Wall Company Inc



On February 03, 2017, the Department mailed a denial letter to the Taxpayer informing it that the application for the technology jobs and research development tax credit had been denied because the Taxpayer was not registered with the Department to engage in business in the State of New Mexico. In response, the Taxpayer provided a corrected name and combined reporting system (CRS) number that was assigned by the Department for reporting taxes. The Taxpayer’s application was ultimately denied as the application was submitted after the deadline. On May 01, 2017, the Taxpayer filed a formal protest with the Department. As there were no disputes on the statements of facts presented by the Department a summary judgement was requested. The issue to be determined during the summary judgement is if the Taxpayer’s application for the technology jobs and research and development credit for the year of 2015 was barred due to errors contained in the original application submitted two days before the statutory deadline. There was no dispute by the Taxpayer that the original application misstated the Taxpayer’s name and provided an incorrect CRS number. The Taxpayer does not disagree that the corrections were not submitted until after the statutory deadline. The question is whether the law permits for the corrections to be related back to the initial submission of the application or if the application can be submitted after the statutory deadline. The Hearing Officer determined that the Taxpayer did not point out to any specific language in the Act, nor does examination of the Act reveal any Legislative intent to allow the Department to permit the substitution of entities and to relate it back to the date of the initial application, or in the alternative, to permit the Department to accept a late-filed application. Since the Taxpayer failed to file a valid application on or before December 31, 2016 the Hearing Officer determined that the Department’s Motion should be granted. For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer’s protest is denied.