Children's Hosp. Medical Center v. Board of Assessors of Boston

• Citation: 393 Mass. 266,471 N.E.2d 67
• Parties: The CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF BOSTON.
• Decision Date: 08 November 1984
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 67

471 N.E.2d 67

393 Mass. 266

The CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF BOSTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Suffolk.

Argued Sept. 14, 1984.

Decided Nov. 8, 1984.

Kenneth J. Mickiewicz, Boston, for plaintiff.

Peter Antell, Sp. Asst. Corp. Counsel, Boston, for defendant.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and LIACOS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.

HENNESSEY, Chief Justice.

The Children's Hospital Medical Center (CHMC) is appealing a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) dismissing its appeal for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that CHMC failed to use the proper form in claiming a property tax exemption under G.L. c. 59, § 5, Third. On cross-appeal, the board of assessors of the city of Boston (assessors) contends that CHMC failed to list certain of its property on Form 3 ABC (Return of Property Held for Charitable and Other Purposes), and that this failure deprives the board of jurisdiction to consider an exemption for such unlisted property.

A detailed statement of the proceedings which led up to this dispute is set forth in our first review of this same application for an abatement. See Children's Hosp. Medical Center v. Assessors of Boston, 388 Mass. 832, 448 N.E.2d 748 (1983) (Children's I ). On September 30, 1977, CHMC was assessed $170,049.96 in property taxes on two separate parcels of real estate. Id. at 833, 448 N.E.2d 748. On October 28, CHMC applied for an abatement of these taxes on a form approved by the Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation (Form 123). Shortly thereafter, CHMC received "Abatement Information Requisitions" which it completed and filed with the assessors in December. Evidently CHMC had indicated on these forms that it "was a charitable organization and that the parcels were used by it or by another charitable organization for the purposes of the organization." Id. at n. 4.

CHMC's abatement applications were ultimately denied, and it appealed to the board. The board dismissed the appeal on the ground that CHMC had failed to make a timely filing of Form 3 ABC, which deprived the board of jurisdiction to consider CHMC's claim for an exemption under G.L. c. 59, § 5, Third. On appeal, we agreed with the board that the filing of Form 3 ABC was jurisdictional, and we remanded the case for the board to reconsider whether, in fact, Form 3 ABC had been seasonably filed. Id. at 843, 448 N.E.2d 748. Moreover, we also requested the board to determine whether the filing of Form 1B-3 (Application for Statutory Exemption) was also required by G.L. c. 59, § 5, Third, "so as to make its filing an element of the jurisdiction of the assessors to grant an exemption and of the board to review a decision of the assessors." Id. at 845, 448 N.E.2d 748.

On remand, the board found that CHMC had seasonably filed Form 3 ABC with the assessors. However, the board also determined that a person applying for an abatement on the ground of a statutory exemption must do so on a Form 1B-3. Because CHMC conceded that no Form 1B-3 had been filed, the board reaffirmed its decision and dismissed CHMC's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse, and once again remand the case for further proceedings by the board.

1. Form 1B-3.

It is well established that a statutory exemption is an appropriate ground for seeking an abatement. Norwood v. Norwood Civic Ass'n, 340 Mass. 518, 523, 165 N.E.2d 124 (1960). Assessors of Everett v. General Elec. Co., 330 Mass. 464, 468-469, 115 N.E.2d 359 (1953). See, e.g., Trustees of Smith College v. Assessors of Whately, 385 Mass. 767, 768, 434 N.E.2d 182 (1982). Accordingly, the procedure set forth in G.L. c. 59, §§ 59 and 60, for applying for an abatement is available to one seeking an abatement on the ground of an exemption.

General Laws c. 59, § 59, as amended through St.1978, c. 580, § 33, provides that "[a] person upon whom a tax has been assessed ... if aggrieved by such tax, may ... apply in writing to the assessors, on a form approved by the commissioner, for an abatement thereof." See generally Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law School, 295 Mass. 489, 4 N.E.2d 342 (1936). Nowhere inthe statute is there any requirement "that an application for abatement set forth reasons for the application or provide detailed information." MacDonald v. Assessors of Mashpee, 381 Mass. 724, 725, 412 N.E.2d 336 (1980). Therefore, there is no requirement for a "taxpayer seeking an abatement of a tax wrongfully assessed upon exempt property to specify such a ground in his application." Assessors of Boston v. Boston Elevated Ry., 320 Mass. 588, 593, 70 N.E.2d 812 (1947).

The application is not "in its nature the presentation of evidence." Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Ins. Co., 310 Mass. 300, 312, 38 N.E.2d 145 (1941). Rather, it serves merely as "notice of the taxpayer's assertion that he objects to the assessors' action." MacDonald v. Assessors of Mashpee, supra at 726, 412 N.E.2d 336. If the assessors require more information than is provided by this notice, they can request it through the mechanism provided by G.L. c. 59, § 61A. However, the assessors cannot "under the guise of [requiring] a form for an application impose upon the taxpayer an obligation to furnish information not required by the statute expressly or by implication." Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Ins. Co., supra at 308, 38 N.E.2d 145.

CHMC filed its application on Form 128, which is a form that has been "approved by the Commissioner" for the purpose of applying for an abatement. It then seasonably responded to the assessors' "Abatement Information Requisitions" notifying the assessors that it was a charitable organization occupying the real estate at issue for charitable purposes. Given the language of G.L. c. 59, § 59, and its consistent interpretation by this court, CHMC did all that it was required to do to obtain its abatement.

The assessors claim that they are entitled to require the use of different forms for an abatement depending on the grounds upon which the abatement is sought. For example, they argue that Form 128 should be used where an abatement is sought on the grounds of overvaluation or disproportionate assessment, whereas Form 1B-3 should be used where an abatement is sought on the ground of a statutory exemption. The assessors further note that Form 1B-3 requires that the applicant respond to certain questions, the answers to which will determine whether the applicant is entitled to an exemption. In fact, the assessors argue that because CHMC failed to file Form 1B-3 the assessors were not even put on notice of the claim for a statutory exemption until CHMC filed its appeal before the board, on April 28, 1978. ¹

It may well be convenient for the assessors to receive abatement applications on different forms, each with a distinctive color and number depending upon the grounds on which the...