Wang, Audrey v. Board of Assessors of the City of Boston (September 17, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
AUDREY WANG 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE CITY OF BOSTON
Docket No. F348781 	Promulgated:
September 17, 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 	City 	of 	Boston 	(“assessors” 	or
“appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and assessed to
Audrey 	Wang 	(“appellant”) 	and 	Jun 	Zheng 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2023
(“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.
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.
Audrey Wang and Jun Zheng, pro se, for the appellant.
Laura 	Caltenco, 	Esq., 	and 	Kevin 	Killoran, 	assessor, 	for 	the
appellee.
ATB 2025-287

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, 	2022, 	the 	appellant 	was 	the 	assessed 	co-owner
of 	a 	Colonial-style, 	1,344-square-foot, 	single-family 	home
(“subject 	home”) 	located 	at 	49 	Alleyne 	Street 	on 	a 	2,800-square-
foot 	lot 	in 	the 	West 	Roxbury 	neighborhood 	of 	Boston 	(“subject
property”). The subject home was built in 1894 and has a total of
five 	rooms, 	including 	three 	bedrooms, 	a 	bathroom, 	and 	a 	half
bathroom, as well as a garage and open deck. The subject property
has two parking spaces. The appellant and Mr. Zheng purchased the
subject 	property 	in 	December 	of 	2016 	for 	$443,000. 	The 	appellant
and 	Mr. 	Zheng 	sold 	the 	subject 	property 	on 	March 	28, 	2024, 	for
$625,000.
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject
property 	at 	$583,300 	and 	assessed 	a 	tax 	thereon, 	at 	the 	rate 	of
$10.74 	per 	thousand, 	in 	the 	total 	amount 	of 	$6,316.55, 	inclusive
of the Community Preservation Act surcharge. The tax due was timely
paid without incurring interest. On January 27, 2023, the appellant
filed 	an 	application 	for 	abatement 	with 	the 	assessors, 	which 	the
assessors 	denied 	on 	April 	24, 	2023. 	The 	appellant 	timely 	filed
this appeal with the Board on June 16, 2023. Based on these facts,
ATB 2025-288

the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	it 	had 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and
decide this appeal.
II. The parties’ contentions
A. The appellant’s case
The 	appellant 	maintained 	that 	the 	relative 	percentage
increases 	per 	fiscal 	year 	in 	the 	assessed 	values 	of 	the 	subject
property 	have 	outpaced 	those 	of 	neighboring 	properties. 	She
contended that the fair cash value of the subject property for the
fiscal year at issue should be $490,900, the assessed value of 47
Alleyne 	Street 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	In 	support 	of 	her
argument, 	the 	appellant 	and 	Mr. 	Zheng 	provided 	testimony 	and
property 	records 	cards 	for 	several 	neighboring 	properties,
including 47 Alleyne Street and 35 Alleyne Street, to demonstrate
the 	assessment 	histories 	of 	these 	properties. 	The 	appellant 	made
no 	adjustments 	to 	these 	properties 	compared 	to 	the 	subject
property.
B. The assessors’ case
Assessor Kevin Killoran testified on behalf of the assessors.
Apart 	from 	the 	jurisdictional 	documents, 	the 	assessors 	presented
a sales-comparison analysis of three Colonial-style, West Roxbury
properties, along with deeds, property record cards, and multiple
listing service information for these properties. Each of the three
properties 	sold 	in 	2021, 	with 	prices 	ranging 	from 	$765,000 	to
$805,000. 	After 	the 	assessors 	applied 	adjustments 	to 	account 	for
ATB 2025-289

differences between these properties and the subject property, the
sale 	prices 	ranged 	from 	$694,160 	to 	$750,000, 	higher 	than 	the
subject property’s assessed value of $583,300 for the fiscal year
at issue.
III. The Board’s findings
Based 	on 	the 	above 	and 	all 	the 	evidence 	of 	record, 	and 	as
discussed 	further 	in 	the 	Opinion, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that
the appellant failed to establish that the fair cash value of the
subject 	property 	was 	less 	than 	the 	assessed 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal
year at issue. While the appellant provided property record cards
documenting 	the 	assessment 	histories 	for 	several 	neighboring
properties, 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	consider 	and 	adjust 	for 	any
differences between these properties and the subject property that
could impact fair cash value. In the absence of such information,
there was no basis from which the Board could determine a reduced
assessment for the subject property for the fiscal year at issue.
Conversely, 	the 	assessors 	provided 	a 	comparable-sales 	analysis,
with appropriate adjustments, that demonstrated values much higher
than 	the 	assessed 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal
year 	at 	issue. 	And 	though 	not 	determinative 	given 	its 	timeframe
years 	after 	the 	relevant 	valuation 	date, 	the 	sale 	of 	the 	subject
property by the appellant and Mr. Zheng in March 2024 indicates a
rising 	market 	from 	the 	time 	that 	they 	purchased 	the 	subject
property in December 2016.
ATB 2025-290

Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.
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 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).
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
ATB 2025-291

v. 	Assessors 	of 	Holliston, 	389 	Mass. 	848, 	855 	(1983)). 	In 	the
present 	appeal, 	the 	appellant 	provided 	no 	evidence 	of 	flaws 	or
errors in the assessors’ method of valuation and failed to present
probative 	affirmative 	evidence 	of 	overvaluation. 	See 	Fox 	v.
Assessors 	of 	Longmeadow, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports
2021-479, 	483 	(finding 	that 	“the 	lack 	of 	any 	quantifiable 	impact
on the subject property’s fair cash value was critically lacking”).
The fair cash value of property may be determined by evidence
of 	assessed 	values 	of 	comparable 	properties. 	See 	G.L. 	c. 	58A, 	§
12B (“At any hearing relative to the assessed fair cash valuation
. . . of property, evidence as to the fair cash valuation . . . at
which assessors have assessed other property of a comparable nature
. 	. 	. 	shall 	be 	admissible.”). 	The 	introduction 	of 	such 	evidence
may provide adequate support for the granting of an abatement. See
Chouinard 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Natick, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and
Reports 	1998-299, 	307-308 	(citing 	Garvey 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	West
Newbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1995-129, 135-36,
and Swartz v. Assessors of Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and
Reports 	1993-271, 	279-80); 	Sterling 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Arlington,
Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2021-76, 	93-4 	(appellant
bears 	the 	burden 	of 	establishing 	that 	comparable 	assessment
properties 	share 	fundamental 	similarities 	with 	the 	subject
property).
ATB 2025-292

The 	Board 	considered 	the 	information 	and 	comparable
properties submitted by the appellant but found that this evidence
was not useful for determining the fair cash value of the subject
property. 	See 	North 	American 	Philips 	Lighting 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors
of Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 297-299 (1984). Critically, the appellant
failed 	to 	account 	for 	any 	differences 	between 	the 	comparable
properties 	and 	the 	subject 	property. 	See 	Graham 	v. 	Assessors 	of
West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 402
(“The 	assessments 	in 	a 	comparable 	assessment 	analysis, 	like 	the
sale prices in a comparable sales analysis, must . . . be adjusted
to 	account 	for 	differences 	with 	the 	subject.”), 	aff'd, 	73 	Mass.
App. Ct. 1107 (2008) (Rule 1:28 Decision); Lupacchino v. Assessors
of Southborough, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-1253,
1269 (“[W]ithout appropriate adjustments . . . the assessed values
of 	[comparable] 	properties 	did 	not 	provide 	reliable 	indicator[s]
of the subject's fair cash value.”).
In contrast, the Board found that the appellee’s comparable-
sales analysis was a persuasive indicator of the subject property’s
fair cash value. 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). 	The 	appellee’s 	analysis 	relied 	upon
ATB 2025-293

properties 	in 	West 	Roxbury 	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 	$583,300 	was
significantly less than the average adjusted sale prices of those
properties, 	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.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ______________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-294