Schlaiker v. Board of Assessors of Great Barrington
| Citation | 365 Mass. 243,310 N.E.2d 602 |
| Parties | J. A. SCHLAIKER et al., trustees, v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF GREAT BARRINGTON. |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1974 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Mark J. Witkin, Boston (Arnold Bloom, Boston, with him), for the taxpayers.
William P. Murtagh, Town Counsel, Great Barrington, for the Board of Assessors of Great Barrington.
Before TAURO, C.J., and REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) upholding the refusal of the board of assessors of Great Barrington (assessors) to grant abatements on real estate taxes in the years 1969 and 1970. The taxpayers were owners of a nursing home on 4.2 acres of land on Maple Avenue in Great Barrington. In each of the relevant years the assessors valued the property at $812,230. In 1969 they assessed a tax in the amount of $26,803.59 based on a rate of $33 a thousand, and in 1970 a tax was assessed for $30,864.74 based on a rate of $38 a thousand. In each year the taxpayers seasonably applied for abatements which were denied, and timely appeals were made to the board.
There were two witnesses before the board. John E. Connally, real estate director for Healthco, a health care corporation which operated the nursing home, testified as to the characteristics of the enterprise, its revenues and expenses. Using the 'capitalization of income' method, he arrived at a valuation of $573,000 1 in 1970. Providing a less detailed analysis, he estimated a fair cash value of $535,000 for 1969. Robert G. Guidi, the chairman of the assessors, testified that the assessors had used the 'reproduction cost less depreciation' approach to valuation in arriving at their figure of $812,000. The board in a 'Decision' dated July 19, 1972, and an 'Opinion' promulgated on December 6, 1972, held for the assessors. In its findings of fact and report the board declared that the taxpayers had not sustained the burden of proving that their property had been overvalued. An appeal was taken to this court and argument was heard in September, 1973. By an order dated November 21, 1973, this court remanded the case to the board for further findings of fact. Supplementary findings were filed with this court on January 30, 1974. On the basis of those findings we affirm the decision of the board.
The board's findings were primarily concerned with the testimony of Connally. It found that he filed to supply a sufficient description of the property involved. With respect to his use of the capitalization of income method, it noted that he did not provide evidence that a nursing home was the most productive use of the property, that the nursing home was being operated efficiently and thus producing its fair potential in income, or that the expenses cited were reasonable. The board also found that one expense item in particular, a $48,750 'management fee,' was not explained. No clear reason for it was offered and the board gave it little weight as a proper operating expense. Without this expense, and utiliziang the other data given and the capitalization rate applied by Connally, a figure very close to the assessors' valuation would result. There were various other specific defects found in Connally's testimony leading the board to the finding that it was 'deficient and inadequate in several important respects.' The decision of the board is final as to findings of fact. G.L. c. 58A, § 13.
Since the board found no credible or persuasive evidence that the taxpayers' property had a lower value than that assessed, it was proper for the board to conclude that the taxpayers had not sustained the burden of proof. 'The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make out its right as matter of law to abatement of the tax.' Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55, 136 N.E. 375, 379 (1922). it was proper for the board to presume that the valuation made by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Elec. Co. v. Board of Assessors of Lynn
...176 (1984). Foxboro Assocs. v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 684, 433 N.E.2d 890 (1982). Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245, 310 N.E.2d 602 (1974). Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55, 136 N.E. 375 (1922). Furthermore, we hav......
-
Boston Gas Co. 1 v. Bd. of Assessors of Boston.
...taxpayer bears the burden of establishing its right to an abatement of the assessed tax. See Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245, 310 N.E.2d 602 (1974), quoting Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55, 136 N.E. 375 (1922). The assessment is......
-
New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. v. Board of Assessors of Dartmouth
...fact by the board must be supported by substantial evidence. Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, --- Mass. ---, ---, n. 2, c 310 N.E.2d 602 (1974). However, to invoke review by this court, an appellant must supply a proper record. The appellant has the duty to assemble such material......
-
Frank v. Assessors of Skowhegan
...... 'Any person entitled to appeal to a board of assessment review or to the county commissioner for an abatement of his ... Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Presque Isle et al., supra. Schlaiker" v. Board of Assessors, Great Barrington, Mass., 310 N.E.2d 602 (1974). . \xC2"......