Author: Municipal Finance Legal Guidance
This month's Ask DLS features frequently asked questions concerning a recent case from the Appellate Tax Board (ATB), Helbert v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Wilmington. This case concerns what constitutes a “sufficient beneficial interest” when property is held in trust. See also our publication LFO-2022-2. Please let us know if you have other areas of interest or send a question to cityandtown@dor.state.ma.us. We would like to hear from you.
What are the facts of Helbert v. Wilmington?
The applicant for a Clause 22 exemption is a decorated veteran who began his service in March of 1975 and had an honorable discharge in September 2013. The applicant and his wife purchased real estate in March of 2017 in Wilmington and made the home their domicile. In August of 2020 the veteran and his wife conveyed the domicile by quitclaim deed to two revocable trusts, one in the name of the veteran and one in the name of his wife, naming both the veteran and his wife as co-trustees and an undivided one-half interest for the trust in the veteran’s name. Certificates of trust were recorded. The trust in the wife’s name listed both as co-trustees with one-half interest each as tenants in common. The veteran has the right to have complete and unlimited possession, use and control of any real property for the trust in his name, and likewise for the wife for the trust in her name. The assessors denied the veterans exemption and the taxpayer appealed to the ATB.
What was the issue in Helbert?
The issue before the ATB was whether the veteran held a sufficient beneficial interest in the domicile to qualify for the Clause 22 exemption. The assessors contended the husband did not hold a sufficient beneficial interest in the domicile under the wife’s trust.
What is the rule for an applicant for a property tax exemption?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Kirby v. Board of Assessors of Medford, 350 Mass. 386 (1966) that statutes providing property tax exemptions require the applicant to hold both legal title to and a sufficient beneficial interest in the property. To qualify, an applicant must meet all criteria by July 1st of each year and establish residency, domicile, ownership and a service-connected disability for clause 22.
What is the precedent the court relies on?
Here, the ATB relied on Rheault v. Assessors of Oxford, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2014-245. In that case the veteran applying for an exemption held only a beneficial interest in the subject property and the assessors correctly denied the veteran’s Clause 22 claim. The ATB notes in Helbert, however, that no court has defined the parameters of a sufficient beneficial interest.
What did the ATB rule in this case?
The veteran and his wife as co-trustees of the husband’s trust and the wife’s trust held the domicile as a tenancy in common, and when property is owned by tenants in common, each co-tenant has an undivided fractional interest and the right to possession and use of the entire property. The ATB found that there was a sufficient beneficial interest. The ATB cites LFO-2022-2 and points to question no. 9. The Court here explains that it is not bound by this LFO and further explains that legal title and beneficial interest of the domicile were satisfied by conveyance to the trusts in this matter because the husband as co-trustee of the husband’s trust held legal title and also held a sufficient beneficial interest under his trust. The husband’s right to occupy the property under the terms of the husband’s certificate constitutes a sufficient beneficial interest in the premises. The ATB ruled in favor of the veteran.
Helpful Resources
City & Town is brought to you by:
Editor: Dan Bertrand
Editorial Board: Tracy Callahan, Sean Cronin, Janie Dretler, Emily Izzo, Christopher Ketchen, Paula King, Jen McAllister, Jessica Sizer and Tony Rassias
| Date published: | April 3, 2025 |
|---|