Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appeal

Related Cases

Tregor v. Board of Assessors of City of Boston, 377 Mass. 602, 387 N.E.2d 538

Facts

In this case, the assessors of Boston valued a taxpayer's land and office building at $320,000, resulting in a tax of $80,928 for the 1977 fiscal year. The taxpayer applied for an abatement, which was denied, leading to an appeal to the Appellate Tax Board. The board granted an abatement based on a recalculated value of $87,904, which was significantly lower than the assessed value. The parties agreed that the average assessment for single-family residential property in Boston was 26.8%, while the overall average for all taxable property was 50.2%. This disparity led to the legal dispute regarding the appropriate assessment rate.

In the principal case the assessors of Boston valued land and an office building owned by the taxpayer at $320,000 and assessed a real estate tax for the 1977 fiscal year of $80,928. The taxpayer made timely application for abatement and appealed to the board from the assessors' denial of his application.

Issue

Whether a taxpayer can claim an abatement of their property tax assessment based on disproportionate assessment compared to the average percentage of fair cash value for all taxable properties in the municipality.

We are asked to reconsider the remedy available to a taxpayer who is a victim of disproportionate assessment.

Rule

A taxpayer who is a victim of disproportionate assessment may claim an abatement to the average percentage of fair cash value computed for assessments of all taxable property in the taxing district. A prima facie case is established if the taxpayer shows their property is assessed at a higher percentage than the average for all taxable properties.

Under our decisions “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.’ ”

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the taxpayer's property was indeed assessed at a higher percentage of fair cash value than the average for all taxable properties in Boston. The board's calculations showed that the taxpayer's assessment was disproportionate, and thus the taxpayer was entitled to an abatement to the lowest class average of 26.8%. This decision was consistent with previous rulings that aimed to rectify inequities in property tax assessments.

The board computed the “tax factor” by multiplying the current tax rate ($252.90 per $1,000 assessed valuation) by the assessment percentage of the most favored class (26.8%), yielding a tax factor of .0678.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Appellate Tax Board's decision, allowing the taxpayer to receive an abatement to the lower assessment rate of 26.8%. This ruling reinforces the principle of equitable taxation across different classes of property.

Decisions of the Appellate Tax Board affirmed.

Who won?

The taxpayer prevailed in the case because the court found that their property was assessed disproportionately compared to the average for all taxable properties, warranting an abatement to the lower assessment rate.

The city does not now dispute the fact that the taxpayer is aggrieved by a disproportionate assessment.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Johnson v. City of Pensacola, 164 So.2d 844

Menard, Inc. v. City of Escanaba, 315 Mich.App. 512, 891 N.W.2d 1

Cincinnati Nature Center Ass’n v. Board of Tax Appeals, 48 Ohio St.2d 122, 357 N.E.2d 381, 2 O.O.3d 275

Floyd Charcoal Co., Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 599 S.W.2d 173

Babcock v. Nudelman, 367 Ill. 626, 12 N.E.2d 635