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 the appellant, Mark A. Owens, seeking review of a decision by the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (Department) that denied his application for a tax credit. The appellant's challenge was based on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the hearing officer's decision and order. The appellant argued that the definition of "taxpayer" had changed over the years, giving the Department an unfair advantage, and contended that the Department and the hearing officer erroneously applied the 2015 version of the statute defining "taxpayer" to his 2016 tax return for which he sought a tax credit (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the hearing officer's decision and order were not supported by sufficient evidence. Contended that the changing definition of "taxpayer" over the years gave the Department an unfair advantage and that it was an error to apply the 2015 version of the statute to his 2016 tax return (paras 1-4).
• Respondent-Appellee (New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department): Maintained that the hearing officer's decision and order were correct and that the 2015 version of the statute, which was in effect at the time of the appellant's application for a tax credit on his 2016 tax return, was properly applied (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant specified which findings of fact he disputed as unsupported by the evidence presented at the hearing (para 2).
• Whether it was error to require the appellant to meet the burden of proof for a tax statute that does not pertain to the tax year for which he submitted a tax credit (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the hearing officer’s decision and order, denying the appellant's motion to amend the docketing statement and upholding the Department's denial of the tax credit application (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Judge and Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge concurring): The court was not persuaded by the appellant's arguments, noting that the appellant failed to specify which findings of fact he disputed as unsupported by the evidence, as directed in the calendar notice. The court found the appellant's argument regarding the application of the 2015 version of the statute to his 2016 tax return to be without merit, as the 2015 version was in effect at the time of the appellant's application for a tax credit. The decision to amend or change a statute belongs to the Legislature, not the Department. The court concluded that the Department and the hearing officer properly relied on the 2015 version of the statute, affirming the hearing officer’s decision and order (paras 1-5).