97-0119971/6Smith Oil Company, Inc.
Claim for refund of taxes - prior years; TP claims estoppel because of lack of direction from the Department; Protest Denied.
97-0219971/15ITT Educational Services, Inc.
TP argues receipts are from services performed both instate and out-of-state or are services commerce; Protest Denied.
97-0319971/27General Mills, Inc.
TP argues interest is due on several timely submitted and approved investment credits which refunded a year or more after filing; Interest was refunded to TP since claim for refund of investment credits were claims for refund of tax which were subject to accrual of interest under Section 7-1-68.
97-0419971/31Ruth Dilts dba The Garden Spot
TP was issued a 1099 and filed Sch C for tax year 1988 - claimed to be an employee and that statute of limitations for assessing has expired; Protest was denied - TP was not an employee and statute of limitations had not expired.
97-0519972/10Rio Rancho Pharmacy
Late filed and paid CRS-1 returns because of bookkeeper health problems and computer problems - penalty and interest were initially protested - only penalty remains at issue - Penalty was properly due since TP chose to ignore the tax issue until after being contacted by department - TP was negligent and/or in disregard of rules and regulations of the department.
97-0619972/11BR Interiors, Inc. dba New Mexico Carpet Sales
TP protested designation as Successor in Business; TP is a successor even though no formal “sale” took place - TP acquired the business, customers, employees, etc. from predecessor.
97-0719973/6Lockheed Missles & Space Company
TP protested a portion of an audit claiming Section 7-9-13.1 applies to the services performed out-of-state; Section 7-9-13.1 does not apply because the contracts were for R&D the product of which was delivered into NM for initial use in NM.
97-0819973/7Claude Burger Lath & Plaster
Lack of NTTC’s for resale of construction services after 60 day notice and penalty and interest assessed; TP improperly took deductions because of the lack of timely receipts of an NTTC and penalty and interest was properly assessed on taxes not paid.
Reimbursement of moving expenses were deducted from federal adjusted gross income for NM purposes on belief that the reimbursement was not subject to state taxation – TP protested the tax, penalty and interest assessed; Department agreed penalty not due and that assessed was beyond statute of limitations; TP owes the tax on the moving expenses to NM and interest is properly due on the unpaid tax - the statute of limitations had not expired and the department is not barred by the doctrine of equitable recoupment.
97-1019973/20Morgan Buildings & Spas, Inc. and Morgan Buildings and Spas Manufacturing Corp.
TP argued it as selling tangible personal property not construction services - TP also argued that the date of 1991 contract governed which NTTC it must have in its possession -pre 1992 vs. post 1992 – TP further argued methodology was improper; Hearing officer ruled that GR 3(C):6 exceeded the definition of Section 7-9-3(C) - TP was selling Tangible Personal Property not construction therefore sales to 501(c)(3)’s and governmental entities were properly deducted where NTTC or other required documentation was present - HO agreed that certain transactions “skewed” the percentage of error.
Lack of NTTC’s for sales made by spouse - Greater than 25% under reporting and penalty and interest from 1998; Taxes were due for lack of NTTC; penalty and interest were properly assessed and due.
97-121997[TO BE REISSUED] 97-1319974/18Novick’s Painting
TP argued “double taxation” - TP failed to obtain and execute NTTC’s to suppliers and began deducting the cost of goods and materials from gross receipts; Hearing Officer denied TP protest - the tax, penalty and interest is due and there is no “double taxation”.
97-1419974/18M & R Janitorial Services
Is TP excused from Gross receipts taxes because TP did not understand that services for federal government were taxable and because the department did give TP a firm answer; -- Lack of knowledge about taxes does not relieve the liability and TP was negligent - penalty and interest due.
97-151997[NOT A PUBLISHED D & O] 97-1619974/30Wheeler & Sons Trucking
Schedule C assessment - Hauling in interstate commerce and employee vs. independent contractor – TP was determined to be an employee based on control exercised by payor.
97-1719976/5Highway Supply, Inc.
TP argues that a Type 6 or 4 NTTC is acceptable for the sale of traffic control devices and signs to contractors who are working on a project which will ultimately be sold to the Highway Dept. Protest denied.
97-1819975/8Amoco Oil Company and Affiliated Subsidiaries
TP did not make a claim for refund within the allowed amount of time under 7-1-26(B) - Protest Denied.
97-1919975/19Raymond Gabaldon, DBA Movie Land Video
TP entered into an installment agreement but failed to provide security and the department placed a lien on the property - Protest denied. TP did not file a timely protest to challenge the assessments underlying the lien.
Gross receipts tax on services to the Postal Service by a contract mail carrier. Penalty and Interest abated prior to the issuance of the assessment.
97-2119976/9Tim and Diane Gonzales
TP failed to amend their NM state return after amending their federal return. Penalty was abated, interest is due. Protest denied.
TP failed to file a NM return since the income was earned on an Indian reservation. TP challenges interest since he acted on good faith. Protest denied.
97-2319976/19Alan Ritchey, Inc.
TP challenged the application of the Petroleum Products Loading Fee to gallons placed into fuel supply tanks in NM but burned in vehicles outside NM. TP revised his protest and claimed the fee did not apply to him since he was an instrumentality of the U. S. Government. Protest denied.
97-2419977/1Amigos Mexican Foods, Inc.
TP did not have current series NTTC’s to support deductions. Equipment was purchased without tax and used in the business. Gross receipts tax where a valid NTTC was not obtained. Compensating tax has been adjusted to exclude one piece of equipment. Protest is granted in part.
97-2519977/2James G. Champion
Schedule C tapematch - Gross receipts tax on commissions; TP claims the tax has already been paid. Tap claims unfair treatment of employee vs. independent contractor. Protest denied.
97-2619977/7Val Tech & Associates
TP claimed that his services were performed on “Indian county” and therefore exempt from the gross receipts tax. The property is not “Indian country” as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1151. Protest denied.
TP claims his wages were improperly subject to NM income tax. Protest denied.
97-2819977/29Newman Outdoor Advertising
TP denied certain deductions upon audit for accepting incorrect NTTC’s and in some cases no NTTC’s. TP claimed that they were not negligent for the following reasons: 1)they were not aware of the law’ 2) prior business practice; 3) false information from customers and 4) misleading language on the face of the NTTCs. Protest denied.
97-2919978/4Southwestern Public Service Co.
TP claimed that they were not negligent for filing a late payment (special payment method) and penalty should not be imposed. TP also protested the assessment of interest when the payment was only one day late. Protest denied
TP claimed that the department should pay interest on a claim of investment credit – from the time the application was made to when it was approved. Protest denied.
TP failed to prove that the services being performed were not R&D services and that the product was not initially used in NM. The receipts are subject to the GRT. The TP is also liable for CIT. Protest denied.
TP argues that his wages are not subject to federal income tax or NM income tax. TP is not entitled to a refund of the taxes withheld from this wages. Protest denied.
97-3419979/16Kerry and Kathy Shahan
TP argues that imposing the compensating tax on the purchase of a mobile home purchased out-of state is a violation of their constitutional right to establish a home. Protest denied.
97-3519979/26Jerry Anaya, Sr.
TP argued that interest should not be assessed on the amount of tax due because of the length of time it took the department to assess the tax. Protest denied.
TP claimed their services were being resold and were 100% deductible. Sufficient documentation to claim a deduction could not be produced for most of the transactions. When a Type 5 NTTC was produced the requirements under 7-9-48 were not met. Protest denied.
97-37199710/20Jesse C. & Shirley Orr
TP claimed that the imposition of the gross receipts tax on their commissions was a “double taxation” and that their receipts were received in a disclosed agency capacity. TP also argued that they were not negligent for the purposes of Section 7-9-69. Protest denied in part and granted in part.
97-38199710/22Southwest Gin Service and Supply
TP claimed that they did not have sufficient nexus in NM for the gross receipts tax to be imposed. Protest denied.
97-39199710/27Wayne F. Weaver
TP believes that the amount of his receipts are so minimal that they should not be subject to the gross receipts tax. TP also feels that it is unfair to tax him (independent contractor) differently than an employee. Protest denied.
TP received an assessment for GRT which resulted from a Schedule C tape match. TP claimed that he was not engaged in business and that his sales were isolated and occasional. Protest denied.
97-41199711/12Kerry D. & Kathy L. Shahan
TP claimed that the department could not determine what their federal adjusted gross income was independently of what was reported to the IRS. TP also claimed that they were non-resident aliens of the US and that the IRS had no authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code. Protest denied.
97-42199711/12Dawson Surveys, Inc.
TP was issued a Type 7 NTTC for the performance of construction staking services and claimed the deduction under Section 7-9-52. Upon audit the deductions were disallowed. Protest granted.
TP was assessed GRT which resulted from a C-SPAN tape match. TP was unable to provide any information that would explain the discrepancy between state and federal reporting because her deceased husband handled all of the paperwork pertaining to the business. Protest denied.
97-44199712/4Dairy Construction, Inc.
TP claimed a 50% deduction under Section 7-9-62 for the sale of agricultural implements. The deduction was denied but penalty was abated based on the department’s previous approval of a refund on the same facts. Protest granted in part and denied in part.
97-45199712/10Associated Court Reporters, Inc.
TP (two corporate officers) claimed that they were not liable for the amounts deducted and withheld by their corporation that were not paid to the department. Protest denied for one corporate officer and granted and denied in part for the other corporate officer.
97-46199712/31Broken Arrow Indian Arts, Inc.
TP claimed that the department should not have assessed penalty on receipts from sales to out-of-state buyers. TP claimed to be non-negligent because they relied on regulation 3 NMAC 18.104.22.168 and Ruling 450-89-10. Protest denied.