RK Taunton Crossing, LLC v. Board of Assessors of the City of Taunton (June 30, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
RK TAUNTON CROSSING, LLC 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS
OF THE CITY OF TAUNTON
Docket Nos. F342351 & F347093 	Promulgated:
June 30, 2025
These 	are 	appeals 	heard 	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 	Taunton 	(“appellee” 	or
“assessors”) 	to 	abate 	taxes 	on 	a 	certain 	parcel 	of 	real 	estate
located 	in 	Taunton, 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed 	to 	RK 	Taunton 	Crossing
LLC 	(“RK 	Taunton” 	or 	“appellant”) 	for 	fiscal 	years 	2021 	and 	2022
(“fiscal years at issue”).
Commissioner 	Good 	heard 	these 	appeals. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco
and 	Commissioners 	Elliott, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	her 	in 	the
decisions for the appellant.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request by the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.
Rachel A. Wulsin, Esq., for the appellant.
Richard Conti, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2025-210

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of testimony and exhibits offered into evidence
at the hearing of these appeals, the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”)
made the following findings of fact.
I. 	Introduction and Relevant Jurisdictional Information
These 	appeals 	pertain 	to 	an 	improved 	7.5-acre 	parcel 	of 	land
with 	an 	address 	of 	9 	Mozzone 	Boulevard 	(“subject 	property”).
Relevant 	jurisdictional 	facts 	are 	summarized 	in 	the 	following
table:
Fiscal
Year
Assessed
Value
Tax Rate/
Total Tax
Amount
Taxes
Timely
Paid
(Y/N)
Abatement
Application
Filed
Date of
Denial
Date
Petition
Filed
With
Board
2021 	$9,929,100 	$28.97/1,000
$287,646.03
Y 	2/1/2021 	2/11/2021 	5/11/2021
2022 	$9,840,000 	$28.87/1,000
$284,080.80
Y 	2/1/2022 	4/21/2022 	7/18/2022
Based 	on 	these 	facts, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	it 	had
jurisdiction to hear and decide these appeals.
The subject property is improved with a multi-tenant retail
building, 	built 	in 	2006, 	containing 	83,878 	square 	feet 	of 	gross
leasable space. At all times relevant to these appeals, the subject
property 	was 	fully 	occupied 	by 	five 	retail 	tenants. 	Information
regarding each of the subject property’s tenants is summarized in
the following chart:
ATB 2025-211

Tenant 	Leased 	Square
Feet
$/Square Foot1 	Lease Terms
TJ Maxx 	32,300 	$9.00 	Triple Net
Michael’s 	21,695 	$9.00 	Triple Net
Ulta 	10,023 	$22.00 	Triple 	Net
w/concessions
The Paper Store 	9,100 	$16.48 	Gross
w/concessions
Skechers 	10,760 	$16.00 	Triple 	Net 	w/
concessions
In addition to these tenants, the subject property hosted an
automatic teller machine (“ATM”) kiosk. During the fiscal years at
issue, 	the 	subject 	property’s 	ATM 	Kiosk 	generated 	additional
revenue in the amount of $36,019.00 annually.
II. 	The Appellant’s Valuation Evidence
The 	appellant 	presented 	its 	case 	through 	the 	testimony 	and
appraisal 	report 	of 	Matthew 	G. 	Pattison, 	certified 	general 	real
estate 	appraiser, 	whom 	the 	Board 	qualified 	as 	an 	expert 	in 	the
area 	of 	commercial 	real 	estate 	valuation. 	Mr. 	Pattison 	first
determined 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	highest 	and 	best 	use 	was
its continued use as a multi-tenant retail property.
Mr. 	Pattison 	next 	considered 	the 	three 	approaches 	to 	value:
the cost approach, the sales-comparison approach, and the income-
capitalization 	approach. 	It 	was 	Mr. 	Pattison’s 	conclusion 	that
neither the cost approach nor the sales-comparison approach was a
useful 	method 	with 	which 	to 	determine 	the 	fee-simple 	fair 	cash
value of the subject property. Accordingly, he developed only the
1 Indicates rent as of relevant dates of assessment.
ATB 2025-212

income-capitalization 	approach, 	finding 	that 	this 	method 	is
usually 	given 	the 	greatest 	weight 	when 	valuing 	income-producing
properties.
To begin his income-capitalization approach, Mr. Pattison set
out to determine appropriate market rents for the subject property.
He 	selected 	nine 	purportedly 	comparable 	leases 	through 	which 	to
determine 	a 	fair 	market 	rent. 	Information 	regarding 	each 	of 	Mr.
Pattison’s selected leases is contained in the following chart:
Mr. Pattison’s Comparable Leases
Tenant 	Location 	Lease
Start
Date
Leased
Square
Feet
$/Square
Foot
Lease
Terms
Harbor
Freight
Tools
Plymouth 	12/20 	16,672 	$12.00 	Triple
Net
Family
Dollar
Fairhaven 	7/20 	9,100 	$11.00 	Triple
Net
Dollar
Tree
Wareham 	1/20 	9,025 	$14.00 	Triple
Net
Barton’s
Home
Outlet
Plymouth 	7/19 	25,850 	$7.00 	Modified
Gross
Ollie’s
Bargain
Outlet
Plymouth 	11/19 	35,365 	$8.00 	Gross
Dollar
Tree
Holbrook 	5/20 	12,114 	$7.78 	Triple
Net
Family
Dollar
Holbrook 	5/20 	10,315 	$7.95 	Triple
Net
Burlington
Coat
Factory
Seekonk 	10/20 	37,500 	$10.50 	Triple
Net
Ocean
State 	Job
Lot
Seekonk 	2/20 	24,602 	$8.84 	Triple
Net
Mr. 	Pattison 	also 	placed 	some 	reliance 	on 	the 	subject
property’s 	actual 	leases. 	However, 	he 	felt 	that 	adjustments 	were
ATB 2025-213

necessary in the case of The Paper Store, Ulta, and Skechers’ rents
because 	the 	landlord 	had 	made 	significant 	improvement 	allowances
and 	concessions 	when 	negotiating 	these 	leases. 	Accordingly, 	for
purposes 	of 	his 	income-comparison 	analysis, 	Mr. 	Pattison
considered 	effective 	rents 	for 	those 	three 	tenants 	as 	follows:
$17.00 	per 	square 	foot 	for 	Ulta; 	$7.78 	per 	square 	foot 	for 	The
Paper Store, and $11.00 per square foot for Skechers.
After considering his selected comparison leases, as well as
the 	subject 	property’s 	actual 	leases, 	with 	the 	aforementioned
adjustments, 	Mr. 	Pattison 	ultimately 	concluded 	fair 	market 	rents
on a triple-net basis for the subject property as follows:
Mr. Pattison’s Fair Market Rents
Tenant 	Leased 	Square
Feet
$/Square Foot
TJ Maxx 	32,300 	$8.00
Michael’s 	21,695 	$9.00
Ulta 	10,023 	$10.00
The 	Paper
Store
9,100 	$10.00
Skechers 	10,760 	$10.00
Applying 	his 	selected 	fair 	market 	rents 	to 	each 	area 	within
the subject property totaled $752,485, to which Mr. Pattison added
reimbursements 	for 	such 	items 	as 	taxes, 	common 	area 	maintenance,
and insurance in the amount of $188,726, along with the projected
revenue 	from 	the 	ATM 	kiosk 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$36,019. 	These 	three
sources combined resulted in a potential gross income of $977,230.
ATB 2025-214

Mr. Pattison selected a 7.5% vacancy and collection loss rate
and applying that rate to his potential gross income resulting in
an 	effective 	gross 	income 	of 	$903,937, 	which 	he 	used 	for 	both 	of
the fiscal years at issue.
The 	next 	step 	in 	Mr. 	Pattison’s 	income-capitalization
analysis was the determination of operating expenses. To ascertain
appropriate 	expense 	estimates, 	Mr. 	Pattison 	reviewed 	historical
income and expense information from several of his lease comparison
properties as well as three years of the subject property’s income
and 	expense 	information. 	The 	annual 	operating 	expenses 	indicated
by these properties ranged from a low of $4.60 per square foot to
a 	high 	of 	$10.03 	per 	square 	foot, 	with 	an 	average 	of 	$7.20 	per
square 	foot.2 	Mr. 	Pattison 	ultimately 	selected 	an 	operating
expense 	of 	$3.63 	per 	square 	foot 	for 	the 	subject 	property. 	After
deducting 	his 	selected 	operating 	expenses 	from 	estimated 	gross
income, Mr. Pattison arrived at a net operating income of $599,557,
which he used for both of the fiscal years at issue.
The 	last 	step 	in 	Mr. 	Pattison’s 	income-capitalization
approach 	was 	the 	determination 	of 	appropriate 	capitalization
rates. 	He 	first 	reviewed 	the 	capitalization 	rates 	published 	in
industry 	sources, 	including 	the 	PWC 	Investor 	Survey 	and 	Real
Capital Analytics. In particular, he focused on data from the first
2 Expressed on a percentage basis, they ranged from a low of 29.81% of effective
gross income to a high of 51.0% of effective gross income.
ATB 2025-215

quarter of 2020 and 2021 relating to the National Retail and Strip
Shopping 	Center 	asset 	categories. 	These 	sources 	indicated
capitalization rates ranging from a low of 6.81% to a high of 7.35%
during those time periods. Mr. Pattison likewise utilized the band-
of-investment 	technique, 	which 	resulted 	in 	an 	indicated
capitalization 	rate 	of 	8.5%. 	After 	considering 	all 	of 	this
information, 	Mr. 	Pattison 	ultimately 	selected 	a 	base
capitalization rate of 8.0%, which he used for both of the fiscal
years at issue.
Lastly, 	Mr. 	Pattison 	added 	appropriate 	tax 	factors 	for 	each
fiscal 	year 	to 	his 	selected 	base 	capitalization 	rate, 	to 	reflect
the 	landlord’s 	obligation 	to 	pay 	a 	portion 	of 	the 	taxes 	during
vacancy, 	consistent 	with 	his 	assumed 	vacancy 	rate 	of 	7.5%. 	This
resulted 	in 	a 	final 	loaded 	capitalization 	rate 	of 	8.2173% 	for
fiscal year 2021 and 8.2165% for fiscal year 2022. Applying these
loaded 	capitalization 	rates 	to 	his 	net 	operating 	income, 	Mr.
Pattison’s 	income-capitalization 	approach 	resulted 	in 	final,
rounded 	fair 	cash 	values 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	of 	$7,296,000
for fiscal year 2021 and $7,297,000 for fiscal year 2022.
III. The Assessors’ Evidence
The 	assessors, 	for 	their 	part, 	did 	not 	offer 	affirmative
valuation 	evidence 	such 	as 	an 	appraisal 	of 	the 	subject 	property.
Instead, after a brief-cross examination of the appellant’s expert
witness, 	they 	called 	as 	their 	witness 	Roger 	Durkin, 	Esq., 	who 	is
ATB 2025-216

both 	an 	attorney 	and 	a 	licensed 	real 	estate 	appraiser. 	The 	Board
qualified Mr. Durkin as an expert in review appraisal, which is a
process 	by 	which 	appraisers 	evaluate 	and 	critique 	the 	merits 	of
other appraisers’ work. Mr. Durkin conducted just such a review of
Mr. Pattison’s appraisal in the present appeals, and his testimony
and review appraisal report were entered into the record.
In both his testimony and in his review appraisal, Mr. Durkin
identified 	a 	litany 	of 	alleged 	flaws 	in 	Mr. 	Pattison’s 	valuation
methodologies 	and 	conclusions. 	Mr. 	Durkin 	stated 	that 	Mr.
Pattison’s 	appraisal 	ran 	afoul 	of 	several 	requirements 	of 	the
Uniform 	Standards 	of 	Professional 	Appraisal 	Practice 	(“USPAP”),
including 	that 	it 	misidentified 	the 	report’s 	intended 	user.
Additionally, 	Mr. 	Durkin 	opined 	that 	Mr. 	Pattison 	should 	have
relied more on the subject property’s actual rents rather than on
comparable market rents. He further opined that Mr. Pattison should
have 	reviewed 	the 	appellant’s 	federal 	income 	tax 	returns 	to
determine 	its 	operating 	income 	and 	expenses, 	rather 	than 	merely
its 	annual 	financial 	statements 	and 	those 	of 	his 	comparison
properties. 	In 	sum, 	it 	was 	Mr. 	Durkin’s 	conclusion 	that 	Mr.
Pattison’s 	appraisal 	contained 	so 	many 	flaws 	that 	ultimately 	it
“lacked credibility.”
IV. 	The Assessors’ Income Valuation Record Cards
Also entered into the record by the appellant were the income
valuation record cards for the subject property for both of the
ATB 2025-217

fiscal 	years 	at 	issue. 	While 	official 	property 	record 	cards
for properties display a variety of information about a property
such 	as 	its 	assessed 	value, 	its 	size, 	ownership, 	and 	physical
attributes, as well as sales and building permit history, income
valuation 	record 	cards 	show 	the 	value 	of 	a 	property 	as
determined 	through 	the 	income-capitalization 	analysis 	along
with 	figures 	for 	each 	component 	of 	that 	analysis. 	Income
valuation record cards are created by a municipality using data
reported by similar types of income-producing properties within
that municipality each year.
In this case, the income valuation record cards for both years
showed 	that 	the assessors 	used 	an 	across-the-board 	market 	rent
of 	$13.21 	along 	with 	a 	vacancy 	rate 	of 	8.0% 	for 	the 	subject
property’s retail space. As for 	the ATM, the assessors imputed
an 	income 	of 	$30,800 	to 	which 	they 	applied 	a 	vacancy 	of 	5.0%.
They selected a 25% expense allowance for the subject property’s
retail space and an 11% expense allowance for the ATM. Lastly,
they used a capitalization rate of 9.04%, which resulted in an
indicated value for the subject property of $8,738,800 for both
of the fiscal years at issue, which was lower than the 	assessed
values for both fiscal years.
V. 	The Board’s Conclusions
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	in 	its 	totality, 	the 	Board 	found 	and
ruled 	that 	the 	appellant 	met 	its 	burden 	of 	establishing 	that
ATB 2025-218

the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	exceeded 	its 	fair 	cash
value 	for 	both 	of 	the 	fiscal 	years 	at 	issue.3 In 	reaching 	this
conclusion, the Board agreed with Mr. Pattison’s conclusion that
the 	subject 	property’s 	highest 	and 	best 	use 	was 	its 	continued
use as a retail shopping center. The Board likewise agreed with
Mr. 	Pattison 	that 	the 	income-capitalization 	approach 	was 	the
best 	methodology 	to 	determine 	the 	subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash
value. 	However, 	the 	Board 	did 	not 	adopt 	all 	of 	the 	components
of 	Mr. 	Pattison’s 	income-capitalization 	analysis, 	as 	some 	of
his 	conclusions 	lacked 	adequate 	explanation 	or 	support 	in 	the
record.
In reaching its conclusion as to the subject property’s gross
income, 	the 	Board 	adopted 	the 	reimbursement 	amounts 	suggested
by Mr. Pattison, but it made adjustments to his concluded fair
market 	rents 	to 	account 	for 	differences 	between 	his 	lease
comparison 	properties 	and 	the 	subject 	property. 	For 	example,
some of the comparable leases he selected were located in rural
or 	suburban 	communities, 	unlike 	Taunton, 	which 	is 	a 	city. 	The
Board 	reasoned 	that 	adjustments 	to 	Mr. 	Pattison’s 	concluded
market 	rents 	to 	account 	for 	these 	locational 	differences 	were
appropriate.
3 While the Board found Mr. Durkin to be knowledgeable, it ultimately found that
his observations regarding Mr. Pattison’s appraisal report did not detract from
its probative worth.
ATB 2025-219

Additionally, 	the 	Board 	gave 	some 	weight 	to 	the 	subject
property’s actual rents as well as the market rent reflected on
the 	subject 	property’s 	income 	valuation 	record 	cards. 	After
giving appropriate weight to all of these sources in the record,
the 	Board 	concluded 	fair 	market 	rents 	for 	each 	of 	the 	subject
property’s spaces as follows: $9.00 per square foot for TJ Maxx;
$10.00 	per 	square 	foot 	for 	Michael’s; 	and 	$11.000 	per 	square
foot 	for 	the 	three 	remaining 	spaces. 	These 	rents 	yielded 	a
potential 	gross 	income 	of 	$826,063, 	to 	which 	the 	Board 	added
the ATM kiosk revenue of $36,019 	and the reimbursement amounts
suggested by Mr. 	Pattison, which 	totaled $188,726, for a total
potential gross income of $1,050,808.
As for a vacancy rate, the Board took into consideration the
7.5% 	estimate 	adopted 	by 	Mr. 	Pattison 	but 	also 	considered 	the
subject 	property’s 	historical 	vacancy 	rate, 	which 	was 	zero.
Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	adopted 	a 	vacancy 	rate 	of 	5.0%, 	which
resulted in an effective gross income of $988,267.60.
With 	respect 	to 	operating 	expenses, 	Mr. 	Pattison 	reviewed
three years of the subject property’s actual operating expenses
and 	the 	operating 	expenses 	of 	each 	of 	his 	lease 	comparison
properties. 	These 	properties 	collectively 	had 	a 	range 	of
operating 	expenses 	spanning 	from 	a 	low 	of 	29.81% 	of 	effective
gross income to a high of 51.00% of effective gross income. 	The
Board also noted that subject property’s income valuation record
ATB 2025-220

cards utilized an operating expense allowance of 25%, which the
Board considered to be too low and out of line with the general
market 	range 	suggested 	in 	Mr. 	Pattison’s 	appraisal. 	Using 	all
of 	the 	information 	in 	the 	record, 	the 	Board 	selected 	a
stabilized operating expense of 35% of effective gross income.
Subtracting 	the 	operating 	expenses 	from 	the 	potential 	gross
income, 	the 	Board 	arrived 	at 	a 	net 	operating 	income 	for 	the
subject property in the amount of $648,873.94.
The final step in the Board’s income-capitalization approach
was 	the 	selection 	of 	an 	appropriate 	capitalization 	rate. 	The
Board 	declined 	to 	adopt 	the 	base 	capitalization 	rate 	of 	8.0%
selected 	by 	Mr. 	Pattison, 	as 	it 	was 	outside 	the 	range 	of
published 	market 	rates 	contained 	within 	his 	appraisal 	report,
which 	spanned 	from 	a 	low 	of 	6.81% 	to 	a 	high 	of 	7.35%. 	Using
this 	range 	of 	rates, 	and 	exercising 	its 	own 	independent
judgment, the Board adopted a base capitalization rate of 7.5%,
to which it added appropriate, pro-rated tax factors consistent
with 	its 	conclusion 	of 	a 	5.0% 	vacancy 	rate 	for 	both 	of 	the
fiscal years at issue.
Applying 	these 	loaded 	capitalization 	rates 	to 	its 	net
operating income of $648,873.94 resulted in final, rounded fair
cash values for the subject property in the amount of $8,400,000
for 	both 	of 	the 	fiscal 	years 	at 	issue. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Board
issued 	decisions 	in 	favor 	of 	the 	appellant 	in 	these 	appeals,
ATB 2025-221

and granted an abatement of $44,298.03 for fiscal year 2021 and
$41,572.80 for fiscal year 2022.
OPINION
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. Here, the Board found and ruled that the highest and best use
of 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal 	years 	at 	issue 	was 	its
existing use as a retail shopping center.
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., 	397 	Mass. 	447, 	449 	(1986). 	As 	the 	income
ATB 2025-222

capitalization 	method 	“is 	frequently 	applied 	with 	respect 	to
income-producing 	property,” 	Taunton 	Redevelopment 	Assocs. 	v.
Assessors of Taunton, 393 Mass. 293, 295 (1984), the Board agreed
with the appellant’s valuation expert that it was the most reliable
method with which to determine the fair cash value of the subject
property.
Under 	the 	income-capitalization 	approach, 	valuation 	is
determined 	by 	dividing 	net 	operating 	income 	by 	a 	capitalization
rate. 	See 	Assessors 	of 	Brookline 	v. 	Buehler, 	396 	Mass. 	520, 	522-
23 (1986). 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 	Pepsi-Cola 	Bottling 	Co. 	v.
Assessors of Boston, 397 Mass. at 451. In determining the earning
capacity 	of 	the 	subject 	property, 	rents 	may 	be 	used 	only 	if 	they
reflect fair market rents. 	Alstores Realty Corp. v. Assessors of
Peabody, 391 Mass. 60, 68 (1984); Library Services, Inc. v. Malden
Redevelopment Authority, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 877, 878 (1980). In the
present appeals, the Board took into consideration the fair market
rents 	concluded 	by 	Mr. 	Pattison, 	but 	made 	adjustments 	to 	account
for differences from the subject property. The Board additionally
afforded 	some 	weight 	to 	the 	subject 	property’s 	actual 	rents 	as
well as the rent figures contained on the subject property’s income
valuation 	card. 	The 	Board 	did, 	however, 	fully 	adopt 	the
ATB 2025-223

reimbursement 	estimates 	suggested 	by 	Mr. 	Pattison 	as 	they 	were
appropriate 	and 	supported 	by 	the 	record. 	Choosing 	an 	appropriate
gross 	income 	figure 	for 	establishing 	an 	income 	stream 	was 	within
the 	board’s 	discretion 	and 	expertise. 	Fox 	Ridge 	Assocs. 	v.
Assessors of Marshfield, 392 Mass. 652, 654 (1984).
The 	Board 	similarly 	gave 	weight 	to 	the 	vacancy 	rate 	adopted
by Mr. Pattison, but considered it too high in light of the subject
property’s historical vacancy rate of zero.
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. See Olympia & York State Street Co. v. Assessors of Boston,
428 Mass. 236, 240 (1998). In the present appeals, the Board took
into 	consideration 	the 	range 	of 	operating 	expenses 	presented 	by
Mr. 	Pattison 	and 	concluded 	that 	stabilized 	operating 	expenses 	of
35% of estimated gross income were appropriate.
The 	final 	step 	in 	the 	income-capitalization 	approach 	is 	the
selection 	of 	an 	appropriate 	capitalization 	rate. 	The
capitalization rate selected should consider the 	return necessary
to attract investment capital. Taunton Redevelopment Assocs., 393
Mass. at 295.
In 	addition, 	in 	an 	income-capitalization 	approach 	based 	on
triple-net 	leases, 	an 	appropriate 	pro 	rata 	portion 	of 	the 	tax
ATB 2025-224

factor is used to take into account the landlord’s responsibility
for 	paying 	taxes 	on 	the 	vacant 	portion 	of 	the 	subject 	property.
See 	Market 	Forge 	Industries, 	Inc. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Everett, 	Mass.
ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2014-186, 	201. 	Here, the 	Board
considered 	the 	range 	of 	market 	capitalization 	rates 	presented 	in
Mr. 	Pattison’s 	appraisal 	report 	before 	determining 	a 	base
capitalization 	rate 	of 	7.5%, 	to 	which 	it 	applied 	pro-rated 	tax
factors consistent with its concluded vacancy rate of 5.0%.
The 	Board 	need 	not 	specify 	the 	exact 	manner 	in 	which 	it
arrived at its valuation. 	Jordan Marsh Co. v. Assessors of Malden,
359 Mass. 106, 110 (1971). 	“The market value of the property [can]
not be proved with mathematical certainty and must ultimately rest
in the realm of opinion, estimate, and judgment . . . . 	The board
[can] select the various elements of value as shown by the record
and from them form . . . its own independent judgment.” Assessors
of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941).
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 	the 	inferences 	to 	be 	drawn 	from 	the 	evidence 	are
matters 	for 	the 	Board.” 	Cummington 	School 	of 	Arts, 	Inc. 	v.
Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977).
ATB 2025-225

The Board’s income-capitalization approach ultimately yielded
a 	final, 	rounded 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	of
$8,400,000 for both of the fiscal years at issue. Accordingly, the
Board issued decisions for the appellant and granted abatements of
$44,298.03 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2021 	and 	$41,572.80 	for 	fiscal 	year
2022.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: _____ 	________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: 	________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-226