10/12/1999 BOARD OF ASSESSORS Minutes

Home Browse Search

unexpected nature of this penalty was most distressing. This appeal requests that the balance of the penalty over $8,000 be refunded, or in the in the alternative, that the interest of $7,332.79 be waived. x This appeal is based on the following two points: (1) The misleading nature of the state's brochure on Chapter 618 (2) The 14% Interest rate on the deferred takes (1) When consideration was being given to selling the read Ms. Maxwell well requested and received a brochure from the Assessment Department of the Town of Mashpee entitled "Taxpayer's Guide to Classification and Taxation of Recreational Land in Massachusetts, Chapter 61 ." The introductory paragraph describes how the law Is designed to encourage the preservation of the Commonwealth's open space through tax benefits to the property owners. It goes on to say "In exchange for these benefits, the city or town in which the land is located is given the right to recover some of the tax benefits afforded the owner and an option to purchase the property should the land be sold..." The language of the Tax payer's G aide is that of the tax benefits w i I I be recovered. As applied to the Maxwell land every penny of the tax benefits were recovered plus 14% interest. The section of the brochure entitled "Penalty Ta)e' describes the roll-back tax as "the i difference between the amount the owner would have paid in annual property. aes on the land if it had been taxed at its fair market value and the amount of taxes he or she paid on the land under Chapter 61 B during the same tire." The next paragraph describes the or 10% conveyance tax, and that`#...the owner must pay the alternative conveyance tax instead if the land is sold for or converted to a non - qualifyin use within 10 years of the beginning of the fiscal year it was first classified and the conveyance tax is greater than the roll-back tax that would be due." The implication of the language is that the conveyance tax is the most that would have to be paid, especially when the understanding was that only some of the takes would be I recovered. (2) Perhaps most distressing, in the descriptions of the penalties there is no reference whatsoever to interest. In this case, the interest charge came to $7,332.79, assessed at a rate of 14%. If the owners had understood that interest would be charged at this rate on the tax savings they would have paid the full takes for 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, because this rate is so far above recent market interest rates. Consideration would also have been given to protesting the assessed value of the property, which turned out to be valued at 130% of market value. To summarize, the Maxwells did not know that the penalty could be over the $8,000 they expected, did not know that the land was overvalued, and did not know that