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

• Saiz Trucking and Earthmoving (Taxpayer), a New Mexico corporation, engaged in moving and hauling dirt, gravel, spoils, and performing grading at project sites, was assessed by the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (the Department) for unpaid gross receipts taxes, penalties, and interest totaling $903,750.78 for the period between January 31, 2004, and March 31, 2010. The assessment followed an audit of Taxpayer's tax returns. Taxpayer protested the assessment, arguing that most of its gross receipts were deductible as they constituted the sale and installation of landscape materials and that some of the Department’s assessments were barred by the statute of limitations (para 2).

Procedural History

• Hearing Officer, Taxation & Revenue Department: The hearing officer partially granted and partially denied Taxpayer's protest, finding Taxpayer liable for gross receipts taxes, penalties, and interest for the period between December 2005 and March 2010. Assessments from January 2004 to November 2005 were deemed untimely and barred by the statute of limitations, thus abated (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Taxpayer: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the Department's assessments of gross receipts taxes, penalties, and interest against it. Contended that most of its gross receipts were deductible as they constituted the sale and installation of landscape materials. Also argued that part of the Department's assessments was barred by the statute of limitations (para 1).
• Department: Maintained that the assessments for gross receipts taxes, penalties, and interest were correct and that Taxpayer had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the deductions were proper (paras 3-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Department's assessments of gross receipts taxes, penalties, and interest against Taxpayer.
• Whether Taxpayer is entitled to deduct the gross receipts from its work for the City, thus affecting the Department's right to three additional years of assessments pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-18(A), (D) (para 1).

Disposition

• The hearing officer's decision and order were affirmed, upholding the Department's assessments for the period between December 2005 and March 2010. The assessments from January 2004 to November 2005 were abated as they were barred by the statute of limitations (para 7).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (M. Monica Zamora, J., and Henry M. Bohnhoff, J., concurring): The Court found that the Department's assessments were presumed correct and that the Taxpayer bore the burden of proving the deductions were proper. The Court deemed the hearing officer's findings of fact conclusive due to Taxpayer's failure to specifically challenge them in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court concluded that Taxpayer was not entitled to deduct the gross receipts from its work for the City as the transactions involved the sale and installation of landscape items as part of construction projects, which are not deductible under Section 7-9-54. Consequently, the Court did not address Taxpayer's second argument regarding the Department's right to assess for three additional years (paras 3-6).