Does moving to an employer-provided trailer in Texas end New Mexico domicile when licenses, registrations, banking, and tax addresses stay in New Mexico?

Plain-English summary

Michael Hughes remained a New Mexico resident for 2015–2016 despite working and living at his employer's Odessa, Texas location. Hughes had worked for the company in Hobbs and admitted he was previously domiciled in New Mexico. When his duty station moved, the employer allowed him to park a travel trailer or mobile home at its Odessa business and included utilities in his compensation.

The hearing officer found that arrangement did not establish a permanent Texas domicile. The evidence did not explain the trailer's size, mobility, or value, and it was parked at an office location unlikely to be intended as Hughes's permanent home. He did not buy a Texas home until 2017 or obtain a Texas driver's license until 2018.

During 2015–2016, Hughes retained substantial New Mexico ties:

• New Mexico driver's license and vehicle registrations;
• a New Mexico financial institution;
• New Mexico addresses on his federal income-tax returns;
• vehicles located in New Mexico;
• purchases in New Mexico during many months; and
• a New Mexico special-hunts license purchased in 2015.

Texas employment, residence in the trailer, and the larger pattern of Texas purchases favored Hughes. But his evidence did not explain where he spent non-work time, and he attempted to redact bank-statement entries showing New Mexico purchases. An amended federal return filed after the audit used the Texas house he bought in 2017, which did not prove where he was domiciled during the earlier years.

Applying Regulation 3.3.1.9, Hearing Officer Dee Dee Hoxie counted seven factors for New Mexico, two for Texas, and four neutral. Hughes's earlier New Mexico domicile was presumed to continue until he proved both a new abode and bona fide intent to make it permanent.

The decision also rejected the idea that fewer than 185 New Mexico days automatically meant nonresidency. Section 7-2-2(S) provides alternative tests: physical presence for 185 days or domicile in New Mexico during any part of the year.

The assessment of $2,905 tax, $581 penalty, and $559.37 interest was upheld. Negligence included inadvertence, and statutory interest was mandatory. The stated assessment total was $4,045.37, with interest continuing until the principal was paid.

Result: protest DENIED.

What this means for you

Employer-provided temporary housing may not establish domicile

Living at an employer's business in a movable trailer can show physical presence, but domicile requires evidence of a permanent home and intent. The nature and independence of the housing mattered.

The 185-day rule is an alternative, not a safe harbor

A person spending fewer than 185 days in New Mexico may still be a resident through domicile. Day counting alone cannot resolve the issue.

Concrete official ties outweigh a bare declaration

Licenses, registrations, tax-return addresses, banking, permits, property, purchases, and the timing of a permanent home can collectively determine domicile.

Later changes do not necessarily prove an earlier move

Buying a Texas home in 2017 and getting a Texas license in 2018 supported a later change, not necessarily a change during 2015–2016.

Complete and candid records matter

The attempted redactions did not hide several New Mexico transactions and weakened the presentation. Residency evidence should be complete and explained rather than selectively obscured.

Common questions

Q: Did living and working in Texas make Hughes a Texas domiciliary?
A: Not during the assessed years. His employer-based trailer arrangement did not establish a permanent home, and most objective ties still pointed to New Mexico.

Q: Why didn't the 185-day rule decide the case?
A: New Mexico residency also exists when a person is domiciled in the state during any part of the year.

Q: Which facts favored Texas?
A: His employment and overall time or purchasing activity in Texas. Those two factors were outweighed by the New Mexico ties.

Q: What liability was upheld?
A: $4,045.37 at assessment: $2,905 tax, $581 penalty, and $559.37 interest, with further interest accruing.

Q: Can another worker rely on D&O 22-01?
A: No. Domicile is fact-specific, and the decision resolved Hughes's 2015–2016 assessment on his particular housing and ties.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-2-3 (1981) — personal income tax on resident individuals
• NMSA 1978, § 7-2-2(S) (2014) — residency through 185 days of presence or domicile during any part of the year
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-17 and 7-1-3(Z) — assessment presumed correct; “tax” includes penalty and interest
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-69 and 7-1-67(A) — negligence penalty and interest
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 — hearing procedure and jurisdiction
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-25 — right to appeal the decision
• Regulation 3.3.1.9 NMAC — domicile presumption and residency factors
• Regulations 3.1.11.8 and 3.1.11.10 NMAC — penalty presumption and negligence

Cases:

• Hagan v. Hardwick, 1981-NMSC-002 — residence and domicile; established domicile continues until proven changed
• Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939) — declarations alone are not conclusive proof of domicile
• New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department v. Casias Trucking, 2014-NMCA-099 — taxpayer burden to overcome an assessment
• Marbob Energy Corp. v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission, 2009-NMSC-013 — mandatory meaning of “shall”

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Michael L Hughes
• Decision PDF: D&O 22-01

Original ruling text

1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE
3 TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT

4 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
5 MICHAEL L. HUGHES
6 TO THE ASSESSMENT
7 ISSUED UNDER LETTER ID NO. L0279044528

8 v. AHO No. 21.06-038A, D&O No. 22-01

9 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

10 DECISION AND ORDER

11 On December 10, 2021, Hearing Officer Dee Dee Hoxie, Esq. conducted a

12 videoconference hearing on the merits of the protest to the assessment. The Taxation and

13 Revenue Department (Department) was represented by Peter Breen, Staff Attorney, who appeared

14 by video. Patrick Zeller, Auditor, also appeared by video on behalf of the Department. Michael

15 Hughes (Taxpayer) represented himself and appeared by internet and telephone. The Taxpayer

16 and Mr. Zeller testified. The Hearing Officer took notice of all documents in the administrative

17 file. The Department requested that the Taxpayer have additional time to submit exhibits. The

18 request was granted, and the Taxpayer was given a deadline of December 20, 2021 to provide

19 exhibits. Exhibits were timely submitted by the Taxpayer, but they were not marked or

20 paginated. The exhibits were marked by the Hearing Officer1. The Taxpayer’s exhibits #1

21 (affidavit), #2 (acknowledgment letter), #3 (letter from Taxpayer), #4 (letter from district sales

22 manager), #5 (letter on insurance), #6 (response to notice of intent), #7 (2015 W-2), #8 (2016 W-

1
The exhibits were numbered by document and in the order in which they were submitted.
Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 1 of 13
1 2), #9 (paystub), and #10 (bank statements) 2 were admitted. No objections or responses to the

2 exhibits were submitted by the Department by January 3, 2022.3

3 The issue to be decided is whether the Taxpayer is liable for personal income tax,

4 penalty, and interest for the 2015 and 2016 tax years. The determination hinges on whether the

5 Taxpayer was a resident of New Mexico during the tax years. The Hearing Officer considered

6 all of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. Because the Taxpayer failed to

7 overcome the presumption of correctness, the Hearing Officer finds in favor of the Department.

8 IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

9 FINDINGS OF FACT

10 1. On February 1, 2021, the Department assessed the Taxpayer for personal income

11 tax, penalty, and interest for the 2015 and 2016 tax years. The assessment was for $2,905.00 tax,

12 $581.00 penalty, and $559.37 interest. [Admin. file L0279044528; Testimony of Taxpayer;

13 Testimony of Mr. Zeller].

14 2. On February 26, 2021, the Taxpayer filed a timely written protest to the

15 assessment. [Admin. file protest].

16 3. On March 11, 2021, the Department acknowledged its receipt of the protest.

17 [Admin. file L0799519152; Exhibit 2].

18 4. On June 10, 2021, the Department filed its answer to the protest with a request for

19 hearing with the Administrative Hearings Office. [Admin. file request].

2
The Hearing Officer paginated the exhibit in the order in which it was submitted by the Taxpayer; therefore, the
bank statements are not all in chronological order. The exhibit contains statements which show transactions in every
month of 2015, in January 2016, and in June through December of 2016.
3
The deadline to respond to a pleading is 14 calendar days when no other deadline has been ordered. See
22.600.3.16 (H) (2020).
Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 2 of 13
1 5. On July 9, 2021, a telephonic scheduling hearing was conducted, which was

2 within 90 days of the request as required by statute. Neither party objected that the hearing

3 satisfied the 90-day requirement. [Admin. file].

4 6. The Taxpayer works as an automotive technician for a company that has locations

5 in various states. The Taxpayer has worked for the same company since 2010. [Testimony of

6 Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9].

7 7. From 2010 to 2014 or 2015, the Taxpayer worked for the company at one of their

8 locations in Hobbs, New Mexico. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4].

9 8. The Taxpayer admits that he was a New Mexico resident during that time.

10 [Testimony of Taxpayer].

11 9. The Taxpayer’s parents are residents of New Mexico. [Testimony of Taxpayer;

12 Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3].

13 10. Sometime in 2014 or 2015, the Taxpayer’s duty station with the company was

14 transferred to Odessa, Texas. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit

15 5; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9].

16 11. The Taxpayer was allowed to live at the company’s business location in Odessa,

17 Texas in a travel trailer or mobile home, and his utilities were included in his compensation.

18 [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4].

19 12. The Taxpayer used the company’s business address as his address on his W-2s in

20 2015 and 2016. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9].

21 13. The Taxpayer maintained his driver’s license and vehicle registrations in New

22 Mexico in 2015 and 2016. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3; Testimony of Mr.

23 Zeller].

Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 3 of 13
1 14. The Taxpayer used a company vehicle in 2015 and 2016. [Testimony of

2 Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 5].

3 15. The Taxpayer filed his federal tax returns for 2015 and 2016 using a New Mexico

4 address. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3; Testimony of Mr. Zeller].

5 16. The Taxpayer made numerous purchases in Texas during 2015 and 2016, and he

6 made some purchases in New Mexico during 2015 and 20164. [Exhibit 10].

7 17. In 2017, the Taxpayer purchased a home in Texas. [Testimony of Taxpayer;

8 Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3].

9 18. In 2018, the Taxpayer got a Texas driver’s license. [Admin. file protest;

10 Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3].

11 19. The Taxpayer filed an amended federal return for at least one of the tax years5

12 which changed the address from New Mexico to the address of the home that the Taxpayer

13 purchased in 2017. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 6].

14 DISCUSSION

15 Burden of Proof.

16 Assessments by the Department are presumed to be correct. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17

17 (2007). Tax includes, by definition, the amount of tax principal imposed and, unless the context

18 otherwise requires, “the amount of any interest or civil penalty relating thereto.” NMSA 1978, §

19 7-1-3 (Z) (2019). See also El Centro Villa Nursing Ctr. v. Taxation and Revenue Dep’t, 1989-

4
The Taxpayer attempted to redact parts of Exhibit 10 which show in-person transactions in New Mexico, such as
point of sale (POS) purchases at gas stations and restaurants and cash withdrawals at ATMs, by marking through
them with a black mark. Many of these transactions still show a legible location in New Mexico. A few of the
redacted transactions do not show locations in New Mexico, and some redactions are related to account balances.
Some redactions appear to have been done with white-out, and no location is visible.
5
The Taxpayer testified that it was the 2016 tax year and 2016 is referenced in Exhibit 1, but Exhibit 6 refers to the
2015 tax year.
Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 4 of 13
1 NMCA-070, 108 N.M. 795. The presumption of correctness under Section 7-1-17 (C) extends to

2 the Department’s assessment of penalty and interest. See 3.1.6.13 NMAC (2001). See also

3 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Taxation & Revenue, 2006-NMCA-50, ¶16, 139 N.M.

4 498, 503 (agency regulations interpreting a statute are presumed proper and are to be given

5 substantial weight). Therefore, the assessment issued to the Taxpayer is presumed to be correct,

6 and it is the Taxpayer’s burden to present evidence and legal argument to show that he is entitled

7 to an abatement. See N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't v. Casias Trucking, 2014-NMCA-099, ¶8.

8 Residency.

9 Personal income tax is imposed “upon the net income of every resident individual” in

10 New Mexico. NMSA 1978, § 7-2-3 (1981). The Taxpayer argues that he was not a resident of

11 New Mexico because he did not spend 185 or more days in the state. [Testimony of Taxpayer;

12 Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3]. A person is a resident if the person is present in the state for 185 days or

13 more during the taxable year or “is domiciled in this state during any part of the taxable year”.

14 NMSA 1978, § 7-2-2 (S) (2014). Therefore, it is possible for the Taxpayer to be a resident of

15 New Mexico by being domiciled in New Mexico during any part of the taxable year, even if he

16 did not spend 185 or more days within the state.

17 A person who changes his place of abode to a location outside of New Mexico during the

18 taxable year “with the bona fide intention” of abiding there permanently is not a resident for the

19 period of time after that change of abode. Id. Everyone is deemed to be domiciled somewhere,

20 and a person has only one domicile at a time. See 3.3.1.9 NMAC (2010). Once domicile is

21 established, it does not change until the person moves “with the bona fide intention” of making

22 the new location his permanent home. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (2) NMAC. There is not a change of

Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 5 of 13
1 domicile if a person’s “intent is to stay away only for a limited time, no matter how long”. See

2 3.3.1.9 (C) (3) NMAC.

3 Residence is synonymous with domicile, and domicile does not require a person’s

4 continued physical presence. See Hagan v. Hardwick, 1981-NMSC-002, ¶ 10, 95 N.M. 517.

5 Domicile requires a physical presence at some time in the past with the intent to make a home

6 there. See id. Once domicile is established, it is presumed to continue until it is shown to have

7 changed. See id. at ¶ 11. See also 3.3.1.9 NMAC. The Taxpayer admitted that he was a resident

8 of New Mexico for several years prior to 2015 and 2016. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1;

9 Exhibit 3]. Therefore, the Taxpayer’s residency in New Mexico is presumed to continue unless

10 and until he proves that it changed. See Hagan, 1981-NMSC-002.

11 Several factors should be considered in determining residency. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (4)

12 NMAC (2010). A person’s declarations are not sufficient to establish domicile. See id. See also

13 Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, at 417 (1939). In determining a person’s domicile, the Supreme

14 Court of the United States identified several factors to be considered. See Texas, 306 U.S. at

15 414. These factors include time spent in a particular place, activities conducted there, what

16 persons and things of importance are there, intent, and evidence on other domiciles. See id.

17 The regulation uses similar criteria. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) NMAC. The first factor used to

18 determine domicile is “homes or places of abode owned or rented (for the individual’s use) by

19 the individual, their location, size and value; and how they are used by the individual”. 3.3.1.9

20 (C) (4) (a) NMAC. Specifics about the type of dwelling that the Taxpayer was using are

21 unknown. It is referred to as a “trailer home” [Exhibit 1], as a “travel trailer” [Exhibit 3], and as

22 a “mobile home” [Exhibit 4]. 6 The Taxpayer indicated that part of his compensation included

6
For ease of reference throughout the decision, this dwelling will be referred to as a trailer.
Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 6 of 13
1 parking the trailer and payments for its utilities, but the specific portion or value of his

2 compensation related to the trailer was not given. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3;

3 Exhibit 4]. Details on the size, use, and whether the trailer was a type that could be pulled

4 behind a pickup or required a commercial mover were not given. The Taxpayer was staying in a

5 trailer that was parked “at the office location at 1620 Viceroy, Odessa Texas”. [Exhibit 4; see

6 also Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9; Testimony of Taxpayer]. A person is

7 domiciled where that person intends to return after an absence and “has voluntarily fixed

8 habitation of self and family with the intention of making a permanent home.” 3.3.1.9 (C) (1)

9 NMAC. It is unlikely that the Taxpayer or his employer intended for the Taxpayer to make their

10 office location his permanent home. There was no evidence that the Taxpayer took any steps to

11 secure a permanent home in Texas, either by renting or buying, until 2017. [Testimony of

12 Taxpayer]. Given the lack of details, the apparent mobility of the trailer, and the unlikelihood of

13 making the office location a permanent home, this factor supports a finding that the Taxpayer

14 was still a resident of New Mexico.

15 The second factor is

16 where the individual spends time during the tax year and how that time is spent;
17 e.g., whether the individual is retired or is actively involved in a business, and
18 whether the individual travels and the reasons for traveling, and where the
19 individual spends time when not required to be at a location for employment or
20 business reasons, and the overall pattern of residence of the individual[.] 3.3.1.9
21 (C) (4) (b) NMAC.
22

23 The Taxpayer was employed and lived in a trailer in Texas. The Taxpayer did not give many

24 details on where or how he spent his time. It is apparent that the Taxpayer made several

Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 7 of 13
1 purchases in Texas every month, but he also made purchases in New Mexico 7 most months8.

2 [Exhibit 10]. The Taxpayer stated that he traveled within Texas for work. [Exhibit 1]. The

3 Taxpayer did not provide any explanation for his travel in New Mexico; rather, he attempted to

4 redact evidence of his purchases in New Mexico. [Exhibit 10]. There was no information on

5 how or where the Taxpayer spent his time when not required to be on location for work. Given

6 the number of purchases made in Texas [Exhibit 10], the evidence on this factor slightly supports

7 a finding of residence in Texas.

8 The third factor is the individual’s employment and its location. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (c)

9 NMAC. It was undisputed that the Taxpayer’s employment was in Texas. This factor supports a

10 finding of residence in Texas.

11 The fourth factor is “home of place of abode of the individual’s spouse, children, and

12 dependent parents, and where minor children attend school”. 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (d) NMAC. There

13 was no evidence that the Taxpayer has a spouse or children. His parents reside in New Mexico,

14 but there was no evidence that they are his dependents. Therefore, this factor does not apply.

15 The fifth factor is the location of residence in prior years. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (e) NMAC.

16 It was undisputed that the Taxpayer was a resident of New Mexico for several years prior to

17 2015. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1]. This factor supports a finding that the Taxpayer was

18 a resident of New Mexico.

19 The sixth factor is “ownership of real property other than residences”. 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (f)

20 NMAC. There was no evidence that the Taxpayer owned any real property until 2017.

21 Therefore, this factor does not apply.

7
As shown by the unsuccessful attempted redactions, many of which still show POS purchases at locations in New
Mexico despite the attempted redactions.
8
Of the months provided in the exhibit.
Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 8 of 13
1 The seventh factor is the “location of transactions with financial institutions, including

2 the individual’s most active checking account and rental of safety deposit boxes”. 3.3.1.9 (C) (4)

3 (g) NMAC. The Taxpayer’s bank account was located in New Mexico. [Testimony of

4 Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 10]. Most deposits and transfers appear to have been done

5 electronically. [Exhibit 10]. There was no evidence on locations of any in-person transactions

6 with the financial institution itself or the rental of any safety deposit box. Given the lack of

7 evidence, this factor slightly supports a finding that the Taxpayer was a resident of New Mexico

8 because the financial institution is located in New Mexico.

9 The eighth factor is the location of club memberships and community affiliations. See

10 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (h) NMAC. There was no evidence of any club memberships or community

11 affiliations. Therefore, this factor does not apply.

12 The ninth factor is the address used to file federal tax returns. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (i)

13 NMAC. The Taxpayer used a New Mexico address to file his federal tax returns for 2015 and

14 2016. The Taxpayer argues that this was an oversight and a mistake. [Testimony of Taxpayer;

15 Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3]. The Taxpayer argues that he filed at least one amended return using his

16 address in Texas. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3]. However, the Taxpayer

17 attempted to amend his return using address of the home that he purchased in 2017, and the

18 amended return was not filed until the Department had notified the Taxpayer that he was under

19 audit. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 6]. Amending a return to use an address where he did

20 not reside during 2015 and 2016 is not effective to establish his residence for 2015 and 2016.

21 Therefore, this factor supports a finding that the Taxpayer was a resident of New Mexico.

Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 9 of 13
1 The tenth factor is where one is registered to vote. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (j) NMAC. The

2 Taxpayer was not registered to vote in New Mexico or in Texas. [Testimony of Taxpayer;

3 Exhibit 1]. Therefore, this factor does not apply.

4 The eleventh factor is where one has a driver’s license or professional license. See

5 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (k) NMAC. In 2015 and 2016, the Taxpayer had a New Mexico driver’s license.

6 [Testimony of Taxpayer; Testimony of Mr. Zeller]. This factor supports a finding that the

7 Taxpayer was a resident of New Mexico.

8 The twelfth factor is residence for purposes of tuition, hunting licenses, and other official

9 purposes. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (l) NMAC. The only evidence on this issue comes from the

10 exhibit, where the attempted redaction was unsuccessful and it indicates that in March 2015, the

11 Taxpayer purchased a special hunts license from New Mexico’s Game and Fish Department.

12 [Exhibit 10.9]. Therefore, this factor slightly supports a finding of residence in New Mexico.

13 The final factor is where “items of significant sentimental or economic value” are

14 located. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) (m) NMAC. The Taxpayer owned some vehicles, with other family

15 members’ names on the titles during 2015 and 2016, and those vehicles were located in New

16 Mexico. [Testimony of Taxpayer; Exhibit 1; Exhibit 3]. Therefore, this factor slightly supports

17 a finding of residence in New Mexico.

18 Four factors weigh neutrally, two factors weigh in favor of the Taxpayer, and seven

19 factors weigh in favor of the Department. A person’s declarations of intent are given weight, but

20 are not conclusive. See 3.3.1.9 (C) (4) NMAC. No one factor is conclusive, and driver’s

21 licenses, voter registrations and home addresses may be given less weight given the ease with

22 which they can be changed for tax purposes. See id. Based upon the totality of the evidence, the

23 Taxpayer failed to overcome the presumption of correctness.

Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 10 of 13
1 Assessment of Penalty.

2 Penalty “shall be added to the amount assessed” when a tax is not paid on time due to

3 negligence. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-69 (2007) (emphasis added). The word “shall” indicates that

4 the assessment of penalty is mandatory, not discretionary. See Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil

5 Conservation Comm’n., 2009-NMSC-013, ¶ 22, 146 N.M. 24. Assessments of penalty are

6 presumed to be correct and it is a taxpayer’s burden to show that the assessment was not correct.

7 See 3.1.11.8 NMAC (2001). See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17. See also El Centro, 1989-NMCA-070.

8 Negligence includes inadvertence. See 3.1.11.10 (C) (2001). Therefore, penalty was properly

9 assessed.

10 Assessment of Interest.

11 Interest “shall be paid” on taxes that are not paid on or before the date on which the tax is

12 due. NMSA 1978, § 7-1-67 (A) (2013). Again, the word “shall” indicates that the assessment of

13 interest is mandatory, not discretionary. See Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation

14 Comm’n., 2009-NMSC-013, ¶ 22, 146 N.M. 24. The assessment of interest is not designed to

15 punish taxpayers, but to compensate the state for the time value of unpaid revenues. Because the

16 tax was not paid when it was due, interest was properly assessed.

17 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

18 A. The Taxpayer filed a timely written protest to the assessment, and jurisdiction lies

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

20 B. The first hearing was timely set and held within 90 days of the request for hearing.

21 See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (2019).

Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 11 of 13
1 C. Prior to 2015 and 2016, the Taxpayer was domiciled in New Mexico, and residence

2 is presumed to continue until proven otherwise. See Hagan, 1981-NMSC-002. See Texas, 306 U.S.

3 398. See 3.3.1.9 NMAC.

4 D. The Taxpayer failed to overcome the presumption that the assessment was correct.

5 See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17. See also 3.3.1.9 NMAC.

6 E. Assessment of penalty and interest was required and appropriate under the statutes.

7 See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-67 and § 7-1-69.

8 For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer’s protest IS DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that

9 Taxpayer is liable for tax principal of $2,905.00, penalty of $581.00, and interest of $559.37 for a

10 total outstanding liability at the time of the assessment of $4,045.379.

11 Dee Dee Hoxie
12 Dee Dee Hoxie
13 Hearing Officer
14 Administrative Hearings Office
15 P.O. Box 6400
16 Santa Fe, NM 87502

17 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

18 Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-25 (2015), the parties have the right to appeal this

19 decision by filing a notice of appeal with the New Mexico Court of Appeals within 30 days of the

20 file-stamped date shown above. If an appeal is not timely filed with the Court of Appeals within

21 30 days, this Decision and Order will become final. Rule of Appellate Procedure 12-601 NMRA

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

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

9
Interest continues to accrue until tax principal is paid. The updated liability amount for interest was not provided
at the hearing.
Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 12 of 13
1 Administrative Hearings Office contemporaneous with the Court of Appeals filing so that the

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

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

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

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

6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7 On February 7, 2022, a copy of the foregoing Decision and Order was sent to the parties

8 listed below in the following manner:

9 Email Email
10
11 INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Michael L. Hughes
Case No. 21.06-038A
page 13 of 13