Board of Assessors of Amherst v. State Tax Commission

• Decision Date: 11 May 1970
• Citation: 357 Mass. 505,258 N.E.2d 539
• Parties: BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF AMHERST v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 539

258 N.E.2d 539

357 Mass. 505

BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF AMHERST v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued March 6, 1970.

Decided May 11, 1970.

Lewis H. Weinstein, Boston, for appellant.

Bernard J. Dwyer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State Tax Commission.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, KIRK, REARDON and QUIRICO, JJ.

SPALDING, Justice.

On June 5, 1967, the State Tax Commission (commission) determined, pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c. 58, § 13, as amended through St.1960, c. 593, § 1, ¹ that the fair cash value of all land in the town of Amherst owned by the Commonwealth and used by the University of Massachusetts on January 1, 1967, was $792,800. This determination was made for the purpose of computing a payment from the Commonwealth to the town in lieu of taxes, as provided in G.L. c. 58, § 17. The board of assessors of Amherst (assessors), who had assessed the value of the university land (exclusive of buildings) at $9,868,200, applied to the Appellate Tax Board (board) for a correction of the determination. G.L. c. 58, § 14. After a hearing at which both parties presented evidence, the board decided that the fair cash value of the land in question was $1,342,610. It also, that the request of the assessors, made findings of fact and a report. From this decision the assessors appealed under G.L. c. 58A, § 13.

The basis of the assessors' appeal is certain rulings of law made by the board and the denial of certain rulings requested by the assessors. These raise two issues: (1) Did the board correctly interpret 'fair cash value of all land' as used in § 13; (2) did the board err in allegedly relying on 'knowledge' from a previous case between the parties?

1. In reaching its decision, the board interpreted 'fair cash value' as used in § 13 to mean in substance the assessed value, rather than the market value, of the land in question. It further found that 'land' meant 'land' in its original state, that is, exclusive of buildings, and unenhanced by grading, drainage, utility, and all other improvements. It justified this interpretation, which varies from the usual meaning accorded these words elsewhere in the General Laws, by reference to the history of c. 58, § 13. The assessors, however, contend that as a matter of law such interpretation was erroneous because it modified, without justification, the 'common and approved meaning' of the terms. In the assessors' view 'fair cash value' can only mean the highest price which a hypothetical, willing buyer would pay to a hypothetical, willing seller in an assumed free and open market. See Epstein v. Boston Housing Authy, 317 Mass. 297, 299, 58 N.E.2d 135. The assessors contend that 'land' means the land as it exists on the date of valuation, including all improvements, exclusive of buildings.

The resolution of this controversy depends on the meaning of 'fair cash value of all land' as used in c. 58, § 13. Ordinarily statutory words and phrases are to be construed according to 'the common and approved usage of the language' unless 'inconsistent with the manifest intent of the law-making body.' G.L. c. 4, § 6, Third. The words 'fair cash value of all land' is controlled by the common and approved meaning of those words in other contexts, absent a contrary legislative intent. Pacific Wool Growers v. Commissioner Corporations & Taxation, 305 Mass. 197, 199, 25 N.E.2d 208. The governing statutes require the Commonwealth to make annual payments to the town as reimbursement 'for loss of taxes' on land owned by the Commonwealth and used by public institutions, including the University of Massachusetts. The amount of the Commonwealth's payment is computed from a valuation of the land made every five years by the commission, which is then multiplied by a rate fixed by c. 63, § 58.

A. Although the reimbursement scheme is unique, we are of opinion that the board erred in its interpretation of 'fair cash value' as the equivalent of 'assessed valuation.' Nothing in the statute's history evinces a legislative intent that 'fair cash value' was to be used in any but its ordinary sense. Indeed language in other sections of the statute indicates that the legislative intent was to use 'fair cash value' in its usual sense. General Laws c. 58, § 15, provides for the valuation of land acquired by the State in the periods between valuations by the commission. It states that 'the commission shall adopt the assessed valuation of said land made in the year last preceding such acquisition * * * until a new valuation is made by the commission' (emphasis added). Such language clearly distinguishes 'fair cash value' from 'assessed valuation.' It also suggests that the commission's 'new valuation' is other than the 'assessed valuation.'

The board's conclusion that the Legislature had a contrary intent is not convincing. It cites first the statute's legislative history as evidence that 'fair cash value' was not to have its ordinary meaning. The governing statute, c. 58, §§ 13--17B, derives from St.1910, c. 607. In c. 66 of the Resolves of 1909, the Legislature directed the commissioner to investigate and report on the effect of tax exemptions for the property of educational institutions on the financial status of the cities and towns wherein they were located. It further directed the commissioner to recommend appropriate legislation. The commissioner's report, a sixty-eight page document, with the bill attached to it entitled 'An Act relative to the reimbursement of certain cities and towns,' was filed as 1910 House Bill No. 1395. This bill with only minor alterations was enacted as St.1910, c. 607, the predecessor of § 13 et seq.

The board reasoned that this report shows conclusively that the meaning of 'fiar cash value' was 'assessed valuation' and that in enacting the bill, recommended by the commissioner, the Legislature adopted this meaning. An examination of the report, however, does not support this interpretation. The only direct reference in the report to the valuation of land by the commissioner reads: 'In the bill herewith submitted (Appendix D) I have with some hesitation provided that the valuation of such land should be made by the Tax Commissioner. He is probably the one officer of the Commonwealth in closest touch with property valuations, with boards of assessors and with the basis of valuation in the different municipalities' (emphasis added). The board concluded from this statement that conferring upon the commissioner the duty of valuation usually performed by the assessors would insure equal valuation of State and private land for tax purposes. In the board's view, the commissioner was to determine the assessed valuation of the property, in order to avoid disparities in the assessment of State and private land, which might result if the assessment of both were left to local authorities. Such disparities could result in the Commonwealth's hearing a disproportionate tax burden, a result in conflict with the statute's purpose of reimbursement for...