1. Individuals
  2. Tax Decisions & Orders
  3. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc.

Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc.



On October 5, 2016, the Department sent a partial denial to the Taxpayers for the high wage job tax credit application that was submitted to the Department for the periods starting January of 2010 through February of 2015. On January 5, 2017, the Taxpayer filed a protest of the partial denial with the Department. The Taxpayer argues that the Department went beyond its statutory authority in evaluating if the individual jobs the Taxpayer claimed the credit were eligible, that the methods used by the Department to verify residency overstepped the law, and that the Department denied a portion of the credit based on a previous application where the credit was denied. The Hearing Officer, points out that the New Mexico Court of Appeals has determined that tax credits are legislative grants of grace to a taxpayer that must be narrowly interpreted and construed against a taxpayer. Therefore, the Taxpayer carries the burden of proving that it is entitled to claim the tax credit. The Department witnesses testified that additional information was requested to show that the jobs in question qualified for the credit. When the additional information was not provided the partial denial was issued by the Department. The Department also testified that the processes used to review this credit application are the same processes used for all applications of this credit. The review process allows the Department to determine if the Taxpayer is eligible for the credits based on the requirements of the statute. In regards to the prior application, the Department argued that if the jobs were not originally found to be eligible for the credit the Taxpayer could not continue to claim the credit against those jobs unless information was provided to show that the jobs in question qualified for the credit. The Hearing Officer determined that the Taxpayer did not establish entitlement to the credit or establish that the Departments interpretation of the credit was incorrect for the purposes in which it denied the credit. The Taxpayer was unable to establish that the jobs in questions were eligible for the credit. For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer’s protest is denied.