Taxpayers seeking property tax abatements must apply first to the board of selectmen under RSA 76:16, in writing. The statute requires the board of tax and land appeals (BTLA) to adopt a form for the purpose. Non-attorney taxpayer representatives often handle abatement cases, as permitted by RSA 71-B:7-a. In this case, non-attorney tax representative Mark Lutter, doing business as Northeast Property Tax Consultants, filed for an abatement on behalf of the petitioners. As prescribed by RSA 76:16, III(g) and BTLA administrative rule Tax 203.02, the BTLA form requires taxpayers to sign the application and certify that the information submitted is true. Lutter, however, filed the abatement request with the board of selectmen without obtaining the taxpayers' signatures on the form. Instead, he relied on a broadly worded statement of agency signed by the taxpayers, which Lutter attached to the BTLA form. The Sugar Hill Board of Selectmen denied the abatement, and the BTLA dismissed the appeal for failure of the petitioners to sign the abatement application form and certify to the truth of the allegations.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that Lutter's signature on the form and the agency statement should be deemed adequate because RSA 76:16, IV provides: "Failure to use the form prescribed in paragraph III shall not affect the right to seek tax relief." In support of their argument, the petitioners cited GGP Steeplegate v. Concord, 150 N.H. 683 (2004), in which the Court held that the taxpayer's very general statement of reasons on the BTLA form did not preclude an abatement because "the threshold for properly completing an abatement form is minimal." The Court rejected the argument. "RSA 76:16, III(g) requires the taxpayer to certify that he or she has a good faith basis for applying for an abatement and that the facts in the application are true. Neither Lutter's signature nor the signed agent authorization form complied with this requirement."