Could a New Mexico concrete contractor recover money taken by bank levy because private consultants had promised to arrange a tax payment plan?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2019. Ezel answers yours, under current New Mexico tax law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
New Mexico lawfully levied $18,607.95 from Rojo Concrete Construction's bank account because the tax debt was delinquent and no active written installment agreement barred collection. The AHO denied the contractor's request to return part of the money.
Rojo Concrete was a sole proprietorship providing concrete construction services around Artesia. The Department's July 2018 warrant listed assessments, penalty, and interest for periods from October 2010 through May 2017.
The amount on the warrant was adjusted from $62,925.76 to $62,832.08 for new accruals and an intervening payment. Wells Fargo received the warrant on July 25 and remitted $18,607.95 from Rojo's business account on July 31.
Owner Guadalupe Rojo acknowledged the underlying debt, that the account was his, and that he had the right to its funds. He protested because he intended to use the deposited money for labor, a septic tank, and other materials on a concrete job.
No installment agreement was in force
Rojo had entered Department payment plans in 2011 and 2013. Both terminated when he missed required payments, and he knew they were no longer effective.
In 2017 he contacted the Department about another plan but learned that a 25% down payment would be required, which he could not afford. He later received a final notice before seizure and still did not enter a new agreement.
Section 7-1-21 required an installment agreement to be in writing and provide monthly payments. An active agreement would stay levy enforcement, but default would allow collection as though the agreement had never existed.
No third written agreement was executed. Rojo was not making monthly payments under one when the levy issued.
Private consultants did not create a Department plan
Rojo paid approximately $5,000 to Clear Creek, a tax consulting firm, to work on federal and New Mexico payment plans. Clear Creek requested records and said it was working on a plan, but never said one had been completed and provided no agreement. Department records confirmed no formal installment arrangement resulted.
He later paid about $3,800 in cash to a person called “Sylvia,” who represented herself as an accountant. She repeatedly requested cash, gave only one handwritten receipt, and once asked him to purchase a rechargeable Walgreens gift card supposedly for a state payment. She told him a plan existed but supplied no documents and later became unreachable.
The Department had no authorization for Sylvia to access Rojo's tax account and no record that she took action to establish a plan. Her statements could not bind the agency or suspend collection.
The warrant and bank surrender were valid
A taxpayer becomes delinquent when an assessment is not protested or paid within 90 days. Rojo did not protest the underlying assessments, had carried a substantial unpaid balance beyond 90 days, and admitted receiving the final notice before seizure.
The warrant and attached schedule satisfied the statutory requirements. Once served, Wells Fargo had to surrender property it held for the delinquent taxpayer. The money was in Rojo's account and belonged to him, even though he intended to use it to pay suppliers and workers.
The AHO could not refund half on equitable grounds
Rojo accepted that the Department was legally justified but asked for half the money back so he could pay Southwest Redi-Mix and Morales Backhoe Service. That request effectively sought a constructive trust based on the money being intended for others.
The Administrative Hearings Office had no statutory authority to create that equitable remedy. The decision noted that Rojo may have had a claim against Sylvia for deceptive conduct, but found no wrongdoing by the Department.
Result: protest DENIED. The levy remained valid, the $18,607.95 stayed applied to the debt, and interest continued on the remaining unpaid tax.
What this means for you
Taxpayers negotiating installment agreements
Do not assume discussions or third-party promises stop collection. Confirm that the Department has executed a written agreement and that every required payment and condition remains current.
Businesses hiring tax-resolution firms
Require written engagement terms, account authorization, copies of agency submissions, and the executed payment agreement. Payment to a consultant is not payment to the tax agency.
Contractors holding job funds
Money in the delinquent taxpayer's bank account can be levied even when earmarked for materials, employees, or subcontractors, absent a legally established ownership right in someone else.
Taxpayers seeking fairness-based relief
The AHO can grant only remedies authorized by statute. Financial hardship or third-party deception does not by itself authorize return of a validly levied payment.
Common questions
Q: Did Rojo dispute the underlying tax debt?
A: No. The owner acknowledged the debt and the delinquent status.
Q: Was there an active payment plan when the levy issued?
A: No. Two older plans had terminated after default, and no third written agreement was completed.
Q: Did paying Clear Creek or Sylvia stop collection?
A: No. Neither obtained an executed Department installment agreement, and Sylvia was not authorized on the tax account.
Q: Why could Wells Fargo surrender the money?
A: The Department served a facially valid warrant, and the funds were property of the delinquent taxpayer held by the bank.
Q: Did the intended payments to suppliers make the funds theirs?
A: No. Rojo testified that the account and money were his, despite his plan to spend them on labor and materials.
Q: Could the AHO return half because the situation was sympathetic?
A: No. It lacked statutory authority to impose the requested constructive-trust remedy.
Citations and references
Statutes and regulations:
- NMSA 1978, § 7-1-16 (2013) — delinquent taxpayer
- NMSA 1978, § 7-1-21(A) and (E) (2017) — written installment agreements, collection stay, and default
- NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-31, 7-1-32, and 7-1-34 — levy authority, warrant requirements, and surrender of property
- NMSA 1978, § 7-1-67 (2013) — continuing interest on unpaid tax
- NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-17(C) and 7-1-3(Y) — assessment presumption and tax definition
- NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1B-1 through 7-1B-9 — scope of AHO authority
- Regulations 3.1.10.9 and 3.1.6.13 NMAC — bank surrender duty and assessment presumption
Cases cited:
- AA Oilfield Service v. New Mexico State Corporation Commission, 1994-NMSC-085 — administrative quasi-judicial authority does not include unauthorized equitable remedies
- Madrid v. Rodriguez (In re Estate of Duran), 2003-NMSC-008 — circumstances supporting a constructive trust
- Archuleta v. O'Cheskey, 1972-NMCA-165 — taxpayer burden to overcome an assessment
Source
- Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
- Decision post: Rojo Concrete Construction
- Decision PDF: D&O 19-04
Original ruling text
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE
TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
ROJO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION D&O # 19-04
TO WARRANT OF LEVY ISSUED UNDER
LETTER ID NO. L1434808122
v. Case Number 18.10-251L
NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DECISION AND ORDER
A hearing on the above captioned protest occurred on December 17, 2018 before Ignacio V.
Gallegos, Hearing Officer, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Guadalupe Rojo, owner, appeared on behalf of
Rojo Concrete Construction (“Taxpayer”), accompanied by his daughter, Destiny Rojo, who assisted Mr.
Rojo with translation from English to Spanish and Spanish to English 1. The Taxation and Revenue
Department (“Department”) was represented by Mr. Richard Pener, Staff Attorney. Guadalupe Rojo
appeared as the sole witness for the Taxpayer. Nicholas Pacheco, Protest Auditor, appeared as the
witness for the Department.
Taxpayer presented no additional exhibits. The Department’s Exhibits A-1 through A-6, B-3, C-1,
D-1 through D-5, and F-1 were admitted without objection. The Hearing Officer took administrative notice
of all documents contained in the administrative file. All exhibits are more fully described in the
Administrative Exhibit Log.
The main issue presented before this tribunal in this protest is whether the Department lawfully
executed collections against a bank account held by Taxpayer. After making findings of fact in this matter
and discussing the arguments and the pertinent legal authority in more detail, this tribunal ultimately
1
Mr. Rojo’s understanding of English as a second language appeared to the hearing officer very proficient. Mr.
Rojo gave statements in English, answered questions in English, and read through documents in English. The
assistance of a contemporaneous translation service were made available, but Mr. Rojo declined using the service.
Mr. Rojo’s daughter Destiny is fluent in both English and Spanish and she proved to be very helpful in translating
when called upon by Mr. Rojo in instances in which Mr. Rojo’s English proficiency faltered.
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 1 of 11
concludes/rules that the Department prevails in this matter, as the Taxpayer was unable to show that a
payment plan was in force at the time to justify a stay of the levy, or to demonstrate that the funds in his
bank account were the property of another.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- On July 24, 2018, the Department printed a Warrant of Levy letter to Wells Fargo Bank.
The letter was served on July 25, 2018. [Department exhibit A-1 through A-4, Letter ID #L1434808112,
Testimony of Mr. Pacheco, HR 1:15:00-1:18:30].
- The Warrant of Levy after having been printed, was altered slightly, to reflect additional
interest and penalty, as well as deduction for a payment made between the date of printing and the date of
service, reducing the total due from Taxpayer from $62,925.76 to $62,832.08, a difference of $93.68.
[Department exhibit A-1 through A-4, Letter ID #L1434808112, Testimony of Mr. Pacheco, HR 1:16:00-
1:18:30, HR 1:30:10-1:32:00].
- The Warrant of Levy contained a list of tax assessments, with associated penalties and
interest, for various tax periods between October 1, 2010 and May 31, 2017. [Department exhibit A-1
through A-4].
- On July 30, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank issued a cashier’s check, and on July 31, 2018
remitted payment to the Department of $18,607.95 from the account it held for Rojo Concrete
Construction. [Department Exhibit A-5 and A-6].
- On July 30, 2018, Guadalupe Rojo submitted a formal protest letter. In the protest letter,
Taxpayer asserted that he had been defrauded into believing that a payment plan was in place. The protest
letter was stamped as received by the Department protest office on July 31, 2018. [Administrative file].
- On August 6, 2018, the Department acknowledged receipt of the formal protest. [Letter
ID # L0736468784].
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 2 of 11
- On October 9, 2018, the Department filed a Request for Hearing asking that the
Taxpayer’s protest be scheduled for a scheduling conference hearing, alleging the amount in controversy
of $18,607.95. [Administrative File].
- On October 9, 2018, the Administrative Hearings Office issued the Notice of Telephonic
Scheduling Hearing, setting this matter for October 25, 2018, within 90 days of the Department’s receipt
of the protest. [Administrative file].
- On October 25, 2018, the undersigned Hearing Officer conducted a telephonic scheduling
hearing. Guadalupe Rojo appeared for Taxpayer, accompanied by his daughter Destiny Rojo. Richard
Pener, staff attorney appeared representing the Department. The scheduling hearing was held a total of 86
days from when the protest was acknowledged by the Department. [ Administrative file].
- On October 25, 2018 the Administrative Hearings Office issued a Scheduling Order and
Notice of Administrative Hearing, setting this matter for a merits hearing on December 17, 2018, in Santa
Fe, New Mexico.
- On December 17, 2018, a hearing was held at the Administrative Hearings Office, in the
Wendell Chino Building, Suite 269, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and testimony and exhibits were entered.
- Mr. Guadalupe Rojo is the sole proprietor of Rojo Concrete Construction. He works
providing concrete construction services in and around Artesia, New Mexico. [Testimony of Mr. Rojo,
HR 13:00- 13:30, HR 28:00-28:50].
- Mr. Rojo acknowledged the validity of the underlying debt. [Testimony of Mr. Rojo, HR
15:00-16:00, HR: 26:00-27:00, ].
- The Wells Fargo bank account that issued the levied funds was Mr. Rojo’s account. He
had the right to money in the account. [Testimony of Mr. Rojo, HR 27:00-27:50, HR 31:15-32:40].
- Mr. Rojo was approached by Clear Creek, a tax consulting firm, to help him with his
taxes in 2017. Mr. Rojo hired Clear Creek in October of 2017 and paid approximately $5,000 to Clear
Creek with the goal of initiating tax payment plans for Internal Revenue Service (IRS) debt and New
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 3 of 11
Mexico tax debt. Clear Creek required $2500 to start looking at his case, and another $2500 after their
review, because it was what they called a very difficult case. By December of 2017, he had paid the total
of $5,000 to Clear Creek. [Testimony of Mr. Rojo, HR 22:30-23:30, HR 38:45-41:00].
- Mr. Rojo communicated with Clear Creek several times and was unhappy with the
progress they made. The Clear Creek agent asked for bank statements, which Mr. Rojo provided, and
informed Mr. Rojo that they were working on setting up a payment plan. They never informed Mr. Rojo
that a plan was in place or provided documentation. [Testimony of Mr.Rojo, HR 41:00-42:00].
- Mr. Pacheco, as protest auditor, reviewed the Rojo Concrete Construction file. He took
note that the file contained some contact from Clear Creek from October to December of 2017, but he
noted that no formal installment agreement had been achieved. [Testimony of Mr. Pacheco, HR 1:33:20-
1:34:45].
- On advice of a friend, in February of 2018, Mr. Rojo hired someone named “Sylvia” who
held herself out to be an accountant. He paid her approximately $3,800 to establish a payment plan for
the state tax debts. His payments were made in cash, starting with a payment of $800. Sylvia would call
Mr. Rojo and tell him she needed $300 or $400. She claimed that the documentation she was getting
from the state cost 25₵ per page. He would meet her in Roswell, or at his work site. She only gave him
one handwritten receipt on a piece of paper for one of the payments he made. [Testimony of Mr.Rojo,
HR 18:00-19:00, 20:00-21:00, HR 23:20-23:40, HR 35:30-36:15, HR 38:20-38:40, HR 42:15-48:15].
- In one instance, “Sylvia” asked for a Walgreens rechargeable gift card to make a payment
to the state, which Mr. Rojo purchased. She told him that he had a payment plan, but was unable to
provide the papers. Afterwards, Mr. Rojo attempted to contact “Sylvia” but was unable to do so.
[Testimony of Mr.Rojo, HR 20:00-21:40; Exhibit B].
- Mr. Pacheco noted that there was no authorization in the file allowing “Sylvia” access to
Mr. Rojo’s business account information, and there is no record that she took any action on his behalf to
establish a payment plan. [Testimony of Mr. Pacheco, HR 1:34:30-1:35:20].
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 4 of 11
- Mr. Rojo had previously been on payment plans with the Department. The first was on
March 30, 2011. That plan terminated when Mr. Rojo was unable to make scheduled payments. Mr. Rojo
was aware the plan had been terminated. [Testimony of Mr. Rojo, HR 51:15-54:50, Exhibit C-1].
- Mr. Rojo entered into a second payment plan on July 17, 2013. That plan terminated
when Mr. Rojo was unable to make scheduled payments. Mr. Rojo was aware the plan had been
terminated. [Testimony of Mr. Rojo, HR 54:50-1:00:00, Exhibit D-1].
- Mr. Rojo contacted Victoria Gonzales at the Department’s office in Roswell, New
Mexico in July of 2017. Mr. Rojo understood that to enter into another payment plan he would have to
provide a down payment of 25% of the outstanding balance, which was beyond his means. [Testimony of
Mr. Rojo, HR 48:15-50:20].
- It is Department policy to require a taxpayer to make a lump sum payment in advance of
entering into an installment agreement. [Testimony of Mr. Pacheco, HR 1:35:20-1:36:00].
- Once Mr. Rojo received the Final Notice Before Seizure letter from the Department, he
went to speak with Victoria Gonzales again to inquire why it was so much. At that time, he was unable to
enter into an installment agreement. [Testimony of Mr. Rojo, HR 1:01:45-1:03:30, HR 1:12:00-1:13:00,
Exhibit D-4]
- Mr. Rojo had been hired for a concrete construction job, and the money he deposited into
his account in July of 2018 he intended to use to pay for materials and labor. He considered the money in
his account as belonging to others to pay for a septic tank and other materials. This was the reason for his
protest, to see if the Department could return some of it to help him pay others. [Testimony of Mr. Rojo,
HR 14:30-15:00, 26:45-27:15, HR 33:00-34:20
DISCUSSION
The sole issue in this protest is whether to Taxpayer is entitled to a refund of some portion of the
money withdrawn from his business account pursuant to tax levy. Mr. Rojo acknowledged the validity of
the tax debt, and simply wishes to pay the people he owes.
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 5 of 11
Burden of Proof.
Under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17 (C), the underlying assessments of tax issued in this case are
presumed correct. Unless otherwise specified, for the purposes of the Tax Administration Act, “tax” is
defined to include interest and civil penalty. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-3 (Y). Under Regulation 3.1.6.13
NMAC, the presumption of correctness under Section 7-1-17 (C) extends to the Department’s assessment
of penalty and interest. Therefore, the Taxpayer has the burden to overcome the assessment and show he
was entitled to an abatement of tax. See Archuleta v. O'Cheskey, 1972-NMCA-165, ¶11, 84 N.M. 428, 504
P.2d 638.
Levies.
Once a taxpayer has become delinquent, as defined by NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-16 (2013), the
Department may lawfully collect the debt. The Department may collect taxes owed by a delinquent
taxpayer by levy on all property of the taxpayer. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-31 (2015). A taxpayer is
delinquent if any assessment made against the taxpayer is not protested or paid in full within 90 days of the
assessment. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-16 (2013). The Taxpayer did not protest the underlying tax
assessments, and a significant balance remained outstanding significantly longer than 90-days from the date
of the latest assessment.
Levies are required to meet certain criteria in order to be valid on their face. See NMSA 1978,
Section 7-1-32 (2015). The warrant of levy in this case, including its attached schedule, appears to satisfy
all the criteria outlined by Section 7-1-32. The warrant of levy was valid.
Once served, the financial institution must execute the levy. In this instance, Wells Fargo received
notice of the levy on July 25, 2018, and complied with the requirements of Regulation 3.1.10.9 NMAC by
surrendering the property held by that banking institution which were the property of Mr. Rojo.
Taxpayer knew he had been assessed for tax periods ranging from 2010 through 2017. Mr. Rojo
was aware that he had not paid the assessments in full. Mr. Rojo recalled receiving the “Final Notice
Before Seizure” letter dated June 18, 2018. Mr. Rojo did not dispute the validity of the underlying tax or
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 6 of 11
that he was a delinquent taxpayer at the time of the levy in July 2018. Consequently, the warrant of levy
was properly executed on the Taxpayer’s accounts.
Payment plans.
The Taxpayer suggested that he commenced the process for obtaining a payment plan when he
communicated with the Department through various agents, beginning in October of 2017. Mr. Rojo had
entered into other installment agreements with the Department. He first entered an installment payment
plan in 2011. He defaulted on that plan, and was aware it was no longer in effect. Mr. Rojo entered into a
second installment agreement in July of 2013. Again, Mr. Rojo defaulted on the plan, and was aware that
the plan terminated. Mr. Rojo attempted to enter another installment agreement in 2017, but was
informed that he would have put 25% of his outstanding balance as a down payment.
Installment agreements must be made in writing and must require monthly installment payments.
See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-21 (A) (2017). When the Department enters into an installment agreement
with a taxpayer, “no further attempts to enforce payment of the tax by levy or injunction shall be made”.
NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-21 (E) (2017). However, if the taxpayer defaults by failing to make payments
“on or before the times specified in the agreement” or by failing to meet “any condition contained in the
agreement,” the Department “may proceed to enforce collection of the tax as if the agreement had not
been made.” Id.
After defaulting on the first two installment agreements, the Taxpayer never entered into a third
written installment agreement with the Department. Although the Taxpayer understood that Clear Creek
was “working on it,” he never obtained written documentation of successful completion. And, although
“Sylvia” took his money, the Department records were void of any attempts made by “Sylvia” and Mr.
Rojo had nothing to show for her alleged efforts. Despite Taxpayer’s paying nearly $9,000.00 to third
parties with the goal of establishing a payment plan with the Department, a written installment agreement
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 7 of 11
was never executed and the Taxpayer was not making monthly installment payments. Therefore, the
Department was free to enforce collection by levy.
Equitable relief.
Mr. Rojo understood that the Department was justified in taking the action it ultimately took to
collect from his business’s bank account. However, he asked that the Hearing Officer grant equitable relief
in the form of refunding half of the money taken from his account, so that he could pay the people he owed
money to: Southwest Redi-Mix and Morales Backhoe Service.
Here the Taxpayer requested that the Hearing Officer order a refund on the theory that the money
was due to someone else. This is a request for imposition of the equitable relief associated with a
constructive trust. “A constructive trust is a legal fiction, an equitable remedy devised to prevent unjust
enrichment and compel restitution of property that in equity and good conscience does not belong to the
Defendant.” Acheff v. Lazare, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31563, 2014 WL 894491 (D. New Mex. Jan. 29,
2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing U.S. v. Andrews, 530 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2008)). The
Administrative Hearings Office has not been granted statutory authority to exercise the equitable remedy
the Taxpayer seeks. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-1, et seq. See also AA Oilfield Serv. v. N.M. State
Corp. Comm’n, 1994-NMSC-085, ¶ 18, 118 N.M. 273 (holding that the quasi-judicial powers of an
administrative body did not empower it to grant equitable relief, such as estoppel, because the authority is
limited to making factual and legal determinations as authorized by the statute). Historically, the
Administrative Hearings Office addresses all theories of recovery and error presented. Some theories
involve equitable considerations, but the hearing officer may only address an equitable theory as determined
by statute. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-28 (F) (equitable recoupment), Section 7-1-17.1 (relief for an
innocent spouse), Section 7-1-60 (estoppel). The relief of creating a constructive trust is not one which has
been statutorily authorized under the Tax Administration Act. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-1 et seq.
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 8 of 11
Here, although Mr. Rojo appears to have a cause of action against “Sylvia” for her deceptive
conduct, there is no indication that the Department engaged in any fraud, constructive fraud, duress, undue
influence, breach of fiduciary duty, or other wrongful conduct. See Madrid v. Rodriguez (In re Estate of
Duran), 2003-NMSC-008, ¶34, 133 N.M. 533. In this protest, the Mr. Rojo was honest and sympathetic,
but the law and the evidence persuaded the Hearing Officer that the balance of substantial evidence supports
the finding that the Department’s action was justified.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Taxpayer filed a timely, written protest to the Department’s execution of the warrant of levy,
and jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest.
B. A hearing was timely held within 90-days of protest under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-8
(2015).
C. Taxpayer’s evidence did not overcome the presumption of correctness that attached to the
underlying assessments under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17 (C) (2007) and Archuleta v. O’Cheskey,
1972-NMCA-165, ¶11, 84 N.M. 428, 504 P.2d 638.
D. Taxpayer was a delinquent taxpayer, after defaulting on the first and second payment
plans, and the Department was able to enforce collection by levy. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-31.
E. Taxpayer’s evidence of efforts to enter into a new payment plans failed to overcome the
Department’s determination that he was a delinquent taxpayer under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-16 (2013)
and the Department was not prohibited from collecting the debt. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-21 (2017).
F. The warrant of levy satisfied the statutory requirements and was properly served to the
financial institution. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-32 (2015).
G. The Department properly executed a seizure by levy against the funds held by Taxpayer,
under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-31 (2015), and the financial institution acted in accordance with Section
7-1-31(2015) and Section 7-1-34 (1993) and Regulation 3.1.10.9 NMAC by remitting the funds.
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 9 of 11
H. Interest continues to accrue on tax still owed by Taxpayer. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-
67 (2013).
For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer’s protest IS DENIED.
Dated: January 24, 2019.
Ignacio V. Gallegos
Hearing Officer
Administrative Hearings Office
Post Office 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 Administrative Hearings Office contemporaneous with the Court of
Appeals filing so that the Administrative Hearings Office may begin 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 Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 10 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I mailed the foregoing Decision and Order to the parties listed below this 24th
day of January, 2019 in the following manner:
First Class Mail Interdepartmental State Mail
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
John D. Griego
Legal Assistant
Administrative Hearings Office
Post Office Box 6400
Santa Fe, NM 87502
PH: (505)827-0466
FX: (505)827-9732
In the Matter of the Protest of Rojo Concrete Construction.
Page 11 of 11
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2019 ruling on this question. Ezel checks current New Mexico tax law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.