In 2015 property owners Strauss were granted an abatement of $26,300 by the Effingham Select Board based because the view from their property was incorrectly designated “panoramic” and “extreme distant.” Then, in 2020, when a town wide revaluation again designated the property as having a “wide” and “distant” views that were closer to panoramic and extreme distant the Board accepted the recommendation of its contract assessor Avitar, and Strauss appealed to the BTLA seeking an abatement of $42,000.
Avitar moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Strauss failed to meet their burden of proof because they provided no evidence of the property’s market value. The BTLA granted that motion, finding that the taxpayers “did not present any credible evidence of the Property’s market value” and therefore failed to meet their “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that they are paying more than their proportional share of taxes.” Strauss timely move for rehearing arguing that their appeal was based upon a physical description error, not a valuation opinion difference, and therefore evidence of fair market value was not required. The BTLA issued an order suspending the dismissal order pending a decision on the taxpayers’ motion for rehearing.
While the motion for rehearing was pending before the BTLA, David Strauss attended a public meeting of the Effingham Select Board where he argued his property’s view had not changed since 2015 when the previous abatement had been granted. Taking note of the pending BTLA matter and the motion for rehearing, and the presentation by David Strauss, the select board voted to grant an assessed value abatement of $42,000 based on good cause shown under RSA 76:16, I (a). The taxpayer subsequently notified the BTLA of this abatement action and sought approval of that action as an informal settlement or dismissal of the pending appeal. The BTLA refused to accept the request for approval of the informal settlement, and later issued a show cause order seeking an explanation from town officials why and under what authority the Effingham Select Board granted the abatement for tax year 2020 after the BTLA had issued its March 30 decision dismissing the taxpayers’ appeal. Following that hearing the BTLA issued an order that the Town was without authority to grant the abatement.
The Supreme Court ruled that the town select board effectively settled the case before the BTLA in accordance with New Hampshire’s long-standing policy of promoting settlement. Under RSA 76:16, I (a) the select board may abate any tax, including prior years’ taxes, for good cause shown, and could thereby resolve the pending BTLA matter.
*This decision is a final order of the court. Final orders are distinguished from court opinions in that they decide the merits of a case but do not create binding precedent. Final orders may be cited in briefs but only if identified as a non-precedential order. Final Orders can provide helpful guidance, but they do not have precedential value. See N.H. Sup. Ct. Rule 20 (2).L