Assessors of Springfield v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.

112 N.E.2d 260, 330 Mass. 198, 1953 Mass. LEXIS 444
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 4, 1953·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Qua, C.J.

The assessors appeal from a decision of a majority of the Appellate Tax Board abating as illegal an assessment made by the assessors for the year 1950 upon machinery, poles, wires and underground conduits, wires and pipes of the company. The ground of illegality is failure to assess in accordance with G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 59, § 39, as appearing in St. 1933, c. 254, § 36, and as most recently amended by St. 1939, c. 451, § 22. The entire section as amended is printed in the. footnote. 1

The facts essential to an understanding of the issue now *200 presented appear in a “Case Stated” filed with the board and are these: On February 10, 1950, the commissioner of corporations and taxation in accordance with § 39 certified to the assessors the value of the property here involved as $3,265,400. On February 16 the assessors appealed this valuation to the board, which nearly twenty-two months later, on December 13, 1951, determined the value of the property to be $6,382,328. Upon appeal to this court the decision of the board fixing the last mentioned value was reversed and the proceeding in which that value was fixed was ordered dismissed as moot for the reason that any decision of the board would then necessarily come so late that the company would lose the right of appeal to the commissioner secured to it by § 73, which it must exercise not later than December 1, 1950. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Assessors of Springfield, 329 Mass. 419. In the meantime, however, the assessors, in August, 1950, after the commissioner’s valuation had been certified to them and after they had appealed from that valuation to the board but before the board had rendered any decision, assessed the property at a valuation fixed by themselves of $6,293,400, which was not far from twice the value certified by the commissioner. The issue now to be decided is whether this assessment by the assessors in August, 1950, was valid. Upon appeal by the company to the board, the board ordered an abatement in the sum of $283,203, being the amount of the tax assessed.

It is plain that this assessment by the assessors at a valuation determined by themselves was not in accordance with § 39, which provides for an assessment by the assessors “at the value determined by the commissioner or by the appellate tax board.” But the assessors contend that - they were not required to act in conformity with § 39; that their general powers of valuation and assessment of property under § 38 and other sections of c. 59 remained unimpaired notwithstanding the enactment of § 39; that they acted lawfully under their general powers; and that § 39 merely furnished an alternative method of valuation which they *201 were not obliged to adopt and which was permissive only and not mandatory or compulsory.

We are unable to accept the contentions of the assessors.

Section 39 reads, “The valuation at which the machinery, poles, wires and underground conduits, wires and pipes of all telephone and telegraph companies shall be assessed by the assessors of the respective towns where such property is subject to taxation shall be determined annually by the commissioner, subject to appeal to the appellate tax board . . ..” “The assessors shall, in the manner provided by law, assess the machinery, poles, wires and underground conduits, wires and pipes of all telephone and telegraph companies as certified and at the value determined by the commissioner or by the appellate tax board . . .,” with a further provision that such assessment shall be deemed full compliance with the oaths of office of the assessors and full performance of their official duty, except for the requirement of giving information to the commissioner under § 40. It is difficult to see how language could have been framed which would more clearly and categorically impose an absolute obligation upon the assessors. Although undoubtedly in some contexts the word shall can be construed as equivalent to may, its usual and correct signification is mandatory. McCarty v. Boyden, 275 Mass. 91, 93. Opinion of the Justices, 300 Mass. 591, 593. Elmer v. Commissioner of Insurance, 304 Mass. 194, 196. Brennan v. Election Commissioners of Boston, 310 Mass. 784, 786. Jenney v. Assessors of Mattapoisett, 322 Mass. 76, 78. In this instance the context tends to reinforce its mandatory character. If § 39 had been intended to be merely advisory or alternative, leaving it discretionary with the assessors whether or not they would assess in accordance with that section, there would have been no point in granting to the assessors a right to appeal from the commissioner’s valuation to the Appellate Tax Board. One does not need an appeal from a decision which he can disregard at pleasure.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Assessors of Springfield v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 112 N.E.2d 260, 330 Mass. 198, 1953 Mass. LEXIS 444 (Mass. 1953).

112 N.E.2d 260 (Assessors of Springfield v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Valuation of Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corp.
926 N.E.2d 133 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2010)
RCN-BecoCom, LLC v. Commissioner of Revenue
820 N.E.2d 208 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2005)
Commonwealth v. Olivo
337 N.E.2d 904 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1975)
Myers v. Commonwealth
298 N.E.2d 819 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1973)
Board of Assessors v. State Tax Commission
221 N.E.2d 585 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1966)
Scanlon v. City of Menasha
114 N.W.2d 791 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1962)
Stone v. City of Springfield
168 N.E.2d 76 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1960)
Sorelle v. Pelletier
16 Mass. App. Dec. 102 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1958)
Bond Liquor Store, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission
142 N.E.2d 372 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1957)
Assessors of Haverhill v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.
124 N.E.2d 917 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1955)
State Tax Commission v. Assessors of Springfield
122 N.E.2d 372 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1954)
State Tax Commission v. Assessors of Haverhill
118 N.E.2d 745 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1954)