When I register a trailer that carries a big piece of equipment, does New Mexico's motor vehicle excise tax apply to the whole package, or just the trailer?

Plain-English summary

Prestige Equipment Rental rents out heavy equipment that supplies portable power to remote oil and gas sites. In June 2022 it bought four large electric generators, each mounted on its own goose-neck trailer for transport, for a bundled price of $826,500. When the trailers were titled and registered, the finance company calculated New Mexico's 4% motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) on the entire $826,500 — generators plus trailers — for a total of about $33,060. Prestige then sought a $32,100 refund, arguing the tax should have applied only to the trailers themselves ($6,000 each), not to the generators riding on them. The Department denied the refund, but the Hearing Officer granted the protest and ordered the refund.

The dispute came down to one undefined word: "accessory." New Mexico's MVET applies to the "price paid" for a "vehicle," and a Department regulation (3.11.4.7(D) NMAC) folds a vehicle's accessories into that price. But New Mexico law doesn't define "accessory," so the Hearing Officer borrowed the federal definition in 26 C.F.R. Section 48.4061(b)-2 — appropriate because it addresses the same subject (motor-vehicle excise taxes), the Department didn't object, and federal tax rules are routinely used to fill such gaps. Under that federal definition, an article is not a taxable part or accessory if it is "in effect the load being transported" and its primary function serves a purpose unrelated to the vehicle. The classic example is a construction derrick hauled on a truck: it's the truck's load, not an accessory. The generators here are just like that — stand-alone units mounted on skids, loaded and unloaded by crane, that generate power at drilling sites and do nothing for the trailer's transportation function. (By contrast, a hydraulic lift gate, which makes loading and unloading the truck easier, would be a taxable accessory because it aids the vehicle's function.) Because the generators are the payload, the taxable "price paid" was only the value of the trailers, so Prestige had overpaid and was entitled to its refund.

What this means for you

Buyers registering trailers or trucks that carry equipment

If a piece of equipment mounted on your trailer is really the cargo — something whose job is unrelated to hauling, loading, or unloading — its value generally should not be swept into the motor vehicle excise tax base. The tax is on the vehicle and its true accessories, not on the payload it happens to carry.

Oilfield, construction, and specialty-equipment operators

Generators, derricks, tanks, and similar gear that ride on a trailer to do a job at a remote site look like the "load being transported," not vehicle accessories. Keep documentation separating the value of the trailer from the value of the equipment — Prestige won largely because it could prove the trailers were worth $6,000 each apart from the generators.

Anyone who thinks they overpaid vehicle excise tax

New Mexico allows refund claims for MVET overpayments. This case shows the tax base can be challenged where the "price paid" was inflated by items that aren't part of the vehicle. File a timely refund claim and be ready to document the split in values.

Tax professionals

With no New Mexico definition of "accessory," the Hearing Officer applied 26 C.F.R. Section 48.4061(b)-2 and its load-vs.-accessory line (construction derrick = not taxable; hydraulic lift gate = taxable), supported by Fargo Foundry (415 F. Supp. 1362) and the "primary purpose" test — an article is a taxable accessory only if its primary purpose is to contribute to the vehicle's transportation function. Note the post-Loper Bright framing: an agency's interpretation is informative to the extent it rests on the agency's expertise, not binding.

Common questions

Q: I paid excise tax on my trailer and the equipment bolted to it. Was the equipment supposed to be taxed?
A: Not if the equipment is essentially the load being transported and serves a purpose unrelated to the vehicle. Here the generators were the payload, so only the trailers' value was taxable and the taxpayer got a refund of the excess.

Q: How do I tell a taxable "accessory" from non-taxable cargo?
A: The test is whether the item's primary purpose is to contribute to the vehicle's transportation (or loading/unloading) function. A hydraulic lift gate helps the truck do its job (taxable); a construction derrick or a stand-alone generator does a job unrelated to hauling (not taxable — it's the load).

Q: Why did New Mexico rely on a federal tax regulation?
A: Because New Mexico's motor vehicle excise tax statutes and regulations don't define "accessory." The Hearing Officer found the federal definition persuasive because it addresses the same subject, the Department didn't offer an alternative, and federal rules are commonly used in tax disputes.

Q: What did I need to prove to win a refund like this?
A: Documentation. Prestige showed separate values for the trailers ($6,000 each) and the generators, and evidence that the generators were stand-alone units that didn't add utility to the trailers. That let the Hearing Officer carve the payload out of the taxable "price paid."

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 how "price paid" and "accessory" are analyzed for the motor vehicle excise tax.

Citations and references

Statutes and rules:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-14-4 — motor vehicle excise tax rate: 4% of the price paid for the vehicle
• NMSA 1978, § 7-14-2(G) (1988) — definition of "vehicle"
• NMSA 1978, § 7-14-3 (1991) — imposition of the motor vehicle excise tax
• NMSA 1978, § 7-14-9, § 7-14-9.1 — motor vehicle excise tax refunds/administration
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26 — refund claim
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (2019) — 90-day hearing requirement
• Regulation 3.11.4.7(D) NMAC — "price paid" includes accessories
• 26 C.F.R. § 48.4061(b)-2 — federal definition of "parts or accessories"; the load/payload is not a taxable accessory

Cases and guidance:

• Fargo Foundry Steel & Mfg. Co. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 1362 (1976) (a part or accessory is taxable only if its primary purpose is to contribute to the vehicle's transportation function)
• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (an agency's statutory interpretation is informative to the extent it rests on the agency's expertise, but does not bind a court)
• Federal Tax Coordinator, 2d ed., Ch. W, § W-3127 (examples of taxable vs. nontaxable parts and accessories)

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Prestige Equipment Rental LLC
• Decision PDF: D&O 25-03

Original ruling text

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

4 PRESTIGE EQUIPMENT RENTAL LLC

5 v. Case Number 23.10-051R, D&O 25-03

6 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

7 DECISION AND ORDER

8 On September 30, 2024, Hearing Officer Ignacio V. Gallegos, Esq., conducted an

9 administrative hearing on the merits in the matter of the tax protest of Prestige Equipment Rental

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

11 Act. At the hearing, Attorney Taryn Russell, Esq. (Ragsdale Law Firm), appeared representing

12 Taxpayer, accompanied by witness Margarito Hernandez Borunda. Staff Attorney Christopher

13 N. Orton, Esq., appeared representing the opposing party in the protest, the New Mexico

14 Taxation and Revenue Department (Department). Department protest auditor Nicholas Pacheco

15 appeared as a witness for the Department. The parties used exhibits identified for the Motion for

16 Summary Judgment (MSJ) and presented Exhibit 5 in addition. The exhibits are more fully

17 described in the Exhibit Log. The merits hearing was conducted by videoconference and the

18 hearing officer, all parties, and witnesses appeared by videoconference.

19 In quick summary, this protest involves a request for refund of Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes

20 paid by Taxpayer, a company that rents out heavy equipment, for Taxpayer’s purchase of four

21 trailers that were fitted with electric generators for use primarily as a power source at oilfield

22 drilling sites. Taxpayer’s position was that they erroneously overpaid the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax

23 for the entire value of the generators and the trailers, when they should have been responsible for

24 only the tax on the value of the trailers, excluding the value of the generators. The Department’s

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 1 of 12.
1 position was that the excise tax on the entire trailer including the generators was proper. The dispute

2 is whether the generators were “accessories” which are defined to contribute to the “price paid” for

3 the trailers as the baseline for the calculation of the tax.

4 Although there were too few stipulated facts to make a judgment when presented with

5 Taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment, after a hearing on the merits, Taxpayer has overcome

6 the presumption of correctness and has presented facts to justify the abatement of the motor vehicle

7 excise tax imposed for the price of the generators. The Hearing Officer reviewed the undisputed

8 material facts, held a hearing on the merits where witnesses testified under oath and subject to

9 cross examination, and after making findings herein, finds in favor of Taxpayer and therefore

10 Taxpayer’s protest is GRANTED.

11 IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

12 FINDINGS OF FACT

13 The transaction

14 1. On or around June 9, 2022, Taxpayer purchased four (4) trailer-mounted

15 generators from Load Max Equipment. [Taxpayer’s statement of undisputed material facts #1;

16 Department’s Facts #1; Affidavit of Gabriel Segura dated April 10, 2024, ¶ 7; Load Max

17 Equipment LLC, Invoice #110059, #110059-2; Administrative file].

18 2. The non-itemized purchase price for the four (4) trailer-mounted generators was

19 $826,500. [Taxpayer’s statement of undisputed material facts #1; Department’s facts #4;

20 Affidavit of Gabriel Segura dated April 10, 2024, ¶ 15; Administrative file].

21 3. Taxpayer paid four percent (4%) of $826,500 for a total of $33,060.00 in motor

22 vehicle excise tax in order to obtain registration for the trailer-mounted generators. [Taxpayer’s

23 statement of undisputed material facts #11; Department’s facts #4; Affidavit of Gabriel Segura

24 dated April 10, 2024, ¶ 15; Administrative file].

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 2 of 12.
1 The refund request and protest

2 4. On November 21, 2022, Taxpayer requested a refund in the amount of $32,100.00

3 for Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes paid stemming from the above-described transaction.

4 [Taxpayer’s statement of undisputed material facts #14; Department’s facts #5; Affidavit of

5 Gabriel Segura dated April 10, 2024, ¶ 17; Administrative file].

6 5. On December 8, 2022, the Department informed Taxpayer that its refund

7 application was denied. [Taxpayer’s statement of undisputed material facts #15; Department’s

8 facts #7; Affidavit of Gabriel Segura dated April 10, 2024, ¶ 17; Administrative file].

9 6. On February 3, 2023, Taxpayer protested the denial of refund. [Taxpayer’s

10 statement of undisputed material facts #16; Department’s facts #8; Administrative file].

11 7. On May 3, 2023, the Department acknowledged Taxpayer’s protest.

12 [Department’s facts #9; Letter ID # L0489135216; Administrative file].

13 8. The Department submitted a Request for Hearing and its Answer to protest to the

14 Administrative Hearings Office on October 30, 2023. [Administrative file].

15 Facts established at the Merits Hearing

16 9. Margarito Hernandez Borunda (Mr. Hernandez) is Taxpayer’s general manager.

17 He has been employed by Taxpayer for over thirteen years. He oversees the day-to-day

18 operations, and is responsible for purchasing equipment to modernize, expand and improve the

19 services the company offers. [Examination of M. Hernandez].

20 10. Taxpayer offers rental equipment to provide portable power to remote oil and gas

21 production sites. The sites are able to use flare gas from the well sites themselves in order to

22 generate power, with the proper equipment. [Examination of M. Hernandez].

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 3 of 12.
1 11. In June of 2022, Taxpayer needed to purchase more generators that burn flare gas.

2 He received a quote and placed the order with salesman Reed Nichols, an employee of Load

3 Max, an electric generator manufacturer. [Examination of M. Hernandez].

4 12. Load Max had three generators in stock, and Taxpayer ordered four. The three

5 generators in stock were purchased at $199,500 each. The fourth generator, which had to be

6 custom built, was purchased at $214,000. Load Max extended a discount of $10,000 off the total

7 price. [Examination of M. Hernandez; MSJ Exhibit 1, ¶13].

8 13. The four trailers on which the generators were placed were manufactured by Iron

9 Bull. Each trailer had its own VIN. The trailers were purchased at $6,000 apiece, for a total of

10 $24,000. [Examination of M. Hernandez; MSJ Exhibit 3 (Invoice # 110059-2)].

11 14. The transaction was underwritten with financing from Summit Funding Group,

12 Inc./Xtreme Financial Services (the finance company). After receiving the invoices, Taxpayer

13 provided the invoices to the finance company, and the finance company paid Load Max and

14 secured title and registration with the Motor Vehicle Division. [Examination of M. Hernandez;

15 MSJ Exhibit 1, ¶¶ 11-15].

16 15. On July 19, 2022, Summit Funding Group, Inc. remitted excise tax for the trailer

17 bearing VIN ending 31347 in the amount of $8,120. The finance company used $205,500 as the

18 sales price from which to calculate the 4% motor vehicle excise tax. [MSJ Exhibit 4].

19 16. On July 19, 2022, Summit Funding Group, Inc. remitted excise tax for the trailer

20 bearing VIN ending 31415 in the amount of $8,700. The finance company used $220.000 as the

21 sales price from which to calculate the 4% motor vehicle excise tax. [MSJ Exhibit 4].

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 4 of 12.
1 17. On July 19, 2022, Summit Funding Group, Inc. remitted excise tax for the trailer

2 bearing VIN ending 32319 in the amount of $8,120. The finance company used $205,500 as the

3 sales price from which to calculate the 4% motor vehicle excise tax [MSJ Exhibit 4].

4 18. On July 19, 2022, Summit Funding Group, Inc. remitted excise tax for the trailer

5 bearing VIN ending 32320 in the amount of $8,120. The finance company used $205,500 as the

6 sales price from which to calculate the 4% motor vehicle excise tax [MSJ Exhibit 4].

7 19. The generators are stand-alone electric power generators. The generators are

8 mounted on metal skids and can be loaded and unloaded with the assistance of a crane or forklift.

9 The generators were mounted on Iron Bull goose-neck trailers for ease of transportation.

10 [Examination of M. Hernandez; Exhibit 5].

11 20. Load Max received the generators and the trailers separated and attached the

12 generators to the goose-neck trailers before delivery to Taxpayer. [Examination of M.

13 Hernandez].

14 21. The electric generators are used to supply electric power at oil well drilling sites.

15 The electric generators cannot be used as a power source to propel the trailer or the vehicle

16 pulling the trailer. The electric generators cannot be used in transit and cannot be powered by the

17 trailer. [Examination of M. Hernandez; MSJ Exhibit 1].

18 DISCUSSION

19 Motor Vehicle Excise Tax

20 The pertinent statutory law in this case is the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, which is a tax on

21 the sale of any motor vehicle within the state, subject to limited exceptions.

22 The tax statute at issue reads:

23 The rate of the motor vehicle excise tax is four percent and is
24 applied to the price paid for the vehicle. If the price paid does not

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 5 of 12.
1 represent the value of the vehicle in the condition that existed at
2 the time it was acquired, the tax rate shall be applied to the
3 reasonable value of the vehicle in such condition at such time.
4 However, allowances granted for vehicle trade-ins may be
5 deducted from the price paid or the reasonable value of the vehicle
6 purchased. NMSA 1978, Section 7-14-4.

7 New Mexico Motor Vehicle Excise Tax defines “vehicle” as “every device in, upon or by which

8 any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, including any frame,

9 chassis or body of any vehicle or motor vehicle, except devices moved by human power or used

10 exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.” NMSA 1978, Section 7-14-2 (G) (1988).

11 The dispute is whether the definition of “price paid” must include the trailer and the

12 generator together, or just the trailer. Taxpayer argued that it overpaid the excise tax because the

13 finance company incorrectly included the total price of the generator and trailer together.

14 Taxpayer further argued that federal regulations concerning motor vehicles, particularly 26 CFR

15 § 48.4061(b)-2 the definition of the term “parts or accessories” requires exclusion of the

16 generator. The Department argued that the excise tax payment for the trailer with the generator

17 was proper because the Department’s regulation definition of “price paid” requires inclusion of

18 the generator as an “accessory,” citing to Regulation 3.11.4.7 (D) NMAC (12/14/00). New

19 Mexico motor vehicle statutes and regulations do not provide a definition for an “accessory.”

20 Because New Mexico does not provide a definition of “accessory”, we may rely on the

21 federal definition for several reasons. First, the definition of “parts or accessories” relates to the

22 same subject matter at hand, motor vehicles and particularly motor vehicle excise taxes. Second,

23 New Mexico statutes do not define the term. Third, the Department did not object to the use,

24 after being made aware that the term “accessory” was a crucial feature of Taxpayer’s protest.

25 Fourth, because the opposing party did not provide an alternative. Fifth, because although not

26 New Mexico law, it is persuasive and addresses the exact issue in dispute. And finally, because

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 6 of 12.
1 in tax cases, federal regulations often are a basis for tax calculations, address the same subject

2 matter, and have been relied upon in the past in other tax contests by both taxpayers and the

3 Department. See In the Matter of the Protest of Ricardo S. Giron, Decision and Order # 2005-24,

4 Issued December 6, 2005 (non-precedential); see also In the Matter of the Protest of Priscilla A.

5 Montoya, Decision and Order # 19-08, Issued February 27, 2019 (non-precedential); see also

6 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024) (“although an

7 agency’s interpretation of a statute cannot bind a court, it may be especially informative to the

8 extent it rests on factual premises within the agency’s expertise”) (internal citations, quotation

9 marks, and brackets omitted). Here, not only is it persuasive but the factual examples presented

10 by the federal regulation’s definition of “parts or accessories” under 26 CFR § 48.4061(b)-2, are

11 both sensible and within the body of experience and informed judgment of this administrative

12 agency. Therefore, the federal regulation will be considered.

13 The internal revenue service has, within the subpart devoted to Motor Vehicles, a

14 definition of “parts or accessories” at 26 C.F.R. § 48.4061(b)–2. The definition reads as follows:

15 (a) In general. The term “parts or accessories” includes (1) any
16 article the primary use of which is to improve, repair, replace, or
17 serve as a component part of an automobile truck or bus chassis or
18 body, or other automobile chassis or body, or taxable tractor, (2)
19 any article designed to be attached to or used in connection with
20 such chassis, body, or tractor to add to its utility or ornamentation,
21 and (3) any article the primary use of which is in connection with
22 such chassis, body, or tractor, whether or not essential to its
23 operation or use. The term “parts or accessories” includes all
24 articles which have reached such a stage of manufacture as to be
25 commonly known as parts or accessories whether or not fitting
26 operations are required in connection with their installation. An
27 article shall not be deemed to be a taxable part or accessory even
28 though it is designed to be attached to the vehicle or to be
29 primarily used in connection therewith if the article is in effect the
30 load being transported and the primary function of the article is to
31 serve a purpose unrelated to the vehicle as such. For example, a
32 construction derrick attached to a truck is not a taxable part or

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 7 of 12.
1 accessory inasmuch as the derrick is the load of the truck and its
2 use is in connection with construction work at a construction site
3 rather than in connection with the transportation or loading or
4 unloading function of the truck. On the other hand, an article such
5 as a towing cradle or loading or unloading equipment designed to
6 be attached to or to be primarily used in connection with a truck is
7 a taxable part or accessory inasmuch as the articles contributes to
8 the load-carrying function of the truck. The term “parts or
9 accessories” does not include tires, inner tubes, or automobile
10 radio or television receiving sets, since these articles are expressly
11 exempted by section 4061(b) from the tax. However, the term
12 “parts or accessories” includes tire valves designed for use on tires
13 or tubes for articles taxable under section 4061(a).

14 So, the focus of the regulation appears to consider those items that contribute to a vehicle’s

15 chassis items, items adding to the utility or ornamentation, and with the primary use in

16 connection with the chassis. The regulation says that parts and accessories are not those items

17 that are “in effect the load being transported and the primary function of the article is to serve a

18 purpose unrelated to the vehicle as such.” Id.

19 Here, the load being transported is the stand-alone electric power generator, and the

20 primary function of the generator is to generate power at a well site, a task unrelated to the

21 vehicle’s operation. The example of the “construction derrick” is particularly informative. Here,

22 like the construction derrick, the generator “is the load of the truck and its use is in connection

23 with” remote power at a drilling site “rather than in connection with the transportation or loading

24 or unloading function of the” vehicle. Id.

25 To contrast, we may consider the example of a hydraulic lift gate. A hydraulic lift gate

26 adds to the utility of the truck it is attached to, insofar as the load being carried is more

27 accessible. With a lift gate, the load being carried can be lifted and brought down from the truck

28 more easily than by using other means. The hydraulic lift furthers the purpose of transporting

29 cargo and loading and unloading it easily.

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 8 of 12.
1 This interpretation of accessories has been addressed in federal caselaw, and in tax

2 guidance. The Federal Tax Coordinator, Second Edition, Chapter W, Section W-3127 provides a

3 list of examples of taxable and nontaxable parts and accessories. Nowhere on the list is an

4 electric generator meant to provide power at a stationary location. Hydraulic tailgate to aid in

5 loading truck is taxable, while derrick and diggers mounted on a truck and used to dig holes are

6 not taxable pursuant to the guidance. Under caselaw, the case of Fargo Foundry Steel & Mfg.

7 Co. v. U.S., 415 F.Supp. 1362 (1976) is informative. The question was whether fuel storage tanks

8 taken by a trailer to outlying farm fields with the purpose to provide fuel access for farm

9 equipment in the field were taxable as parts or accessories. The court reiterated that the test for

10 taxability as a part or accessory “is whether its primary purpose it to contribute to the

11 transportation function of the vehicle with which it is used.” Id., at 1366. The primary purpose

12 of the electric generators was to provide field power at remote well sites, not to contribute to the

13 function of the vehicle of the trailer. Under the federal regulation, and supported by federal

14 guidance and caselaw, these generators, like the construction derrick, do not add utility to the

15 transportation or loading or unloading function of the vehicle, and “the primary function of the

16 article is to serve a purpose unrelated to the vehicle as such” therefore are not taxable

17 accessories. Id. A vehicle is a device that may be drawn upon a highway, capable of

18 transporting any person or property. Section 7-14-2 (G). The vehicle’s price includes the price of

19 the vehicle and accessories. Regulation 3.11.4.7 (D) NMAC. Here, the price paid improperly

20 included the price of the payload, the generators, which is specifically excluded from the

21 definition of a vehicle, since it is the property being transported, not the vehicle itself. Section 7-

22 14-2 (G).

23 Conclusion

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 9 of 12.
1 Taxpayer carefully laid out the facts and law it relied upon and was persuasive. Taxpayer

2 showed evidence to show that the trailer-mounted generators were not unitary, and the generator

3 did not add utility to the trailer. Taxpayer provided proof of the value of the separate items. The

4 tax treatment of “parts and accessories” as defined by 26 CFR §48.4061 (b)-2 clearly excludes

5 the payload. Therefore, the starting value of “price paid” as defined by Regulation 3.11.4.7 (D)

6 NMAC (2/13/09), should have been the value of the trailers themselves, at $6,000 apiece.

7 Taxpayer overpaid, requested a refund, and the refund should have been granted.

8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9 A. Taxpayer filed a timely, written protest of the Department’s denial of refund letter

10 dated December 8, 2022, and jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest.

11 See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24; see also NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-26; see also NMSA 1978,

12 Section 7-14-9, Section 7-14-9.1.

13 B. A telephonic scheduling hearing was timely set and held within 90-days of the

14 Department’s request for hearing on the protest under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-8 (2019).

15 C. Under the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, the price paid excludes the cargo of stand-

16 alone generators not used to improve the vehicle itself, but for use at a remote drilling site. NMSA

17 1978, Section 7-14-3 (1991); Regulation 3.11.4.7 (D) NMAC; 26 C.F.R. § 48.4061(b)–2.

18 For the foregoing reasons, Taxpayer’s protest IS GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED that the

19 Department issue a refund for overpayment of tax in the amount of $32,100.

20 DATED: February 24, 2025.

21
22 Ignacio V. Gallegos
23 Hearing Officer
24 Administrative Hearings Office

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 10 of 12.
1 P.O. Box 6400
2 Santa Fe, NM 87502

3 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 11 of 12.
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 On February 24, 2025, a copy of the foregoing Decision and Order was submitted to the

3 parties listed below in the following manner:

4 Email and First Class Mail Email and First Class Mail
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

5 _______
6 Chris Romero
7 Administrative Hearings Office
8 Post Office Box 6400
9 Santa Fe, NM 87502
10 [email protected]

In the Matter of the Protest of Prestige Equipment Rental LLC, page 12 of 12.