Could Lynda Giang obtain 2008 and 2009 personal-income-tax refunds when serious medical issues delayed her returns until 2014?

Plain-English summary

Lynda Giang's 2008 and 2009 personal-income-tax refund claims were time-barred because she did not file them until 2014. Serious and extended medical issues explained the delay but did not establish an exception to New Mexico's three-year refund limitation.

Giang filed returns for several tax years in 2014. The Department issued refunds for some years but denied the 2008 and 2009 claims.

Each claim had its own outside date

Section 7-1-26(D) required a refund claim within three years after the end of the calendar year in which payment originally was due.

That made the outside dates:

• December 31, 2012 for the 2008 claim; and
• December 31, 2013 for the 2009 claim.

Both 2014 filings were late.

Medical hardship did not create a statutory exception

Giang explained that serious health problems continued over an extended period. She was still working, but refund paperwork was not a priority. She argued that it was unfair for the Department to keep money otherwise refundable solely because she missed a deadline.

The AHO acknowledged the unfortunate and sympathetic circumstances. But refund limitations place responsibility on the taxpayer to pursue a claim while records and facts remain current.

Section 7-1-26 contained specific exceptions, including circumstances involving an IRS adjustment. Giang neither claimed nor proved that any statutory exception applied. The hearing officer therefore had no basis to extend the deadline for medical hardship.

Result: protest DENIED. Both refund denials were upheld. The decision did not provide the requested refund amounts.

What this means for you

Taxpayers with unfiled refund returns

Prioritize the oldest potential refund year. Filing after the return's ordinary due date may still produce a refund, but the separate claim limitation can permanently close.

Taxpayers facing illness or incapacity

Do not assume hardship automatically tolls a state tax deadline. Ask whether the governing statute contains a specific extension and preserve dated medical and filing records.

Families and advisers helping with tax administration

Create a deadline inventory, request transcripts, and file protective claims where permitted. A sympathetic explanation may not give an administrative hearing officer authority to disregard a statutory limit.

Common questions

Q: When was the 2008 refund claim due?
A: By the end of 2012.

Q: When was the 2009 refund claim due?
A: By the end of 2013.

Q: When did Giang file both returns?
A: In 2014.

Q: Did the AHO dispute that she had serious medical issues?
A: No. It accepted the circumstances as sympathetic but found no applicable statutory exception.

Q: Did the decision state how much refund she sought?
A: No.

Citations and references

Statute:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26(D) — three-year refund-claim limitation and statutory exceptions

Case cited:

• Kilmer v. Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122 — stale refund claims and the taxpayer's responsibility to pursue relief timely

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Lynda Q. Giang
• Decision PDF: D&O 15-23

Original ruling text

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE
TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
LYNDA Q. GIANG, No. 15-23
TO THE DENIALS OF REFUND ISSUED UNDER
LETTER ID NOS. L1523222480 and L0201639888

DECISION AND ORDER

A formal hearing on the above-referenced protest was held June 19, 2015, before Hearing

Officer Dee Dee Hoxie. The Taxation and Revenue Department (Department) was represented by

Ms. Elena Morgan, Staff Attorney. Mr. Danny Pogan, Auditor, also appeared on behalf of the

Department. Ms. Lynda Giang (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. On November 7, 2014, the Department denied the Taxpayer’s request for refund on her

2008 personal income taxes (PIT).

2. On December 4, 2014, the Department denied the Taxpayer’s request for refund on her

2009 personal income taxes.

3. On January 5, 2015, the Taxpayer filed a formal protest letter.

4. On January 26, 2015, the Department filed a Request for Hearing asking that the

Taxpayer’s protest be scheduled for a formal administrative hearing.

5. On January 27, 2015, the Hearings Office issued a notice of hearing. The hearing date

was set within ninety days of the protest.

6. On February 4, 2015, the Taxpayer requested a continuance of the hearing.
7. On February 5, 2015, the request for continuance was granted, and the delay of the

hearing was attributable to the Taxpayer.

8. On February 5, 2015, the Hearings Bureau sent amended notices of hearing.

9. The Taxpayer filed her PIT returns for several tax years in 2014.

10. In 2014, the Taxpayer filed the PIT returns for her 2008 and 2009 taxes.

11. The Department issued refunds for some of the tax years, but denied the refunds for the

2008 and 2009 tax years based upon the statute of limitations.

12. The Taxpayer filed her PIT returns late because of serious and extended medical issues.

DISCUSSION

The issue to be decided is whether the Department properly denied the claims for refund

for the 2008 and 2009 tax years.

Statute of Limitations for Filing a Claim.

All claims for refund must be filed within three years of the end of the calendar year in

which the payment was originally due. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26 (D). Therefore, the 2008

claim was required to be filed by the end of 2012, and the 2009 claim was required to be filed by

the end of 2013. Both claims were filed in 2014, so both claims were beyond the three-year

statute of limitations.

The Taxpayer explained that she was experiencing serious medical issues that continued

over an extended period of time. The Taxpayer was still working during that time, but doing the

paperwork to claim her refunds was not a priority. The Taxpayer argued that it was unfair for

the Department to keep money she was entitled to be refunded simply because she missed a

deadline. The Department argued that the statute of limitations is a strict deadline, and that the

Lynda Q. Giang
Letter ID Nos. L1523222480 and L0201639888
page 2 of 3
Taxpayer’s circumstances, although unfortunate and sympathetic, do not excuse late filing under

the statute.

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 limitations, the

claim is barred by the statute. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26. See also Kilmer, 2004-NMCA-122.

There are some exceptions to the three-year statute of limitations, such as when an adjustment is

made by the IRS. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26. The Taxpayer did not prove or even claim any

statutory exception to the three-year limitation. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. The Taxpayer filed a timely written protest to the denials of refund for the 2008 and

2009 tax years issued under Letter ID numbers L1523222480 and L0201639888, and jurisdiction

lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest.

B. The claims for refund were properly denied as they were barred by the statute of

limitations. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26.

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

DATED: July 10, 2015.

Dee Dee Hoxie
DEE DEE HOXIE
Hearing Officer
Administrative Hearings Office
Post Office Box 6400
Santa Fe, NM 87502
Lynda Q. Giang
Letter ID Nos. L1523222480 and L0201639888
page 3 of 3