John H. Coyle & Justin C. Radulski v. Board of Assessors of the City of Amesbury (April 1, 2015)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


JOHN H. COYLE & 		  	v.	     BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF   
JUSTIN C. RADULSKI					THE CITY OF AMESBURY
					
	         
Docket No. F319368					Promulgated:
								April 1, 2015


	This is an appeal filed under the informal procedure, pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7A and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the City of Amesbury ("appellee" or "assessors") to abate a tax on certain real estate in Amesbury, owned by and assessed to John H. Coyle and Justin Radulski ("appellants") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2013 ("fiscal year at issue").  
	Chairman Hammond ("Presiding Commissioner") heard this appeal under G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.20 and issued a single-member decision for the appellee. 
	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. 

	John Coyle, pro se, for the appellants.
	
Jason DiScipio, assessor for the appellee.

Findings of Fact and Report

On the basis of the evidence presented, including the testimony and documentary exhibits entered into the record, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.    
On January 1, 2012, the relevant assessment date for the fiscal year at issue, the appellants were the assessed owners of an improved 0.45-acre parcel of land, identified on the assessors' Map 26 as Parcel 7 and with an address of 4 Glenwood Street in Amesbury ("subject property").  
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $198,400 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $20.24 per thousand, in the total amount of $4,015.62.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellants paid the tax due for the fiscal year at issue without incurring interest.  On January 28, 2013, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellants timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors, which they denied on February 28, 2013.  On April 29, 2013, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the appellants seasonably filed their petition with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
The subject property is improved with a single-family, old-style, one-story residence built in 1900 ("subject residence").  The subject residence contains 1,314 square feet of living area and is comprised of six rooms, including one bedroom, as well as one full bathroom.  The property record card for the subject property indicates that the bathroom is "old style" and the kitchen is "substandard."  
The subject property was the subject of an earlier appeal before the Board for fiscal year 2010.  For that appeal, a single-member decision was issued on January 18, 2011, ruling that the subject property's fair market value for fiscal year 2010 was $168,000.
For the fiscal year at issue, the appellants contend that the subject property's fair market value remained at $168,000, and that because the subject property had been the subject of a previous appeal, the appellants need not advance any arguments or produce evidence to meet any burden of proving overvaluation, even though the fiscal year at issue is three years removed from the fiscal year 2010 valuation determined by the Board.  The appellants, therefore, produced limited evidence of fair market value, including: a computer printout of a two-page report by Vision Government Solutions, Inc. ("Vision"), a mass appraisal vendor, listing a value for the subject property at $183,400; a copy of the January 18, 2011, single-member decision promulgated by the Board; jurisdictional documents; and a printout of a NewburyportNews.com article from November 28, 2012, without objection from the assessors, with the following passage highlighted:
One of the main reasons cited by the mayor for the tax rate increase is the sharp decline in residential property values, particularly in the condominium market.  [Mayor] Kezer said the city experienced a $67 million decrease in total property values in the past year . . . . 

Based on this evidence, the appellants contended that the subject property's fair market value had not risen from the value ascribed to it by the Board's January 18, 2011 decision. 
The appellee presented its case-in-chief through the testimony of Assessor Jason DiScipio and the submission of documents, including the jurisdictional documents and a copy of the property record card for the subject property.  In response to the appellants' contention that property values were declining, Mr. DiScipio countered that sales of property were increasing in the town, and that the sales data supported an increase in fair market values in the town, including the subject property's fair market value.  The Presiding Commissioner found Mr. DiScipio to be knowledgeable in the area of real estate values in the town and further found his testimony on this matter to be credible.
The appellants submitted no comparable-sales or comparable-assessment information to support their contention that the subject property was overvalued.  In fact, the appellants submitted no specific information about nearby comparable properties to support their contention that the subject property was overvalued.   Moreover, the property record card submitted by the appellee included a reference to the subject residence's "old style" bathroom and "substandard" kitchen.  There was no evidence suggesting that the appellee failed to take these conditions into consideration in arriving at the subject property's fair market value.  
For the reasons stated more fully in the following Opinion, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellants did not meet their burden of proving a value for the subject property that was lower than the assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued a single-member decision for the appellee.

OPINION
	Assessors are required to assess all real property at its full and fair cash value.  G.L. c. 59, § 38; Coomey v. Assessors of Sandwich, 367 Mass. 836, 837 (1975).  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 (1954).
	The assessment is presumed valid unless the taxpayer sustains the burden of proving otherwise.  Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 356 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  "'The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make out its right as [a] matter of law to [an] abatement of the tax.'" Id. (quoting Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)); see also Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Assessors of Agawam, 428 Mass. 261, 262 (1998).  Accordingly, the burden of proof is upon the appellants to make out their right as a matter of law to an abatement of the tax.  Id.  The appellants must show that the assessed valuation of their property was improper.  See Foxboro Associates v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 691 (1982).  
The only exception to this rule is found in G.L. c. 58A, § 12A ("§ 12A"), which provides that if an appeal involves one of "the next two fiscal years after a fiscal year for which the Board has determined the fair cash value" of the subject property, and the assessed value of the subject property is greater than the value found by the Board, the burden shifts to the assessors to prove that an increase in value is justified.  See generally, Beal v. Assessors of Boston, 389 Mass. 648 (1983).  Under the facts of the instant appeal, however, the single-member decision concerning the subject property involved its valuation for fiscal year 2010, while the instant appeal involves its valuation for fiscal year 2013.  Because the fiscal year at issue is not one of the next two fiscal years after fiscal year 2010, § 12A does not apply and, accordingly, the burden remains with the appellants to prove the facts that would justify abatement of the tax at issue. 
 The taxpayers may sustain their burden by introducing evidence of fair cash value, or by proving that the assessors erred in their method of valuation.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 600 (1984) (citing Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).   
"[S]ales of property usually 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, 385 Mass. at 682.  Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable time of the assessment date contain credible data and information for determining the value of the property at issue.  McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929).  In addition, "[r]eliable comparable sales data will ordinarily trump comparable assessment information for purposes of finding a property's fair cash value."  Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 403, aff'd, 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1107 (2008).     
In the instant appeal, the appellants submitted no comparable-sales or comparable-assessment information to support their contention that the subject property was overvalued.  The only pieces of valuation evidence that the appellants submitted were the Vision printout and the NewburyportNews.com article, neither of which contained specific information about nearby comparable properties to support the appellants' contention that the subject property was overvalued.  Moreover, since the Vision printout listed the subject property's assessed value at $183,400, it actually supported the appellee's contention that the subject property's fair market value had increased since fiscal year 2010.  Finally, the property record card for the subject property listed the "old style" and "substandard" conditions of the subject residence's bathroom and kitchen, respectively, and thus indicated that the appellee took the subject property's condition into account in arriving at the subject assessment.  The Presiding Commissioner therefore found that the appellants' overall presentation was too vague and general and lacked specific data on the subject property's fair market value.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellants' presentation did not demonstrate or establish a basis to conclude that the subject assessment was excessive.          
The Presiding Commissioner, therefore, ruled that the appellants failed to carry their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued and accordingly issued a single-member decision for the appellee.

  						THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD

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



A true copy,

Attest:					___
       Clerk of the Board

 Within thirty days of service of the appeal, the City of Amesbury, in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 7A and 831 CMR 1.09, elected to have the appeal heard under the formal procedure. 

ATB 2015-149