After hearing testimony from the city's chief assessor and the representative of the department of revenue administration, the master found that the plaintiff's tax burden was greater than that of most other property owners in the City of Lebanon. [4, 5] The city relies on Milford Props., Inc. v. Town of Milford, 120 N.H. 581, 419 A.2d 1093 (1980) and Milford Props., Inc. v. Town of Milford, 119 N.H. 165, 400 A.2d 41 (1979). Those cases stand for the general proposition that in an abatement proceeding, the trial court must consider the State's equalization ratio on the issue of disproportionality. Milford Props., Inc. v. Town of Milford, 119 N.H. at 167, 400 A.2d at 43.

See id. However, if a municipality does not stipulate to the validity of the DRA's equalization ratio, or actually use that ratio, the taxpayer must introduce further proof of the general level of assessment. See Milford Props., Inc. v. Town of Milford, 120 N.H. 581, 583, 419 A.2d 1093 (1980) (explaining that, in the absence of evidence of the equalization ratio used by the town, the taxpayer bore the burden of establishing the actual ratio of the assessed value to the fair market value of other properties in the town for the tax year at issue). PSNH, like the BTLA, relies primarily upon Appeal of City of Nashua as controlling the outcome of this appeal.

1983). When, however, there is uncontroverted evidence that the town did use the State's ratio in the assessment process for the tax year in question, the town cannot deny the validity of the ratio, and evidence of that ratio satisfies the taxpayer's burden to prove the general level of assessment. Milford Props., Inc. v. Town of Milford, 120 N.H. 581, 582-83, 419 A.2d 1093, 1094 (1980). Such was the case here.