AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a corporate income tax audit conducted by the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (the Department) on Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. (Helmerich) in 2015. The Department assessed Helmerich for $391,178 in tax, a $78,235.60 penalty, and $21,220.07 in interest. Helmerich filed a formal protest against this assessment, including a request for an award of fees and costs. Before a hearing on the protest could take place, the Department abated the entire assessment without providing a reason to either Helmerich or the Administrative Hearings Office (AHO). Helmerich then renewed its request for costs and fees, which the Department objected to, arguing that the AHO lacked jurisdiction to make the award due to the abatement of the assessment (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Department): Argued that the AHO lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award costs and fees to Helmerich since the underlying tax issue was not decided by the AHO. Additionally, contended that even if the AHO had jurisdiction, it abused its discretion in determining Helmerich as the prevailing party and in the amount of costs and fees awarded (paras 4, 10).
• Protestant-Appellee (Helmerich): Agreed with the Decision of the AHO and requested affirmation of the award of costs and fees. Helmerich chose not to participate further in the appeal to avoid incurring more costs and fees (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the AHO had subject matter jurisdiction to award costs and fees to Helmerich in the absence of a decision on the underlying tax issue.
• Whether the AHO abused its discretion in determining Helmerich as the prevailing party entitled to an award of costs and fees.
• Whether the AHO abused its discretion in the amount of costs and fees awarded to Helmerich.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the AHO’s decision and order, concluding that the AHO properly exercised jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in awarding Helmerich costs and fees. The issue of the award amount was not considered due to lack of preservation by the Department (para 1).

Reasons

• Per BOGARDUS, Judge (VANZI and IVES, Judges concurring):
  The Court found that the AHO had jurisdiction to decide on the award of costs and fees based on statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the statute’s purpose was to deter unfairness by the Department and expand taxpayers' rights. The Court rejected the Department’s argument that the AHO’s jurisdiction was terminated by the abatement of the assessment (paras 6-16).
  The Court held that the AHO did not abuse its discretion in designating Helmerich as the prevailing party. It reasoned that Helmerich substantially prevailed with respect to the amount in controversy when the assessment was abated and that the Department failed to demonstrate that its position was based on a reasonable application of law to the facts. The Court also addressed and dismissed the Department’s procedural and evidentiary challenges to the prevailing-party designation (paras 17-28).
  On the issue of the award amount, the Court declined to review it due to the Department's failure to preserve the issue for appeal. The Department did not challenge the requested amount during the proceedings before the AHO, nor did it provide an explanation or cite to the record where it preserved this issue as required (paras 29-31).