classified
pursuant to G.L. c. 61 (“Chapter 61”) as forest land and certified
as 	such 	by 	the 	State 	Forester. 	The 	subject 	property 	was 	thus
assessed 	and 	taxed 	at 	reduced 	rates 	pursuant 	to 	Chapter 	61, 	§ 	3.
Assessor 	Karen 	Tonelli 	explained 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s
Chapter 61 values, which were the basis of their assessments, were
listed on the property record cards as “special values.”
For 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	the 	parcels 	comprising 	the
subject property were valued and assessed as follows:
Parcel identification 	Assessed “special value” 	Tax assessed
52-0-081 	$72 	$1.71
52-0-131 	$324 	$8.23
52-0-118 	$4,537 	$107.89
2 For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee initially issued three separate
property record cards for these parcels, identified as parcels 52-0-118, 52-0-
081, and 52-0-131. However, the appellee adjusted the parcel identifications
during the fiscal year at issue to combine parcels 52-0-081 and 52-0-131 with
parcel 52-0-069, thereby creating a single 6.4-acre parcel at 52-0-069.
ATB 2025-72

The appellant timely paid the taxes due without incurring interest.
On March 27, 2023, prior to the due date of the first installment
of the semi-annual real estate tax bill, the appellant timely filed
abatement 	applications 	for 	the 	subject 	property. 	The 	appellant
allowed 	the 	appellee 	an 	additional 	thirty 	days 	to 	act 	on 	the
abatement applications. On July 10, 2023, the appellee denied the
appellant’s abatement requests. On October 3, 2023, the appellant
seasonably filed petitions with the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”).
The appellant presented her case through the testimony of her
sons, David Pinardi and Chris Pinardi. According to David Pinardi,
the appellant was contesting values that were listed on the subject
property’s property record cards as “appraised values,” contending
that 	they 	were 	greater 	than 	the 	subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash
values. The appellant understood that the “appraised values” were
not 	used 	to 	calculate 	the 	taxes 	assessed 	on 	the 	subject 	property
for the fiscal year at issue. However, she was concerned that, if
someday 	the 	subject 	property 	were 	to 	be 	taken 	out 	of 	Chapter 	61
classification, 	then 	real 	estate 	taxes 	and 	roll-back 	taxes 	would
be 	assessed 	pursuant 	to 	these 	“appraised 	values.”3 	When 	asked 	by
the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	to 	clarify 	whether 	the 	appellant 	was
3 Pursuant to Chapter 61, § 7, when land that is classified under Chapter 61 no
longer qualifies, a roll-back tax is due in “an amount equal to the difference,
if any, between the taxes paid or payable for that tax year in accordance with
this chapter and the taxes that would have been paid or payable in that tax
year 	had 	the 	land 	been 	valued, 	assessed 	and 	taxed 	without 	regard 	to 	these
provisions.”
ATB 2025-73

contesting 	the 	subject 	property’s 	Chapter 	61 	values 	or 	the 	taxes
that 	were 	assessed 	based 	on 	those 	values 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at
issue, David Pinardi confirmed that the appellant was not.
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	more 	fully 	in 	the 	following 	Opinion,
the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellant 	was 	not
aggrieved 	by 	the 	assessment 	of 	a 	tax. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding
Commissioner issued decisions for the appellee in these appeals.
OPINION
Pursuant to G.L. c. 59, § 59, “[a] person upon whom a tax has
been 	assessed 	. 	. 	. 	if 	aggrieved 	by 	such 	tax” 	may 	apply 	for 	an
abatement 	with 	the 	assessors. 	Likewise, 	pursuant 	to 	G.L. 	c. 	59,
§ 64, 	“[a] 	person 	aggrieved 	by 	the 	refusal 	of 	assessors 	to 	abate
a 	tax” 	may 	appeal 	the 	assessors’ 	decision 	to 	the 	Board. 	The
appellant here has not been aggrieved, nor does she claim to have
been aggrieved, by the taxes assessed on the subject property for
the fiscal year at issue. Neither has the appellant been aggrieved
by 	the 	refusal 	of 	the 	assessors 	to 	abate 	taxes 	assessed 	on 	the
subject property for the fiscal year at issue.
The 	“appraised 	values” 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	were 	not 	the
basis 	of 	any 	assessment 	of 	tax 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and
thus provided no basis for a ruling by the Board in these appeals.
See Sliski v. Assessors of Lincoln, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and
Reports 	2024-112, 	126 	(explaining 	that 	the 	Board’s 	actions 	are
ATB 2025-74

limited 	by 	statute 	and 	thus 	the 	Board 	cannot 	rule 	on 	theoretical
issues that do not affect an assessment for the tax year at issue)
(citing 	Cognition 	Fin. 	Corp. 	v. 	Comm’r 	of 	Revenue, 	95 	Mass. 	App.
Ct. 1119 (2019) (decision pursuant to Rule 1:28)).
In sum, because the appellant was not aggrieved by a tax, or
by 	the 	refusal 	of 	the 	appellee 	to 	abate 	a 	tax, 	the 	Presiding
Commissioner 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	Board 	lacked 	jurisdiction
over the instant appeals.
Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued decisions for
the appellee and dismissed the appeals.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	________________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _____________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-75