Trustees of Milton Academy v. Board of Assessors

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Trustees of Milton Academy v. Board of Assessors

463 N.E.2d 553, 391 Mass. 1017, 1984 Mass. LEXIS 1497

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 463 N.E.2d 553 (Trustees of Milton Academy v. Board of Assessors) 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

Trustees of Milton Academy v. Board of Assessors, 463 N.E.2d 553, 391 Mass. 1017, 1984 Mass. LEXIS 1497 (Mass. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

The board of assessors (assessors) appeals from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) exempting from taxation certain real estate owned by the trustees of Milton Academy (school) and used as faculty residences. The board concluded that, pursuant to G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third (e), inserted by St. 1974, c. 811, § 2, eight faculty residences assessed for fiscal year 1981, and nine faculty residences assessed for fiscal year 1982, were exempt from local taxation as property that was “part of or contiguous to real estate [1018]*1018which is the principal location of [the school].” The assessors’ main contention is that the board erred in determining the “principal location” of the school, because the board should have limited the principal location to a unified area not traversed by public ways and should not have included disjoined parcels. The assessors argue further that a determination of the school’s “principal location” as including virtually all the school’s real estate does an injustice to the legislative intent underlying G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third (e), and renders the word “principal” meaningless.

Robert D. O’Leary, Town Counsel, for the Board of Assessors of Milton. Thomas M. Spera (Anthony J. Luppino with him) for the taxpayer.

The determination of the “principal location” of an educational institution is essentially a question of fact in the resolution of which the board has a measure of discretion. Trustees of Boston Univ. v. Assessors of Brookline, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 325, 327 (1981). The term “principal location” is undefined in G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third (e), “undoubtedly because of the practical difficulties inherent in fashioning a definition which could be uniformly applied to the Commonwealth’s numerous educational institutions.” Id.

The board decided these appeals on a statement of agreed facts, testimony, exhibits, and a view of the premises by a hearing member. The board’s decision as to the “principal location” of the school was not erroneous under the relevant standard of review. There is no requirement that a school’s “principal location” cannot be traversed by a public way, id. at 330-331, or that it must consist of one integral parcel. The board’s findings were not inconsistent, and its conclusions were warranted by the evidence. See Assessors of Hamilton v. Iron Rail Fund of Girls Clubs of Am., Inc., 367 Mass. 301, 302 (1975). Thus the board was justified in concluding that the faculty residences were properly exempted from taxation as they were “part of or contiguous to. . . the principal location of [the school].” G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third (e).

Decision of the Appellate Tax Board affirmed.

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

The board of assessors (assessors) appeals from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) exempting from taxation certain real estate owned by the trustees of Milton Academy (school) and used as faculty residences. The board concluded that, pursuant to G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third (e), inserted by St. 1974, c. 811, § 2, eight faculty residences assessed for fiscal year 1981, and nine faculty residences assessed for fiscal year 1982, were exempt from local taxation as property that was “part of or contiguous to real estate [1018]*1018which is the principal location of [the school].” The assessors’ main contention is that the board erred in determining the “principal location” of the school, because the board should have limited the principal location to a unified area not traversed by public ways and should not have included disjoined parcels. The assessors argue further that a determination of the school’s “principal location” as including virtually all the school’s real estate does an injustice to the legislative intent underlying G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third (e), and renders the word “principal” meaningless.

Robert D. O’Leary, Town Counsel, for the Board of Assessors of Milton. Thomas M. Spera (Anthony J. Luppino with him) for the taxpayer.

The determination of the “principal location” of an educational institution is essentially a question of fact in the resolution of which the board has a measure of discretion. Trustees of Boston Univ. v. Assessors of Brookline, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 325, 327 (1981). The term “principal location” is undefined in G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third (e), “undoubtedly because of the practical difficulties inherent in fashioning a definition which could be uniformly applied to the Commonwealth’s numerous educational institutions.” Id.

The board decided these appeals on a statement of agreed facts, testimony, exhibits, and a view of the premises by a hearing member. The board’s decision as to the “principal location” of the school was not erroneous under the relevant standard of review. There is no requirement that a school’s “principal location” cannot be traversed by a public way, id. at 330-331, or that it must consist of one integral parcel. The board’s findings were not inconsistent, and its conclusions were warranted by the evidence. See Assessors of Hamilton v. Iron Rail Fund of Girls Clubs of Am., Inc., 367 Mass. 301, 302 (1975). Thus the board was justified in concluding that the faculty residences were properly exempted from taxation as they were “part of or contiguous to. . . the principal location of [the school].” G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third (e).

Decision of the Appellate Tax Board affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 N.E.2d 553, 391 Mass. 1017, 1984 Mass. LEXIS 1497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-milton-academy-v-board-of-assessors-mass-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack