Could a taxpayer obtain a 2006 personal-income-tax refund when her claim was filed in May 2011, after the December 31, 2010 statutory deadline?

Plain-English summary

Yvonne Gomez's $112 refund claim was barred because she filed it five months after New Mexico's three-year deadline. Her reasons for the delay—including caring for her ill mother and allegedly receiving late or confusing information from the Department—did not create a statutory exception.

Gomez filed her 2006 personal income tax return and paid $112 on April 15, 2007. The Department found that she had not claimed a low-to-mid-income exemption and sent her a $37 refund without requiring a claim.

In May 2011, Gomez filed an application seeking a $112 refund for 2006. The decision's findings identify May 13, while its discussion identifies May 31; either date was after the deadline.

The deadline expired December 31, 2010

Section 7-1-26(D)(1)(a) generally required the claim within three years after the end of the calendar year in which the payment was originally due. Because the 2006 payment was due April 15, 2007, the claim period ended December 31, 2010.

The May 2011 claim was therefore five months late, and the Department denied it.

Personal hardship did not extend the statute

Gomez said she did not learn of the overpayment until near the end of the limitations period and had been caring for a very ill mother. She also testified that Department employees gave differing explanations and that one employee advised her to file a claim, receive a denial, and appeal.

She did not identify the employees, and none of the statements was in writing. More fundamentally, the hearing officer found no exception to the three-year statutory limit.

The decision cited Kilmer v. Goodwin for the rule that refund deadlines protect the treasury from stale claims and place responsibility on taxpayers to pursue claims on time.

Result: protest denied. The hearing officer did not decide whether Gomez otherwise would have been entitled to the requested $112; the claim was barred by the filing deadline.

What this means for you

Individual taxpayers seeking refunds

Track the statutory claim deadline independently. A possible overpayment does not preserve a refund if the required claim arrives late.

Taxpayers dealing with illness or family emergencies

This decision found no hardship exception in Section 7-1-26 for caregiving circumstances.

Taxpayers relying on phone guidance

Oral conversations did not overcome the statute here. Keep written records, but do not assume agency guidance can extend a legislated deadline.

Common questions

Q: When did the refund deadline expire?
A: December 31, 2010, three years after the end of the calendar year in which the 2006 payment was due.

Q: How late was the claim?
A: The decision characterized the May 2011 filing as five months late.

Q: Had the Department already issued any refund?
A: Yes. It had sent $37 after identifying an unclaimed low-to-mid-income exemption.

Q: Did the hearing officer excuse the delay because Gomez cared for her ill mother?
A: No. The decision found no exception to the statutory deadline.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26(D)(1)(a) — three-year deadline for refund claims
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17 — Department assessments referenced in the deadline provision

Case cited:

• Kilmer v. Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122 — purpose and effect of the refund limitations period

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Yvonne C. Gomez
• Decision PDF: D&O 13-32

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
YVONNE C. GOMEZ No. 13-32
THE DENIAL OF REFUND ISSUED UNDER
LETTER ID NO L1797305920

DECISION AND ORDER

A formal hearing on the above-referenced protest was held September 26, 2013, before

Richard Jacquez, Hearing Officer. The Taxation and Revenue Department (Department) was

represented by Staff Attorney, Mr. Aaron Rodriguez. Ms. Mary Griego, Auditor, also appeared on

behalf of the Department. Ms. Yvonne Gomez (Taxpayer) appeared for the hearing and

represented herself. The Hearing Officer took notice of all documents in the administrative file.

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

FOLLOWS:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Taxpayer filed a personal income tax return on April 15, 2007, which claimed that

the Taxpayer had tax due to the Department in the amount of $112.00 for tax year 2006.

The Taxpayer submitted payment to the Department in the amount of $112.00 along with

her personal income tax return.

2. The Department determined that the Taxpayer failed to claim a low to mid income

exemption which would have reduced her tax liability, and resulted in a refund owed to

the Taxpayer in the amount of $37.00.

3. The Department issued the Taxpayer a refund in the amount of $37.00.
4. On May 13, 2011, the Taxpayer filed an application for refund, for tax year 2006,

requesting a refund in the amount of $112.00.

5. On June 28, 2011, the Department sent a letter to the Taxpayer denying the claim for

refund because the request for refund was not filed with three (3) years of the end of the

calendar year in which payment was due.

6. On July 15, 2013, the Taxpayer filed a formal protest letter.

7. On July 25, 2013, the Department filed a Request for Hearing asking that the Taxpayer’s

protest be scheduled for a formal administrative hearing.

8. On July 25, 2013, the Hearings Bureau mailed a Notice of Administrative Hearing setting

the hearing for September 26, 2013.

DISCUSSION

The issue to be decided is whether the Department properly denied the Taxpayer’s the

claim for refund for the tax year 2006, in the amount of $112.00. The Taxpayer argued that the

Department waited until the end of the statute of limitation period to give her notice that she

could claim a refund, and that because she was caring for her ill mother she did not have time to

submit an application for refund. The Department argued that the Taxpayer’s application for

refund was filed after the statutory deadline and the Department was barred from issuing the

refund.

A claim for refund must be filed within the limitations period as set out in NMSA 1978, §

7-1-26 (D)(1)(a), which provides, in pertinent part:

[N]o credit or refund of any amount may be allowed or made to any
person unless as the result of a claim made by that person as provided
in this section:

(1) within three years of the end of the calendar year in which:

In the Matter of Yvonne Gomez, page 2 of 6
(a) the payment was originally due or the overpayment
resulted from an assessment by the department pursuant to Section 7-
1-17 NMSA 1978, whichever is later;

The Taxpayer filed a personal income tax return on April 15, 2007, for tax year 2006 which she

claimed that the Taxpayer had tax due to the Department in the amount of $112.00. Along with

the filing of her personal income tax return, the Taxpayer submitted payment to the Department

in the amount of $112.00. The Department entered the information reported by the Taxpayer on

her personal income tax return and determined that the Taxpayer failed to claim a low to mid

income exemption which would have reduced the Taxpayer’s liability, and resulted in a refund

owed to the Taxpayer in the amount of $37.00. Without requesting a refund, the Department

issued the Taxpayer a refund in the amount of $37.00.

On May 31, 2011, the Taxpayer filed an application for refund, for tax year 2006,

requesting a refund in the amount of $112.00. On June 28, 2011, the Department sent a letter to

the Taxpayer denying the claim for refund because the request for refund was not filed within

three (3) years of the end of the calendar year in which payment was due.

In this case, the time within which the Taxpayer could claim a refund of 2006 personal

income taxes, which were originally due on April 15, 2007, expired on December 31, 2010. The

Taxpayer’s May 2011 application for refund was filed five months late. For this reason, the

Department properly denied the application for refund.

The Taxpayer explained that she was never informed of the overpayment until it was near

the end of the statute of limitations. The Taxpayer also explained that she was attending to a

very ill mother which prevented her from filing a claim for refund prior to the expiration of the

statute of limitations. The Taxpayer testified that she feels that it is unjust that the Department

did not notify her of her overpayment soon after she filed her 2006 personal income tax return.
In the Matter of Yvonne Gomez, page 3 of 6
The Taxpayer testified that she filed her subsequent tax returns for tax years 2007, 2008, and

2009, and at no time did the Department advise her of being owed a refund for tax year 2006.

The Taxpayer testified that after she received a letter from the Department denying her

application for refund she contacted the Department by telephone on numerous occasions, and

each time she spoke with a different employee from the Department. The Taxpayer testified that

one employee explained that her refund was being held because the Department believed she was

going to file an amended return. The last employee that the Taxpayer talked to advised her to

submit the application for refund, which would be denied, and for her to file an appeal which

would result in the refund being granted. The Taxpayer acknowledged that she did not obtain

any names of the Department’s employees that she spoke with over the telephone and none of the

statements made to the Taxpayer were in writing.

The statute of limitations requires taxpayers to timely file claims for refund to protect the

treasury. The Taxpayer argued that the failure to file a timely claim for refund was attributable,

at least in part, to the Taxpayer having to attend to her ailing mother. The Taxpayer asked the

Hearing Officer to take this into consideration when ruling on her claim for refund. In Kilmer v.

Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122, ¶16, 136 N.M. 440, 99 P.3d 690, the New Mexico Court of Appeals

noted that the purpose of the deadlines set out in §7-1-26 “is to avoid stale claims, which protects

the Department’s ability to stabilize and predict, with some degree of certainty, the funds it

collects and manages.” No exception to the three-year limitation was established. See NMSA

1978, § 7-1-26. The statute of limitations prevents stale claims and effectively places the onus

on the taxpayer to pursue their claim in a timely manner because the taxpayer is the one who can

more easily keep track of their claims for refund. See Kilmer v. Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122, ¶

16, 136 N.M. 440, 99 P.3d 690. If the claim is not filed within the three-year statute of

In the Matter of Yvonne Gomez, page 4 of 6
limitations, the claim is barred by the statute. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26. See also, Kilmer,

2004-NMCA-122.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Taxpayer filed a timely written protest to the denial of refund for the 2006 tax

year issued under Letter ID number L1797305920, and jurisdiction lies over the parties and the

subject matter of this protest.

2. The claims for refund were properly denied as it is barred by the statute of

limitations. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26.

For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer's protest is DENIED.

DATED: October 29, 2013.

Richard M. Jacquez
RICHARD M. JACQUEZ
Hearing Officer
Taxation & Revenue Department
Post Office Box 630
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0630

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 7-1-25, the parties have the right to appeal this decision by

filing a notice of appeal with the New Mexico Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date shown

above. See Rule 12-601 NMRA. If an appeal is not filed within 30 days, this Decision and

Order will become final. A copy of the Notice of Appeal should be mailed to John Griego, P. O.

Box 630, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0630. Mr. Griego may be contacted at 505-827-0466.

In the Matter of Yvonne Gomez, page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I mailed the foregoing Order to the parties listed below this _ day
of ___, 2013 in the following manner:

First Class Mail # ________ Interoffice Mail

Yvonne Gomez Aaron Rodriguez
4709 Delamar Avenue NE Staff Attorney
Albuquerque, NM 87110-1186 Taxation and Revenue Department

.

John Griego
Legal Assistant
Hearing Bureau
Taxation & Revenue Department
Post Office Box 630
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0630

In the Matter of Yvonne Gomez, page 6 of 6