Posts tagged "W.A."

W.A. Wilde Company, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Holliston (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-095-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030;       12‑P‑121                                        Appeals Court   W.A. WILDE COMPANY, INC.  vs.  BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF HOLLISTON.     No. 12‑P‑121. Suffolk.     October 1, 2012.  ‑  August 8, 2013. Present:  Wolohojian, Brown, & Carhart, JJ.   Taxation, Real estate tax:  abatement, assessment, value, Assessors.       Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board.     Matthew A. Luz for the taxpayer. Peter R. Barbieri for board of assessors of Holliston.   BROWN, J.  W.A. Wilde Company, Inc. (taxpayer), appeals from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) denying the taxpayer’s petitions to abate the fiscal year 2007 real estate taxes on two individual parcels situated in the town of Holliston (town).  The question presented is whether, based on the text of G. L. c. 58A, § 12A, the board was obliged to assign the burden of going forward with the necessary proof to the town’s board of assessors (assessors), not the taxpayer, at the administrative hearing.  The board refused.  There was no error.   Facts.  The taxpayer has been the lessee in possession of the parcels, both of which are improved with buildings for industrial and office use.  Under its lease, the taxpayer has been required to pay more than one-half of the taxes on each of the parcels, see G. L. c. 59, § 11, known as 200 and 201 Summer Street.  In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the taxpayer contested the assessments, filing appeals with the board under the formal procedure.  Each time, the board decided that the taxpayer did not meet its burden to prove the parcels had been overvalued.  This same scenario recurred in fiscal year 2007. a.  Fiscal year 2007 appeal.  After the assessors refused to abate the taxes for fiscal year 2007, the taxpayer again filed petitions with the board under the formal procedure, contesting the 2007 assessed values — 200 Summer Street at $ 3,211,800 and 201 Summer Street at $ 5,012,300 — both of which exceeded, by $ 49,800 and $ 134,800, respectively, the valuations from the prior two fiscal years.  See note 1, supra. At the hearing before the board, the taxpayer advanced an argument that the assessors had the burden of proof to demonstrate the fiscal year 2007 assessments were warranted.  This was required, the taxpayer urged, by G. L. c. 58A, § 12A, as amended by St. 1998, c. 485, § 2, which provides, in relevant part: […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 9, 2013 at 1:45 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,