A disclosure made during litigation has put a number on the properties at issue in Pioneer Institute’s challenge to Boston’s commercial assessments: 150, according to the Boston Herald. Pioneer says the figure may not capture all affected properties, and the disclosure is not a court finding that the assessments were improper. The group is now seeking legislative review of the dispute and the state revenue commissioner’s decision not to investigate.
Lawsuit Alleges Retaliatory Tax Hikes
The lawsuit, filed by Pioneer New England Legal Foundation, alleges that Boston unlawfully raised assessed values and taxes for commercial property owners who appealed their assessments, according to the Boston Herald. The foundation filed its challenge last December, contesting the addition of assessed value for owners who seek abatements. The case is proceeding in Suffolk Superior Court, and the group has also brought a class-action case on behalf of downtown commercial property 148 State St.
In May, a Suffolk Superior Court judge rejected most of the city’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to continue. Discovery covered properties assessed at $6 million or more; Pioneer says properties below that threshold were outside the request, so the number of affected properties could be higher. The group previously cited more than 60 commercial properties that it says saw substantial assessment increases after appeals. It now estimates that the 150 disclosed properties were overtaxed by about $19 million. These figures are Pioneer’s claims and estimates, not findings established in the case.
How the tax burden is divided
City of Boston figures show that in FY26, residential taxpayers accounted for 46% of the tax levy, while commercial, industrial, and personal property accounted for the remaining 54%, according to the City of Boston. These shares describe the citywide levy, not the difference between residential and commercial tax rates, and do not show how the rate gap has changed over time. They also do not address Pioneer’s allegations about assessments.
Appeals and Boston’s billing calendar
For taxpayers whose requests for abatements are denied locally, the Appellate Tax Board hears appeals, and an appeal generally must be filed within three months of the assessors’ decision, according to the Town of Amherst’s official guidance. The City of Boston says its fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30 and property taxes are billed quarterly. This describes the ordinary appeal route and billing schedule; it does not resolve the allegations in Pioneer’s case.
State Revenue Chief Declined to Investigate
Pioneer’s state-level request has also been rejected. The group asked Department of Revenue Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder on August 17 to investigate Boston’s assessment practices; Snyder declined in a letter dated August 20, citing the pending lawsuit, the Boston Herald reported. Snyder had previously declined to investigate in July 2025, saying he found no evidence supporting Pioneer’s allegations that Boston improperly increased assessments for taxpayers appealing to the Appellate Tax Board. The Department of Revenue has said it will not meet, discuss, or comment on matters referred to in Pioneer Institute’s letter.
Pioneer is seeking legislative scrutiny of the city’s assessment practices, the Department of Revenue’s response, and the scope of its initial investigation. Executive Director Jim Stergios asked the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Revenue to hold an oversight hearing. The committee is co-chaired by State Sen. James Eldridge and State Rep. Adrian Madaro.
Calls for Gorzkowicz to Step In
Stergios separately asked Matthew Gorzkowicz, Healey’s finance secretary and the official charged with directing, controlling, and supervising the Department of Revenue, to review Snyder’s refusal to investigate Pioneer’s evidence, according to The Boston Herald. Stergios argued that the evidence warrants reviewing whether the department met its responsibility to protect the property assessment system and said state oversight should ensure taxpayers are treated fairly under the law. The report also says state law provides a route to relief separate from Pioneer’s lawsuit against Boston.
Boston has previously rejected Pioneer’s allegations, saying they are baseless and contain misinformation, according to a prior mayoral statement cited in the report. The city reportedly agreed during settlement negotiations to stop the alleged practice; if it ultimately loses the lawsuit, it could owe restitution to affected property owners. The Herald reported that requests for comment from Snyder, Gorzkowicz, Eldridge, and Madaro were not immediately returned Tuesday.
