Decisions & Orders
Decision & Orders (D&O) are written statements to implement a decision after an administrative hearing with the Administrative Hearings Office (AHO).
D&O are the result of a timely filed protest (Section 7-1-24 NMSA 1978) that cannot be resolved informally between the taxpayer and the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (Tax & Rev) that is sent to hearing with the AHO. Within 30 days after the hearing, the AHO hearing officer issues a D&O in writing to Tax & Rev and the taxpayer that includes:
(1) an order granting or denying the relief requested or granting or denying a part of the relief requested, as appropriate.
(2) findings of fact and law and a thorough discussion of the reasoning used to support the order with citations to the record and applicable law.
(3) information on the right to appeal the D&O to the court of appeals within 30 days after the date of the decision and of the consequences of a failure to appeal. Appeals are decided based on the evidence and arguments presented at the administrative hearing (Section 7-1-25 NMSA 1978).
Starting July 1, 2015, the AHO was no longer administratively tied to Tax & Rev (Section 7-1B-1 through 7-1B-10 NMSA 1978).
Disclaimer: A Decision & Order pertains to a specific set of facts and law for a specific taxpayer. A Decision & Order does not establish legal precedent or policy followed or applied by Tax & Rev.
Click on “READ MORE” to show content and download link.
If you are unable to download a file in a hyperlink right click the hyperlink and click “open link in new tab”or open from the files below.
If the folders are not displayed or you are having any issues with file links and/or sharing URLs clear your browser cache or refresh your browser by pressing Ctrl-F5.
Gerald M. and Bernice Thompson
04/14/1998 98-19 TP argued that he was a partner to a partnership and his receipts were distributions of partnership profits and not subject to the GRT. TP also argued that he was selling construction services which were deductible under 7-9-52 and that to deny this...
Dr. Christopher Nelson
04/10/1998 98-18 TP was engaged in business in NM as a Chiropractor. The TP had retired his CRS registration number some years ago and had not reported or paid gross receipts tax or income tax on his receipts or income from performing chiropractic services. The...
Dependable Maintenance Service
04/06/1998 98-17 TP claimed that he was an employee and therefore his income was exempt from GRT. TP also argued that since he relied on advice from a department employee and that it took three years to receive an assessment that the department should be estopped from...
Long John Silver’s, Inc.
04/02/1998 98-16 TP received a 5% or receipts royalty payment and 4% of receipts advertising fee from its NM franchisees upon which the department assessed gross receipts tax. TP argued that as an out-of-state corporation, it was neither engaged in business in NM nor...
Jim and Margaret Tilghman
03/27/1998 98-15 TP incorrectly filed a NM personal income tax return. Through the department’s sharing agreement with IRS a discrepancy was found between the federal and state returns. TP amended the NM return and remitted the additional tax due. TP argues that...
NMSU, Office of Business and Finance
03/18/1998 98-14 TP made an ACH payment after the due date. TP argued that interest should not be imposed because they acted reasonable in attempting to pay their taxes. TP also argued that they were not negligent and therefore penalty should not be imposed. Protest...
Cathleen Tomlinson
03/11/1998 98-13 TP claimed that she was unaware that her activities were subject to the GRT and had she known about the liability the taxes would have been paid. TP claims that to impose penalty and interest on her would cause hardship. TP was found to be negligent....
Harold and Betty Burris
03/11/1998 98-12 TP amended their federal income tax return and failed to amend their NM personal income tax return. TP was assessed for additional tax plus penalty and interest. TP objected to the assessment of penalty and interest because the department did not...
American Hospitality Resources, Inc.
03/11/1998 98-11 TP was held liable for 50% fraud penalty. Evidence established the TP’s officers were aware of the GRT, knew they would be liable for payment of GRT if the corporation maintained a presence in NM and knowingly misrepresented the nature of the...
Mark Smith
02/26/1998 98-04 TP argued that his wages were not subject to federal income tax or NM income tax. TP is not entitled to a refund of the taxes withheld from his wages. Protest denied. Back to Tax Decisions & Orders
Kent and Jorge Jones
02/18/1998 98-10 TP claimed that he was an employee and therefore his receipts were exempt under Section 7-9-17. TP was an independent contractor. Protest denied. Back to Tax Decisions & Orders
Canon de Carnue Land Grant Heirs Ass’n
02/16/1998 98-09 TP claimed that their receipts were exempt under Section 7-9-29. TP was not granted tax exempt status under the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. TP also claimed that they were not negligent because they relied on the...
Douglas & Brenda Ratliff
02/12/1998 98-08 TP argued that their wages earned in NM were not subject to NM income tax on various grounds which challenged the federal income tax system. TP is not entitled to a refund of the taxes withhold from their wages. Protest denied. Back to Tax Decisions...
Que Linda
02/06/1998 98-07 TP claimed to be an employee and that the receipts from performing engraving services were exempt from GRT under Section 7-9-17. TP was found to be an independent contractor not entitled to the exemption. A deduction under Section 7-9-48 was available...
Sybase, Inc.
01/29/1998 98-06 TP was assessed gross receipts tax, penalty and interest on the receipts from a software licensing agreement for which the TP accepted a Type 9 NTTC. TP claimed that they were not negligent and should not be assessed penalty. Protest denied. Back to...
Shawn and Denise Tilman
01/26/1998 98-05 TP claimed that they were not engaged in business and that their receipts are deductible under Section 7-9-66. TP also claimed penalty should not be assessed because there was no intention to defraud the state. Protest denied. Back to Tax Decisions...
Timothy and Sandra Read
01/20/1998 98-02 TP performed “handyman” services on a house owned by himself and his wife. TP filed a Schedule C and reported the income from providing handyman services for himself. The department received the Schedule C information through a tape match and assessed...
Pecos Valley Dairy Supply, Inc.
01/20/1998 98-03 An assessment was sent to the TP’s address of record. TP did not receive the notice because the department was not notified of a change of address. The assessment was not protested in a timely manner. Protest denied at untimely. Back to Tax Decisions...
B.R. Gordon Construction Co., Inc.
01/14/1998 98-01 TP was assessed penalty and interest for a CRS-1 report that was filed late using an ACH transfer. TP claims that the report was late because the person responsible for sending the report was ill on the day the report. TP also claims the department...
Broken Arrow Indian Arts, Inc.
12/31/1997 97-46 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 2.55.12.2 and Ruling 450-89-10. Protest denied. Back to Tax...