Did Mosaic earn interest from the date it filed a $1.7 million compensating-tax refund form without explaining the factual and legal basis or providing invoices?

Plain-English summary

Mosaic Potash Carlsbad was not entitled to interest dating from its original $1,719,342.03 compensating-tax refund filing because that filing lacked the facts, legal explanation, and transaction support required for a valid claim. The claim became valid only after Mosaic supplied the missing documentation, and the Department approved the refund within the 60-day no-interest period.

Mosaic filed its refund application on July 24, 2015 for reporting periods in 2012 through 2014. The submission included amended CRS returns and a one-page spreadsheet showing original tax, requested refund, and amended tax by period.

Its entire stated basis was that Mosaic sought a refund of overreported compensating tax under Section 7-9-7. It did not explain:

• why the original tax payments were wrong;
• which purchases or receipts supported the claim;
• the relevant vendors and customers;
• where goods were delivered;
• whether transactions involved property or services; or
• whether nontaxable transaction certificates applied.

The Department repeatedly requested vendor summaries, invoices, and transaction details.

A refund amount without the “why” was not a valid claim

Section 7-1-26(A) required a written refund claim to state the taxpayer, tax type, amount, period, and a brief factual and legal basis.

Regulation 3.1.9.8 likewise required enough information to process the claim and provided that an incomplete claim became valid only when the missing information was supplied.

The AHO found Mosaic had provided the “what”—the requested amount by period—but not the “why.” A conclusory statement that tax was overreported did not give the Department an actionable basis to evaluate a claim exceeding $1.7 million.

The decision read the invalid-claim regulation narrowly. A Department could not keep a sufficient claim invalid through endless information requests or its own lack of diligence. Here, however, Mosaic's initial filing was severely deficient, and the Department diligently sought the basic support.

Mosaic itself asked the Department to wait

Mosaic gradually supplied spreadsheets and invoices during late 2015 and early 2016, while the Department continued requesting details.

On April 22, 2016, Mosaic's representative asked the Department not to process the claim until Mosaic could provide more documentation. The AHO treated that request as further evidence that the claim was not yet adequately supported.

Mosaic delivered the necessary additional information on May 9, 2016. The claim became valid on that date.

Approval within 60 days meant no interest

Section 7-1-68 generally required interest on an overpayment from the refund-claim date. But no interest was payable when the Department issued the refund within 60 days of the valid claim.

The Department approved $1,170,856.89 within days of the May 9 valid claim. Because the approval was well inside 60 days, Mosaic received no interest.

Result: protest DENIED. Mosaic kept the approved refund but received no interest on it.

Text note: Finding 27 and the analysis state that the Department issued the partial approval on May 19, 2016. Conclusion E says May 20, 2016 and cites Section 7-1-69(D)(2)(b), while the analysis identifies the refund-interest provision as Section 7-1-68(D)(2)(b). Either approval date was within 60 days of May 9, so the discrepancy did not change the stated outcome.

What this means for you

Businesses filing large refund claims

Do not submit only amended returns and a requested total. State the precise factual and legal basis and attach records that let the Department test the claim transaction by transaction.

Taxpayers seeking refund interest

Interest timing begins with a valid claim, not necessarily the first form filed. Missing statutory elements or processing information can postpone the operative date.

Taxpayers responding to information requests

Track what the Department asks for and respond completely. A taxpayer's own request to delay review while gathering documents can support a finding that the earlier submission was incomplete.

Common questions

Q: How much refund did Mosaic originally claim?
A: $1,719,342.03 in compensating tax for 2012-2014.

Q: How much did the Department approve?
A: $1,170,856.89.

Q: Why was the July 2015 claim invalid?
A: It did not state meaningful facts or law explaining why the tax was overpaid and lacked the supporting transaction records needed for review.

Q: When did the claim become valid?
A: May 9, 2016, when Mosaic supplied the requested additional information.

Q: Why was no interest due?
A: The Department approved the valid claim within the statute's 60-day no-interest window.

Q: Can the Department always delay validity by asking for more records?
A: No. The decision said the invalid-claim rule should be applied narrowly and requires diligent, good-faith Department review. Mosaic's initial claim was genuinely missing its basic factual and legal basis.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulation:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-9-7 — compensating tax
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26(A) — required elements of a refund claim
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-68(C) and (D)(2)(b) — refund interest and the 60-day exception
• Regulation 3.1.9.8(D), (E), and (F) NMAC — valid claims, processing information, and when an incomplete claim becomes valid

Cases cited:

• Corrections Corp. of America of Tennessee v. State, 2007-NMCA-148 — taxpayer's burden on a refund claim
• State v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-012 — related statutes read together
• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department, 2006-NMCA-050 — weight given to agency regulations
• Marbob Energy Corp. v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission, 2009-NMSC-013 — mandatory effect of “shall”

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc.
• Decision PDF: D&O 17-15

Original ruling text

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE
TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
MOSAIC POTASH CARLSBAD, INC. No. 17-15
TO THE FAILURE TO GRANT OR TO DENY REFUND
PROTEST ACKNOWLEDGED BY LETTER ID NO. L0037138992

DECISION AND ORDER

A protest hearing occurred on the above captioned matter on December 15, 2016 before

Brian VanDenzen, Esq., Chief Hearing Officer, in Santa Fe. At the hearing, Wryan Capps, CPA,

of Axiom CPAs and Business Advisors, LLC, appeared representing Mosaic Potash Carlsbad,

Inc. (“Taxpayer”). Accountant Everett Trujillo of Axiom also appeared as a Taxpayer witness in

this matter. Staff Attorney Cordelia Friedman appeared representing the State of New Mexico

Taxation and Revenue Department (“Department”). Protest Auditor Danny Pogan appeared as a

witness for the Department. Taxpayers Exhibits #1-#5, #8, and #9 were admitted into the record.

Department Exhibits A-C, H, I, and J were admitted into the record. Based on the evidence and

arguments presented, IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On July 24, 2015, Taxpayer submitted a claim for refund of $1,719,342.03 in

compensating tax for the CRS reporting periods from January 1, 2012 through December 31,

2014. [Taxpayer Ex. #1.1].

2015. The Department did not grant or deny Taxpayer’s claim for refund by November

21, 2015, within 120-days of the claim.

3. On February 4, 2016, within 210-days of the submission of its claim to the

Department, Taxpayer timely protested the Department’s inaction on the claim for refund.

4. On February 9, 2016, the Department’s protest office acknowledged receipt of a

valid protest.

5. On March 17, 2016, the Department filed a request for hearing in this matter with

the Administrative Hearings Office, a separate and distinct agency.

6. On March 17, 2016, the Administrative Hearings Office set this matter for a

telephonic scheduling hearing on April 15, 2016.

7. On April 19, 2016, a scheduling hearing in fact was held in this matter and neither

party objected that holding that scheduling hearing satisfied the 90-day hearing requirement of

the statute. The parties requested additional time to work on the claim for refund rather than

scheduling the matter for a merits hearing.

8. On April 19, 2016, the Administrative Hearings Office set this matter for a second

telephonic scheduling hearing on October 7, 2016.

9. On October 7, 2016, a Scheduling Hearing occurred, and dates and times for a

scheduling order were agreed to by the parties and hearing officer.

10. On October 13, 2016, the Administrative Hearings Office issued a Scheduling

Order and Notice of Administrative Hearing, setting a merits hearing in this matter on December

15, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.

11. Department FYI-105, and the Department’s Application for Refund Instructions

direct taxpayers requesting a claim for refund to attach supporting documentation with their

claim. [Dept. Ex.’s A & B].

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 2 of 13

12. As part of the original July 24, 2015 claim for refund of $1,719,342.03 in

compensating tax, Taxpayer filled out an Application for Refund on the Department’s form

listing pro forma information about the claim. In pertinent part, Taxpayer’s claim included the

following information:

a. As the basis of refund, Taxpayer simply stated that “Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc

seeks a refund of over reported compensating taxes pursuant to NMSA § 7-9-7 for

the period of Jan 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014.” [Taxpayer Ex. #1.1].

b. Taxpayer provided a single page spreadsheet, listing the original compensating

tax reported by reporting period, the refund amount by reporting period, and the

amended compensating tax amount by reporting period. [Taxpayer Ex. #1.4].

c. Taxpayer provided amended CRS-1 returns, listing the new amount of reported

compensating tax, along with the corresponding TAP return confirmation sheet,

showing that the electronic returns had been electronically filed. [Taxpayer Ex.

1.5 through #1.76].

13. Taxpayer’s July 24, 2015 claim for refund did not include a specific statement or

explanation why it had originally made $1,719,342.03 in compensating tax payments during the

relevant period, what information had led it to conclude that payment was in error, or a

meaningful explanation why it was now entitled to a refund of $1,719,342.03.

14. On July 24, 2015, Taxpayer did not provide any contracts, invoices, bills of sale,

bills of lading, purchase orders, delivery receipt/confirmation, or other information from which

the Department could reasonably examine Taxpayer’s pro forma claim for refund of

$1,719,342.03 in compensating tax.

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 3 of 13

15. On August 21, 2015, through letter id. no. L1525993520, the Department

acknowledged receiving Taxpayer’s claim for refund and indicated it would review the claim

once it received a vendor summary and invoices for the relevant period. The Department warned

Taxpayer that the claim could be denied if the information was not provided within 60-days.

[Taxpayer Ex. #2.1].

16. On October 8, 2015, through letter id. no. L1435297840, the Department

acknowledged receiving Taxpayer’s claim for refund and indicated it would review the claim

once it received a vendor summary and invoices for the relevant period. [Dept. Ex. C].

17. On October 9, 2016, on behalf of Taxpayer, Everett Trujillo of Axiom emailed

the Department a detailed spreadsheet by year, showing the compensating tax related to each

vendor. Mr. Trujillo only provided the spreadsheet and did not provide the requested invoices.

[Taxpayer Ex. #3.1; 4.1-4.2]

18. On October 16, 2016, the Department replied to Mr. Trujillo’s email by

requesting additional information about the invoices from Taxpayer. [Taxpayer Ex. #3.6]

19. On December 1, 2016, in response to the Department’s October 16, 2016 inquiry

for more information, Mr. Trujillo emailed Taxpayer client invoices from Taxpayer to the

Department. [Taxpayer Ex. #3.6-11; Dept. Ex. H].

20. On January 12, 2016, the Department mailed Taxpayer a letter listing additional

information it required before it could review the claim for refund, which was similar to the first

acknowledgement letter the Department sent in August of 2015. [Taxpayer Ex. #5.1].

21. On January 15, 2016, the Department’s Robin Cruz emailed Mr. Trujillo that she

received the materials from Taxpayer and would review further with the auditor. [Taxpayer Ex.

3.12].

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 4 of 13

22. On March 30, 2016, the Department’s Robert Cruz emailed Mr. Trujillo an initial

refund computation and a request for more information, specifically invoices from each vendor

not registered. [Taxpayer Ex. #3.13].

23. On April 22, 2016, Mr. Trujillo emailed the Department on behalf of Taxpayer

and asked that the Department not process Taxpayer’s refund claim until Taxpayer had an

opportunity to submit additional documentation in support of the claim. [Dept. Ex. J].

24. On May 6, 2016, Mr. Trujillo emailed the Department that Taxpayer would be

providing additional information soon. [Taxpayer Ex. #3.14].

25. On May 9, 2016, Mr. Trujillo emailed Taxpayer’s invoices to the Department.

Taxpayer continued to provide additional information over the next ten days as the Department

requested more information for review. [Taxpayer Ex. 3.15-25; Dept. Ex. I].

26. On or about May 17, 2016, the Department indicated in an email to Mr. Trujillo

that it would approve the refund. [Taxpayer Ex. 3.26].

27. On May 19, 2016, under letter id. no. L0402155056, the Department issued

Taxpayer a partial approval of the claim for refund in the amount of $1,170,856.89. [Taxpayer

Ex. #9.1].

28. In light of the partial approval of the claim for refund, the parties argued that the

only remaining issue at protest was Taxpayer’s belief it was entitled to interest on the claim for

refund from the July 24, 2015 filing date.

DISCUSSION

The issue in this case is whether, and from what date, Taxpayer is entitled to interest on

its claim for refund. Taxpayer argues that since it provided all the information required under the

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 5 of 13
Application for Refund instructions on July 24, 2015, it was entitled to interest from that date

until the Department approved the claim on May 19, 2016. Conversely, the Department argues

that July 24, 2015 claim for refund was invalid because it lacked essential information and only

became a valid claim when Taxpayer provided all the necessary information on May 9, 2016.

Consequently, the Department avers that no interest was due on Taxpayer’s claim for refund

because the refund was granted within 60-days of the valid claim.

Presumption of Correctness.

Since no assessment was issued in this case, no presumption of correctness attaches under

NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17 (C) (2007). Nevertheless, Taxpayer still has the burden to establish

its entitlement to the claim for refund and accompanying interest. See Regulation 3.8.10 (A)

NMAC; See also Corr. Corp. of Am. of Tenn. v. State, 2007-NMCA-148, ¶17 & ¶29, 142 N.M. 779

(Court of Appeals reviewed a refund denial through “lens of presumption of correctness” and

applied the principle that deductions underlying the claim for refund are to be construed narrowly).

Thus, Taxpayer carries the burden in this matter.

Claims for Refund and Payment of Interest on Claims for Refund.

Under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-68 (2013), “[a]s provided in this section, interest shall

be allowed and paid on the amount of tax overpaid by a person that is subsequently refunded or

credited to that person.” The statutory use of the word “shall” makes it a mandatory provision.

See Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 2009-NMSC-013, ¶22, 146 N.M. 24,

32 (use of the word “shall” in a statute indicates provision is mandatory absent clear indication to

the contrary). Generally, interest on refunds is paid from the date the claim for refund was filed until

“a date preceding by not more than thirty days the date of the credit or refund to any person.” § 7-1-

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 6 of 13
68 (C). However, in pertinent part, no interest shall be allowed or paid on the credit or refund if the

credit or refund is made within sixty days of the date of the claim for refund. See § 7-1-68 (D)(2)(b).

At the heart of the protest is whether Taxpayer’s July 24, 2015 claim for refund constituted a

valid and sufficient claim to trigger interest under that section. Although NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-

68 (2013) makes no express reference to the validity of a claim for refund as part of the interest

determination on a refund, Section 7-1-68 must be read in conjunction with claim for refund

provision under the Tax Administration Act, NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-26 (2015). See State v.

Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-012, ¶22, 146 NM 14 (statutes should be read in harmony with statutes

dealing with the same subject matter); See also Hayes v. Hagemeier, 1963-NMSC-095, ¶9, 75 N.M.

70 (“All legislation is to be construed in connection with the general body of law.”).

Section 7-1-26 of the Tax Administration Act addresses what constitutes a claim for refund.

Under that section, a person who believes they paid tax in excess, may file a written claim for

refund with the Department by the applicable time deadline. Under Section 7-1-26 (A), a written

claim for refund must include:

(1) the taxpayer's name, address and identification number;
(2) the type of tax for which a refund is being claimed, the credit or rebate
denied or the property levied upon;
(3) the sum of money or other property being claimed;
(4) with respect to refund, the period for which overpayment was made; and
(5) a brief statement of the facts and the law on which the claim is based,
which may be referred to as the "basis for the refund".

Until these statutory claim for refund requirements are satisfied, there is logically no valid claim for

refund that could trigger the interest calculation provisions of Section 7-1-68.

Consistent with the statutory requirements for a valid claim for refund, Department

Regulation 3.1.9.8 (D) NMAC establishes that “a claim for refund is valid if it states the nature of

the complaint and affirmative relief requested and if it contains information sufficient to allow

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 7 of 13
processing of the claim.” Department regulations interpreting a statute are presumed proper and are

to be given substantial weight. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Taxation &

Revenue, 2006-NMCA-50, ¶16, 139 N.M. 498, 503. Regulation 3.1.9.8 (E) NMAC lists the

information sufficient to process a claim:

(1) taxpayer's name, address and identification number;
(2) the type or types of tax for which the refund is being claimed;
(3) the sum of money being claimed;
(4) the period for which the overpayment was made;
(5) the basis for the refund; and
(6) a copy of the appropriate, fully completed amended return for each
period for which a refund is claimed.

Regulation 3.1.9.8 (F) NMAC (emphasis added) goes on to state that

[a] claim that does not include the information required by Subsections D
and E of 3.1.9.8 NMAC is invalid. The department may return any invalid
claim to the taxpayer. Alternatively the department may advise the taxpayer
of the missing information and that the claim is invalid without submission
of the missing information. If the taxpayer re-submits the claim with the
required information or, when the return is not returned, submits all required
information, the claim becomes valid only at the time the claim is re-
submitted or the required information is supplied.

There are potentially competing interests at play in interpreting the statutory and regulatory

provisions. On the one hand, because Regulation 3.1.9.8 (F) NMAC gives the Department the

ability to find a claim invalid without sufficient additional information, there is the possibility that

the Department could unnecessarily seek additional information on an otherwise valid claim in

order to minimize the time period where interest might be required under Section 7-1-68. On the

other hand, to say that the Department must immediately deny any claim when the claim lacks basic

details about the facts and/or and law supporting the claim would discourage the Department from

seeking more information from a taxpayer about the claim. In order to balance these concerns and

be consistent with the controlling statutory provisions, Regulation 3.1.9.8 (E) NMAC’s “invalid

claim” language must be read narrowly to apply only when the initial refund claim was severely

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 8 of 13
lacking in the statutorily required basis of the claim and that the Department operated diligently and

in good faith to seek additional information from taxpayer. The application of Regulation 3.1.9.8

(E) NMAC to any situation where a taxpayer’s claim met the basic statutory requirements of

Section 7-1-26 (A) of a claim but the Department did not act diligently in reviewing the claim

and/or otherwise simply requested a never-ending stream of additional information to justify its

initial delay would be inconsistent with the mandatory interest provisions of Section 7-1-68.

Under the facts of this protest and the relevant law, despite Taxpayer’s assertions at hearing

that it provided the requested information and the Department decided to conduct an audit of the

claim, an objective review of the claim for refund shows that it was perfunctory and lacking in the

detail necessary to meaningfully review a claim of that magnitude. Attached to the Application for

Refund was a spreadsheet breaking down the individual reporting periods and the amended returns

for each reporting period. The basis for the claim for refund listed on the Application for Refund

amounted to one conclusory sentence: “[Taxpayer] seeks a refund of over reported compensating

taxes pursuant to NMSA § 7-9-7 for the period of Jan 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014.” This

simply does not provide any actionable facts or law for which the Department could use to judge the

validity of the claim for refund of $1,719,342.03. Nor did Taxpayer provide any supporting

evidence for the claim, such as identifying the specific receipts where it had originally paid

compensating tax, the customer name for those receipts, the invoices associated with those receipts,

or any other information that would establish the factual basis for the claim. While Taxpayer did

provide the Department with the “what” (the amount of the claim for refund, broken down by

reporting period), it made no effort to provide the Department with “why” it was entitled to the

claimed refund. The “why” information is the basis of the claim required under Section 7-1-26

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 9 of 13
(A)(5) requires and the statement of the nature of the complaint and the affirmative relief requested

required under Regulation 3.1.9.8 (D).

Without an articulated legal and factual basis for the claim for refund of $1,719,342.03, the

Department lacked information to consider the merits of the claim upon the July 24, 2015 receipt of

the application for refund. On August 21, 2015, the Department informed Taxpayer that while it had

received the claim, in order to review it, it needed to receive additional information within 60-days

of the claim. In fact, the record shows that the Department diligently sought out information from

Taxpayer about the claim. On October 8, 2015, the Department again mailed Taxpayer a list of

information it needed to review the claim for refund. The Department also emailed back and forth

with Taxpayer’s representative Everett Trujillo repeatedly, asking for specific information,

including relevant invoices and detailed spreadsheets breaking down the claim by customer and

invoice. In the absence of an explanation of the basis of the claim including facts and the law

supporting the claim, the invoices were particularly important to determining the validity of the

claim for refund of compensating tax because they would show the client name (which could

establish whether client had nexus with New Mexico), location of client, shipping destination,

whether a tangible or a service was sold, and whether a nontaxable transaction certificate would be

issued. While Mr. Trujillo did provide more information on October 9, 2015, than on the original

claim, it did not include all the requested information and the Department continued to have to

request specific factual information about the nature of the claim. This process continued through

December 2015, January 2016, February 2016, and March 2016.

While there may be an argument that the claim became valid at some point in December,

January, February, or March, on April 22, 2016, Taxpayer’s representative emailed the Department

and asked the Department to hold off on reviewing Taxpayer’s claim for refund until Taxpayer had

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 10 of 13
an opportunity to submit additional documentation. This email suggests that even Taxpayer was

aware it had not provided sufficient support for its claim into April of 2016. On May 9, 2016,

Taxpayer submitted that additional information, after which the Department promptly processed the

claim within ten days. Taxpayer’s July 24, 2015, Application for Refund did not provide a legal

and/or factual basis of support, as further evidenced by the Department’s repeated diligent efforts to

obtain pertinent information and Taxpayer’s own request on April 22, 2016 to delay review of the

claim until it could gather the supporting information.

In light of these facts and the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for the filing

of a valid claim for refund, Taxpayer’s July 24, 2015 claim was incomplete under Section 7-1-26

(A) because it did not provide a brief summary of the facts and law supporting the claim and was

invalid under Regulation 3.1.9.8 (D, E, & F) NMAC. As permitted under Regulation 3.1.9.8 (F)

NMAC, the Department informed Taxpayer that it would review the claim for refund once it

received additional information. Pursuant to Regulation 3.1.9.8 (F) NMAC, the claim did not

become valid until Taxpayer provided that additional information on May 9, 2016. On May 19,

2016, within sixty days of the valid claim, the Department approved Taxpayer’s claim for refund.

Thus, under Section 7-1-68 (D)(2)(b), no interest was due on the claim for refund made within 60-

days of the valid claim. Consequently, Taxpayer’s protest is denied.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Taxpayer filed a timely, written protest to the Department’s inaction on their claim

for refund, and jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest.

B. Holding the April 15, 2016 Scheduling Hearing satisfied the 90-day hearing

requirement of NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-8 (2015).

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 11 of 13
C. Taxpayer’s July 24, 2015 claim for refund was invalid because it did not contain a

brief description of the facts and laws supporting the claim required under NMSA 1978, Section 7-

1-26 (A) (2015), and did not contain sufficient information to make a valid claim under Regulation

3.1.9.8 NMAC.

D. Taxpayer’s claim for refund became valid on May 9, 2016, when it provided the

requested additional information.

E. Because the Department approved Taxpayer’s May 9, 2016 valid claim for refund

on May 20, 2016, within sixty days, no interest shall be paid under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-69

(D)(2)(b) (2013).

For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayers’ protest IS DENIED.

DATED: March 29, 2017.

Brian VanDenzen
Chief Hearing Officer
Administrative Hearings Office
P.O. Box 6400
Santa Fe, NM 87502

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-25 (2015), 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. If an appeal is not timely filed with the Court of Appeals within 30 days,

this Decision and Order will become final. Rule of Appellate Procedure 12-601 NMRA

articulates the requirements of perfecting an appeal of an administrative decision with the Court

of Appeals. Either party filing an appeal shall file a courtesy copy of the appeal with the

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 12 of 13
Administrative Hearings Office contemporaneous with the Court of Appeals filing so that the

Administrative Hearings Office may being preparing the record proper. The parties will each be

provided with a copy of the record proper at the time of the filing of the record proper with the

Court of Appeals, which occurs within 14 days of the Administrative Hearings Office receipt of

the docketing statement from the appealing party. See Rule 12-209 NMRA.

In the Matter of the Protest of Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., page 13 of 13