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

• Brent M. Eastwood (Appellant) appealed against the State of New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department's (Department) decision to deny his protest for a refund. The Appellant failed to appear at the hearing for which he had proper notice, leading to the Department's decision and order against him.

Procedural History

• ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE TAX ADMINISTRATION, Brian VanDenzen, Hearing Officer: The Taxation and Revenue Department issued a decision and order denying Appellant's protest for a refund.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the Federal Bureau of Investigations is investigating the Department and Governor Susana Martinez’s administration for unlawfully using tax audits against private citizens in a retaliatory manner.
• Respondent-Appellee: Asserted that the Appellant abandoned his protest by failing to appear at the hearing for which he had proper notice, thereby forfeiting his right to appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Appellant's failure to appear at the hearing, despite having proper notice, constituted an abandonment of his protest, thereby forfeiting his right to appeal.
• Whether the Appellant's request to stay the appeal on grounds of an ongoing investigation into the Department and Governor Susana Martinez’s administration is material to the instant appeal.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Department’s denial of Appellant’s protest.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The Court was not persuaded by the Appellant's assertions and affirmed the Department's decision and order (para 1).
  It was concluded that the Appellant abandoned his protest by failing to appear at the hearing for which he had proper notice, thereby forfeiting his right to appeal. This decision was supported by precedent that implied waivers may be recognized based on a course of conduct (para 2).
  The Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s proposed disposition, as required by rules and case law, and did not point out any error with or otherwise respond to the legal rationale supporting the Court’s proposed disposition. The Court found the Appellant's request to stay the appeal on grounds of an ongoing investigation into the Department and Governor Susana Martinez’s administration immaterial to the instant appeal (para 3).
  The Court affirmed the Department's decision for the reasons stated in the Court’s notice of proposed disposition and the reasons discussed (para 4).