On October 21, 2019, the Department issued an assessment to the Taxpayer as a successor in business. On January 17, 2020, the Taxpayer filed a timely protest. The Taxpayer argued that their business was not a successor in business to the father’s business which was closed in 2016. The Department argued that the Taxpayer was a successor in business and that the transfer of ownership was done to avoid tax and the new business was a continuation of the old business. The Hearing Officer used Regulation 220.127.116.11 NMAC to help determine if the Taxpayer was a successor in business and found that four of the eight factors found that the Taxpayer was a successor in business. However, it was found based on the other factors that the Taxpayer did not complete a transfer to avoid the tax, was not a continuation, and the Taxpayer did not agree to take on the tax liability, and that the Taxpayer’s liability was limited to the full value of the heavy equipment that was transferred between businesses. For the forgoing reasons, the Taxpayer’s protest is denied in part and granted in part. It is ordered that the Taxpayer is liable for $60,603,30 as a successor in business and that the remaining amount of the assessment be abated.