Veolia Energy Boston, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Boston
120 N.E.3d 1232
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2019Background
- Veolia Energy Boston was assessed personal property tax on its steam system machinery for fiscal years 2014 and 2015; it timely filed a § 59 abatement application for 2014, which the Appellate Tax Board (ATB) later granted.
- For FY2015 Veolia paid quarterly tax installments and submitted letters with each payment (addressed to the tax collector) stating it had a pending ATB petition for FY2014 that might affect other years.
- The statutory deadline to file an abatement application for FY2015 was February 6, 2015. Veolia’s formal abatement application on the commissioner‑approved form (Form 128) was not filed until May 28, 2015.
- The assessors denied the May 28 application as untimely; Veolia appealed to the ATB, which moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- Veolia argued its January 21, 2015 letter (and the other cover letters) constituted a timely application (or at least related back) because they put the assessors on notice and incorporated the FY2014 filing.
- The ATB dismissed Veolia’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction: (1) the letters were not applications "in writing to the assessors," (2) the letters were not on a form approved by the commissioner, and (3) the later Form 128 filing was untimely. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATB had jurisdiction over FY2015 abatement appeal | Veolia: its pre‑deadline letters accompanying tax payments put assessors on notice and incorporated FY2014 application, so they satisfy §59 or relate back | Assessors: letters were sent to the tax collector not the assessors, were not on commissioner‑approved form, and the formal form was filed after the statutory deadline | Court: No jurisdiction. Letters were not applications to the assessors, were not on approved form, and the Form 128 filing was untimely; appeal dismissed |
| Whether a non‑approved written submission can satisfy §59 form requirement | Veolia: substantive parity with approved form and good‑faith compliance should suffice | Assessors: statute requires the commissioner‑approved form; strict compliance is jurisdictional | Held: Strict compliance required; good faith and equivalent content do not excuse noncompliance |
| Whether a good‑faith effort/notice doctrine saves an untimely or nonconforming filing | Veolia: equitable/good‑faith construction and notice should preserve remedy | Assessors: no such exception; statutory requirements are mandatory | Held: No good‑faith exception; statute and controlling precedent require strict adherence |
| Whether Veolia’s May 28, 2015 Form 128 relates back to earlier letters | Veolia: May 28 filing is protective and relates back to timely letters | Assessors: relation‑back not permitted where letters fail statutory form and recipient requirements | Held: Relation‑back denied; May 28 filing was after the deadline and insufficient to confer jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law Sch., 295 Mass. 489 (1936) (statutory form and timely filing are jurisdictional; strict compliance required)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation, 323 Mass. 657 (1949) (tax board lacks jurisdiction if original application not on commissioner‑approved form)
- MacDonald v. Assessors of Mashpee, 381 Mass. 724 (1980) (timely application that contains sufficient statutorily required information preserves board jurisdiction)
- Tilcon Mass., Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 264 (1991) (application for abatement must be placed in hands of the authority that will consider it)
- New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. v. Assessors of Dartmouth, 368 Mass. 745 (1975) (lack of statutory form cannot be excused by good faith or assessors' acceptance)
- Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Assessors of Boston, 388 Mass. 832 (1983) (burden on taxpayer to demonstrate ATB jurisdiction)