Taxation – Real estate

Listen to this article

Where the Boston Board of Assessors refused to abate a tax on real estate for fiscal year 2021, the appellant failed to establish that the fair cash value of the subject property was less than the assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.

Affirmed.

“This is an appeal filed under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L.c. 58A, §7 and G.L.c. 59, §§64 and 65, from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the City of Boston (‘assessors’ or ‘appellee’) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and assessed to Paul Revere Cooperative Inc. (‘Cooperative’) for fiscal year 2021 (‘fiscal year at issue’). Francine Crognale (‘appellant’) is the last remaining shareholder of the Cooperative. …

“On January 1, 2020, the Cooperative was the assessed owner of Unit 1A, a condominium unit located at 61 Prince Street in Boston (‘subject property’). …

“For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $132,900 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $10.67 per $1,000, in the total amount of $1,421.55, inclusive of the Community Preservation Act surcharge. …

“Through a transaction, the exact details and dates of which are not in evidence, the appellant paid $5,188 for shares of the Cooperative that entitled her to occupy the subject property. …

“This appeal raises the question of whether the fair cash value of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue was limited to the appellant’s transfer value for her Cooperative shares. …

“The appellant maintained that the assessed value of the subject property should be limited to her transfer value — the value that she could receive for her shares of the Cooperative — an amount she contended to be $13,853. …

“Based on the above and the evidence of record, and as discussed further in the Opinion below, the Board found that the appellant failed to establish that the fair cash value of the subject property was less than the assessed value for the fiscal year at issue. The assessors, conversely, established that the subject property was assessed even lower than what the assessors considered a fair cash value for the subject property for the fiscal year at issue.

“Critically, the appellant focused her entire case on her transfer value. The appellant’s contention that the subject property should be assessed at $13,853 for the fiscal year at issue considered only the amount the appellant would then have been able to receive per the Articles of Organization upon a disposition of her shares of the Cooperative. The Cooperative itself purchased the eleven original Cooperative units in 1986 for $1,269,875 — an average of $115,443 per unit — more than thirty years before the relevant date of assessment for the fiscal year at issue.

“The Cooperative — not the appellant — owns the subject property. The Cooperative has the right to sell the subject property per the Articles of Organization, and it exercised that right with the former Cooperative units. The Articles of Organization do not limit the Cooperative to a sale price for the subject property, or even a sale price for shares of the Cooperative. While the appellant may be limited in how much she can recoup upon a disposition of her shares, the Articles of Organization provide for no such limitation applicable to the Cooperative’s disposition of the subject property itself or any other restrictions, governmental or private.

“Further, the assessors established that the subject property has consistently been assessed well below a value at which the assessors normally would assess such a property. Since the early 2000s, the assessors have used the purchase prices of the former Cooperative units as a baseline for assessments of those units and the subject property, with 5 percent increases in assessed values per year. Property records cards with respect to the fiscal year at issue demonstrate the much higher multiple-regression analysis values that the assessors overrode for the former Cooperative units and the subject property. Other units that were never part of the Cooperative, including Unit 4E, have not been assessed at this discounted affordable rate.

“The appellant provided no evidence to challenge the assessors’ valuation methodology, merely alleging an ‘apples and oranges’ theory and non-existent ‘tiers’ between the subject property and the former Cooperative units.

“Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee for the fiscal year at issue.”

Crognale v. Board of Assessors of the City of Boston (Lawyers Weekly No. 20-029-25) (14 pages) (Commissioner Metzer heard the appeal and was joined in the decision by Chairman DeFrancisco and Commissioners Good, Elliott and Bernier) Francine Crognale, pro se; Laura Caltenco for the appellee (Docket No. F344367) (Oct. 23, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.