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 Taxation and Revenue Department issued two assessments to the Taxpayer for gross receipts taxes due in 2006, including interest and a twenty percent penalty. The Taxpayer protested these assessments, leading to a hearing officer reducing the penalty to ten percent based on a 2007 amendment to Section 7-1-69, which adjusted the maximum penalty rates applicable to such cases.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Taxation and Revenue Department, Hearing Officer: The hearing officer denied the Taxpayer's protest but reduced the penalty to ten percent based on the 2007 amendment to Section 7-1-69.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department): Argued that the twenty percent penalty was applicable based on the 2007 amendment to Section 7-1-69, which was in effect at the time the assessments were issued in 2009.
• Defendant-Appellee (Christopher Martin): Protested the assessments, leading to a reduction of the penalty to ten percent by the hearing officer. The Taxpayer did not file an answer brief after the Department appealed.

Legal Issues

• Whether the date of the assessment under Section 7-1-69 determines the maximum penalty that the Department can apply.

Disposition

• The Court reversed the decision of the hearing officer to the extent that it imposed a ten percent maximum penalty, holding that a twenty percent maximum penalty was applicable.

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Vanzi and Garcia, JJ., concurring): The Court based its decision on the precedent set in GEA Integrated Cooling Technology, which held that the date of the assessment determines the maximum penalty under Section 7-1-69. Since the Department issued its assessment after January 1, 2008, the 2007 amendment to Section 7-1-69 was in effect, allowing for a twenty percent maximum penalty. The Court found that the hearing officer erred in applying only a ten percent maximum penalty based on the 2007 amendment.