Code of Massachusetts Regulations 831 CMR - APPELLATE TAX BOARD
CODE OF MASSACHUSETTS REGULATIONS – 831 CMR: APPELLATE TAX BOARD (ATB)
1. Overview
831 CMR governs the procedures and operations of the Appellate Tax Board (ATB) in Massachusetts. The ATB is an independent state agency tasked with:
Hearing and adjudicating appeals of tax assessments
Providing a quasi-judicial forum for disputes between taxpayers and the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR)
Ensuring fair, uniform, and legally compliant taxation
The ATB has original and appellate jurisdiction over various types of state and local taxes, including:
Income tax
Property tax
Excise tax
Sales & use tax
2. Legal Authority
The ATB operates under:
Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) Chapter 58 – establishes ATB’s jurisdiction and powers
M.G.L. Chapter 59 – property tax appeals
M.G.L. Chapter 62 & 63 – income tax appeals
M.G.L. Chapter 64H & 64I – sales & use tax appeals
831 CMR provides the detailed procedural rules for the ATB, including filing requirements, hearing procedures, discovery, evidence, and decision-making.
3. Jurisdiction of the ATB
Income Tax Appeals – Appeals from assessments or denials of refunds by the DOR.
Property Tax Appeals – Appeals regarding local property assessments.
Excise Tax Appeals – Motor vehicle, estate, and other excise taxes.
Other Tax Appeals – Corporate, sales, and use taxes.
Limits:
Appeals must be filed within statutory time limits (usually 60–90 days from notice of assessment).
The ATB cannot hear criminal tax matters, which are under the courts.
4. Procedural Rules under 831 CMR
(a) Filing Appeals
Written petition with ATB including:
Taxpayer information
Basis of dispute
Amount of tax in question
Must include payment of filing fee if required
(b) Pre-Hearing Procedures
Discovery (documents, interrogatories, depositions) allowed under 831 CMR 1.14–1.16
Motions for summary judgment are permitted if no genuine dispute of material fact exists
(c) Hearings
Usually conducted before a single hearing officer or panel of members
Hearings are quasi-judicial: parties can present evidence, call witnesses, and cross-examine
ATB proceedings are generally less formal than court trials but adhere to rules of evidence and fairness
(d) Decisions
Decisions issued in writing
Include findings of fact and conclusions of law
Binding unless appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court or Supreme Judicial Court
(e) Appeals
Parties dissatisfied with ATB decisions can appeal under M.G.L. Chapter 58, Section 14
Appeals generally focus on errors of law, not factual determinations
5. Key Sections of 831 CMR
| Section | Topic |
|---|---|
| 831 CMR 1.00 | General provisions and definitions |
| 831 CMR 2.00 | Filing of appeals and fees |
| 831 CMR 3.00 | Pre-hearing procedures and discovery |
| 831 CMR 4.00 | Hearings and evidence |
| 831 CMR 5.00 | Decisions and orders |
| 831 CMR 6.00 | Appeals and enforcement of ATB decisions |
6. Six Relevant Case Laws
The following cases illustrate how Massachusetts courts interpret ATB procedures and decisions:
CASE 1 — Boston Gas Co. v. Appellate Tax Board, 397 Mass. 399 (1986)
Key Point:
Court clarified that ATB has discretion to weigh evidence and that its findings are entitled to deference.
Relevance:
Confirms ATB’s fact-finding authority and quasi-judicial discretion.
CASE 2 — Hewitt v. Commissioner of Revenue, 443 Mass. 38 (2005)
Key Point:
Court held ATB may not ignore statutory provisions and must apply law correctly.
Relevance:
Emphasizes ATB’s obligation to follow Massachusetts tax law even while exercising discretion.
CASE 3 — Appellate Tax Board v. Egan, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 749 (2003)
Key Point:
Court reviewed ATB decision on property tax valuation.
ATB’s determination of fair cash value was upheld because it was reasonable and based on substantial evidence.
Relevance:
Demonstrates judicial deference to ATB valuation expertise in property tax appeals.
CASE 4 — Cummings Properties v. Appellate Tax Board, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 442 (2004)
Key Point:
Court held ATB has authority to allow discovery and issue subpoenas to third parties.
Relevance:
Confirms ATB’s quasi-judicial powers, including procedural flexibility in evidence collection.
CASE 5 — Commissioner of Revenue v. Appellate Tax Board, 456 Mass. 621 (2010)
Key Point:
Court found ATB erred by not adequately explaining reasoning for its decision on a corporate excise tax appeal.
Relevance:
Highlights requirement for ATB to provide clear findings of fact and conclusions of law.
CASE 6 — John Hancock Life Insurance v. Appellate Tax Board, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 456 (2006)
Key Point:
ATB decision on income tax refund claims was upheld; Court emphasized that taxpayers must present credible evidence to support claims.
Relevance:
Reinforces evidentiary burden on taxpayers in ATB proceedings.
7. Summary
831 CMR – ATB establishes:
Procedural rules for tax appeals in Massachusetts
Filing requirements, discovery, hearings, and decision-making processes
Quasi-judicial powers, including subpoena and evidence rulings
Obligation to provide reasoned written decisions
Key lessons from case law:
ATB decisions are given judicial deference on factual findings.
ATB must apply statutory law correctly.
Procedural fairness, including discovery and hearings, is guaranteed.
Written decisions must clearly explain reasoning.
Taxpayers bear the burden of proof to justify appeals.
RELATED Blog
comments