Cited by

As the Town points out, early New Hampshire cases also state that the abatement remedy applies “not only when the assessment is made upon an overvaluation, but also when the whole assessment is illegal.” Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580, 584 (1879).

Co. v. Manchester, 70 N.H. 200, 205 (1899); Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580, 589 (1879).

We have long held that however erroneous, in law or in fact, the assessment may be, we will abate only so much of a taxpayer’s tax as in equity the taxpayer ought not to pay.

“The statutes of taxation direct when, how, and by what common agents each one’s share of the public expense is ascertained, when it is due, to what common agent it is payable, and in what manner the constitutional obligation to pay it may be enforced.” Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580, 587 (1879).

LOUGHLIN, supra § 23.03, at 256; see Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580, 594 (1879) (because the legislature provided relief by a petition for abatement, a common law action for damages would frustrate the legislative intent).

See, e.g., Ansara v. City of Nashua, 118 N.H. 879, 880, 395 A.2d 513, 515 (1978); Hodges v. Kensington, 102 N.H. 399, 400, 157 A.2d 649, 650 (1960); Bretton Woods, 84 N.H. at 431, 151 A. at 706; Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580, 587 (1879); Briggs’ Petition, 29 N.H. 547, 551-52 (1854).

There is no question that the city of Concord is the real party in interest in this dispute.

The superior court is bound by principles of equity in tax abatement proceedings.

n payment of a just debt due from a solvent debtor, and shall receive and consider all evidence that may be submitted to them relative to the value of property the value of which cannot be determined by personal examination.” It is agreed that this same standard was to be applied by the superior court, the master in this case, in determining whether or not the company was entitled to an abatement.

Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580, 587 (1879); Morrison v. Manchester, 58 N.H. 538, 549 (1879); see Blogie v. State Tax Comm’n, 111 N.H. 246, 279 A.2d 603 (1971).

It claims that the court is not authorized to make an abatement which will transfer a disproportionate burden upon other taxpayers.

They rely on language in Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580 (1879) and Morrison v. Manchester, 58 N.H. 538 (1879) by Chief Justice Doe as supporting this argument.

The suggestion that it could be called a mere method of determining the taxpayer's share, consented to by him, as in the case of a failure to return any inventory (Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580, 594, 595), cannot be adopted.

v. Berlin, 68 N.H. 168; Spaulding v. Groton, 68 N.H. 77; Bradley v. Laconia, 66 N.H. 269; Boody v. Watson, 64 N.H. 162, 166, 198; Horne v. Rochester, 62 N.H. 347; Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580; Waldron v. Berry, 51 N.H. 136; Sanborn v. Fellows, 22 N.H. 473, 488, 489.

This view was affirmed in Smith v. Burley, 9 N.H. 423, 427; Savings Bank v. Nashua, 46 N.H. 389, 398; Smith v. Exeter, 37 N.H. 556; Savings Bank v. Portsmouth, 52 N.H. 17, 26, 29; Morrison v. Manchester, 58 N.H. 538, 549; Edes v. Boardman, 58 N.H. 580, 587; Bank v. Concord, 59 N.H. 75; Bartlett v. Carter, 59 N.H. 105; Bowles v. Landaff, 59 N.H. 164, 190, 193, 195; Gould v. Raymond, 59 N.H. 260, 275; Berry v. Windham, 59 N.H. 288; Robinson v. Dover, 59 N.H. 521; Railroad v. State, 60 N.H. 87, 94.