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 Marc A. Gelinas (Taxpayer) against an assessment of tax by the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (the Department) on gross receipts for commissions earned from the sale of implantable prosthetic devices. The hearing officer ruled in favor of the Taxpayer, abating the assessment in full.

Procedural History

• Administrative Hearings Office: The hearing officer filed a decision and order in favor of the Taxpayer, finding the commissions not subject to gross receipts tax and ordering the assessment abated in full (January 9, 2018).

Parties' Submissions

• Taxpayer: Argued that the commissions earned on the sale of implantable prosthetic devices were not subject to gross receipts tax under NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-66 (1999), and 3.2.1.18GG(6) NMAC.
• Department: Filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that Section 7-9-66 could not be the basis for the Taxpayer's relief as it was not timely raised, and that the hearing officer misinterpreted Section 7-9-66 and NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-93 (2016).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Department's notice of appeal was filed timely.
• Whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration tolls the period for filing a notice of appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Department's appeal with prejudice due to untimeliness.

Reasons

• B. Zamora, J., with Linda M. Vanzi, J., and Jacqueline R. Medina, J., concurring, found that the Department's notice of appeal was not filed within the required thirty-day period following the hearing officer's decision and order. The court held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for filing a notice of appeal under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-25(A) (2015), and Rule 12-601 NMRA of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Department's arguments to import tolling provisions from other procedural rules were rejected due to the clear and unambiguous language of the statute and rule governing appeals of decisions and orders issued by hearing officers in tax protest matters. The court concluded that the Department's appeal was untimely and dismissed it with prejudice, emphasizing that timeliness of an appeal is a mandatory precondition to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction (paras 2-8).