MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The taxpayers, Christopher A. Pompi and Jill A. Pompi (collectively, Pompis), appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (ATB), which affirmed a decision of the board of assessors of Adams (assessors) denying their application for real estate tax abatements on residential property owned by them (property) for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. The Pompis argue that the assessors willfully overvalued the property, and the ATB improperly affirmed the assessors’ decision. The Pompis request that we equitably value the property and award them damages for their overpayments of real estate taxes, as well as costs and attorneys fees. We affirm.
Background. Real estate taxes for fiscal years 2019 and 2010 were based on the assessors’ valuation of the property. The Pompis paid the taxes due and then filed applications for tax abatements, which the assessors denied. The Pompis appealed to the ATB, arguing that the assessors had overvalued the property because several purportedly comparable properties were assessed at lesser valuations. After an evidentiary hearing, the ATB issued findings of fact, as requested by the Pompis pursuant to G. L. c. 58A, § 13. The ATB affirmed the assessors’ decision, finding that the Pompis had “failed to meet their burden of proof of establishing that the assessed values of the ․ property exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal years at issue.” This appeal ensued.
Discussion. 1. Standard of review. “We accord the [ATB]’s decision great deference and will not disturb [the ATBs] decision ‘if [it] is based on both substantial evidence and a correct application of the law’ ” (citation omitted). AA Transp. Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 454 Mass. 114, 118 (2009). “[S]ubstantial evidence is ‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 466 (1981). “Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to whether a contrary conclusion is not merely a possible but a necessary inference from the findings” (quotation and citation omitted). Olympia & York State St. Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 428 Mass. 236, 240 (1998).
As an appellate court, we do not make findings of fact. Rather, our role is to review the ATBs conclusions of law. See Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. v. Assessors of Attleboro, 476 Mass. 690, 696 (2017) (“[w]e review conclusions of law ․ de novo”). However, valuation of property is a question of fact, not a question of law. See Stewart v. Burlington, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 712, 713 (1974). The Pompis do not present any questions of law. See Assessors of Lawrence v. Arlington Mills, 320 Mass. 272, 275 (1946) (failure of ATB to find facts as requested by taxpayer did not constitute error of law). Instead, they argue, the assessors got it wrong on the facts.
2. Property assessment. The Pompis assert that the assessors overvalued the property. A taxpayers property must be assessed at its “fair cash value.” G. L. c. 59, § 38. “The fair cash value is defined as ‘the price an owner willing but not compelled to sell ought to receive from one willing but not compelled to buy.’ ” Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Assessors of Agawam, 428 Mass. 261, 262 (1998), quoting Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 63 (1941). The burden of proving overvaluation is on the taxpayer. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., supra. “The taxpayer may present persuasive evidence of overvaluation either by exposing flaws or errors in the assessors’ method of valuation, or by introducing affirmative evidence of value which undermines the assessors’ valuation.” Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983).
The Pompis presented evidence of several other residences in the town which they contended were comparable to the property, but which the assessors had valued at lesser amounts. The Pompis also presented analyses of several other lots which the assessors had valued at lesser dollar amounts per square foot. Although the Pompis asserted that those other residences and lots were comparable to the property, the ATB found that the residences were not in fact comparable because they were “much older,” and the lots were not comparable because they were “substantially larger” than the property, and thus had lesser values per square foot.
After carefully considering all of the Pompis’ arguments, and giving “due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the [ATB], as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it,” Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 432 (2004), quoting G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), we conclude that the ATBs findings of fact and its decision were based on “substantial evidence and a correct application of the law.” AA Transp. Co., 454 Mass. at 118.
3. Damages and attorneys fees. The Pompis seek damages for their overpayment of property taxes, plus costs and attorneys fees. Because, as set forth above, the ATB did not err in affirming the denial of the Pompis’ real estate tax abatement, there was no such overpayment of property taxes. Beyond that, the Pompis cite to no legal authority entitling them to attorneys fees or costs, and so we decline to award them.
3
Decision of the Appellate Tax Board affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
3
. We further note that the Pompis were not represented by counsel in this case. Cf. Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 114, 121 (1994) (pro se litigant not entitled to attorneys fees for own services pursuing claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).