1. All NM Taxes
  2. Tax Decisions & Orders
  3. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc.

Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc.



On July 24, 2015, the Taxpayer submitted a claim for refund for the periods beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2014 for compensating tax which was reported on Combined Reporting System (CRS) return. The Taxpayer filed a timely protest with the Department in which the Taxpayer believed it was entitled to interest of the claim for refund since July 24, 2015. On July 24, 2015, the application for refund along with a single page spreadsheet was provided to the Department. The Taxpayer also filed amended returns electronically for the periods at issue. On August 21, 2015, the Department acknowledged receiving the Taxpayer’s claim for refund and asked for additional information to be submitted including a vendor summary and invoices from the periods at issue. The letter indicated that if the documentation was not provided within 60-days that the claim would be denied. On October 8, 2015, a reminder letter was sent to the Taxpayer for the additional information requested. On October 9, 2016, the Taxpayer emailed a detailed spreadsheet to the Department and the invoices requested were received on December 1, 2016 via email. On January 12, 2016 and March 30, 2016 letters were again sent to the Taxpayer for additional information specifically in reference to vendors not registered with the Department. At that time the refund could only be partially approved based on the documents that had been previously submitted. On April 22, 2016 the Taxpayer emailed the Department and asked that the refund claim not be processed until additional documentation was submitted. On May 6, 2016 additional information was again provided by the Taxpayer. On May 19, 2016, a letter with a partial approval of the refund claim was sent to the Taxpayer. The hearing officer determined that based on Section 7-1-26 NMSA 1978, that the claim for refund was not complete when it was first submitted. The Taxpayer did provide information on what the claim for refund was for and what periods it was claiming the refund for when first submitted. However, the Taxpayer did not provide information showing why it was entitled to the refund with the initial claim. Then after providing partial information on April 22, 2016 the Taxpayer asked that the Department delay review of the claim until it could gather further information. Once, all the information was provided on May 9, 2016 the Department sent a partial approval on May 19, 2016. Under Section 7-1-68 NMSA 1978, the Department acted on the complete claim for refund within 60 days and thus does not owe interest. Based on the information above the Taxpayer’s protest is denied.