963 N.E.2d 1205
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Verizon appeals a Superior Court judgment dismissing a complaint for a declaratory judgment that premature tax demands by Newton, Boston, and their treasurers/collectors were invalid.
- Board decisions in 2008 and 2009 first held Verizon’s poles/wires and CWIP taxable, affecting Boston and Newton valuations and taxes.
- Defendants demanded payment of the increased taxes on August 7, 2009; Verizon paid under protest and appealed.
- Verizon sought a declaration that the assessments were premature and sought returns of tax money paid under protest.
- A single Justice remanded to the Superior Court, which entered summary judgment dismissing the case for reasons stated in the defendants’ brief.
- The core legal issue concerns what constitutes a “final decision” under G. L. c. 59, § 39, and when assessors may assess renewable taxes following board decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assessors may assess after-board valuation before appeal period ends | Verizon: no final decision exists until appeal period expires. | Assessor: each board decision is final and triggers potential assessment. | Yes, assessors may assess when final decision occurs; plaintiff's view rejected. |
| Whether a board decision constitutes a final decision for § 39 timing | Verizon: final decision occurs only after all appeals lapse. | Assessors: each board decision is the final decision for timing purposes. | Board decisions can be final for § 39 timing and abatement/assessment purposes. |
| Whether the board’s language about authority to assess based on valuation increases affects the finality analysis | Verizon: the board’s statement cannot authorize timing for premature assessments. | Assessors: the board’s decision, including its authorization language, controls timing. | Board’s language does not alter finality analysis; timing governed by final decision rule. |
| Whether the Superior Court could adjudicate the timing issue notwithstanding lack of an administrative remedy | Verizon: challenge to timing is justiciable; no adequate administrative remedy. | Assessors: jurisdiction should be declined absent a proper administrative remedy. | Court properly addressed merits; no abuse of discretion in proceeding on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Tax Comma, v. Assessors of Haverhill, 331 Mass. 306 (1954) (no final determination by board while appeal pending)
- Russia Cement Co. v. Le Page Co., 174 Mass. 349 (1899) (finality meaning of 'final judgment' and timing implications)
- Beeler v. Downey, 387 Mass. 609 (1982) (statutory interpretation requires sensible meaning)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 428 Mass. 860 (1999) (legislative interpretation and appellate structure guidance)