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 protest by Taxpayer Sarah Maestas Barnes against an assessment issued by the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD) based on alleged gross receipts. The TRD claimed that Barnes had received taxable gross receipts, while Barnes contested this assertion, leading to an administrative hearing.

Procedural History

• Administrative Hearings Office: The Administrative Hearing Officer (AHO) concluded that Taxpayer Sarah Maestas Barnes received no taxable gross receipts, granted her protest, and abated the assessment in full.

Parties' Submissions

• Protestant-Appellee (Sarah Maestas Barnes): Argued that she received no taxable gross receipts and that the documentary evidence presented by her was reliable, supported by credible witness testimony.
• Respondent-Appellant (New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department): Contended that the documentary evidence provided by the Taxpayer was unreliable or infirm and that witness testimony alone was insufficient to substantiate the AHO’s conclusion that the Taxpayer received no taxable gross receipts.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Administrative Hearing Officer's conclusion that the Taxpayer received no taxable gross receipts is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
• Whether witness testimony alone is sufficient to substantiate the AHO’s decision and order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Administrative Hearing Officer’s Decision and Order.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Gerald E. Baca, with Judges Jane B. Yohalem and Katherine A. Wray concurring, found that the AHO’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court highlighted that in New Mexico, the testimony of a single witness, if found credible by the fact-finder, is sufficient to constitute substantial evidence. The AHO found Taxpayer’s testimony credible, and it was within the AHO’s sole responsibility to weigh the testimony, determine the credibility of the witnesses, reconcile inconsistencies, and determine where the truth lies. The court also noted that the AHO was permitted to find the Taxpayer’s testimony and evidence credible and the SSA 1099s erroneous. The court rejected TRD’s argument that it was prejudiced by the inability to cross-examine Feliz Martone, whose affidavit was considered in the AHO’s decision, stating that reliable hearsay evidence is admissible in protest proceedings under New Mexico law. The court concluded that the AHO’s decision was sufficiently supported by the Taxpayer’s testimony alone and certainly by the Taxpayer’s testimony in combination with Feliz Martone’s affidavit (paras 1, 3-20).