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

• In December 2016, the Taxpayer submitted an application for a high-wage jobs tax credit in the amount of $3,287,058.23, which was denied by the Department in June 2017. Instead of filing a written protest within ninety days as outlined by the Department, the Taxpayer filed an application for a refund based on the original credit application in June 2018, which was also denied by the Department. The Taxpayer then filed a written protest in response to the denial of its refund application (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Administrative Hearings Office: The AHO granted the Department's motion for summary judgment and denied the Taxpayer's protest, finding that the only available remedy for a denial of an application for a tax credit was to file a protest within ninety days of the denial, pursuant to Section 7-1-24 (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Taxpayer: Argued that it is permitted to dispute the Department’s denial of its credit application by either one of the two methods provided by Sections 7-1-24 and 7-1-26, respectively (para 5).
• Department: Contended that Section 7-1-24 provides the sole remedy for a taxpayer to dispute the Department’s denial of a high-wage jobs tax credit and that the Taxpayer’s sole method for disputing the denial of its credit application would have been through the administrative protest method provided by Section 7-1-24 (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether Section 7-1-24 provides the sole remedy for a taxpayer to dispute the Department’s denial of a high-wage jobs tax credit (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico reversed the AHO's grant of the Department's motion for summary judgment and denial of the Taxpayer's protest, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 21).

Reasons

• Per Hanisee, J. (Medina, J., and Yohalem, J., concurring): The court concluded that the relevant statutes do not preclude a taxpayer from electing to seek relief under either Section 7-1-24 or Section 7-1-26. The court disagreed with the AHO's findings and interpretation of Sections 7-1-24 and 7-1-26, based on the plain language of each statute, indicating that the two statutes exist as alternatives for a taxpayer to dispute a denial of a tax credit. The court also noted that the Department's own guidance to taxpayers upon denial of an application for tax credit did not suggest that a taxpayer’s sole remedy to dispute the denial of a high-wage jobs tax credit is through the protest procedure provided in Section 7-1-24. The court held that the AHO’s decision and order was not in accordance with the law and thus required reversal under Section 7-1-25(C) (paras 12-20).