Opinion
No. 11–P–1734.
2012-10-4
MALDEN PARK PLACE REALTY, LLC, v. APPELLATE TAX BOARD & another.
By the Court (GRAINGER, BROWN & SULLIVAN, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
This is an original proceeding, brought in the Superior Court, challenging the Appellate Tax Board's (board's) fee structure as unconstitutional.
Pursuant to its enabling statute, G.L.c. 7, § 3B, the defendant Executive Office of Administration and Finance sets the filing fees to be paid by taxpayers appealing to the board from decisions by boards of assessors. Those fees are set forth in a regulation. See 831 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.10 (2007). Under the regulation, the filing fees vary depending on the assessed value of the property at issue, from a low of ten dollars (for properties assessed at less than $20,000) to a high of ten cents per $1,000 of assessed value (for properties assessed at above $1 million). In the present case, the taxpayer, Malden Park Place Realty, LLC, had two separate properties assessed at roughly $6.8 million each (for a total of roughly $13.6 million). The taxpayer timely sought an abatement, which was deemed denied through inaction. The taxpayer then attempted to file an appeal with the board but did not pay the filing fee (which, for the taxpayer, would have been around $1,300); the board dismissed the taxpayer's appeal on that ground. The taxpayer then filed the present original proceeding challenging the constitutionality of the filing fee structure, alleging that the fees violated equal protection, constituted an illegal tax, and denied him access to a hearing (the taxpayer made no attempt to show that it was unable to pay the filing fee). We endorse the Superior Court judge's reasoning:
“The plaintiff does not come close to demonstrating that the required filing fee is invalid for any of the reasons asserted in its motion. Instead of an analysis that conceivably justifies the relief it seeks, plaintiff offers little more than a litany of complaints and reasons why it should not be required to pay the filing fee. By way of example, the plaintiff's equal protection argument rests primarily on its assertion that it is being ‘compelled to pay a greater filing fee than others in order to have recourse to the law.’ This argument is completely devoid of any discussion of the principles underlying equal protection jurisprudence. Inexplicably, the plaintiff simply ignores the central question: whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate [S]tate purpose. Similarly, the plaintiff fails to offer any credible legal argument, other than a recitation of Article XIII of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, to support its claim that the filing fee is an unlawful tax. Though our law has established rules for differentiating between a tax and a fee, plaintiff did not bother to cite or discuss the impact of these cases on its claims.... Plaintiff's conclusory assertion that the ‘filing fee structure behaves like a tax because it is a tax’ is not an acceptable substitute for an analysis of the relevant factors.” (Footnotes omitted.)
The taxpayer's presentation here does not support its position. The basic defects noted by the Superior Court judge remain. In essence, the taxpayer has presented no meaningful argument that the board's filing fee structure is anything other than a proper exercise of its administrative authority, rationally related to a legitimate State purpose, and properly imposed as a fee (as opposed to a tax). We note in passing that the board, however, did go through the taxpayer's major claims, demonstrating with specificity why each is unavailing.
In short, we conclude that the taxpayer's claims lack merit for the reasons stated in the board's brief.
Judgment affirmed.