Adecco, Inc.



On March 9, 2012, the Department assessed the Taxpayer for gross receipts tax, penalty and interest for tax period January 31, 2004 through September 30, 2010.  Sometime in July 2012, the Department abated the penalty.  The Taxpayer filed a protest to the assessment, originally challenging the Department’s disallowance of deductions it had taken for receipts from the City of Albuquerque.   The Taxpayer later amended the protest to raise the issue of whether the services were performed out of state. During the period at issue, the Taxpayer, an out of state corporation with an office in Albuquerque, provided temporary staffing services for the city under a detailed contract. Based on the Taxpayer’s arguments, there were three main issues addressed in the protest. The first issue addressed that Type 9 nontaxable transaction certificate (NTTC) that the Taxpayer accepted from the city. Because the Type 9 NTTC applies only to the purchase of tangible personal property for resale, the services that the Taxpayer provided to the city, which were not resold, were not covered by the NTTC. Further, because the Taxpayer did not establish that it otherwise qualified for a valid deduction applicable to the transaction in question, the Taxpayer was not entitled to the good faith, safe harbor protection of Section 7-9-43 NMSA 1978. Secondly, while the Taxpayer claimed it was a disclosed agent of the city not subject to gross receipts tax under Section 7-9-3.5(A)(3)(f) NMSA 1978, the Taxpayer failed to establish it was a disclosed agent for the city under the relevant regulations and case law. Under the third issue, the Taxpayer, as an out of state corporation, claimed an exemption from gross receipts tax under Section 7-9-13.1 (A) NMSA 1978. Because the Taxpayer had an office in Albuquerque and contracted with the city for services with no product resulting from the contract, the Hearing Officer found that the exemption did not apply. The Taxpayer’s protest was denied.