Could an independent physical therapist deduct services resold by a clinic when the clinic executed its Type 5 NTTC nine days after the audit's 60-day deadline?

Plain-English summary

An independent physical therapist lost a service-resale deduction because the clinic receiving her services executed its Type 5 NTTC after the statutory 60-day deadline. The fact that the owner was outside the country and saw the audit notice late did not extend the period.

Ravelle Smoor operated Ravelle's Jewel's as a sole proprietorship only during 2006. That year she performed physical therapy as an independent contractor for Southwest Sport and Spine, which resold her services in its ordinary business. Before and after 2006, she worked for the clinic as an employee.

Because she was an independent contractor in 2006, her receipts were presumed subject to gross receipts tax. A service-for-resale deduction was potentially available under Section 7-9-48, but only if the buyer delivered the required NTTC.

The 60-day second chance expired first

Smoor did not have an NTTC when the 2006 returns were due. The Department mailed a limited-scope audit notice on November 25, 2009, demanding all NTTCs within 60 days—by January 24, 2010.

Smoor and her husband had left for South Africa on November 22 and did not return until January 4. After seeing the notice, she requested an NTTC from the clinic and told the Department she was trying to obtain it.

Southwest Sport and Spine executed the Type 5 NTTC on February 2, 2010, and Ravelle's Jewel's sent it to the Department two days later. That was after the deadline.

Section 7-1-9 made the notice effective when the Department mailed it to the address of record, not when Smoor actually received it. Section 7-9-43 then required disallowance when the seller did not possess the NTTC within 60 days. The reason for the delay did not change that mandatory result.

Tax-preparer reliance did not excuse the penalty

Smoor and her husband had hired Dale Wilson to prepare their federal and state personal income tax returns. But they never discussed gross receipts tax with him, the evidence did not show that he was a CPA, and he had not been hired to prepare gross receipts returns.

The decision therefore found no reasonable reliance on a competent tax professional after full disclosure of the relevant facts. The failure to research the gross receipts tax rules, file returns, and obtain the NTTC counted as negligence even though it was inadvertent.

Result: protest denied. Ravelle's Jewel's owed $2,009.98 in tax, $402 in penalty, and $813.09 in interest, totaling $3,225.07 as of the hearing. Interest continued at $0.16 per day.

What this means for you

Independent contractors whose services are resold

The economic substance of resale is not enough. Obtain the correct NTTC when the return is due and keep it in your records.

Taxpayers receiving an audit NTTC demand

The 60-day period runs from the Department's effective notice, and mailed notice was effective on mailing in this decision. Waiting on a customer or being away from home did not extend it.

Businesses using tax preparers

Make sure the adviser is engaged for the specific tax involved. Personal income tax preparation did not establish competent advice about New Mexico gross receipts tax.

Common questions

Q: Were the physical therapy services actually resold?
A: Yes. The decision found that Southwest Sport and Spine resold them in its regular course of business.

Q: Why was the resale deduction still denied?
A: Ravelle's Jewel's did not possess the required NTTC when the returns were due or within the audit notice's 60-day second-chance period.

Q: Did the deadline run from actual receipt of the notice?
A: No. The decision applied Section 7-1-9 and treated the Department's November 25 mailing as the effective notice date.

Q: How late was the NTTC?
A: The clinic executed it on February 2, 2010, nine days after the January 24 deadline.

Q: Did hiring a return preparer eliminate the negligence penalty?
A: No. The preparer was not shown to be a CPA or a gross receipts tax adviser, and the taxpayer had not asked him about that tax.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-9-4, 7-9-3.3, and 7-9-5 — gross receipts tax and taxable-receipts presumption
• NMSA 1978, § 7-9-17 and Regulation 3.2.105.7 NMAC — employee wages
• NMSA 1978, § 7-9-48 — service-for-resale deduction
• NMSA 1978, § 7-9-43 and Regulation 3.2.201.12(C) NMAC — NTTC possession deadline
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-9 — mailed notice effective on mailing
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-67 and 7-1-69 and Regulations 3.1.11.10-.11 NMAC — interest and negligence penalty

Cases cited:

• Wing Pawn Shop v. Taxation and Revenue Department, 1991-NMCA-024
• TPL, Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department, 2003-NMSC-007
• Proficient Food Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department, 1988-NMCA-042
• El Centro Villa Nursing Center v. Taxation and Revenue Department, 1989-NMCA-070
• Tiffany Construction Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 1976-NMCA-127

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Ravelle's Jewel's
• Decision PDF: D&O 13-27

Original ruling text

BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER
OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
RAVELLE’S JEWEL’S No. 13-27
TO ASSESSMENT ISSUED UNDER LETTER
ID NO. L0992151616

DECISION AND ORDER

A protest hearing occurred on the above captioned matter on September 4, 2013 before

Brian VanDenzen, Esq., Tax Hearing Officer, in Santa Fe. Ravelle Smoor appeared pro se on

behalf of Ravelle’s Jewel’s (“Taxpayer”). Mr. Martjin Kolloffel appeared as a witness on behalf

of Taxpayer. Staff Attorney Kathleen Carlow appeared representing the State of New Mexico,

Taxation and Revenue Department (“Department”). Protest Auditor Mary Griego appeared as a

witness for the Department. Taxpayer Exhibits 1-3 and Department Exhibits A-F were admitted

into the record, as described more thoroughly in the Administrative Protest Hearing Exhibit Log.

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS

FOLLOWS:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Taxpayer is a sole proprietorship formed by Ms. Smoor. Taxpayer was only

engaged in business in 2006.

2. Before 2006, Ms. Smoor worked as an employee performing physical therapy

services at Southwest Sport and Spine. [09-04-13 CD 42:15-49].

3. Because of change in family circumstances, in 2006 Ms. Smoor gave up her

employment with Southwest Sport and Spine. [09-04-13 CD 27:33-50; 42:15-34].

4. In 2006, Taxpayer performed physical therapy services working as an

independent contractor for Southwest Sport and Spine. [09-04-13 CD 27:33-50; 42:15-34].

5. In 2006, Southwest Sport and Spine resold Taxpayer’s physical therapy services

in its regular course of business.

6. Taxpayer did not receive a Nontaxable Transaction Certificate (“NTTC or

NTTCs”) in 2006 from Southwest Sport and Spine. [09-04-13 CD 27:58-28:13].

7. After 2006, Ms. Smoor again worked as employee of Southwest Sport and Spine.

[09-04-13 CD 42:44-55].

8. In 2006, Ms. Smoor and Mr. Kolloffel filed their personal income taxes married,

filed jointly. [09-04-13 CD 13:56-14:12].

9. In 2006, Ms. Smoor and Mr. Kolloffel hired Dale O. Wilson, the Tax Consultant,

to prepare and file their 2006 federal and state personal income tax returns. [09-04-13 CD 14:22-

51].

10. Taxpayer does not know whether Mr. Wilson was a Certified Public Accountant.

A review of New Mexico Regulation Licensing Division License look-up does not list Mr. Dale

O. Wilson as a Certified Public Accountant.

11. Taxpayer did not discuss gross receipts tax obligations with Mr. Wilson. [09-04-

13 CD 23:41-46; 43:15-37].

12. Mr. Wilson never informed Taxpayer of the necessity of obtaining a NTTC. [09-

04-13 CD 16:07-40].

13. Through a tape mismatch between Taxpayer’s Schedule C’s, filed with the IRS,

and Taxpayer’s 2006, the Department detected possible gross receipts tax liability. [09-04-13 CD

46:41-59].

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 2 of 11

14. On November 22, 2009, Ms. Smoor and Mr. Kolloffel flew out of the country to

South Africa, where they remained until they returned home on January 4, 2010. [09-04-13 CD

13:04-48].

15. On November 25, 2009, the Department mailed Taxpayer a “Notice of Limited

Scope Audit Commencement-Schedule C Gross Receipts,” requesting that Taxpayer present all

executed Nontaxable Transaction Certificates (“NTTC or NTTCs”) within 60-days—January 24,

2010. [Department Ex. B].

2011. On January 4, 2010, the Department sent Taxpayer a “Reminder Notice of

Limited Scope Audit-Schedule C Gross Receipts,” reminding Taxpayer that all NTTCs must be

executed by the 60-day deadline on January 24, 2010. [Department Ex. C].

17. Upon returning to the country, on approximately January 6, 2010, Taxpayer

received the Department’s Notice of Limited Scope Audit 60-day demand for NTTCs. [09-04-13

CD 30:56-31:16].

18. After receiving the Department’s Notice of Limited Scope Audit, Taxpayer

requested a NTTC from Southwest Sport and Spine. [09-04-13 CD 26:42-59; 30:].

19. On January 19, 2010, Taxpayer faxed a letter to the Department indicating that

Taxpayer requested a NTTC from Southwest Sport and Spine. [Taxpayer Ex. #1; 09-04-13 CD

37:29-38:05].

20. The Department’s Mr. Christopher Van Lone maintained a contact log of his

discussions with Taxpayer and Mr. Kolloffel. The log shows that Mr. Van Lone told Taxpayer

that she needed to submit any NTTC no later than January 25, 2010. At no point does that log

reflect that Mr. Van Lone told Taxpayer the Department would accept an untimely NTTC after

the 60-day deadline. [Department Ex. F].

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 3 of 11

21. Southwest Sport and Spine’s accountant did not timely execute a NTTC to

Taxpayer by the January 24, 2010 deadline. [09-04-13 CD 27:00-08].

22. After the 60-day deadline, on February 2, 2010, Southwest Spine and Sport

executed a Type 5 NTTC to Taxpayer. [Department Ex. A; 09-04-13 CD 28:25-36].

23. On February 4, 2010, Mr. Kolloffel faxed to the Department a copy of the Type 5

NTTC that Southwest Sport and Spine executed to Taxpayer on February 2, 2010. [Taxpayer

Ex. #2; 09-04-13 CD 38:02-38:08].

24. On February 12, 2010, the Department assessed Taxpayer $2,009.98 in gross

receipts tax, $402.00 in penalty, and $569.80 in interest for a total assessment of $2,981.78 for

the combined reporting system period ending on December 31, 2006. [Letter id. no.

L0992151616].

25. On February 17, 2010, Taxpayer protested the Department’s assessment.

26. On March 8, 2010, the Department acknowledged receipt of Taxpayer’s protest.

27. On May 6, 2013, the Department requested a hearing in this matter.

28. On May 7, 2013, the Hearing Bureau issued Notice of Administrative Hearing,

scheduling this matter for September 4, 2013.

29. As of the date of hearing, Taxpayer owed $2,009.98 in tax, $402.00 in penalty,

and $813.09 in interest for a total outstanding liability of $3,225.07. Interest continues to accrue

at $0.16 per day. [Department Ex. D].

DISCUSSION

In this case, the Department detected that Taxpayer reported business income to the IRS

in 2006 for her work as an independent contractor with Southwest Sport and Spine but did not

file and pay corresponding New Mexico gross receipts tax. On November 25, 2009, the

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 4 of 11
Department issued a Notice of Limited Scope Audit, demanding that Taxpayer present any

requisite NTTCs within 60-days on January 24, 2010. Taxpayer was out of the country from

November 22, 2009 until January 4, 2010, leaving Taxpayer only 20-days to attempt to obtain a

NTTC from Southwest Sport and Spine. Southwest Sport and Spine executed a NTTC to

Taxpayer after the 60-day deadline. Because the NTTC was untimely, the Department assessed

Taxpayer 2006 gross receipts tax, penalty, and interest. Taxpayer protested, arguing that she did

not receive Notice of Limited Scope Audit until January 4, 2010, only 20-days before the letter’s

deadline. Taxpayer argued that she and Mr. Kolloffel did their best to obtain the NTTC from

Southwest Sport and Spine in the limited window of time that they had, but were unable to obtain

the NTTC until shortly after the 60-day deadline had expired. Taxpayer asked that that her protest

be granted and that the Department accept the late NTTC as timely.

Under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17 (C) (2007), the assessment issued in this case is

presumed correct. Consequently, Taxpayer has the burden to overcome the assessment. See

Archuleta v. O'Cheskey, 1972-NMCA-165, ¶11, 84 N.M. 428. Moreover, “[w]here an exemption or

deduction from tax is claimed, the statute must be construed strictly in favor of the taxing authority,

the right to the exemption or deduction must be clearly and unambiguously expressed in the statute,

and the right must be clearly established by the taxpayer.” Wing Pawn Shop v. Taxation and

Revenue Department, 1991-NMCA-024, ¶16, 111 N.M. 735 (internal citation omitted); See also

TPL, Inc. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2003-NMSC-7, ¶9, 133 N.M. 447.

For the privilege of engaging in business, New Mexico imposes a gross receipts tax on the

receipts of any person engaged in business. See NMSA 1978, § 7-9-4 (2002). “Engaging in

business” is defined as “carrying on or causing to be carried on any activity with the purpose of

direct or indirect benefit.” NMSA 1978, § 7-9-3.3 (2003). Under the Gross Receipts and

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 5 of 11
Compensating Tax Act, there is a statutory presumption that all receipts of a person engaged in

business are taxable. See NMSA 1978, § 7-9-5 (2002).

In this case, it is undisputed that Taxpayer worked as an independent contractor for

Southwest Sport and Spine in 2006 rather than as an employee. See NMSA 1978, § 7-9-17

(exempting wages of employees from gross receipts tax); See also Regulation 3.2.105.7 NMAC

(defining “employee”). Since Taxpayer was an independent contractor in 2006 rather than an

employee, Taxpayer was a person engaged in business and all her receipts are presumed subject to

gross receipts tax. See § 7-9-3.3 and § 7-9-5.

The New Mexico Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax Act provides numerous deductions

of gross receipts tax. Taxpayer’s sale of physical therapy services to Southwest Sport and Spine for

resale by Southwest Sport and Spine to its clients is potentially deductable from gross receipts under

NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-48 (2000). Section 7-9-48 states that:

Receipts from selling a service for resale may be deducted from
gross receipts or governmental gross receipts if the sale is made to a
person who delivers a nontaxable transaction certificate to the seller.
The buyer delivering the nontaxable transaction certificate must
resell the service in the ordinary court of business and the resale must
be subject to the gross receipts tax....

Simply performing a service for resale, as the Taxpayer did in this instance, is not enough to satisfy

the requirements of the deduction under Section 7-9-48. The statute clearly and unambiguously

conditions the deduction on a sale made to a person/entity who delivers a NTTC.

NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-43 (2011) articulates the requirements for obtaining NTTCs:

All nontaxable transaction certificates...should be in the possession
of the seller or lessor for nontaxable transactions at the time the
return is due for receipts from the transactions. If the seller or lessor
is not in possession of the required nontaxable transaction certificates
within sixty days from the date that the notice requiring possession of
these nontaxable transaction certificates is given the seller or lessor
by the department, deductions claimed by the seller or lessor that

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 6 of 11
require delivery of these nontaxable transaction certificates shall be
disallowed.

Under Section 7-9-43, Taxpayer had a statutory obligation to possess a NTTC at the time when the

gross receipts tax was initially due for her 2006 performance of the services for Southwest Sport

and Spine. In this case, Taxpayer did not possess a NTTC from Southwest Sport and Spine when

the 2006 gross receipts tax were due.

While taxpayers “should” have possession of required NTTCs at the time the return is due

from the receipts at issue, Section 7-9-43 gives taxpayers audited by the Department a second

chance to obtain these NTTCs: within 60-days of when the Department gives notice, taxpayers must

possess a NTTC in order to claim a deduction. Taxpayers who rely on this second chance provision

run the risk of having their deductions disallowed if they are unable to meet the 60-day deadline set

by the Legislature. The reason why a taxpayer cannot obtain a NTTC is irrelevant. The language of

Section 7-9-43 is mandatory: if a seller is not in possession of required NTTCs within 60 days from

the date of the Department's notice, "deductions claimed by the seller ... that require delivery of

these nontaxable transaction certificates shall be disallowed." (emphasis added). See Marbob

Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 2009-NMSC-013, ¶22, 146 N.M. 24 (use of the

word “shall” in a statute indicates provision is mandatory absent clear indication to the contrary).

Consistent with the statutory language, under Regulation 3.2.201.12 (C), a taxpayer “is not

entitled to the deduction” when the NTTC is untimely. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State ex rel.

Dep't of Taxation & Revenue, 2006-NMCA-50, ¶16, 139 N.M. 498 (agency regulations interpreting

a statute are presumed proper and are to be given substantial weight). The New Mexico Court of

Appeals has held that, despite its general reluctance to place “form over substance,” the failure to

timely and properly present a requisite NTTC is a “valid basis” for the Department to deny a

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 7 of 11
claimed deduction. Proficient Food Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 1988-NMCA-

042, ¶22, 107 N.M. 392.

Taxpayer suggested that the date of actual receipt of the Department’s Notice of Limited

Scope should trigger the 60-day period1. However, under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-9 (1997), any

required notice under the Tax Administration Act for mailing is effective upon the Department’s

mailing to the person at the last address of record. In this case, the Department mailed the Notice of

Limited Scope Audit on November 25, 2009, making November 25, 2009 the effective date

triggering the 60-day NTTC second-chance requirement. While it is unfortunate that Taxpayer was

out of the country for a large portion of the 60-day period, that is the risk Taxpayer ran by not

obtaining the NTTC originally in 2006, as required by Section 7-9-43. Under Section 7-9-43, the

Department has no authority to allow a deduction after the expiration of the second chance, 60-day

deadline.

Further, the Department has no basis to abate civil negligence penalty under NMSA 1978,

Section 7-1-69 (2007) in this case. When a taxpayer fails to pay taxes due to the State because of

negligence or disregard of rules and regulations, but without intent to evade or defeat a tax, by its

use of the word “shall”, Section 7-1-69 requires that civil penalty be added to the assessment. As

discussed above, the statute’s use of the word “shall” makes the imposition of penalty mandatory

in all instances where a taxpayer’s actions or inactions meets the legal definition of “negligence.”

Regulation 3.1.11.10 NMAC defines negligence in three separate ways: (A) “failure to

exercise that degree of ordinary business care and prudence which reasonable taxpayers would

exercise under like circumstances;” (B) “inaction by taxpayer where action is required”; or (C)

“inadvertence, indifference, thoughtlessness, carelessness, erroneous belief or inattention.”

1
Mr. Kolloffel raised a question about how a military service member whom is deployed overseas might be affected by
Notice of Limited Scope Audit triggering the 60-day second chance period. A deployed service member has specific
federal and state statutory protections tolling deadlines that do not apply to Taxpayer in this situation.

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 8 of 11
Erroneous belief and inadvertent error meets the legal definition of “negligence” under the penalty

statute. See El Centro Villa Nursing Center v. Taxation and Revenue Department, 1989-NMCA-

070, ¶10, 108 N.M. 795. Under Tiffany Construction Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 1976-NMCA-127,

¶5, 90 N.M. 16, failure to do reasonable research into what the tax law requires or to meet with a

qualified tax professional “may constitute negligence.”

Here, Taxpayer did not obtain the requisite NTTC when required in 2006, or within 60-

days of the Department’s Notice of Limited Scope audit. While Taxpayer’s inactions were

certainly inadvertent and unintentional, given the clear requirements to a NTTC articulated by the

deduction under Section 7-9-48, those inactions meet all three definitions of negligence under

Regulation 3.1.11.10 NMAC. Therefore, Taxpayer was properly assessed civil negligence penalty

under Section 7-1-69.

However, in instances where a taxpayer might otherwise fall under the definition of civil

negligence generally subject to penalty, Section 7-1-69 (B) provides a limited exception: “No

penalty shall be assessed against a taxpayer if the failure to pay an amount of tax when due

results from a mistake of law made in good faith and on reasonable grounds.” Further, under

Regulation 3.1.11.11 NMAC, there are several situations where a taxpayer can show

nonnegligence. Potentially relevant in this case is Regulation 3.1.11.11 (D) NMAC, which

allows for abatement of penalty when a taxpayer “proves that the failure to pay tax or to file a

return was caused by reasonable reliance on the advice of competent tax counsel or accountant as

to the taxpayer’s liability after full disclosure of all relevant facts…”

Although Ms. Smoor and Mr. Kollofel relied on a third party to prepare their 2006 personal

income tax returns, the evidence did not establish that Mr. Wilson was a CPA. Mr. Wilson was

hired to prepare personal income taxes, not gross receipts taxes. Taxpayer did not discuss her gross

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 9 of 11
receipts tax obligations with Mr. Wilson. There is no evidence that Mr. Wilson had any particular

knowledge about New Mexico’s gross receipts tax requirements. Since Mr. Wilson was not a CPA

and was not hired to prepare gross receipts tax, it cannot be said that he was competent accountant

vis-à-vis gross receipts taxes. Moreover, there is no evidence that Taxpayer, either directly or

through Mr. Wilson, ever filed a Combined Systems Return listing gross receipts. Under Regulation

3.1.11.11 (D) NMAC, failure to file a return cannot be excused by reliance on an agent. For these

reasons, Taxpayer is not entitled to abatement of penalty under Regulation 3.1.11.11 (D) NMAC.

Finally, there is no good faith mistake of law when there is no evidence that Taxpayer initially

researched and considered the relevant law or consulted with an appropriate gross receipts expert

about the law. Taxpayer’s failure to obtain the NTTC was not result of a mistake of law made in

good faith, as lack of reasonable research into the law constitutes civil negligence. See Tiffany

Construction Co., ¶5. Taxpayer’s protest is denied.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Taxpayer filed a timely, written protest to the assessment. Jurisdiction lies over the

parties and the subject matter of this protest.

B. In 2006, Taxpayer was a person engaged in business under NMSA 1978, Section 7-

9-4 (2002). Therefore, all of Taxpayer’s receipts in 2006 are presumed subject to gross receipts tax

under NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-5 (2002).

C. Taxpayer did not possess the requisite NTTC to support the claimed deduction for

the sale of a service for resale under NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-48 (2000) at the time the 2006 CRS

returns were due and did not possess the requisite NTTC within 60-days of the Department’s Notice

of Audit.

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 10 of 11
D. Under NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-43 (2011), without possession of a timely executed

NTTC at either the time of the filing of returns or within 60-days of notice of audit, the Department

is not allowed to grant and Taxpayer is not entitled to the claimed deduction. See Marbob Energy

Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 2009-NMSC-013, ¶22, 146 N.M. 24 (use of the word

“shall” in a statute indicates provision is mandatory absent clear indication to the contrary). See also

Proficient Food Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 1988-NMCA-042, ¶22, 107 N.M.

392 (Court found it valid for the Department to deny a claimed deduction when taxpayer did not

timely present a requisite NTTC).

E. Under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-67 (2007), Taxpayer is liable for accrued interest

under the assessments. Interest continues to accrue until the tax principal is satisfied.

F. Under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-69 (2007), Taxpayer is liable for civil negligence

penalty.

For the foregoing reasons, Taxpayer’ protest IS DENIED. Taxpayer owes $2,009.98 in

2006 gross receipts tax, $402.00 in penalty, and $813.09 in interest for a total outstanding

liability of $3,225.07. Interest continues to accrue at $0.16 per day.

DATED: September 27, 2013.

Brian VanDenzen, Esq.,
Tax Hearing Officer
Taxation & Revenue Department
Post Office Box 630
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0630

In the Matter of the Protest of Ravelle’s Jewell’s, page 11 of 11