Automated Assessment Self-Check Report
1. Executive summary
Reviewed against recent neighborhood sales and the assessments of similar nearby homes, this property appears assessed above what the evidence supports — both on a sale-indicated basis and on a per-square-foot basis. The sections below lay out each comparison, the value they indicate, and the property-specific items worth confirming. None of this establishes that the assessment is wrong; it identifies grounds that may warrant review with the assessing office.
2. Property and current assessment
| Property | |
| Fiscal year | |
| Valuation date | January 1, 2025 (the assessment date for FY2026) |
| Living area (record card) | |
| Current assessed value | |
| Assessed value per sq ft | |
| Local tax rate |
3. Neighborhood assessment comparison
How similar nearby homes are assessed per square foot. Being assessed at a higher rate than comparable homes is the basis for a disproportionate-assessment argument.
| Property | Living area | Assessed value | Assessed $/sq ft |
|---|
Each bar is a home on the street, by house number; height and color show assessed value per square foot. The dashed line is the neighborhood median — this home sits above it.
4. Comparable sales analysis
Recent arm’s-length sales of comparable single-family homes from public records (MassGIS), sized to this home. Nominal family/trust transfers and statistical outliers are excluded.
| # | Address | Sale date | Sale price | Living area | $/sq ft | Indicated value |
|---|
How the indicated value is figured: each sale is converted to a price per square foot (sale price ÷ its living area), then applied to this home’s size — so a larger comparable scales down to this home, a smaller one up. Condition and record-card differences aren’t adjusted here; they’re reflected in Section 5, where the final value is chosen within the range.
Comparable single-family sales set a benchmark trend by size. This home’s assessment sits above that benchmark; the value the benchmark expects at this size is shown on the line.
The comparable sales around this home, numbered to match the table above. Rings mark ¼ and ½ mile; pin color shows each sale’s price per square foot (greener is lower). Click a pin for the sale details. Sample report: shown at an illustrative Newton location.
Sales we set aside, and why — a sale must be a genuine arm’s-length transaction to inform value:
| Nominal family / trust / $1 transfers | |
| Sales outside the recency window | |
| Sale-to-assessment ratio out of range | |
| Statistical $/sq ft outliers | |
| Total set aside |
5. Adjusted value
The two approaches are combined into a single supportable opinion of value. It sits within the sale-indicated range but toward the lower-middle — near the value implied by the neighborhood assessed median — reflecting the record-card and condition items in Section 6.
| Sale-indicated value (median) | |
| Value implied by the neighborhood assessed median | |
| Adjusted opinion of value |
The sale-indicated range and the adjusted opinion of value cluster on the left; the current assessment sits well to the right of the evidence.
6. Property-specific factors
Record-card items to confirm and correct
- The record card lists of finished area; the owner measures roughly . Overstated living area directly inflates the assessment.
- The card shows a finished basement; the lower level is unfinished and used for storage.
- The card records the condition as “good/above average”; see the documented condition issues below.
Condition and factual issues to document
- An aging roof and original (1998) HVAC system — deferred maintenance not reflected in the recorded condition.
- Water intrusion in the basement after heavy rain, with photos attached.
- No central air, though comparable homes in the band typically include it.
Why This Property May Be Overassessed
This analysis cross-checked the assessor’s record against public data and the information the owner provided. It flagged 1 strong signal and 2 items to verify, and 1 check came back consistent. Expand a card for the details. Nothing here is established fact until you verify it.
Strong signal multiple sources point the same way · Verify worth checking before you rely on it · Consistent records agree
Strong signal Recorded living area may be overstated Confidence: High
What the assessor’s record says: The assessor’s record lists 3,180 sq ft of finished living area.
What conflicting information was found: The owner’s measurement is about 2,960 sq ft — a 220 sq ft difference.
Why it could affect value: Finished living area is usually the largest single driver of an assessment, so a 220 sq ft difference could materially affect the assessed value.
What to verify: Confirm the actual finished area using a floor plan, appraisal, professional measurement, or inspection report.
Suggested supporting evidence: Floor plan or building sketch; a recent appraisal or professional measurement; the assessor’s property record card.
Preliminary potential assessed-value adjustment: $56,000 – $80,000 (a preliminary screening estimate based on the 220 sq ft difference times a comparable assessed rate per square foot; not an appraisal or a determination of value)
Based on: public assessor record · information you provided · computed comparison. The available records suggest a potential discrepancy that should be verified — this is not a finding that the assessor made an error.
Verify Finished basement or attic space may be counted incorrectly Confidence: Medium
What the assessor’s record says: The record card carries the basement as finished space.
What conflicting information was found: The owner reports the lower level is unfinished and used for storage.
Why it could affect value: Space graded as finished is valued far above unfinished space, so a wrong finish status inflates the building value.
What to verify: Check how the record card classifies each below-grade area against its actual finish status.
Suggested supporting evidence: The assessor’s property record card; photos of the unfinished areas; a floor plan or inspection report.
Based on: public assessor record · information you provided. The available records suggest a potential discrepancy that should be verified — this is not a finding that the assessor made an error.
Verify Condition or quality rating may be higher than the property warrants Confidence: Medium
What the assessor’s record says: The record carries the property at condition “good/above average.”
What conflicting information was found: The owner documents an aging roof, an original 1998 HVAC system, and basement water intrusion after heavy rain.
Why it could affect value: Condition classifications directly scale the building value; a rating that does not account for deferred maintenance overstates it.
What to verify: Have the specific problems documented — an inspection report or contractor estimates — and compare the recorded rating with the property’s actual state.
Suggested supporting evidence: Photos of each problem area; inspection report; contractor repair estimates.
Based on: public assessor record · information you provided. The available records suggest a potential discrepancy that should be verified — this is not a finding that the assessor made an error.
Consistent Your entered assessment matches the public record Confidence: High
What the assessor’s record says: The city record and the owner’s entry both show the same current assessment.
Why it could affect value: The figures agree, so this report’s calculations rest on the right assessment.
Based on: public assessor record · information you provided. A consistency check, not a discrepancy.
Strongest Appeal Arguments
- Recorded living area may be overstated — the 220 sq ft difference between the record card and the owner’s measurement is easy to verify and directly drives the assessment. Preliminary potential assessed-value adjustment: $56,000 – $80,000 (preliminary estimate, not an appraisal). Data reliability: High.
- Assessed higher than comparable nearby homes — the subject is assessed at about $393 per sq ft against a comparable median near $364, a disproportionate-assessment pattern Massachusetts recognizes as a ground for abatement. Data reliability: High.
- Condition and finish-status corrections — the unfinished basement and documented deferred maintenance, once verified, support a lower building value. Data reliability: Medium.
Ranked by likely dollar impact, reliability of the supporting data, ease of verification, strength of comparable-property evidence, and relevance under the applicable assessment rules.
Appeal Strength Score
75 / 100
Meaningful supporting information
This score summarizes how much supporting information the analysis found across six areas: comparable-assessment disparity, comparable-sales disparity, potential record discrepancies, quality of available evidence, estimated potential tax savings, and appeal timing. A higher score means more material worth verifying and organizing — it does not predict whether an appeal will succeed, and it is not an opinion of value.
7. Estimated tax impact
8. Your filing packet — Form 128 + Exhibit A
The report includes a pre-filled State Tax Form 128 (Application for Abatement), with an Exhibit A statement that assembles the comparables and analysis above into the document you sign and file. The grounds are pre-selected from the findings — confirm them before signing.
| City / town | |
| Fiscal year | |
| Property location | |
| Assessed value | |
| Applicant’s opinion of value | |
| Land area |
Part C — Reason(s) abatement sought (pre-selected from the findings):
| [X] Overvaluation | |
| [X] Disproportionate assessment | |
| [ ] Incorrect usage classification | Not indicated by this review. |
| [ ] Other | — |
Below is that form, pre-filled with the values above — the Part C reason boxes are checked to match, with Exhibit A attached after the form — a one-page supporting statement with the relief requested, the comparable sales, the sales-indicated value range with the current assessment marked against it, and the assessment-uniformity comparison. Review every entry, then sign and file it with your city or town by the deadline.
Download the fillable Form 128 (PDF) — the editable version, so you can adjust fields before signing. (The preview above is flattened so it displays in the browser.)
Fictional sample. In your packet this form is filled from your own inputs; you are responsible for verifying every entry, choosing the grounds, signing, and filing. Property Tax Hawk does not file anything for you.
9. Evidence to attach
- The most recent tax bill and the assessor’s property record card.
- Photos documenting condition, damage, and unfinished areas.
- The comparable sales relied on, with sale dates and prices.
- Any measurements or contractor estimates supporting the corrections above.
10. Questions to ask the assessor
- What finished living area and feature data is on file for this property?
- Which comparable sales were relied on for this assessment?
- How was the property’s condition determined?
- What is the deadline and required form to file an abatement this year?
11. Suggested next steps
- Verify every figure in this report against your own records.
- Confirm your town’s abatement deadline and required forms with the assessor.
- Review and sign the pre-filled State Tax Form 128, then file it with Exhibit A before the deadline.