You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Randolph Credit Union v. Board of Assessors

Citations: 33 Mass. App. Ct. 268; 598 N.E.2d 680; 1992 Mass. App. LEXIS 795Docket: No 91-P-632

Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; September 4, 1992; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case pertains to an appeal by Randolph Credit Union to the Appellate Tax Board, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely tax payment under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 64. The taxpayer deposited several checks at the Provident Institution for Savings to cover a tax obligation due on May 1, 1990. One significant check, however, was returned due to the bank's hold on funds, resulting in insufficient funds at the time of payment. The taxpayer contended that it had sufficient funds to cover the check, but the court determined that 'sufficient funds' must be immediately available without any bank-imposed holds. Since the tax payment was incomplete and interest accrued, the conditions for filing an appeal were not satisfied. The court maintained that tax payments must be made with 'good funds,' meaning the checks should be honored upon presentation without delays. As a result, the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Tax Board was affirmed, and the taxpayer's justification concerning the bank's holding policy was deemed irrelevant to fulfilling the tax collector's requirements.

Legal Issues Addressed

Bank Policies and Tax Payment Obligations

Application: The taxpayer's argument regarding the bank's hold policy was found irrelevant to the obligation of making tax payments with good funds.

Reasoning: Consequently, the Appellate Tax Board's dismissal of the appeal was upheld, and the taxpayer's arguments regarding the bank's hold policy were not deemed relevant to the tax collector's requirements.

Definition of 'Good Funds' for Tax Payments

Application: The court held that 'sufficient funds' must be available without any holds by the bank for a tax payment to be valid.

Reasoning: Yet, the court ruled that 'sufficient funds' must be available without any holds imposed by the bank.

Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tax Board

Application: The Appellate Tax Board lacks jurisdiction if tax payments are not made in full and timely, as required by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 64.

Reasoning: The case involves Randolph Credit Union's appeal to the Appellate Tax Board, which was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction stemming from the taxpayer's failure to make timely tax payments as mandated by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 64.