Board of Assessors of Provincetown v. Vara-Sorrentino Realty Trust

• Decision Date: 03 February 1976
• Docket Number: VARA-SORRENTINO
• Citation: Board of Assessors of Provincetown v. Vara-Sorrentino Realty Trust, 341 N.E.2d 649, 369 Mass. 692 (Mass. 1976)
• Parties: BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF PROVINCETOWN v. REALTY TRUST.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 649

341 N.E.2d 649

369 Mass. 692

BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF PROVINCETOWN

v.VARA-SORRENTINO REALTY TRUST.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Jan. 6, 1976.

Decided Feb. 3, 1976.

Edward E. Veara, Town Counsel, Boston, for Bd. of Assessors of provincetown.

Arnold Bloom, Boston, for Vara-Sorrentino Realty Trust.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and REARDON, BRAUCHER, KAPLAN and WILKINS, JJ.

KAPLAN, Justice.

Vara-Sorrentino Realty Trust, owner of a 'hotel-restaurant-bar-shop complex' in Provincetown, Massachusetts, applied for abatements of the real estate taxes assessed against the property by the town's assessors for the years 1970 through 1973.As the assessors did not approve any of these applications, the owner lodged appeals under the formal procedure with the Appellate Tax Board.The Board heard the appeals together in October, 1974, received the evidence offered on behalf of the owner and the assessors, and decided for the owner.It held that the assessed valuations, which had ranged from $250,700 for 1970 to $264,300 for 1973, exceeded fair market value by amounts from $35,700 for 1970 to $49,300 for 1973, and abatements were allowed accordingly, reducing the aggregate of taxes assessed for the four years, $30,782.40, by an amount of $5,154.40.

In reaching this result, which it supported by findings of fact and a report pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 13, the Appellate Tax request for reasons beyond his control or unless approach.This had been stressed by the owner's expert; the Board, however, did not accept this expert's testimony uncritically: it found his evidence inadequate in some respects and finally adopted values considerably higher than those he had proposed.With regard to a 'reproduction less depreciation' method used by a witness for the assessors, the Board expressed doubt that the hotel, 144 years old, could be effectively rebuilt; and it thought a 'comparable sales' formula would be unsatisfactory because of the absence of truly comparable sales.

The assessors appeal to this court under G.L. c. 58A, § 13.They do not contend that the decision of the Appellate Tax Board is erroneous in substance; they would be in an awkward position to attempt to do so since the evidence was not reported.SeeNew Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. v. Assessors of Dartmouth, --- Mass. ---, ---^a, 335 N.E.2d 897(1975).Rather the assessors seek reversal on the ground that they were unfairly handicapped in meeting the capitalization of income theory because of the owner's failure (as they claim) to supply them with facts and figures as to receipts, expenses, and other matters.But the assessors are hard put to make this argument because the record is sketchy in this respect also.It appears that the assessors made requests for information under G.L. c. 59, § 61A, ¹ and applied to the Appellate Tax Board to dismiss the appeals for alleged failure of the owner to comply.But the Board's omission to take such action is not shown to have been improper: the record indicates, indeed, that the owner did supply some information to the assessors, ² although what that information consisted of is not made clear.Again, the assessors served interrogatories on the owner (seeRule 25 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Appellate Tax Board) which they say the owner did not answer, but the Board's denial of a motion by the assessors to enter a 'decree pro confesso' may be explained, for aught that the record shows, by the assessors' having received enough information in other ways during the long period before the appeals were heard; for failure of the interrogated party to give answers, the Board is to enter such order 'as justice requires,' not necessarily an order of dismissal.³

In the matter of 'discovery' much must be left to the judgment and discretion of the Appellate Tax Board.The Board pointed out in its findings and opinion that if the assessors had need to elicit more data to...