Bill
H 3965
Requires public utilities appealing property taxes to propose an alternative assessment and pay tax on it upfront; if ATB finds the appeal insufficient, a 25% penalty applies.
Status snapshot
- Sponsor: Rep. James C. Arena-DeRosa (8th Middlesex)
- Filed: 01/15/2025 (House Docket No. 2065)
- Referred to: Committee on Revenue (03/31/2025)
- Senate concurred: 04/03/2025 (documented)
- Hearings: several hearing dates were scheduled/cancelled for mid–late 2025 (07/22/2025; 11/07/2025; one cancellation on 07/14/2025)
- Related: HD 2065 (replaces)
Note about source materials
- The provided document contains two distinct items: the Massachusetts bill text above (H.3965 — tax abatement equity) and, separately, a South Carolina House resolution expressing sympathy on the death of Mae Blackwell Glover. Those are unrelated; the substantive legislative proposal summarized here is the Massachusetts tax-abatement bill.
Purpose and intent
- The bill aims to change procedures and financial responsibilities for public utilities that appeal local property tax assessments, with the stated objective of promoting equity in tax abatements and reducing contestable or low‑value appeals that delay municipal tax collection.
Key provisions (amendment to Section 64, chapter 59, G.L.)
- Applicability: applies to "public utility" as defined in clause (q) of section 1 of chapter 40D.
- New mandatory actions for a public utility that appeals an assessment:
1. At the time of the appeal, the utility must submit its own proposed alternative assessment amount.
2. The utility must immediately pay the tax calculated on the level of that alternative proposed assessment.
3. If the Appellate Tax Board (ATB) deems the utility’s appeal insufficient, the utility shall be subject to a monetary penalty equal to 25% of the amount the utility would owe under that ATB determination (i.e., 25% of the owed tax in that outcome).
Who would be affected
- Primary: regulated public utilities that challenge local property tax assessments.
- Secondary: municipalities/local tax collectors (may see improved near-term tax receipts and reduced collection risk), assessors, and the Appellate Tax Board (administrative handling of appeals). Property taxpayers generally are not directly changed except insofar as municipal revenue stability could affect budgets.
Potential effects and considerations
- Municipal revenue: requiring payment on the utility’s proposed assessment may increase near-term cash flows for local governments and reduce the fiscal impact of lengthy appeals.
- Utilities: increases upfront cash requirements and introduces a 25% penalty risk if appeals fail or are found insufficient, which could change appeal strategy or frequency.
- Administrative/Legal: may prompt procedural changes at the ATB and potential legal challenges depending on interpretation, implementation, or constitutionality (not addressed in bill text).
- Implementation details such as how “insufficient” appeals are defined, timing of refunds if appeals succeed, and enforcement mechanics would be important for municipalities and utilities but are not detailed in the amendment text.
Procedural next steps
- The bill has been filed and moved through initial House procedures; it was referred to the Revenue Committee and later recorded as having Senate concurrence. Multiple committee hearings were scheduled (some cancelled/rescheduled). Interested stakeholders (utilities, municipal associations, municipal treasurers/assessors) would typically participate in Revenue Committee hearings.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
