French v. Board of Assessors of Boston

419 N.E.2d 1372, 383 Mass. 481, 1981 Mass. LEXIS 1207
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 24, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 419 N.E.2d 1372 (French v. Board of Assessors of Boston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
French v. Board of Assessors of Boston, 419 N.E.2d 1372, 383 Mass. 481, 1981 Mass. LEXIS 1207 (Mass. 1981).

Opinions

Liacos, J.

These consolidated cases are appeals pursuant to G. L. c. 58A, § 13, from the decisions of the Appellate [482]*482Tax Board (board) granting abatements to the appellees, taxpayers, from real estate taxes levied in the years 1977 through 1979. The appellant board of assessors of the city of Boston (city) challenges the board’s ruling that the lowest substantial class of real property in the city of Boston was the so called R-l single family residential, or single dwelling unit residential class. The city contends that the board’s ruling is erroneous (1) because the board failed to state its reasons or make findings of fact in support of its determination that the R-l class, as opposed to the class of all residential property, is a separate and distinct class for the purpose of real property classification; (2) because the selection of the R-l class has no rational basis in law or fact; and (3) because the board’s determination is inconsistent with the policy underlying the recently approved classification Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution2 and the legislative responses to that amendment.3

The determination whether single family residences constitute a “class” for tax abatement purposes is a mixed question of fact and law. As the board is a State agency charged with administering the tax abatement process, its determination is due some deference. See Henry Perkins Co. v. Assessors of Bridgewater, 377 Mass. 117, 121-122 (1979). We have long recognized the board’s expertise in tax matters. See Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941). The board has adequately set forth and the record supports the factual predicates for its determination.[483]*4834 Cf. G. L. c. 58A, §§ 10 and 12C. Moreover, this determination is in no respect inconsistent with our past declarations of the appropriate remedy available to a taxpayer whose real estate taxes have been disproportionately assessed. See, e.g., Tregor v. Assessors of Boston, 377 Mass. 602, 611-612, cert, denied, 444 U.S. 841 (1979); Beardsley v. Assessors of Foxborough, 369 Mass. 855 (1976); Shoppers’ World, Inc. v. Assessors of Framingham, 348 Mass. 366, 377 n.10 (1965). “[A] taxpayer has a right to have his assessment reduced so that it is ‘proportional to the assessments of the class of property valued at the lowest percentage of fair cash value.’” New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, ante 456, 458 n.3 (1981), quoting from cited cases. Cf. Chomerics, Inc. v. Assessors of Woburn, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 394 (1978). Finally, the board’s ruling is not inconsistent with the Massachusetts Constitution or any legislation as in effect during the tax years in question.5

The decisions of the Appellate Tax Board are therefore affirmed. Costs of the appeal are to be awarded to the taxpayer in each case.

So ordered.

Justice Kaplan participated in the deliberation on this case, but retired before the opinion was issued.

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

Related

Veolia Energy Bos., Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors of Bos.
130 N.E.3d 767 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019)
WorldWide TechServices, LLC v. Commissioner of Revenue
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2018
Worldwide TechServices, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue
91 N.E.3d 650 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2017)
Russell Block Associates v. Board of Assessors of Worcester
37 N.E.3d 665 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2015)
Schussel v. Commissioner of Revenue
32 N.E.3d 1239 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2015)
Capital One Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue
453 Mass. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2009)
Geoffrey, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue
899 N.E.2d 87 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2009)
WB&T Mortgage Co. v. Board of Assessors
889 N.E.2d 404 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2008)
Salem & Beverly Water Supply Board v. Board of Assessors
824 N.E.2d 893 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2005)
NYNEX Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue
812 N.E.2d 1230 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2004)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Board of Assessors
422 Mass. 447 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1996)
Mezzanine Capital Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue
661 N.E.2d 107 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1996)
Koch v. Commissioner of Revenue
624 N.E.2d 91 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1993)
Commissioner of Revenue v. Exxon Corp.
551 N.E.2d 36 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1990)
Towle v. Commissioner of Revenue
492 N.E.2d 739 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1986)
Commissioner of Revenue v. Houghton Mifflin Co.
487 N.E.2d 1388 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1986)
McNeill v. Board of Assessors
487 N.E.2d 849 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1986)
Northeast Petroleum Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue
479 N.E.2d 163 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1985)
Children's Hospital Medical Center v. Board of Assessors
471 N.E.2d 67 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1984)
McCarthy v. Commissioner of Revenue
462 N.E.2d 1357 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
419 N.E.2d 1372, 383 Mass. 481, 1981 Mass. LEXIS 1207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-board-of-assessors-of-boston-mass-1981.