Canron, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Everett

• Decision Date: 16 January 1975
• Citation: 322 N.E.2d 83,366 Mass. 634
• Parties: CANRON, INC. v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF EVERETT.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 83

322 N.E.2d 83

366 Mass. 634

CANRON, INC. v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF EVERETT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Nov. 8, 1974.

Decided Jan. 16, 1975.

John M. Hall, Boston, for taxpayer.

Richard J. O'Neil, Everett (Robert A. Saggese, Boston, with him), for the Board of Assessors of Everett.

Before QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, HENNESSEY, KAPLAN and WILKINS, JJ.

WILKINS, Justice.

In this taxpayer's appeal from the decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board), we must decide whether the time period within which a person assessed must file an application for abatement of local real estate taxes also applies to an application filed by a person other than a person assessed. See G.L. c. 59, § 59. ¹ If we conclude that the same time limitations apply to all applicants for abatement, we must then determine whether in the circumstances the application for abatement was filed seasonably.

Facts found by the board, mostly on the basis of a stipulation by the parties, may be summarized briefly. In April, 1970, Shahmoon Industries, Incorporated (Shahmoon), sold various assets, including real estate in Everett (the premises), to the appellant Canron, Inc. (Canron). However, no deed conveying the premises was recorded until late in 1971. In June, 1971, Shahmoon advised the board of assessors of Everett (the assessors) by letter that the premises had been sold and enclosed a copy of an executed bill of sale to Canron. That bill of sale indicated that the principal office of Canron was 1121 Ville Marie Place, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and contained a written acceptance, purportedly executed on behalf of Canron. On October 8, 1971, the collector of taxes of Everett mailed Canron a notice of 1971 real estate taxes on the premises, which set forth the name and address of the owner as 'Shahmoon Industries, Inc. c/o Canron Inc. 1121 Ville Marie Place Montreal Quebec Canada 02149.'

Although Canron did not have a 'legal' office in Montreal, its parent company (Canron Ltd.) did. The tax notice was received by Canron at its offices in New Jersey. On November 5, 1971, without paying the real estate taxes in advance, Canron filed an application for an abatement of taxes on the premises, listing itself as the person assessed. The assessors returned the tax bills for payment and inquired whether deeds transferring the premises had been recorded. The deed was recorded subsequently on December 31, 1971. On February 11, 1972, a demand for payment of 1971 real estate taxes on the premises was sent to 'Shahmoon Industries, Inc. 19 Robin Street Everett, Mass. 02149 c/o Canron, Inc. 1121 Ville Marie Place Montreal, Quebec Canada.'

On March 2, 1972, Canron paid the 1971 local real estate taxes assessed on the premises, and, on March 7, 1972, filed with the assessors an application for abatement of those taxes. Subsequently Canron appealed to the board from the denial, by inaction, of the abatement application. See G.L. c. 59, §§ 64, 65.

The board found that the assessors had made a good faith effort to cooperate with Shahmoon and Canron with respect to billing for 1971 real estate taxes on the premises 'even though the facts indicate that the procedures followed left much to be desired.' The board further found that '(a)ny mix-up' with respect to the address to which the bill was sent did not prejudice Canron. The board ruled that under G.L. c. 59, § 59, the November 5, 1971, abatement application was ineffective because Canron, as 'a person other than the person to whom a tax on real estate is assessed,' had not paid the tax. ² The board further ruled that the tax notice sent on October 8, 1971, was sufficient to initiate the thirty-day period, set forth in G.L. c. 59, § 59 during which an application for abatement must be filed (if the tax bill or notice is first sent after September first in any year) and that Canron was as much subject to the limitations of that thirty-day period as an assessed owner or other assessed person. The board allowed the assessortrs motion to dismiss the appeal to it for want of jurisdiction, and Canron appealed. We affirm the board's decision.

1. The time period for filing an application for abatement, which clearly applies to '(a) person upon whom a tax has been assessed,' applies as well to other persons (such as Canron here) who may file applications for abatement. ³ Prior to the effectiveness of St. 1933, c. 165, § 1, which added the third sentence of G.L. c. 59, § 59, only a person to whom a local real estate tax had been assessed (and, in some circumstances, a tenant could file an application for abatement of that tax. See Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Assessors of Boston, 311 Mass. 415, 416, 41 N.E.2d 283 (1942). That 1933 amendment to § 59 grants to a person other than the party assessed, if he has paid the tax, the right to 'prosecute in his own name any application, appeal or action provided by law for the abatement or recovery of such tax.' That amendment says nothing about the procedures to be followed in pursuing this new right. However, because the amendment was added to G.L. c. 59, § 59, and because the new right is to prosecute any application 'provided by law,' we regard the time limitations expressly applicable to an assessed party under the first sentence of § 59 as equally applicable to one who has a right to seek an abatement under the third sentence of § 59. ⁴

There is no strong reason to make a distinction between the two classes of potential applicants, and certainly there is no compelling reason why a person who is not the owner on the assessment date should have more time to seek administrative relief than the person assessed. There is, however, reason for the Legislature to have adopted a course which permits a municipality to know by a particular date the scope of its potential liability for claimed tax abatements. See Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Ins. Co., 310 Mass. 300, 308, 38 N.E.2d 145 (1941). The construction urged by Canron opens the possibility of circumvention of the time limitations of § 59 by an assessed owner who has discovered that an application cannot be filed seasonably by him but could be so filed by someone else with an 'interest' in the property. ⁵

We see no merit in Canron's constitutional argument that it has been denied due process of law by the interpretation of § 59 which we have made. See Old Colony R.R. v. Assessors of Boston, 309 Mass. 439, 445--446, 35 N.E.2d 246 (1941) (requirement of prepayment of the tax within a particular time period); Lowell v. Marden & Murphy, Inc., 321 Mass. 597, 599, 74 N.E.2d 666 (1947), cert. den. and app. dism. for want of substantial Federal question, 332 U.S. 850, 68 S.Ct. 354, 92 L.Ed. 420 (1948) (same); Winona & St. Peter Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526, 537, 16 S.Ct. 83, 40 L.Ed. 247 (1895) (an opportunity to be heard on the validity and amount of a property tax satisfies due process requirements); Orient Ins. Co. v. Assessors for the Parish of Orleans, 221 U.S. 358, 360--361, 31 S.Ct. 554, 55 L.Ed. 769 (1911) (reasonable time limit to seek reduction in taxes). Canron acquired the premises in April, 1970. Certainly it had ample opportunity to preserve its rights to challenge local real estate taxes assessed as of January 1, 1971, and billed in October, 1971.

2. We turn next to Canron's argument that, if it is subject to the time restraints of § 59, the thirty-day period did not commence on October 8, 1971, when the collector of taxes mailed a notice to Shahmoon, care of Canron in Montreal. Canron correctly points to G.L. c. 60, § 3, as appearing in St. 1933, c. 254, § 50, which directs the collector to 'send notice to each person assessed, resident or nonresident, of the amount of his tax; if mailed, it shall be postpaid and directed to the town where the assessed person resided on January first of the year in which the tax was assessed.' Canron argues that the board was in error in ruling...