I never protested my New Mexico tax assessment in time and the state levied my bank account — can I still argue the tax was wrong and get all my money back?

Plain-English summary

Enrique Arroyo is a New Mexico resident who runs a framing construction company that works mostly for his brother's company, Classic American Homes, on jobs in El Paso, Texas. He was paid on 1099s and did not file New Mexico gross receipts tax (GRT) returns. A "Schedule C mismatch" audit produced an October 2019 assessment for 2013-2016 of $173,486.12 in tax, plus penalty and interest — $240,432.99 total.

Arroyo did not protest within the 90-day window, so he became a delinquent taxpayer, and in March 2023 the Department levied $3,852.50 from his bank account. He then came forward (late) with proof that most of his work was performed in Texas. The Department responded with three abatements totaling $249,565.71 — wiping out the vast majority of the assessment plus accrued penalty and interest — and, because the levy had then collected more than was still owed, refunded $1,248.30.

What was left was $27,827.50 of 1099 income Arroyo could not tie to out-of-state work. Taxed at his New Mexico (Anthony) location, that came to $26,159.81 of gross receipts and $1,667.69 of tax, plus $333.54 penalty (the 20% cap) and $602.97 interest — $2,604.20 the Department kept. Arroyo protested the levy and the third abatement, claiming all his receipts were from Texas and demanding the rest of the levied money back. Hearing Officer Ignacio V. Gallegos denied the protest.

The core points:

• You can't reopen an assessment through a levy fight. Because Arroyo never protested the assessment within 90 days, he was delinquent, and the Department could lawfully levy (Sections 7-1-30, 7-1-31). A challenge to the levy is not a back-door way to attack the underlying assessment at that late stage.
• The burden was on Arroyo to substantiate. The Department abated everything he documented as out-of-state. For the remaining $27,827.50, he provided no supporting proof, so under the presumption of correctness it stayed taxable — the Department did not have to justify keeping it; he had to prove it shouldn't.
• No refund claim, no refund. To recover money taken by levy, a taxpayer must file an application for refund (Section 7-1-26(A)). Arroyo never did, so that avenue was closed too.

What this means for you

Anyone who receives a New Mexico tax assessment

The 90-day protest deadline is the whole ballgame. Miss it and you become delinquent: the Department can levy your bank account, and you lose the ability to contest whether the tax was correct. If you disagree with an assessment, protest it in writing within 90 days — do not wait and plan to argue later.

Contractors and 1099 workers with out-of-state jobs

Work performed outside New Mexico can be abated — Arroyo got nearly the entire bill wiped out — but only for the portion you can document. Keep 1099s, contracts, and job-location records. Anything you can't tie to out-of-state work is presumed New Mexico gross receipts and stays taxable.

New Mexico residents running a business

Being paid on 1099s and operating partly across the state line doesn't remove the New Mexico GRT duty. Arroyo's LLC showed a New Mexico address, and the income he couldn't source to Texas was taxed at his New Mexico location. File CRS-1 returns even when much of the work is elsewhere.

If the Department has already levied you

Two separate steps matter: to recover an over-collection you generally must file a refund application under Section 7-1-26(A). Simply protesting the levy — without a refund claim and without having timely protested the assessment — may leave you with nothing back, as it did here.

Tax professionals

A useful map of the collection posture: failure to protest within 90 days converts the assessment to a delinquent liability (Sections 7-1-16(A), 7-1-23) collectible by levy (Sections 7-1-30, 7-1-31; Regulation 3.1.10.9), and a levy challenge under Section 7-1-31 does not undercut an unprotested assessment. Abatements here reflected Section 7-1-20 good-faith doubt for substantiated out-of-state receipts; the unsubstantiated remainder rode the Section 7-1-17(C) presumption. Refund recovery required a Section 7-1-26(A) application that was never filed.

Common questions

Q: I missed the 90-day protest deadline. Can I still argue the tax was wrong?
A: Generally no. Once the 90 days pass without a protest you become delinquent, and the assessment can be collected by levy. Challenging the levy does not reopen the question of whether the underlying tax was correct.

Q: The Department abated most of my bill — why not all of it?
A: It abated everything you could substantiate as out-of-state work. The portion you can't document is presumed to be New Mexico gross receipts and remains taxable; the burden is on you, not the Department.

Q: The state levied my bank account and kept some of it. How do I get it back?
A: You typically must file an application for refund under Section 7-1-26(A). Arroyo never filed one, so the Hearing Officer had no basis to order the retained amount returned.

Q: Does working across the line in Texas mean I owe no New Mexico tax?
A: Only for the receipts actually attributable to out-of-state work, and only if you prove it. Income you can't source outside New Mexico is taxed here, especially where you're a New Mexico resident and the business shows a New Mexico address.

Q: Can I rely on this decision for my own situation?
A: Not directly. A Decision and Order resolves one taxpayer's protest on its specific facts and is not a general ruling or advisory opinion of the Department. It does show why the 90-day deadline and documentation matter so much.

Citations and references

Statutes and rules:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-16(A), § 7-1-23 — a taxpayer who does not protest within 90 days becomes delinquent
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-30, § 7-1-31 — Department may collect delinquent tax by levy
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26(A) (2021) — taxpayer must file an application to claim a refund
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-20 — abatement for good-faith doubt as to liability
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17(C) (2007) — assessment (and its penalty and interest) is presumed correct
• NMSA 1978, § 7-9-4, § 7-9-3.5(A) — gross receipts tax on business receipts in New Mexico
• Regulation 3.1.10.9, 3.1.6.13, 3.1.6.14 NMAC — levy authority; presumption of correctness; abatement

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Enrique Arroyo
• Decision PDF: D&O 24-09

Original ruling text

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

4 ENRIQUE ARROYO

5 v. D&O # 24-09, AHO Case Number 24.02-008A

6 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

7 DECISION AND ORDER

8 On April 23, 2024, Hearing Officer Ignacio V. Gallegos, Esq., conducted an

9 administrative hearing on the merits in the matter of the tax protest of Enrique Arroyo

10 (Taxpayer) pursuant to the Tax Administration Act and the Administrative Hearings Office Act.

11 At the hearing, Enrique Arroyo appeared, accompanied by his authorized representative Gloria

12 Mejia, a licensed Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Staff Attorney Timothy Williams

13 appeared, representing the opposing party in the protest, the Taxation and Revenue Department

14 (Department). Department protest auditor Nicholas Pacheco appeared as a witness for the

15 Department.

16 Based on the evidence in the record, after making findings of fact, the hearing officer finds

17 that Taxpayer has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness that attached to the

18 Department’s assessment, failed to show the Department acted improperly with the use of a Notice

19 of Levy, and failed to show the Department’s third abatement was improper. Taxpayer did not make

20 a request for refund. The Taxpayer’s protest is therefore DENIED.

21 IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

22 FINDINGS OF FACT

23 Procedural findings

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 1 of 12.
1 1. On July 25, 2019, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Assess – Gross

2 Receipts to Taxpayer for the gross receipts tax reporting periods beginning January 1, 2013, and

3 ending December 31, 2016, based on a federal Schedule C mismatch. [Department Ex. D; Case

4 ID # 790197; Administrative file].

5 2. On October 9, 2019, the Department issued a Notice of Assessment of Taxes and

6 Demand for Payment for the gross receipts tax reporting periods beginning January 1, 2013, and

7 ending December 31, 2016. The assessment was for audit gross receipts tax of $173,486.12,

8 penalty of $34,697.24, and interest of $32,249.63, for a total assessment due of $240,432.99.

9 [Department Exhibit #C; Letter ID# L1059627696; Administrative file].

10 3. On December 26, 2019, the Department issued a Statement of Account to

11 Taxpayer showing the amount of tax due to be $242,666.92. [Department Exhibit #E; Letter ID

12 #L0450890416; Administrative file].

13 4. The time to submit a protest of the assessment expired ninety days from the

14 issuance of the Notice of Assessment, on January 7, 2020. [Department Exhibit #C,

15 Administrative file].

16 5. On June 16, 2023, the Department issued a Notice of Abatement of Tax

17 Assessment, showing an abatement of taxes for periods January 1, 2015 through December 31,

18 2016, in the amount of $128,804.70. [Department Exhibit A-1; Letter ID # L1161493616;

19 Administrative file].

20 6. On August 29, 2023, the Department issued a second Notice of Abatement of Tax

21 Assessment, showing an abatement of taxes for periods January 1, 2013 through December 31,

22 2014, in the amount of $119,855.39. [Department Exhibit A-2; Letter ID # L1935626864;

23 Administrative file].

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 2 of 12.
1 7. On August 30, 2023, the Department issued a Notice of Levy, showing that on

2 March 8, 2023, the Department obtained $3,852.50 from a Wells Fargo Bank account in

3 Taxpayer’s name, pursuant to service of Levy Number 23925. [Department Exhibit #B; Letter

4 ID # L1527304816; Taxpayer Exhibit #2; Administrative file].

5 8. On October 23, 2023, the Department issued a third Notice of Abatement of Tax

6 Assessment, showing an abatement of taxes for periods January 13, 2013 through December 31,

7 2013, showing an abatement of $905.62, with a negative balance of $1,248.30. [Taxpayer

8 Exhibit #3; Letter ID # L1177623152; Administrative file].

9 9. On November 15, 2023, Taxpayer submitted protest form to the Department’s

10 protest office alleging that all receipts were from Texas, and that the Department had not fully

11 refunded the amount levied from Taxpayer’s bank account on March 8, 2023. [Department

12 Exhibit #F; Taxpayer Exhibit #1, #31; Administrative file].

13 10. On February 27, 2024, the Taxpayer submitted a Request for Hearing to the

14 Administrative Hearings Office, signed by Gloria Mejia, CPA. The Taxpayer’s request alleged

15 that the amount of the protest was $2,604.20. The Taxpayer’s request identified Letter ID #

16 L1527304816 (Notice of Levy) and Letter ID # L1177623152 (third Notice of Abatement). On

17 February 27, 2024, Taxpayer also submitted a 26-page protest packet. [Administrative File].

18 11. On March 5, 2024, the Administrative Hearings Office issued a Notice of

19 Videoconference Administrative Hearing, setting various deadlines and providing notice of a

20 merits hearing to take place April 23, 2024. [Administrative file].

21 12. On April 1, 2024, the Department filed an Answer to Protest asserting that the

22 Taxpayer as a New Mexico resident must report and pay gross receipts taxes on business income

23 reported on federal Schedule C forms. [Administrative file].

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 3 of 12.
1 13. On April 15, 2024, the Department filed an Amended Answer to Protest asserting

2 that the original assessment had not been protested, there was a levy, and there were abatements,

3 and the Taxpayer had not filed an application for refund of the amount levied but not abated and

4 not refunded. [Administrative file].

5 14. The undersigned Hearing Officer conducted a merits hearing on April 23, 2024,

6 using the Zoom videoconferencing application. Taxpayer and Taxpayer’s authorized

7 representative Gloria Mejia, CPA, appeared at the merits hearing. The Department was

8 represented by Staff Attorney Timothy Williams, accompanied by protest auditor Nicholas

9 Pacheco. The Hearing Officer preserved an audio recording of the hearing. [Administrative file;

10 Hearing Record].

11 Substantive findings

12 15. Enrique Arroyo is a resident of New Mexico. During times pertinent to this

13 protest, the Taxpayer was a resident of Anthony, New Mexico. [Administrative file; Examination

14 of E. Arroyo].

15 16. Mr. Arroyo, at the times pertinent to this protest, owned and operated, and

16 continues to own a framing construction company. Taxpayer claimed that the company is

17 registered and pays business taxes in Texas, but all documentation from the timeframes at issue

18 taken into the record shows a New Mexico address for “Enrique Arroyo Framing LLC”.

19 [Administrative file; Examination of E. Arroyo; Taxpayer Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

20 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].

21 17. The framing company does business primarily with the Taxpayer’s brother’s

22 company, Classic American Homes. Subcontracting work with Classic American Homes took

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 4 of 12.
1 place in El Paso, Texas. For this work Taxpayer accepted form 1099s. The Department abated

2 the tax, penalty and interest assessed for this work performed in Texas. [Administrative file;

3 Examination of E. Arroyo; Taxpayer Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22;

4 Examination of N. Pacheco; Department Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3].

5 18. Taxpayer’s framing company had a contract with the El Paso Convention and

6 Performing Arts Center in 2013. For this work Taxpayer accepted form 1099s. The Department

7 abated the tax, penalty and interest assessed for this work performed in Texas. [Administrative

8 file; Examination of E. Arroyo; Taxpayer Exhibits 23, 24, 25, 26; Examination of N. Pacheco;

9 Department Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3].

10 19. Gloria Mejia is a certified public accountant registered in the State of Texas. She

11 is employed by Classic American Homes. Ms. Mejia challenged the Department’s retention of

12 $2,604.20. She created Exhibit 27 for the tax year 2013. She was unable to provide Taxpayer

13 support to explain a deduction applicable to the balance of $27,827.50. Ms. Mejia anticipated

14 paying the statewide base rate of 5% for gross receipts on this amount. Ms. Mejia did not

15 understand the calculations applied by the Department. [Administrative file; Examination of G.

16 Mejia; Taxpayer Exhibit #27, 28, 29, 30].

17 20. Nicholas Pacheco is a protest auditor for the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue

18 Department. [Administrative file; Examination of N. Pacheco].

19 21. The assessment arose from a Schedule C mismatch audit. The Taxpayer did not

20 file New Mexico gross receipts tax returns (Form CRS-1) or pay gross receipts tax during the

21 timeframes at issue. [Administrative file; Examination of E. Arroyo; Examination of N.

22 Pacheco].

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 5 of 12.
1 22. Taxpayer filed three schedule C’s with his federal returns for related businesses.

2 [Administrative file; Examination of N. Pacheco].

3 23. Despite the untimeliness of the submission of substantiation, the Department

4 issued three abatements for all Taxpayer’s substantiated deductible out of state work. The first

5 abatement was issued in the amount of $128,804.70; the second abatement was issued in the

6 amount of $119,855.39; the third abatement was issued in the amount of $905.62, for a total of

7 $249,565.71. The total abated reflects the majority of the assessment, as well as accrued

8 penalties and interest in excess of the amount originally assessed. The remaining 1099 income

9 that did not have a substantiated source outside of New Mexico totaled $27,827.50, which, after

10 backing out the tax using the rate(s) applicable for the Taxpayer’s address in Anthony, New

11 Mexico, breaks down to $26,159.81 of gross receipts and $1,667.69 of gross receipts tax. [FoF

12 #s 5, 6, 8, Department Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3; Taxpayer Exhibits #27, 28, 29, 30; Examination

13 of N. Pacheco].

14 24. Having levied $3,852.50 before the issuance of the third abatement, the

15 Department noted an excess balance and issued a refund for the amount taken by levy in excess

16 of the remaining assessment owed, in the amount of $1,248.30. [FOF # 7, 8; Examination of N.

17 Pacheco].

18 25. Taxpayer did not request a refund of the monies obtained by levy. [Administrative

19 file; Examination of N. Pacheco].

20 26. The balance retained by the Department pursuant to the assessment was

21 $2,604.20, sum of tax of $1,667.69, penalty of $333.54, and interest in the amount of $619.80.

22 [Examination of N. Pacheco; Administrative file].

23 DISCUSSION

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 6 of 12.
1 Taxpayer Enrique Arroyo is a New Mexico resident, whose business income was

2 reported on form 1099s during tax years 2013 through 2016. During the same years, Taxpayer

3 did not file New Mexico gross receipts tax returns or pay New Mexico gross receipts tax.

4 Taxpayer filed Schedule Cs on federal returns reporting business income in 2013. Based on the

5 mismatch, an assessment was issued for all tax years at issue. The Taxpayer did not challenge the

6 assessment within ninety days from the issuance of the assessment. Taxpayer became a

7 delinquent taxpayer. As a result of the delinquency status, the Department issued a Notice of

8 Levy and took possession of Taxpayer funds pursuant to a levy of Taxpayer’s bank account.

9 Before and after $3,852.50 was removed from Taxpayer’s bank account pursuant to levy,

10 Taxpayer communicated with the Department and provided evidence that justified the

11 Department’s issuance of three substantial abatements for the balance of the assessment. The

12 Department thereafter issued a refund to Taxpayer in the amount of $1,248.30, refunding some

13 of the money obtained by levy. There remained an unrefunded amount of $2,604.20 retained by

14 the Department. The formal protest form identified the Notice of Levy and the third Notice of

15 Abatement. Taxpayer questioned the Department’s justification for retention of the sum of

16 $2,604.20, following the exercise of the levy and the payment of a partial refund of the amount

17 levied. In essence, the Taxpayer perceived that the Department was required to substantiate its

18 taking, rather than the Taxpayer’s burden to show entitlement to a deduction. While there are

19 methods of challenging a levy, the challenge to a levy is not a means of undercutting the original

20 assessment. The Department’s exercise of the levy and abatement is affirmed.

21 Presumption of correctness

22 Under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17 (C) (2007), the assessment issued in this case is

23 presumed correct. The Taxpayer was able to protest the assessment within 90 days from the

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 7 of 12.
1 issuance of the assessment, but did not ever challenge the assessment, and became a delinquent

2 taxpayer. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-23 and Section 7-1-16 (A). The Department issued a

3 Notice of Levy and collected monies from Taxpayer’s bank account to offset the outstanding

4 assessment. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-30 and Section 7-1-31; see also Regulation 3.1.10.9

5 NMAC. The Taxpayer did not request a refund of the amount collected pursuant to NMSA 1978,

6 Section 7-1-26 (A).

7 Taxpayer has the ability to challenge the exercise of a levy, however, a taxpayer’s

8 challenge to a levy is not a recognized method of undercutting the underlying assessment at this

9 late stage. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-31, Section 7-1-24, and Section 7-1-26.

10 Department’s Abatements.

11 The assessment in this protest arose from an application of the Gross Receipts and

12 Compensating Tax Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 7-9-1 through 7-9-117, which imposes a tax for the

13 privilege of engaging in business, on the receipts of any person engaged in business in New Mexico.

14 See NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-4 (2010). The Department issued its assessment following a

15 comparison between the Taxpayer’s income reported on his federal Schedule Cs for tax years 2013,

16 2014, 2015, and 2016 and the Taxpayer’s gross receipts tax CRS-1 returns for the same time frame.

17 The comparison revealed Taxpayer had not filed CRS-1 returns to report gross receipts, nor did

18 Taxpayer pay gross receipts taxes for the years at issue. Focusing on tax year 2013, the Taxpayer

19 had three Schedule Cs, reporting income from what appeared to be three sources. While the

20 Taxpayer did not present the Schedule Cs or the 1099s, the Taxpayer presented a short summary of

21 amounts received and amounts substantiated as work performed out-of-state. Taxpayer argued that

22 because they had provided substantiation for 95% of the work, the remainder should be forgiven,

23 challenging the abatement of the part assessed but not protested or substantiated.

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 8 of 12.
1 Because the Taxpayer did not protest the original assessment, the Taxpayer became a

2 delinquent taxpayer pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-16. When the Department seized money

3 from the Taxpayer’s bank account pursuant to levy, it acted lawfully pursuant to NMSA 1978,

4 Section 7-1-30 and Section 7-1-31. See also Regulation 3.1.10.9 NMAC.

5 When Taxpayer informally challenged the Department’s assessment, albeit late, the

6 Taxpayer provided evidence that the vast majority of his work was outside of New Mexico.

7 Taxpayer’s information provided the Department with the ability to issue abatements. See NMSA

8 1978, Section 7-9-4; see also NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-3.5 (A); see also Regulation 3.2.4.8

9 NMAC; see also NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-20; see also Regulation 3.1.6.14 NMAC. Taxpayer

10 provided evidence sufficient for the Department to issue a first abatement on June 16, 2023, in the

11 amount of $128,804.70. The Taxpayer provided evidence sufficient for the Department to issue a

12 second abatement on August 29, 2023, in the amount of $119,855.39. It was thereafter that the

13 Department exercised the levy on August 30, 2023, for a portion of the assessment balance, in the

14 amount of $3,835.50. Thereafter, Taxpayer again provided evidence sufficient for the Department to

15 issue a third abatement on October 23, 2023, in the amount of $905.62. Because the abatement

16 showed that the amount recovered from Taxpayer was in excess of the amount owed, the

17 Department issued a refund for $1,248.30 to Taxpayer.

18 The balance retained by the Department for taxes owed under the assessment and collected

19 pursuant to levy was $2,604.20. The Department explained that this retained amount was the gross

20 receipts tax for a total of $27,827.50 of income that had not been attributed to out-of-state business.

21 After backing out the tax at the rate(s) applicable to Taxpayer’s residential location in Anthony,

22 NM, the total taxable gross receipts were $26,159.81, and tax was $1,667.69. Penalties reached a

23 statutory maximum of 20% of the tax, at $333.54, and the remainder of $602.97 was outstanding

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 9 of 12.
1 interest at the variable rates for the time prior to collection. The retention of $1,667.69 of tax,

2 $333.54 in penalties, and $602.97, for a total of $2,604.20 was not shown to be improper.

3 Conclusion

4 The Taxpayer failed to present any evidence that might support the improper exercise of a

5 levy to collect overdue delinquent taxes. The Department’s exercise of levy was properly within ten

6 years of the initial assessment. The abatement and refund was also properly exercised within the

7 authority of the Department. The Taxpayer’s protest is denied.

8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9 A. The Taxpayer filed a timely written protest to the Notice of Levy issued under Letter

10 ID number L1527304816 and Notice of Abatement issued under Letter ID number L1177623152,

11 and jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest. See NMSA 1978, Section

12 7-1-26 (A) (2021); see also NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-1, et seq. (“Gross Receipts and Compensating

13 Tax Act”).

14 B. The hearing was timely set and held within one hundred twenty (120) days of the

15 Taxpayer’s request for hearing. NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-8 (F) (2019). Parties did not object that

16 the scheduling hearing satisfied the 120-day hearing requirement of Section 7-1B-8 (F). See also

17 Regulation § 22.600.3.8 (J) NMAC (8/25/20).

18 C. The Department timely submitted its Answer to the protest within thirty (30) days

19 of the Taxpayer’s request for hearing. NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-8 (D) (2019). The Department’s

20 Amended Answer was timely filed within ten (10) days of the scheduled hearing. NMSA 1978,

21 Section 7-1B-8 (D) (2019); see also Regulation § 22.600.3.8 (J) NMAC (8/25/20).

22 D. Any assessment of tax made by the Department is presumed to be correct.

23 Therefore, it is the taxpayer’s burden to come forward with evidence and legal argument to establish

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 10 of 12.
1 that the Department’s assessment should be abated, in full or in part. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-

2 17 (C) (2007).

3 E. “Tax” is defined to include not only the tax program’s principal, but also interest and

4 penalty. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-3 (Z) (2019). Assessments of penalties and interest therefore

5 also receive the benefit of a presumption of correctness. See Regulation § 3.1.6.13 NMAC

6 (1/15/01).

7 F. The Taxpayer became a delinquent taxpayer after the expiration of ninety days

8 during which Taxpayer could protest the Assessment. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-23 and

9 Section 7-1-16 (A).

10 G. The Department is entitled to collect from delinquent taxpayers by use of a levy.

11 NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17 (D) (2007); see also NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-30 and Section 7-1-

12 31; see also Regulation 3.1.10.9 NMAC; see also Regulation 3.1.7.10 (B) NMAC.

13 H. The Department properly exercised its authority to issue abatements to reflect a

14 good faith doubt as to taxpayer’s liability for work performed outside of New Mexico. See

15 NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-20; Regulation 3.1.6.14 NMAC.

16 For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer’s protest IS DENIED.

17 DATED: June 12, 2024

18
19 Ignacio V. Gallegos
20 Hearing Officer
21 Administrative Hearings Office
22 Post Office Box 6400
23 Santa Fe, NM 87502

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 11 of 12.
1 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

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

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

4 date shown above. If an appeal is not timely filed with the Court of Appeals within 30 days, this

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

6 the requirements of perfecting an appeal of an administrative decision with the Court of Appeals.

7 Either party filing an appeal shall file a courtesy copy of the appeal with the Administrative

8 Hearings Office contemporaneous with the Court of Appeals filing so that the Administrative

9 Hearings Office may begin preparing the record proper. The parties will each be provided with a

10 copy of the record proper at the time of the filing of the record proper with the Court of Appeals,

11 which occurs within 14 days of the Administrative Hearings Office receipt of the docketing

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

13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

14 On June 12, 2024, a copy of the foregoing Decision and Order was submitted to the parties

15 listed below in the following manner:

16 First Class Mail and E-Mail First Class Mail E-Mail
17
18
19
20 INTENTIONALLY BLANK

In the Matter of the Protest of Enrique Arroyo, page 12 of 12.