Michael J. O'Keefe v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Marshfield (June 14, 2012)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


MICHAEL J. O'KEEFE             v.        BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
 THE TOWN OF MARSHFIELD

Docket No. F307001					 Promulgated:
								 June 14, 2012

	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 Marshfield ("appellee" or "assessors") to abate taxes on certain real estate in Marshfield owned by and assessed to Michael J. O'Keefe ("appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2010 ("fiscal year at issue").
Commissioner Mulhern heard this appeal. Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Egan, and Rose 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 1.32.

Michael J. O'Keefe, pro se, for the appellant.

Elizabeth A. Bates, assessor, for the appellee.


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

	On the basis of testimony and evidence entered into the record in this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2009, the appellant was the assessed owner of a 1.1-acre improved parcel of real estate located at 456 Parsonage Street in Marshfield ("subject property"). The subject property is improved with a 1970-vintage, raised-ranch dwelling containing eight rooms, including three bedrooms, as well as two-and-one-half baths. The dwelling contains 2,318 square feet of finished living area. There is a two-car attached garage and the property is improved with a post-and-beam barn. The appellant built the barn in 1985 to replicate as closely as possible the barn of Colonel Anthony Thomas, a veteran of the Revolutionary War. The barn has a ground floor and an upper level, each of which contains approximately 1040 square feet. The upper level is heated, has a full bath, and an attached open deck. 
	For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $396,000, and assessed a tax thereon at a rate of $10.75 per thousand, in the total amount of $4,257. Of the subject property's total assessed value, the assessors allocated $111,900 to the dwelling, $101,400 to the barn, and $182,700 to the land. The actual tax bill for the fiscal year at issue was sent on December 30, 2009. In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellant timely paid the tax due without incurring interest, and in accordance with G.L. c. 59 § 59, timely filed an abatement application on January 29, 2009. The abatement application was denied by a vote of the assessors on March 8, 2009. The appellant seasonably filed a Petition Under Formal Procedure with the Board on June 3, 2010. On the basis of the foregoing, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
The appellant's sole argument was that the assessed value of the barn for the fiscal year at issue was excessive because the assessors mistakenly classified the structure as having living quarters on the second level. The appellant testified that the barn does not contain finished living quarters. He further stated that the first level of the barn was used for storage and the second level served as a workshop with a full bathroom. The appellant also noted that since its construction in 1985, the value placed on the barn by the assessors had been substantially lower than its assessed value for the fiscal year at issue. 
To support his testimony, the appellant offered a number of photographs depicting the barn's interior. These photographs, showing machinery as well as cupboards full of supplies, supported the appellant's claim that he used the second floor of the barn as a workshop. The photos also showed that the barn's interior walls consisted of unfinished bare boards, consistent with the appellant's assertion that the area did not qualify as living area. Finally, the appellant testified that the barn was not built, nor was it ever intended to be used, as living quarters. In support of this testimony, the appellant produced his building permit, which did not allow the barn to include living quarters. 
Elizabeth Bates, the town assessor, testified that she inspected the interior of the barn in the company of the appellant on August 13, 2009. She also submitted a written narrative of the subject property's assessment history. Ms. Bates noted that during her inspection of the second floor of the barn she observed a sink, a cupboard, a stove, a hookup spot for a refrigerator, and a bed. Ms. Bates testified that after viewing the interior of the barn and noting these details, the assessors assigned a new value to barn, classifying it as a "Barn/Quarters Over."
	Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the appellant did not meet his burden of establishing that the subject property's assessed value exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue. The Board found credible the appellant's testimony that the barn was not intended as living quarters, nor was it suited to be used as such. However, the appellant's singular focus was on the barn's assessed value and its characterization by the assessors. The appellant failed to present evidence indicating that the subject property's overall assessed value, which included sums associated with the land and an eight room house as well as the barn, was excessive. Absent such evidence, the Board found that the appellant had not sustained his burden of demonstrating that the subject property was overvalued and decided this appeal for the appellee.

         
         OPINION
"All property, real and personal, situated within the commonwealth . . . shall be subject to taxation." G.L. c. 59, § 2. The assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value determined as of the first day of January of each year. G.L. c. 59, §§ 2A and 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer in a free and open market 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 the subject property 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 [B]oard 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. at 591, 598 (1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
	In the present appeal, the appellant sought to demonstrate that the subject property had been overvalued through testimony and evidence showing that the second floor of the barn on the property was not built or used as living quarters as the assessors had concluded. Although the Board found the appellant's testimony credible, the evidence presented was not sufficient to sustain his burden. 	     
A taxpayer does not establish the right to an abatement merely by showing that either the land or a building is overvalued; he must demonstrate that the overall assessment overstated the fair cash value of the subject property.  See Anderson v. Assessors of Barnstable, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1999-596, 601. "The tax on a parcel of land and the building thereon is one tax . . . although for statistical purposes they may be valued separately."  Hinds v. Assessors of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2006-771, 778 (citing Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Insurance Co., 310 Mass. 300, 317 (1941)). "In abatement proceedings, 'the question is whether the assessment for the parcel of real estate, including both the land and the structures thereon, is excessive.  The component parts, on which that single assessment is laid, are each open to inquiry and revision by the appellate tribunal in reaching the conclusion whether the single assessment is excessive.'"  Anderson, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports at 1999-601, 602 (quoting Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921)).
In support of his assertion that the subject property was overvalued, the appellant focused only on the assessed value of the property's post-and-beam barn. He failed, however, to present evidence relating to the subject property's overall assessed value, which incorporated valuation of the land and an eight room house as well as the barn. Absent such evidence, the Board found and ruled that that the appellant did not demonstrate that the subject property's overall assessment for the fiscal year at issue overstated its fair cash value.     

 Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued and issued a decision for the appellee.

  				  	APPELLATE TAX BOARD

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

A true copy,
Attest: __________________________
        Clerk of the Board

ATB 2012-760