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

• Multiple related entities, collectively referred to as Taxpayer, appealed an administrative hearing officer's decision that denied their motion to reconsider the refusal of the New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue (the Department) to acknowledge Taxpayer's 2019 claims for refund. The Department had previously issued twenty-three assessments for unpaid corporate income taxes in 2012 and 2013, which Taxpayer protested. After a hearing in 2017, which Taxpayer did not attend, the hearing officer denied the protest based on Taxpayer's default. In 2018, Taxpayer paid a portion of the taxes due and subsequently filed for a refund, which the Department denied in 2019. Taxpayer's motion to reconsider in 2022 was based on the claim that they had not received the Department's denial letters due to them being sent to the wrong address (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• August 4, 2017: The hearing officer denied Taxpayer's first protest due to Taxpayer's default and determined the amount owed (para 2).
• February 8, 2019: The Department denied Taxpayer's claims for refund (para 3).
• May 14, 2019: Taxpayer filed a second protest against the denial of the refund applications (para 3).
• October 31, 2022: Taxpayer filed a motion to reconsider with the Administrative Hearings Office regarding the Department's refusal to consider challenges to the refund denial (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Taxpayer: Argued that the motion to reconsider was the only avenue for review available to address the Department’s handling of its second protest filed on May 14, 2019. They maintained that the Department wrongfully did not initiate the process with the hearing officer, denying Taxpayer due process. Taxpayer also contended that they had not received the February 8, 2019, refund denials because the Department knowingly sent the letters to the wrong address (paras 7, 11).
• Department: Responded that under the Tax Administration Act in effect at the time, it was "unable to acknowledge" the protest related to the claim for refund because Taxpayer failed to file a protest within a maximum of 90 days from the date of the refund denial. The Department also argued that because Taxpayer elected to first not pay and proceed under Section 7-1-24 in 2017, the refund remedy under Section 7-1-26 was no longer available in 2019 (paras 3, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the hearing officer abused his discretion in denying the motion to reconsider.
• Whether the second protest filed on May 14, 2019, was timely.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the hearing officer's decision and order denying Taxpayer's motion to reconsider, concluding that Taxpayer's appeal was untimely (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, per WRAY, J., with DUFFY, J., and BACA, J., concurring, found that Taxpayer's appeal did not meet the timeliness requirement under the Tax Administration Act, which mandates that a party may appeal a hearing officer’s decision within thirty days of the decision's mailing or delivery. The Court rejected Taxpayer's argument that it was entitled to appeal the hearing officer’s denial of its motion for reconsideration separately from its appeal of the decision and order. The Court also noted that no unusual circumstances were present to warrant waiving the timeliness requirement for this administrative appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed Taxpayer's appeal with prejudice, concluding that the appeal was untimely and that the Court must dismiss a case when it does not have jurisdiction (paras 4-13).