I'm self-employed with irregular income — can I avoid New Mexico's estimated-tax underpayment penalty if skipping the quarterly payments was an honest mistake, not negligence?

Plain-English summary

Craig Rochette is a New Mexico small-business owner whose income is irregular and sporadic. For 2023 his state income tax came to $3,407, but he made no quarterly estimated tax payments during the year. The Department assessed a $149.50 underpayment penalty. He protested — not the tax itself, just the penalty — arguing that skipping the estimated payments was an honest mistake of law made in good faith, not negligence, and that his unpredictable income made estimating hard. The Hearing Officer denied the protest and upheld the penalty.

The key legal point: New Mexico's estimated-tax underpayment penalty (NMSA 1978, Section 7-2-12.2(G)) does not require negligence. That is different from the ordinary civil penalty in Section 7-1-69, which applies only when a failure is "due to negligence or disregard" of the rules. Because the underpayment-penalty statute has no such precondition, Mr. Rochette's good faith and lack of intent were beside the point — the penalty attaches simply from not making the required payments. (The Hearing Officer added that, even if negligence mattered, failing to pay when payment is required is itself "inaction where action is required," which meets the regulatory definition of negligence.) People who don't have tax withheld must pay estimated tax quarterly, using the lesser of 100% of the prior year's tax or 90% of the current year's, in four equal installments. And for seasonal or lumpy income, the Department's publication FYI-320 lays out an annualized-income method — with worked examples (a summer-tourism business, a law firm with a one-time fourth-quarter fee award) — that lets payments track when the money actually comes in. Because Mr. Rochette offered only his own testimony and no evidence that he paid on time, he couldn't overcome the assessment's presumption of correctness.

What this means for you

Self-employed people and anyone without withholding

If tax isn't withheld from your income, New Mexico requires quarterly estimated payments. Pay the lesser of 100% of last year's tax or 90% of this year's expected tax, split into four equal installments (generally due April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15). Miss them and the underpayment penalty applies.

If your income is seasonal or unpredictable

"My income is lumpy" is not a defense — it's a planning problem the law already anticipates. The Department's FYI-320 explains an annualized-income installment approach that sizes each quarter's payment to the income earned so far, so a big fourth-quarter payday is matched by a big fourth-quarter payment. Use it rather than skipping payments.

Anyone counting on a "good faith" or "no negligence" argument

The underpayment penalty is not a negligence penalty. Unlike the Section 7-1-69 civil penalty, it doesn't ask whether you were careless or acted in good faith — it turns on whether the required payments were made. Honest confusion about the rules won't get it waived.

Tax professionals

Note the statutory contrast the decision draws: Section 7-1-69(A) conditions the civil penalty on "negligence or disregard," while Section 7-2-12.2(G) imposes the estimated-tax underpayment penalty without any mental-state element. Watch also that unsubstantiated testimony alone won't rebut the presumption of correctness (Regulation 3.1.6.12 NMAC) — bring records showing timely payment or a qualifying exception.

Common questions

Q: I honestly misunderstood the estimated-payment rules. Doesn't good faith avoid the penalty?
A: Not for the underpayment penalty. Section 7-2-12.2(G) doesn't require negligence or intent, so a good-faith mistake doesn't excuse it. (Good faith can matter for the separate Section 7-1-69 civil penalty, which wasn't the penalty at issue here.)

Q: My income is irregular — how am I supposed to estimate it?
A: New Mexico anticipates this. FYI-320 describes an annualized-income method that lets your quarterly payments follow your actual earnings, including a large payment in the quarter you receive a one-time windfall. The Hearing Officer pointed to it as the path Mr. Rochette could have used.

Q: How much do I have to pay to avoid the penalty?
A: Generally the lesser of 100% of the prior year's tax or 90% of the current year's tax, paid in four equal quarterly installments (or matched to income under the annualized method).

Q: I only testified at my hearing and brought no documents — is that enough?
A: No. Unsubstantiated statements can't overcome the presumption that the assessment is correct. You need evidence — here, proof of timely payment or a qualifying exception — to shift the burden to the Department.

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 illustrate how the estimated-tax penalty works.

Citations and references

Statutes and rules:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-2-3 (1981) — tax imposed on the net income of every resident individual
• NMSA 1978, § 7-2-12.2(B), (C)(3), (G) (2011) — estimated-tax requirement and underpayment penalty
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17(C) (2007) — assessments are presumed correct
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-69(A) — civil negligence penalty (requires "negligence or disregard"; contrasted here)
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-3(Z) (2019) — "tax" includes interest and civil penalty
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8(F) (2019) — 90-day hearing requirement
• Regulation 3.1.11.10 NMAC — definition of "negligence"
• Regulation 3.1.6.13 NMAC — presumption of correctness extends to penalty and interest
• Regulation 3.1.6.12 NMAC — unsubstantiated statements cannot overcome the presumption of correctness
• Department Publication FYI-320 — estimated payments; annualized-income method for seasonal/irregular income

Cases:

• Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 2009-NMSC-013 ("shall" makes a penalty mandatory)
• Gemini Las Colinas, LLC v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2023-NMCA-039 (burden of production/persuasion; presumption of correctness)
• Archuleta v. O'Cheskey, 1972-NMCA-165 (assessment presumed correct; taxpayer bears burden)
• N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't v. Casias Trucking, 2014-NMCA-099 (trier of fact weighs evidence and credibility)
• MPC Ltd. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2003-NMCA-21 (burden shifts to Department once presumption rebutted)
• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Taxation & Revenue, 2006-NMCA-50 (agency regulations interpreting a statute get substantial weight)

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Craig and Yasmine Rochette
• Decision PDF: D&O 25-05

Original ruling text

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

4 CRAIG R. & YASMIN J. ROCHETTE
5 v. Case Number 24.09-032A
6 D&O No. 25-005
7 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

8 DECISION AND ORDER

9 On December 4, 2024, Hearing Officer Ignacio V. Gallegos, Esq., conducted a merits

10 administrative hearing in the matter of the tax protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette

11 (collectively referred to as “Taxpayer”) pursuant to the Tax Administration Act and the

12 Administrative Hearings Office Act. At the hearing, Craig R. Rochette appeared representing

13 Taxpayer. Staff Attorney Jama Fisk appeared at the hearing, representing the opposing party in

14 the protest, the Taxation and Revenue Department (“Department”). Department protest auditor

15 Sonya Varela appeared at the hearing as a witness for the Department. Taxpayer submitted no

16 exhibits, and the Department submitted exhibits A, B, C, D, and E, at the hearing. The exhibits

17 are more fully described in the Exhibit Log, and by reference herein. The hearing officer

18 preserved an audio recording of the hearing.

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

20 that Taxpayer failed to overcome the presumption of correctness that attached to the Department’s

21 initial assessment of underpayment penalty, and Taxpayer has also failed to meet the burden of

22 proof to establish making proper estimated Personal Income Tax payments for the tax year in

23 question. The Department established that the Assessment was made timely and properly.

24 Therefore, Taxpayer’s protest must be denied. IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS

25 FOLLOWS:

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 1 of 11.
1 FINDINGS OF FACT

2 Procedural findings

3 1. On May 3, 2024, the Department issued a Notice of Assessment of Taxes and

4 Demand for Payment informing Taxpayer that Personal Income Tax underpayment penalty for

5 the tax year ending December 31, 2023, was owed in the amount of $149.50. [Letter ID#

6 L0626098544; Administrative File; Exhibit A].

7 2. Thereafter, on May 10, 2024, Taxpayer submitted a protest form. The protest

8 challenged the assessment, asserting that as a self-employed person his income is unpredictable.

9 [Protest letter; Administrative File; Exhibit B].

10 3. On May 22, 2024, the Department issued a letter acknowledging the protest of

11 personal income tax assessment of underpayment penalties in the amount of $149.50. The

12 acknowledgment was issued 12 days after the receipt of protest. [Letter ID# L0478814576;

13 Administrative File; Exhibit C].

14 4. On May 24, 2024, Taxpayer submitted an email to protest auditor Sonya Varela,

15 contending that he had made a mistake of law in good faith. [Administrative File; Exhibit D].

16 5. On September 18, 2024, the Department filed a Request for Hearing asking that

17 Taxpayer’s protest be scheduled for a scheduling hearing. The request for hearing was filed 119

18 days after the acknowledgment letter was issued. [Administrative File].

19 6. On September 18, 2024, the Department filed its Answer to Protest, alleging that

20 Taxpayer protested the underpayment penalty ($149.50) and contended that the penalties were

21 properly assessed because the quarterly estimated tax payments had not been made timely. The

22 Answer to Protest also alleged Taxpayer’s oversight constituted negligence. [Administrative

23 File].

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 2 of 11.
1 7. On September 19, 2024, the Administrative Hearings Office filed and sent a

2 Notice of Administrative Hearing, setting the matter for a merits hearing on November 14, 2024.

3 Notice was provided to the parties by email and USPS First Class Mail. [Administrative File].

4 8. On October 30, 2024, the Department, through Attorney Jama Fisk, filed a

5 Motion for Continuance, with concurrence of Taxpayer, waiving the 90-day time limit for

6 hearing. [Administrative File].

7 9. On October 31, 2024, the Administrative Hearings Office filed and sent an Order

8 Granting Continuance and Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing, setting the matter for a

9 merits hearing on December 16, 2024. Notice was provided to the parties by email and USPS

10 First Class Mail. [Administrative File].

11 10. On November 4, 2024, Taxpayer submitted an email requesting that the hearing

12 set on December 16, 2024 be continued and held earlier, to accommodate travel plans outside the

13 country. The Department did not object to resetting the hearing. [Administrative File].

14 11. On November 5, 2024, the Administrative Hearings Office filed and sent a

15 Second Order Granting Continuance and Second Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing,

16 setting the matter for a merits hearing on December 4, 2024, in person in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

17 Notice was provided to the parties by email and USPS First Class Mail. [Administrative File].

18 12. On December 4, 2024, the undersigned Administrative Hearing Officer conducted

19 a merits hearing in the Santa Fe office of the Administrative Hearings Office. The Department

20 was represented by Attorney Jama Fisk. Taxpayer Craig Rochette appeared representing himself.

21 Taxpayer was his sole witness and Sonya Varela was the Department’s sole witness. The

22 Hearing Officer preserved an audio recording of the hearing (referred to hereinafter as Hearing

23 Record or HR). [Administrative File].

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 3 of 11.
1 13. Taxpayer presented no exhibits, and Department’s exhibits were admitted by

2 stipulation of the parties. Exhibits are more specifically described in the Exhibit Log.

3 [Administrative File].

4 Substantive findings

5 14. Taxpayer is a resident of New Mexico. He is a small business owner.

6 [Examination of C. Rochette; Administrative File]

7 15. During tax year 2023, Taxpayer was engaged in business and received income.

8 Taxpayer prides himself on his demonstrated ability over the course of his lifetime to timely file

9 and pay his own income taxes, both state and federal. [Examination of C. Rochette;

10 Administrative File].

11 16. Taxpayer’s income is irregular and sporadic. [Examination of C. Rochette;

12 Administrative File].

13 17. The Department calculated that Taxpayer’s state tax due for 2023 was $3,407.00.

14 Ninety percent of that tax is $3,066.30. Taxpayer should have made four equal estimated

15 payments of $766.58 by the quarterly deadlines in order to pay no less than 90% of the tax due

16 for the tax year ending December 31, 2023. [Examination of S. Varela; Exhibit E;

17 Administrative File].

18 18. Taxpayer did not pay estimated tax for 2023 in a timely manner. [Examination of

19 C. Rochette; Examination of S. Varela; Administrative File].

20 19. The underpayment penalty is a penalty for failure to make timely estimated

21 payments. [Examination of S. Varela; Administrative File].

22 DISCUSSION

23 Taxpayer challenged the assessment of underpayment penalties issued by the Department

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 4 of 11.
1 and asserted that his failure to act was not negligence. The narrow question is whether

2 Taxpayer’s non-payment of estimated payments followed Departmental regulations. For the

3 reasons that follow, the assessment is upheld.

4 Presumption of correctness

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

6 presumed correct. Consequently, Taxpayer has the burden to overcome the assessment. See

7 Archuleta v. O'Cheskey, 1972-NMCA-165, ¶11, 84 N.M. 428. Unless otherwise specified, for the

8 purposes of the Tax Administration Act, “tax” is defined to include interest and civil penalty. See

9 NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-3 (Z) (2019); see also Regulation 3.1.1.16 (12/29/2000). Under

10 Regulation 3.1.6.13 NMAC, the presumption of correctness under Section 7-1-17 (C) extends to

11 the Department’s assessment of penalty and interest. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State ex rel.

12 Dep't of Taxation & Revenue, 2006-NMCA-50, ¶16, 139 N.M. 498, 503 (agency regulations

13 interpreting a statute are presumed proper and are to be given substantial weight). Accordingly, it

14 is a taxpayer’s burden to present some countervailing evidence or legal argument to show that

15 they are entitled to an abatement, in full or in part, of the assessment issued in the protest. See

16 N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't v. Casias Trucking, 2014-NMCA-099, ¶8; see also Regulation

17 3.1.6.12 NMAC. When a taxpayer presents sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, the

18 burden shifts to the Department to show that the assessment is correct. See MPC Ltd. v. N.M.

19 Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2003-NMCA-21, ¶13, 133 N.M. 217.

20 Taxpayer’s burden established under the presumption of correctness is a burden of

21 producing evidence that tends to support Taxpayer’s position. Gemini Las Colinas, LLC v. New

22 Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department, 2023-NMCA-039, ¶ 16, 531 P.3d 622. Once Taxpayer

23 has produced the evidence in support of Taxpayer’s position, the Department may present its

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 5 of 11.
1 evidence in support of the assessment, then it is the responsibility of the Hearing Officer to

2 weigh the evidence and determine the outcome of the protest. Id., ¶ 17.

3 Personal Income Tax Act; underpayment penalties.

4 The assessment in this protest arises from an application of the Income Tax Act, NMSA

5 1978, Sections 7-2-1 through 7-2-39. In New Mexico, “tax is imposed…upon the net income of

6 every resident individual.” Section 7-2-3. Taxpayer did not protest the imposition of tax on his

7 income. The assessment of this underpayment penalty was based on the non-payment of quarterly

8 estimated tax payments.

9 Underpayment penalty.

10 Payment of estimated tax, either through withholdings or in estimated payments, is required

11 by NMSA 1978, Section 7-2-12.2 (2011), subject to some limited exceptions. In instances where a

12 taxpayer is a W-2 employee, the employer withholds and pays taxes for the individual on a regular

13 basis. Where a taxpayer does not receive a W-2, does not contribute withholdings, and income is

14 sporadic, the law requires that the taxpayer either pay 100% of the prior tax year’s tax liability in

15 four equal quarterly payments, or 90% of the current tax year’s estimated tax liability also in four

16 equal quarterly payments. See Section 7-2-12.2 (B).

17 The Department’s publication, FYI-320, provides an explanation and examples of the

18 estimated payment process. The publication uses the example of a self-employed court reporter,

19 whose employer does not make W-2 wage withholdings. In an instance in which the prior tax year

20 (for example 2021) resulted in $5,000 in tax due, the taxpayer anticipating similar income in the

21 current tax year (for example 2022) has the option of paying $5,000 in equal installments of $1,250

22 (on or before the 15th of April, 2022; the 15th of June, 2022, the 15th of September, 2022, and the

23 15th of January, 2023). The other option the taxpayer has is to pay 90% of the anticipated income for

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 6 of 11.
1 the year. Using the example of the court reporter who expects a tax liability of $6,000 for the 2022

2 tax year, the taxpayer has the option of using the lesser of the equal installments using the prior tax

3 year as detailed above, or to pay 90% of the $6,000 anticipated liability, or $5,400 in equal

4 installments of $1,350 per quarter.

5 When a taxpayer does not make tax payments as required throughout the tax year, through

6 withholdings or estimated payments, the law has underpayment penalty provisions. In this instance,

7 the Department assessed an underpayment penalty pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-2-12.2 (G).

8 Taxpayer testified that his income is not regular, and he bases his yearly taxes on his yearly income,

9 once he knows what it is. The Department pointed out that there are methods of estimating tax for

10 seasonal businesses that Taxpayer could have followed to avoid underpaying estimated taxes.

11 An example from FYI-320 is that of a small business that derives the majority of its income

12 from summer tourists. The publication provides a chart that categorizes quarterly sales, expenses,

13 taxable income, annualized income, deductions and exemptions, annualized taxable income,

14 estimated liability, cumulated estimated payments, and estimated payments made. The result is no

15 payment for the first quarter (sales do not cover expenses), a larger payment for the second quarter

16 (sales have surpassed expenses), a very large payment for the third quarter (peak income results in

17 an anticipated year-end surplus), and a smaller payment for the fourth quarter (income has reduced

18 significantly since the summertime peak). In total, the estimated tax liability fluctuates, but 90% of

19 the final tax liability for the year has been paid by the end of the calendar year.

20 FYI-320 also provides an example of a law office with a large class-action suit that resulted

21 in a single instance of income at the end of the calendar year. Because deductible expenses outpace

22 annualized income for the first three quarters of the year, no estimated payments are expected to be

23 made for those three quarters. However, because the award of attorney fees was paid in the fourth

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 7 of 11.
1 quarter, an estimated payment for the fourth quarter is very large, due by January 15 of the year

2 following the taxable event as provided for under Section 7-2-12.2 (C)(3).

3 Negligence

4 Here, Taxpayer stated that his misunderstanding of the estimated payment provisions was

5 not negligence. The Department asserted that the estimated tax underpayment penalty provisions of

6 Section 7-2-12.2 do not require negligence, unlike the ordinary civil penalty provisions of Section 7-

7 1-69. The civil penalty statute contains the prerequisite “in the case of failure due to negligence or

8 disregard of department rules and regulations” which is the basis for the requirement of

9 negligence prior to imposing the civil penalty. Section 7-1-69 (A). The use of the word “shall”

10 makes the imposition of penalty mandatory in all instances where a taxpayer’s actions or

11 inactions meet the legal definition of “negligence.” See Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil

12 Conservation Comm'n, 2009-NMSC-013, ¶22, 146 N.M. 24, 206 P.3d 135 (use of the word “shall”

13 in a statute indicates provision is mandatory absent clear indication to the contrary).

14 The underpayment penalty provision, on the other hand, does not contain similar language

15 requiring negligence as a prerequisite to imposition of the underpayment penalty. See Section 7-2-

16 12.2 (G). However, the definition of negligence under Regulation § 3.1.11.10 NMAC (1/15/01)

17 encompasses Taxpayer’s inaction when action is required. Non-payment of estimated personal

18 income tax is certainly negligence under the definition, here, as “inaction” when “action is

19 required.” Even if unintentional or inadvertent, Taxpayer’s inaction was negligent.

20 Taxpayer’s (mis)understandings do not overcome the presumption of correctness in the

21 assessment. “Unsubstantiated statements that the assessment is incorrect cannot overcome the

22 presumption of correctness.” Regulation 3.1.6.12 NMAC. Therefore, in a strict sense, Taxpayer

23 by producing no corroborating evidence failed to overcome the burden of production, therefore

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 8 of 11.
1 failed to overcome the presumption of correctness that attached to the assessment. Gemini Las

2 Colinas, LLC, 2023-NMCA-039, ¶ 16.

3 Credibility of witnesses plays a role in the decisions of the Hearing Officer. “It is the sole

4 responsibility of the trier of fact to weigh the testimony, determine the credibility of the witnesses,

5 reconcile inconsistencies, and determine where the truth lies.” N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t v.

6 Casias Trucking, 2014-NMCA-099, ¶ 23, 336 P.3d 436; see also In the matter of the Protest of

7 Trader Barb’s Old Town, Decision and Order #23-10, issued May 10, 2023, 2023 WL 3601271

8 (non-precedential). Here, Taxpayer was credible, and the Department witness was credible.

9 However, Taxpayer’s testimony did not present any legal basis for the abatement of the

10 underpayment penalty.

11 Conclusion.

12 Taxpayer has an initial burden of production to overcome the presumption of correctness of

13 the assessments and the ultimate burden of persuasion by the preponderance of evidence to prevail

14 in this protest. See Gemini Las Colinas, LLC v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department,

15 2023-NMCA-039, ¶ 29, 531 P.3d 622. Taxpayer presented evidence in the form of testimony alone

16 however, there was no evidence to suggest that state estimated taxes for 2023 were paid timely.

17 Taxpayer was unable to overcome the presumption of correctness in the assessment, and unable to

18 overcome the burden of a preponderance of proof or persuasion as to show the assessment was

19 made in error. See Gemini, 2023-NMCA-039, ¶ 29. The Department showed that Taxpayer, did

20 not pay the personal income tax due for 2023 in quarterly installments, or by January15, 2024. The

21 assessment of underpayment penalty of $149.50 is upheld.

22 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

23 A. Taxpayer filed a written protest to Department’s Notice of Assessment [Letter ID

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 9 of 11.
1 No. L0626098544] and jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest. See

2 NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24 (A), (B) and (E) (2019); see also NMSA 1978, Section 7-2-3 (1981)

3 and Section 7-2-12 (2016).

4 B. Although the parties waived the 90-day requirement, the merits hearing was timely

5 set and held within 90-days of the Department’s hearing request under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-8

6 (F) (2019).

7 C. Taxpayer bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness that

8 attached to the Department’s Assessment. Taxpayer was unable to overcome the presumption of

9 correctness. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17 (C) (2007); see also Regulation §3.1.8.10 NMAC

10 (08/30/2001); see also Gemini Las Colinas, LLC v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue

11 Department, 2023-NMCA-039, ¶ 16, 531 P.3d 622; see also Regulation 3.1.6.12 NMAC.

12 D. Taxpayer’s evidence, weighed against the Department’s evidence was insufficient to

13 find by a preponderance of evidence that Taxpayers timely paid New Mexico Personal Income Tax

14 estimated payments for year 2023. The Department met its burden of establishing a preponderance

15 of evidence to support that the Assessment was properly issued. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-18

16 (C) (2021); see also Gemini Las Colinas, LLC v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department,

17 2023-NMCA-039, ¶ 29, 531 P.3d 622.

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

19 DATED: March 7, 2025.

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

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 10 of 11.
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 March 7, 2025, a copy of the foregoing Decision and Order was submitted to the parties

15 listed below in the following manner:

16 Email and First Class Mail Email and First Class Mail
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

17 _____
18 Administrative Hearings Office
19 Post Office Box 6400
20 Santa Fe, NM 87502
21 [email protected]

In the Matter of the Protest of Craig R. and Yasmin J. Rochette, page 11 of 11.