Although the residential real estate market in Boston continues to be strong, there can be inconsistencies – if not downright errors – in the fair market values assigned to condominium units by the City’s Assessing Department. By pursuing an abatement, a unit owner can potentially achieve significant savings in their real estate taxes.

If the stakes are sufficiently high, however, a unit owner would be well advised to retain competent legal counsel to make a compelling case concerning the fair market value of the subject property.

In a relatively recent decision, the Appellate Tax Board (“ATB”) credited a homeowner’s claim that his property was worth less than the value assessed by the City of Boston. Goldberg v. Board of Assessors of the City of Boston (Appellate Tax Board; Docket Nos. F339910, F342280, F346278). The ATB found that the appellant persuasively established that he should be granted an abatement by pointing to other comparable condominium units that the City had assessed at far less than the appellant’s unit. By taking a closer look at Mr. Goldberg’s case, a unit owner can get a better understanding of how to prosecute a successful appeal.

Real estate property taxes are based upon the assessed value of the home, which assessment is made by the municipality in which the home is located. Taxpayers aggrieved by a municipality’s valuation of their home can seek an abatement, which is a reduction in property tax granted by the assessors or, on appeal, by the Appellate Tax Board. Abatements are generally granted when taxpayers are able to prove that the fair market value of their property is less than its assessed value.

The condominium building at issue in the Goldberg case is located in the Back Bay – walking distance from Newbury Street and Copley Square. The building was constructed in 1870. Mr. Goldberg’s unit is a third-floor, walk-up containing 520 square feet of living space, which is comprised of two rooms, including one bedroom and one full bathroom. Since purchasing the unit in 1998 for $158,000, Mr. Goldberg – who rents the unit to tenants – made no updates to the unit other than painting and performing repairs.

Unit owners in Boston must timely file an application for abatement with the City of Boston Assessing Department in order for the assessors to consider the abatement request and to preserve the unit owners’ right of appeal to the ATB. In Boston, the deadline to file a property tax abatement is February 1^st.

Taxpayers must also pay their real estate tax bills on time in order to preserve their right of appeal to the ATB. This is important to remember – even though a unit owner is challenging the assessment, they still must pay their taxes or their appeal will be dismissed.

The assessors have three months to act on an abatement application. Within that three months, the assessors may (a) deny the application; (b) grant an abatement (or a partial abatement); or (c) take no action. If the assessors take no action on the application for abatement within three months, the application is deemed denied three months from the date on which the unit owner filed the application with the City of Boston Assessing Department.

A unit owner may only file an appeal of the City of Boston Assessing Department’s decision within three months of the date of the assessor’s action. If the assessors take no action on the abatement application within three months, a unit owner has six months from the date of filing an abatement application with the assessors to file an appeal with the ATB.

The filing fee associated with an appeal to the ATB is based upon the assessed value of the condominium unit. If the assessed value is between $100,000 and $999,999, the filing fee is $100. If the assessed value is $1 million or higher, the filing fee is ten cents per $1,000 of the assessed value with a maximum filing fee of $5,000.

The ATB’s decision in the Goldberg matter concerned three petitions that had been filed for three separate fiscal years. The assessed values of the subject condominium unit – as well as the tax amounts assessed – for each of the three fiscal years are broken down as follows:

Fiscal Year	Assessed Value	Tax Rate / Tax Amount
FY2020	$504,900	$10.56/$1,000 $5,374.50
FY2021	$497,100	$10.67/$1,000 $5,346.43
FY2022	$514,700	$10.88/$1,000 $5,645.06

Taxpayers who claim that the assessed value of their condominium unit is too high must be able to demonstrate that the fair market value of their property for the fiscal year at issue is lower than the assessed value. The law provides that the property must be valued as of January 1^st of the preceding fiscal year. By way of example, for fiscal year 2024 – which runs from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024 – the valuation date is January 1, 2023.

The City of Boston Assessing Department’s assessment is presumed by law to be valid. As such, unit owners bear the burden of proving that their property is overvalued. The assessors may therefore decide to “rest on the assessment” and not present any evidence in support of their assessed value.

Mr. Goldberg testified that his opinion of the value for the subject unit for each of the three fiscal years is $252,400. He presented an assessment analysis based upon comparable units on the same street as the subject unit. He pointed out that the subject unit’s lowest assessment for the fiscal years at issue (2021) was $956 per square foot. He then contrasted this assessment with the following comps:

• 404 Marlborough Street, Unit 4 – This unit was similarly sized to Mr. Goldberg’s unit at 505 square feet. However, this unit was assessed at around $500 per square foot or less during the fiscal years at issue.

• 404 Marlborough Street, Other Units – In fact, all of the other units in this building were assessed at lower rates than Mr. Goldberg’s unit – ranging from $373 per square foot to $447 per square foot.

• 355 Marlborough Street – All of the units in this building – which was directly across the street from Mr. Goldberg’s building – were assessed at less than half of the subject unit’s per-square-foot value for the fiscal years at issue.

Furthermore, Mr. Goldberg argued that the units at both 404 and 355 Marlborough Street are superior to his unit because these units have central air conditioning and nicer finishes – allowing these units to command a higher rent than his.

Mr. Goldberg also pointed out errors on the subject unit’s property record cards. The City had listed the unit as front facing, but it was actually in the rear of the building with a view of an alley and utility wires. Mr. Goldberg also disputed the City’s characterization of the unit’s bathroom and kitchen as “semi-modern,” contending that the fixtures are merely basic.

Notably, the City of Boston elected not to present an affirmative case to support the assessed values, instead relying on the presumed validity of the assessments at issue.

The Board found that the condominium units upon which Mr. Goldberg’s analysis relied were sufficiently comparable – if not superior – to the subject unit, and yet they were assessed far less per square foot than the subject unit. The Board therefore found and ruled that Mr. Goldberg’s comparable condominium assessments supported a fair cash value of $252,400 for each of the three fiscal years at issue in the appeal.

The Board issued a decision for Mr. Goldberg – ordering abatements of (a) $2,693.06 for fiscal year 2020; (b) $2,637.06 for fiscal year 2021; and (c) 2,882.36 for fiscal year 2022.

Ultimately, Mr. Goldberg was able to reduce his tax liability from $16,365.99 to $8,153.51. That is certainly a significant savings, and it appears that Mr. Goldberg was justly rewarded for his efforts. Keep in mind, however, that he was pursuing abatements for three consecutive tax years. Had he only been pursuing an abatement for fiscal year 2022, his efforts would have resulted in tax savings in the amount of $2,762.70. Again – certainly nothing to scoff at. However, the pursuit of such an abatement can hardly justify the expense of retaining counsel, let alone an expert witness – such as a real estate appraiser – to testify concerning the value of the property. This is the unfortunate calculus that a homeowner must consider when mulling the true value of engaging in this process.

Unit owners are not required to have an attorney represent them in connection with a hearing before the ATB, or throughout the abatement process. If the stakes are sufficiently high, however, a unit owner would be well advised to retain competent legal counsel to make a compelling case concerning the fair market value of the subject property. If a unit owner succeeds in reducing the assessed value of their home, they may be able to save significant amounts in real estate taxes in subsequent years.