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 taxpayer protest against the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department. The taxpayer's witness testified about a phone call to the Department's help line, during which an employee allegedly guided the taxpayer through the payment process without logging in and failed to mention additional filing requirements. This led the taxpayer to believe they had fulfilled their tax obligations by making an online payment, without filing a return as required by NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-13 (2019) (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Protestant-Appellee (High Desert Bicycles, Inc.): Argued that the taxpayer was affirmatively misled by a department employee, which constituted a defense against the tax issue at hand (para 2).
• Respondent-Appellant (New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department): Contended that the taxpayer's hearsay testimony should not overcome the Department's trial showing regarding its procedures for handling telephone calls from taxpayers. Additionally, argued that inadmissible hearsay cannot be the sole basis of a factual finding in administrative proceedings (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Department's procedures for handling telephone calls from taxpayers could be overcome by the taxpayer's hearsay testimony that Department personnel did not follow that protocol (para 2).
• Whether inadmissible hearsay can be the sole basis of a factual finding in administrative proceedings (para 3).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement by the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department was denied (para 6).
• The decision and order of the hearing officer granting the taxpayer protest were affirmed (para 8).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Julie J. Vargas, Linda M. Vanzi, and Megan P. Duffy, concluded that the Department's motion to amend was based on the premise that the hearing officer had relied upon hearsay, which the Court found unpersuasive. The Court pointed out that questions of the weight of the evidence are beyond its review scope and clarified that the testimony in question, even if it relayed what an employee said on the telephone, was offered for the non-hearsay purpose of establishing an effect upon the listener. The Court was not persuaded that the decision and order relied upon hearsay, thus finding the Department's proposed disposition inappropriate. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision and order of the hearing officer (paras 1-8).