Opinion
14-P-93
04-13-2015
RAMZI DINNO & others v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF SUDBURY.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiffs appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board affirming the town of Sudbury's denial of certain abatements from real property taxes for the tax years 2008 and 2009. We affirm.
On November 8, 2006, the plaintiffs, as trustees of the Harveys Farm Trust, took title to two adjacent vacant lots located on Harveys Farm Lane in Sudbury; the quitclaim deed was recorded the following day. No address for the buyers was provided on the deed. On January 1, 2007 (tax year 2008), and January 1, 2008 (tax year 2009), the plaintiffs were the record owners of the property. They now assert that they did not become aware of the 2008 and 2009 tax bills issued by the town until 2012, when they were alerted by the prior owner.
"A person who acquires title to real estate after January first in any year, shall for the purposes of this section be treated as a person upon whom a tax has been assessed." G. L. c. 59, § 59.
On August 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed with the town an application for an abatement of real property taxes for the tax years 2008 and 2009. On November 21, 2012, after the town had taken no action during the preceding three-month period, the applications were denied by operation of law. G. L. c. 59, § 59. On February 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions for late entries of appeals with the Board of Tax Assessors, arguing that the town had failed to notify them of the tax bills for the specified years. They pointed out that the town had "acknowledged that tax bills were insufficiently issued to the taxpayer" and also had agreed to accept the late payment of taxes due. The board denied the petitions on the ground that "[t]he time for appealing fiscal years 2008 and 2009 real estate taxes, and to seek permission for late filing under G. L. c. 59, § 65C, ha[d] long since expired; in calendar years 2009 and 2010 respectively."
On appeal, the plaintiffs make essentially the same argument that they made to the Appellate Tax Board. We are not persuaded. "Real property owners know, or at least are on constructive notice, that real estate taxes must be paid." Andover v. State Financial Servs., Inc., 432 Mass. 571, 576 (2000). To ensure that tax bills are received promptly, it is incumbent on a new property owner to provide the town assessor's office with the current address to which any subsequent tax bills should be sent, especially given, as in this instance, where the recorded deed did not include a property address. The statute, G. L. c. 59, § 59, sets out the procedure and time limits for filing for an abatement.
"A person upon whom a tax has been assessed . . . may, except as hereinafter otherwise provided, on or before the last day for payment, without incurring interest . . . apply in writing to the assessors, on a form approved by the commissioner, for an abatement thereof . . .; . . . provided, however, that a person aggrieved by a tax assessed . . . may apply for such abatement at any time within three months after the bill or notice of such assessment or reassessment is first sent." G. L. c. 59, § 59.
Apparently the bills for tax years 2008 and 2009 were timely issued, as the plaintiffs do not argue otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiffs' applications for abatement for the subject tax years, filed on August 20, 2012, were well beyond the statutory deadline. See G. L. c. 59, § 59. Mere acceptance by the town of the abatement applications at the time filed did not constitute consent or waiver of jurisdiction. See Board of Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law Sch., 295 Mass. 489, 495 (1936). After a review of the applications, the board properly determined, in accordance with the statute, that the abatement requests were untimely.
The tax bills were not included in the appellate record.
The case of Bible Baptist Church of Plymouth, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Plymouth, 391 Mass. 1015 (1984), is directly on point. There, the church failed to advise the town of its change of address and, therefore, did not receive a "notice of the 1981 assessment until late in 1981 when the pastor went to the assessors' office to complain about a tax bill for 1982, which he had received." Id. at 1015. The court noted that "[t]here is no statutory requirement that the bill actually be received," id. at 1016, by the current property owner in order to seek an abatement, and concluded:
"Because the application for abatement was filed late, the assessors had no jurisdiction to consider it. The board, therefore, had no jurisdiction to review the disallowance of the application; the 1981 appeal was correctly dismissed. Roda Realty Trust v. Assessors of Belmont, 385 Mass. 493, 495 (1982). New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. v. Assessors of Dartmouth, 368 Mass. 745, 747-748 (1975). We add that there is nothing unfair or unconstitutional about the statute as applied in these circumstances. The bill was not received because it was sent to the church's old address; it was sent to the old address because the pastor had not thought it necessary to inform the town of the church's new address."Ibid.
The plaintiffs seek to distinguish Bible Baptist Church on two grounds: first, they argue that, in that case, the bill was sent to an old address the church had abandoned, whereas here the bill apparently was sent to the prior owner. We see no meaningful distinction. In both cases, the taxpayer neglected to provide the town with a proper address to receive the bills. Second, the plaintiffs argued in their brief that the church in Bible Baptist Church did not make a constitutional argument; nevertheless, as noted, the court in that case saw "nothing unfair or unconstitutional about what occurred." Ibid.
"[W]e recognize the [tax] board's expertise in the administration of tax statutes and give weight to the [tax] board's interpretations." Adams v. Board of Assessors of Westport, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 180, 183 (2010) (citation omitted). Here, the board's decision "is based on both substantial evidence and a correct application of the law." Ibid. (citation omitted).
Decision of the Appellate Tax Board affirmed.
By the Court (Fecteau, Hanlon & Carhart, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: April 13, 2015.