Opinion
18-P-1180
04-17-2019
ALAN SLISKI v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF LINCOLN.
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
Alan Sliski filed an application with the board of assessors of the town of Lincoln (assessors) seeking to abate a $12.33 tax assessed on a small parcel of land he owns in Lincoln. The assessors failed to act on the application in a timely manner, causing it to be deemed denied by operation of statute. See G. L. c. 59, § 64. Sliski then filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board (ATB). The ATB found in favor of the assessors, but its reasons are unclear because Sliski has not provided us with an adequate record.
In this appeal from the ATB's decision, Sliski raises a slew of arguments, which, as best we can discern, distill to the following: the assessors used the wrong land area when calculating the tax, failed to comply in various ways with the Department of Revenue's training manual, and should not have been allowed to participate in the ATB proceedings. We cannot assess any of these arguments because Sliski has not provided us with a sufficient record to do so. "A decision of the [ATB] will not be reversed or modified if it is based on substantial evidence and a correct application of the law." Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 458 Mass. 715, 721 (2011). Sliski's brief states things as facts without citation to the record, and his arguments are interspersed with charts, diagrams, and reproductions of documents with no indication whether those items were admitted as evidence in the ATB proceeding. In addition, although Sliski represents that a hearing occurred before the ATB, he failed to provide us with a copy of the hearing transcript.
The assessors did not file a brief or otherwise participate in this appeal.
"It is the obligation of the appellant[] to include in the appendix those [materials] which are essential for review of the issues raised on appeal." Shawmut Community Bank, N.A. v. Zagami, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 371, 372-373 (1991), S.C., 411 Mass. 807 (1992). See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975); Mass. R. A. P. 18, as amended, 428 Mass. 1601 (1998). Given the state of the record and briefing, it is impossible for us to determine whether the ATB's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence or legally erroneous. The ATB was "entitled to 'presume that the valuation made by the assessors was valid unless [Sliski] sustained [his] burden of proving the contrary.'" General Elec. Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598 (1984), quoting Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974). Because Sliski failed to provide us with an adequate record, he is in no position to argue that he overcame that settled presumption. See M.M. v. D.A., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 197, 205-208 (2011).
Decision of Appellate Tax Board affirmed.
By the Court (Milkey, Blake & Shin, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
/s/
Clerk Entered: April 17, 2019.