BENJAMIN MANDELBRAUT v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF BOSTON (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The board of assessors of the city of Boston (assessors) appealed from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) allowing Benjamin Mandelbraut's application for a residential property tax exemption pursuant to G. L. c. 59, § 5C (§ 5C), for tax assessed on property that is his principal residence but is owned by Fountain Square, LLC (Fountain Square). The assessors argue that the “taxpayer” for the purposes of § 5C is Fountain Square, and not Mandelbraut. We agree and reverse the decision of the board.

Background. Fountain Square is a limited liability company with an address in Pittsfield that was organized in 2017 by Mandelbraut, its sole member. Fountain Square owns the property, a condominium in a building on Massachusetts Avenue in Boston. Mandelbraut established Fountain Square because his commercial lender required that the property be owned by a limited liability company. Fountain Square conducts no business apart from owning the property, and holds no other assets. At all relevant times, Mandelbraut used the property as his principal residence, and used his own funds to make all mortgage, insurance, real estate tax, and other payments in connection with the property.

For fiscal year 2022, the assessors issued to Fountain Square a tax bill for the property. Mandelbraut timely applied to the assessors for a residential exemption for the property, which the assessors denied.

Mandelbraut appealed to the board.¹ The assessors argued that Mandelbraut did not qualify for the residential exemption because Fountain Square, not Mandelbraut, was the assessed owner of the property and thus the “taxpayer” for the purposes of § 5C. The board ruled that Mandelbraut was the taxpayer within the meaning of § 5C and therefore was entitled to the residential exemption, reasoning that “in the context of a single-member LLC, there is no mystery as to who paid the real estate tax; it was [Mandelbraut].” One board member dissented, maintaining that because Mandelbraut chose to form the LLC to take title to the property and was not himself the holder of legal title to whom taxes were assessed, he was not the taxpayer within the meaning of § 5C. The assessors appeal.²

Discussion. 1. Standard of review. “In our review of board decisions, we uphold findings of fact of the board that are supported by substantial evidence and review conclusions of law, including statutory construction, de novo” (quotation and citation omitted). Outfront Media LLC v. Assessors of Boston, 493 Mass. 811, 815 (2024). See Welch v. Commissioner of Revenue, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 391, 395 (2025). “[B]ecause the board is an agency charged with administering the tax law and has expertise in tax matters, we give weight to its interpretation of tax statutes, and will affirm its statutory interpretation if that interpretation is reasonable.” Outfront Media LLC, supra. However, our “principles of deference are not principles of abdication” and “the interpretation of a statute is a matter for the courts” (citations and quotations omitted). Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. v. Assessors of Attleboro, 476 Mass. 690, 696 (2017).

“The burden of proving entitlement to the exemption lies with [Mandelbraut].” New England Legal Found. v. Boston, 423 Mass. 602, 609 (1996). Exemption from taxation “will be recognized only where the property falls clearly and unmistakably within the express words of a legislative command” (quotation and citation omitted). Id.

2. Meaning of “taxpayer.” The assessors argue that the board's decision contravenes our case law defining “taxpayer” within the meaning of § 5C. We agree.

Section 5C provides for an exemption of not more than thirty-five percent of the average assessed value of residential property, “provided, however, that such an exemption shall be applied only to the principal residence of a taxpayer as used by the taxpayer for income tax purposes.” We have “conclude[d] that ‘taxpayer’ as used in § 5C refers to the person to whom the taxes are assessed, that is, ․ the person who is the holder of the record title.” Moscatiello v. Assessors of Boston, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 622, 625 (1994) (beneficial owner of real estate held by nominee trust not taxpayer within meaning of § 5C). See also Kirby v. Assessors of Medford, 350 Mass. 386, 390-391 (1966) (beneficiary of revocable trust not taxpayer within meaning of § 5C). Construing the definition of taxpayer narrowly in the context of § 5C “is consistent with legal precedent and sound public policy, because tax exemptions release taxpayers from their obligation to pay their share for the cost of government, thereby disturbing the objective of equalizing the distribution of the tax burden” (quotation and citations omitted). Born v. Assessors of Cambridge, 427 Mass. 790, 794 (1998) (member of housing cooperative corporation not taxpayer within meaning of § 5C).³

We are not persuaded by the board's reasoning that because Mandelbraut had personally paid the real estate taxes for prior fiscal years, the assessors were on notice that he, and not Fountain Square, was the taxpayer. Under G. L. c. 59, § 11, real property is assessed to the record owner as of January 1 of the year preceding the tax year, “well before it can be known who will actually pay the tax.” Moscatiello, 36 Mass. App. Ct. at 624. Here, the relevant assessment date for the property was January 1, 2021, for the fiscal year that ran from July 2021 through June 2022. It would be “administratively unsound” to require the assessors to determine the identity of the taxpayer based not on the identity of the record owner as prescribed by § 11, but based on who paid the tax in prior years. Cf. Moscatiello, supra at 626 (“administratively unsound” to require assessors to analyze trust instrument to determine if beneficiary qualifies for exemption). Although § 11 provides that “whenever the assessors deem it proper, they may assess taxes upon real estate to the person who is in possession thereof on January 1, and such person shall thereupon be held to be the true owner thereof for the purposes of this section,” the Legislature did not require the assessors to do so.

We conclude that Fountain Square, and not Mandelbraut, was the taxpayer within the meaning of § 5C.⁴

Conclusion. Mandelbraut does not fit the definition of “taxpayer” within the meaning of G. L. c. 59, § 5C, and therefore does not qualify for the residential tax exemption. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the board.

Decision of Appellate Tax Board entered on January 26, 2024, reversed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mandelbraut argued that the board had ruled that he was entitled to a residential exemption for the previous tax year, reversing the assessors’ determination that he did not qualify as the taxpayer within the meaning of § 5C, and that there had been no change in ownership. The board noted that it did not issue findings of fact with respect to that decision, presumably because the assessors did not request that it do so. See G. L. c. 58A, § 13. The board did not treat its prior year's decision as controlling, and there is no argument before us that we should do so.

2.   Neither Mandelbraut nor Fountain Square has participated in this appeal.

3.   After Born was decided, the Legislature amended G. L. c. 59, § 5C, St. 2003, c. 46, § 49, to treat as taxpayers members of housing cooperatives as defined in G. L. c. 157B, § 4. That amendment to § 5C is not pertinent, as Fountain Square is not a housing cooperative.

4.   In the last section of their brief, the assessors argue that the board lacked jurisdiction to decide Mandelbraut's appeal because he was not the taxpayer. Given our determination that the board should have affirmed the assessors’ decision to deny Mandelbraut's application for the residential exemption -and the related fact that the board had to consider the assessors’ appeal on the merits in order to determine whether Mandelbraut was the taxpayer -- the resolution of the jurisdictional issue is merely academic, and we do not address it further. Likewise, having rule in the assessors’ favor, we do not reach the other arguments in their brief.