AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves Family Workshop, LLC and Jeffrey Burrows (collectively referred to as Taxpayer) appealing against tax, penalty, and interest assessments made by the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (the Department). The Taxpayer argued that a statutory deduction from gross receipts should apply to the receipts in question and also suggested that they were owed some relief for having reasonably relied on their accountants for reporting their gross receipts (para 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Administrative Hearings Office (AHO) decision and order which granted in part and denied in part Taxpayer’s protest of the Department's assessments (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Taxpayer: Argued that the AHO erred in concluding they were liable for the gross receipts tax assessed by the Department. They contended that a statutory deduction from gross receipts applies to their case and suggested they are owed relief for reasonably relying on their accountants in reporting gross receipts. However, these arguments were not properly developed or presented in compliance with appellate procedure rules (para 3).
• Respondent-Appellee (New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the AHO erred in concluding that the Taxpayer was liable for the gross receipts tax assessed by the Department.
• Whether a statutory deduction from gross receipts applies to the receipts at issue.
• Whether the Taxpayer is owed some relief for having reasonably relied on their accountants in reporting their gross receipts (para 3).

Disposition

• The appeal by the Taxpayer was dismissed, and the AHO decision and order were left undisturbed (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Kristina Bogardus, J. Miles Hanisee, and Zachary A. Ives, concluded that the Taxpayer's failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure prevented meaningful appellate review of the AHO's decision and order. The Taxpayer's brief was found to be lacking in several areas, including a failure to properly develop arguments, cite authority or the record, and comply with technical and substantive requirements of appellate procedure. Specifically, the brief lacked a summary of proceedings, failed to identify specific AHO findings and conclusions being challenged, and omitted necessary statements on the standard of review and issue preservation. Due to these deficiencies, the Court was unable to provide a meaningful review or to facilitate a review of the AHO decision and order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (paras 4-12).