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 Taxpayers, Thomas and Leslie Hammack, filed New Mexico personal income tax returns for tax years 2009-2012, claiming an exemption for Mr. Hammack's wages earned as an active duty commissioned officer for the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), based on their belief that these wages were exempt from state income tax under the armed forces salaries exemption. The New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department issued notices of assessment for unpaid personal income tax and interest for these years, which the Taxpayers protested, asserting the exemption (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• The Department hearing officer affirmed the Department's assessment of unpaid personal income tax and interest for tax years 2009-2010, and unpaid personal income tax, penalties, and interest for tax years 2011-2012, concluding Mr. Hammack's service did not qualify for the armed forces salaries exemption (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Taxpayers: Argued that Mr. Hammack's wages were exempt from New Mexico income tax under the armed forces salaries exemption, claiming that a Department employee had confirmed this exemption in 2009 (para 4).
• Department: Asserted that Mr. Hammack's service in the USPHS did not constitute active duty service in the armed forces of the United States as defined by NMSA 1978, Section 7-2-5.11, and therefore his wages were not exempt from state income taxation (paras 8-11).

Legal Issues

• Whether Mr. Hammack's service in the USPHS qualifies as active duty service in the armed forces of the United States for the purpose of exempting his salary from state income taxation under NMSA 1978, Section 7-2-5.11 (para 1).

Disposition

• The hearing officer's decision and order affirming the Department's assessment of unpaid personal income tax, penalties, and interest for tax years 2009-2012 was affirmed (para 20).

Reasons

• M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge concurring): The Court found that the Taxpayers did not clearly and unambiguously establish their right to the exemption. It held that USPHS officers are not regularly considered to be officers in the armed forces for the purposes of Section 7-2-5.11. The Court reasoned that the federal statutes and regulations cited by the Taxpayers apply only in the context of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and do not indicate that USPHS officers should be considered members of the armed forces for the purposes of the state income tax exemption. The Court also found that the New Mexico Legislature did not intend to include USPHS officers within the term "armed forces" in Section 7-2-5.11, as neither the federal government nor New Mexico's statutory provisions or regulations include USPHS officers in their definitions of "armed forces" (paras 6-19).
  TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (dissenting): Judge Garcia dissented, arguing that the term "active duty service in the armed forces of the United States" should be interpreted more broadly to include all active duty service members in the USPHS who are detailed for active duty with the armed forces, not just those detailed with the army or navy. He contended that the majority's interpretation was too narrow and not supported by the rules of statutory construction or the legislative intent behind Section 7-2-5.11. Judge Garcia suggested that if Mr. Hammack's service in the USPHS was based on being detailed for active duty with any branch of the armed forces of the United States, then he qualified for the exemption from state income tax pursuant to Section 7-2-5.11 (paras 22-34).