Can I reopen a New Mexico tax assessment I already lost by protesting the state's later seizure notice or tax lien?

Plain-English summary

A self-represented taxpayer tried to reopen a roughly $160,000 tax assessment he had already lost — and lost on appeal — by protesting the state's later Final Notice Before Seizure. The hearing officer held that res judicata barred him, and a separate protest of a $1,424.95 tax lien also failed. The Department won summary judgment on both, and both protests were denied.

William Gardner, representing himself, brought two protests that were consolidated before Hearing Officer Chris Romero.

The first concerned an assessment of about $160,000. In November 2023 the Department assessed William C. Gardner personally $162,534.06, based on a restitution obligation for unpaid taxes contained in a criminal Plea and Disposition Agreement. Gardner protested that assessment in an earlier case (AHO No. 24.01-006A). The assigned hearing officer held a merits hearing and, in Decision and Order No. 24-10, sustained the assessment; Gardner appealed, and the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed (in a nonprecedential decision). In November 2025 the Department issued a Final Notice Before Seizure for the remaining balance (about $160,173). Gardner protested that collection notice, again arguing the liability could not be assessed or collected from him personally.

The second protest concerned a $1,424.95 tax lien (Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031, recorded in Bernalillo County), which arose from separate assessments for gross receipts tax, compensating tax, and corporate income tax.

Both sides moved for summary judgment, so the questions were legal ones decided on the written record.

You cannot relitigate a final assessment by protesting later collection activity

The core holding is res judicata — "claim preclusion." A claim that was decided (or could have been raised) in a prior case, between the same parties, on the same cause of action, and ending in a final judgment on the merits, cannot be brought again. The hearing officer found all four elements satisfied: D&O No. 24-10 resolved the validity of the November 2023 assessment on the merits and was affirmed on appeal; the parties are the same (the operative dispute is collection of the same personal liability from Mr. Gardner, regardless of the "DDS"/"DDS PA" labels in the caption); and both proceedings arise from the same facts — the plea agreement, the restitution amount, and the Department's authority to assess him personally.

Issuing a later collection notice does not create a new cause of action. A taxpayer protests an assessment under Section 7-1-24; once that protest is finally decided, a Final Notice Before Seizure is just enforcement of the existing, already-adjudicated liability. So Gardner's arguments — wrong CRS/BTID account or Social Security number, a November 2023 abatement, the three-year limitations rule in Section 7-1-18, the scope of the plea agreement, and the Department's reliance on the presumption of correctness — did not help him, because they either were or could have been raised in the first protest and appeal. The hearing officer also distinguished New Mexico Depo (which applies to a timely original assessment protest, not a collateral attack after final adjudication).

A lien protest is narrow — it tests the lien, not the underlying tax

For the $1,424.95 lien, the question was not whether each underlying assessment was correct, but whether Gardner showed a statutory basis to release or extinguish the filed lien. Under Section 7-1-39, a lien must be released when a substantial part of the tax is paid, may be released if it was premature or filed unlawfully, and is extinguished automatically after ten years. The Department made a prima facie showing that the lien was properly filed after assessment and a Notice of Intent to Lien, that $1,424.95 remained unpaid, and that ten years had not passed. Gardner's identity and identifier objections were considered only for lien compliance under Sections 7-1-38 and 7-1-39 — and the recorded lien did identify the taxpayer (identifier ending 4937), the amount, and the tax programs. To the extent he was really attacking the underlying assessments, that had to be done through a timely Section 7-1-24 protest; a lien protest does not revive that window.

Everything else fell away

Because the Department was entitled to summary judgment on both protests, Gardner's own motion for summary judgment was denied, and his motions to compel discovery, for subpoenas and depositions, his motion in limine, and his scheduling requests were denied as moot or immaterial — additional discovery could not change the preclusion analysis. The merits hearing set for August 12, 2026 was vacated, and both protests were denied.

What this means for you

Protest an assessment on time — you usually get one bite at the apple

New Mexico gives you a defined window under Section 7-1-24 to protest an assessment. If you let that decision become final (including through appeal), later collection steps — demand letters, a Final Notice Before Seizure, a recorded lien — are generally not a second chance to argue the tax was wrong.

Res judicata blocks re-labeled arguments, not just identical ones

You cannot avoid preclusion by dressing up the same challenge with a new legal theory, a new characterization, or evidence you could have offered the first time. If an argument arose from the same facts and could have been raised, it is barred.

A lien protest and an assessment protest are different things

Protesting a tax lien tests only whether the lien complied with the statutory filing and release rules (Sections 7-1-38 and 7-1-39) — for example, whether it identified the right taxpayer, was premature, or should be released because the tax was paid or ten years passed. It is not a vehicle to reopen the merits of the taxes behind the lien.

Paperwork discrepancies rarely void a lien on their own

Different letter IDs, name styles (an individual vs. a professional corporation), or account labels across collection documents will not defeat a lien where the record still identifies the same taxpayer, the same lien number, and the same liability.

Common questions

Q: I lost my tax protest and the appeal. Can I protest the seizure notice to try again?
A: Generally no. Once the assessment has been finally decided and affirmed, res judicata bars relitigating it by protesting later collection activity. The seizure notice enforces the existing liability; it is not a new assessment.

Q: The state used the wrong account number or name on its collection papers. Doesn't that void everything?
A: Not by itself. Here the hearing officer found the record still identified the same taxpayer and liability. Identifier or name-style discrepancies did not create a new assessment or defeat the finality of the prior decision, and did not establish a statutory basis to release the lien.

Q: Can I use a protest of a tax lien to argue the underlying taxes were wrong?
A: No. A lien protest is limited to whether the lien met the statutory requirements for filing and release under Sections 7-1-38 and 7-1-39. Challenges to the underlying assessments had to be raised in a timely protest under Section 7-1-24.

Q: When is a New Mexico tax lien extinguished automatically?
A: Under Section 7-1-39(C), a lien is extinguished by operation of law ten years after the notice of lien was filed. It must also be released when a substantial part of the tax is paid, and may be released if it was premature or filed unlawfully.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-24 — how and when to protest; unprotested assessed amounts become final and the right to protest is waived
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-37 — a tax lien arises when a liable person neglects or refuses to pay after assessment and demand, on all property and rights to property
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-38 — recording a notice of tax lien and identifying the taxpayer
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-39 — release or extinguishment of a lien: release on substantial payment (A); permissive release if premature/unlawful or to facilitate collection (B); automatic extinguishment after ten years (C)
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-18 — time limits for assessing tax (raised as a limitations defense but not reached, having been available in the prior protest)
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-25 — appeal of a Decision and Order is on the record and is not de novo; the decision is conclusive if no timely appeal is taken
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1B-6, 7-1B-8 — AHO jurisdiction over tax protests, discovery and subpoena authority, and authority to decide dispositive motions
• Regulation 22.600.3.16(I), 22.600.3.17, 22.600.3.24(C), 22.600.1.20(C) NMAC — dispositive-motion and procedural framework for tax protests; AHO's independence

Cases cited:

• Potter v. Pierce, 2015-NMSC-002 — elements of claim preclusion and New Mexico's transactional "common nucleus of operative facts" approach
• Kirby v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2010-NMSC-014 — claim preclusion bars claims that were raised or could have been raised
• Bank of Santa Fe v. Marcy Plaza Assocs., 2002-NMCA-014 — same
• Shovelin v. Central N.M. Elec. Coop., Inc., 1993-NMSC-015 — administrative adjudications may have preclusive effect when the agency acts in a judicial capacity
• Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2010-NMSC-035; Koenig v. Perez, 1986-NMSC-066 — summary judgment standard
• New Mexico Depo v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2021-NMCA-011 — distinguished; gross receipts tax reaches only the person engaging in business, but that inquiry belongs to a timely original assessment protest
• Rule 12-405(A) NMRA — a nonprecedential appellate disposition is not precedent for other cases but still has finality between the parties under claim and issue preclusion

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: William Gardner DDS / William Gardner DDS PA
• Decision PDF: D&O 26-07

Original ruling text

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

4 WILLIAM GARDNER DDS/WILLIAM GARDNER DDS PA,

5 v. Case Number 26.05-008A, D&O 26-07

6 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

7 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEPARTMENT’S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL
8 SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING TAXPAYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
9 JUDGMENT, AND RESOLVING OUTSTANDING MOTIONS

10 This matter came before the Administrative Hearings Office, Hearing Officer Chris

11 Romero, Esq., on two tax protests consolidated in AHO No. 26.05-008A, pursuant to the Tax

12 Administration Act and the Administrative Hearings Office Act. The Hearing Officer held a

13 telephonic prehearing conference on June 16, 2026. William Gardner (“Gardner” or “Taxpayer”)

14 appeared representing himself. David Mittle, Esq., appeared representing the Taxation and

15 Revenue Department (“Department”), accompanied by Nicholas Pacheco, protest auditor. The

16 parties were afforded an opportunity to address the pending dispositive motions, related

17 procedural issues, discovery, subpoenas, witnesses, and scheduling.

18 The Administrative Hearings Office (“AHO”) is an independent adjudicatory agency

19 charged with providing a fair and impartial forum for the resolution of tax protests under the Tax

20 Administration Act. See Regulation 22.600.1.20(C) NMAC. The Hearing Officer is not

21 responsible to or subject to the direction of any officer, employee, or agent of the Taxation and

22 Revenue Department.

23 This consolidated matter presents two related but distinct disputes. The first concerns

24 whether Taxpayer may use a protest of subsequent collection activity, including a Final Notice

25 Before Seizure, to relitigate the validity of a previously protested assessment adjudicated by

26 AHO in AHO No. 24.01-006A, and affirmed on appeal by the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 1 of 38
1 The second dispute concerns whether Taxpayer has established a statutory basis for release or

2 extinguishment of Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031, filed in Bernalillo County for

3 $1,424.95.

4 Having reviewed the parties’ motions, responses, exhibits, verified statements, prior

5 administrative and appellate decisions submitted by the parties, the administrative file, and the

6 parties’ oral arguments, the Hearing Officer concludes that the Department is entitled to partial

7 summary judgment on both issues. The Hearing Officer further concludes that Taxpayer is not

8 entitled to summary judgment, that the remaining discovery, subpoena, evidentiary, and

9 scheduling requests are moot or immaterial in light of the dispositive rulings, and that because no

10 triable issues remain, the scheduled merits hearing should be vacated.

11 IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

12 FINDINGS OF FACT

13 A. The Approximately $160,000 Protest

14 1. William C. Gardner entered into a Plea and Disposition Agreement in his personal

15 capacity in a criminal proceeding involving tax fraud allegations. Under that agreement, Mr.

16 Gardner agreed to pay restitution to the State for unpaid taxes and interest in the total amount of

17 $162,534.06. [Department’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment directed to the

18 approximately $160,000 protest (“Dept. $160,000 MSJ”), UMF ¶¶ 1-2; AHO Decision and

19 Order No. 24-10, FOF ¶¶ 25-26, 29]

20 2. On or about November 22, 2023, the Department issued a Notice of Assessment

21 to Mr. Gardner in the amount of $162,534.06. Mr. Gardner protested that assessment in AHO

22 No. 24.01-006A. [Dept. $160,000 MSJ, UMF ¶¶ 3-4, 7; AHO D&O No. 24-10, FOF ¶¶ 1-2, 5]

23 3. In AHO No. 24.01-006A, Mr. Gardner argued, among other things, that the

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 2 of 38
1 Department could not assess him personally for gross receipts taxes, that he did not owe gross

2 receipts tax in his individual capacity, that the assessment was connected to an improper criminal

3 prosecution, and that he was denied rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. [Dept. $160,000

4 MSJ, UMF ¶¶ 5-6; Verification of Nicholas Pacheco supporting Dept. $160,000 MSJ (“Pacheco

5 $160,000 Verif.”) ¶¶ 6-8 and Exs. B-D]

6 4. The Department moved for summary judgment in AHO No. 24.01-006A. The

7 assigned hearing officer denied that motion and conducted a merits hearing. [Dept. $160,000

8 MSJ, UMF ¶¶ 8-11; AHO D&O No. 24-10, p. 1 and FOF ¶¶ 17, 19]

9 5. On July 12, 2024, the assigned hearing officer issued D&O No. 24-10, resolving

10 the protest of the November 22, 2023 assessment against Mr. Gardner. [Dept. $160,000 MSJ,

11 UMF ¶¶ 12-13; AHO D&O No. 24-10]

12 6. D&O No. 24-10 rejected Mr. Gardner’s challenge to the assessment, concluded

13 that Mr. Gardner’s admission of responsibility in the Plea and Disposition Agreement was

14 binding, and rejected Mr. Gardner’s attempt to avoid the assessment based on asserted civil-

15 rights or taxpayer-rights violations connected to the plea or underlying criminal matter. [Dept.

16 $160,000 MSJ, UMF ¶ 13; AHO D&O No. 24-10, p. 9]

17 7. Mr. Gardner appealed D&O No. 24-10 to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. In

18 that appeal, he argued, among other things, that the Department erred in assessing him personally

19 and that the assessment was not issued in compliance with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. [Dept.

20 $160,000 MSJ, UMF ¶¶ 14-15; Pacheco $160,000 Verif. ¶ 8 and Ex. D, p. 4; William Gardner v.

21 New Mexico Tax’n and Revenue Dep’t, A-1-CA-42090, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. May 5, 2025)

22 (nonprecedential)]

23 8. The Court of Appeals affirmed D&O No. 24-10. [Dept. $160,000 MSJ, UMF ¶¶

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 3 of 38
1 16-17; Pacheco $160,000 Verif. ¶¶ 9-10 and Exs. E-F; William Gardner v. New Mexico Tax’n

2 and Revenue Dep’t, A-1-CA-42090, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. May 5, 2025) (nonprecedential)]

3 9. On November 26, 2025, the Department issued a Final Notice Before Seizure

4 related to the remaining balance on the assessment. The Final Notice Before Seizure identified

5 Letter ID L0888545136 and a remaining balance of $160,173.06. [Dept. $160,000 MSJ, UMF ¶

6 19; Pacheco $160,000 Verif. ¶ 11 and Ex. G]

7 10. The difference between the original $162,534.06 assessment and the $160,173.06

8 amount identified in later collection documents is attributable to payments applied to the

9 assessment. [Dept. $160,000 MSJ, UMF ¶ 21; Pacheco $160,000 Verif. ¶ 13]

10 11. On November 26, 2025, the Department filed a Notice of Claim of Tax Lien in

11 Sandoval County concerning the same $160,173.06 balance. The lien associated with that

12 collection activity was later executed and released. [Dept. $160,000 MSJ, UMF ¶¶ 20, 22-23;

13 Pacheco $160,000 Verif. ¶¶ 12, 14-15]

14 12. On April 30, 2026, Taxpayer filed a formal protest identifying Letter ID No.

15 L0888-5454-5136 and a total amount in controversy of $160,173.03. [Administrative File]

16 13. In the formal protest concerning Letter ID No. L0888-5454-5136, Taxpayer

17 asserted, in substance, that collection or assessment of the liability against him personally was

18 improper, raised constitutional and Tax Administration Act objections, referred to a prior

19 summary judgment ruling, and requested complete abatement and an exoneration letter.

20 [Administrative File]

21 14. In the current protest concerning the approximately $160,000 liability, Mr.

22 Gardner again challenges the Department’s authority to assess or collect the liability from him

23 personally. He again argues, among other things, that gross receipts tax cannot be assessed or

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 4 of 38
1 collected from him personally, that the Department used an incorrect CRS/BTID account or

2 Social Security number, that Department documents improperly reference “DDS,” his

3 professional association, his former spouse, or other persons or identifiers, that a prior November

4 13, 2023 abatement bars collection, and that the Department violated the Taxpayer Bill of

5 Rights, due process, and other legal protections. In his June 1, 2026 motion for summary

6 judgment, Taxpayer further contends that the November 22, 2023 assessment and November 26,

7 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure are void because they use an incorrect account or identifier;

8 that the assessment is untimely under Section 7-1-18; that the November 13, 2023 abatement

9 precludes the assessment; that the plea agreement covers only two months and criminal

10 restitution is not a civil tax assessment; and that the Department may not rely on the presumption

11 of correctness. [Pacheco $160,000 Verif. ¶ 5 and Ex. A; Dept. $160,000 MSJ, UMF ¶ 18;

12 Taxpayer’s Consolidated Response in Opposition to Department’s Partial Motion to Dismiss;

13 Protestant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and

14 Authorities (“Taxpayer MSJ”); Taxpayer’s Motion in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Merits

15 Hearing, to Preclude Preclusive or Controlling Effect of the 2024 Decision, and to Compel

16 Discovery concerning BTID 03-637127-00-0 (“Taxpayer Motion in Limine”), and Exs. 2, 3, 5]

17 15. Although the caption contains references to William Gardner DDS and William

18 Gardner DDS PA, the operative dispute concerning the approximately $160,000 liability is

19 whether the Department may continue collection activity against Mr. Gardner on the personal

20 assessment previously adjudicated in AHO No. 24.01-006A.

21 B. The $1,424.95 Lien Protest

22 16. Separately, the Department issued Notices of Assessment of Taxes and Demand

23 for Payment to William Gardner DDS on January 10, 2022 for unpaid gross receipts tax, on

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 5 of 38
1 January 18, 2022 for unpaid compensating tax, on September 27, 2023 for unpaid corporate

2 income tax, and on February 12, 2024 for unpaid corporate income tax. The Department mailed

3 copies of those assessments to the address maintained with the Department. [Department’s

4 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment directed to the $1,424.95 lien protest (“Dept. Lien MSJ”),

5 UMF ¶¶ 1-4; Verification of Nicholas Pacheco supporting Dept. Lien MSJ (“Pacheco Lien

6 Verif.”) ¶¶ 5-8 and Exs. A-D]

7 17. On January 12, 2026, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Lien concerning

8 the unpaid liabilities described in the Department’s lien motion. [Dept. Lien MSJ, UMF ¶ 5;

9 Pacheco Lien Verif. ¶ 9 and Ex. E]

10 18. On February 2, 2026, the Department filed Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No.

11 1129031 in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031

12 identified an unpaid amount of $1,424.95. [Dept. Lien MSJ, UMF ¶ 6; Pacheco Lien Verif. ¶ 10

13 and Ex. E; Taxpayer’s Formal Protest attached to Pacheco Lien Verif. as Ex. F]

14 19. The Department mailed a copy of Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031 to

15 Taxpayer at the address maintained with the Department. [Dept. Lien MSJ, UMF ¶ 7; Pacheco

16 Lien Verif. ¶ 11]

17 20. On or about February 20, 2026, Taxpayer filed a formal protest concerning the

18 $1,424.95 lien. [Dept. Lien MSJ, UMF ¶ 8; Pacheco Lien Verif. ¶ 12 and Ex. F]

19 21. On April 30, 2026, Taxpayer filed a Request for Hearing with AHO concerning

20 Letter ID No. L1374183664. The Request for Hearing identified William Gardner DDS PA as the

21 taxpayer, indicated that the protest arose from an assessment of tax, and identified gross receipts

22 tax and corporate income/franchise tax as tax programs in dispute. [Administrative File]

23 22. The Request for Hearing concerning Letter ID No. L1374183664 identified a total

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 6 of 38
1 amount in controversy of $1,424.95. The Department’s exhibit copy of the lien schedule for

2 Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031 identifies $923.32 in tax, $248.02 in penalty, and

3 $253.61 in interest, for a total amount of $1,424.95. [Administrative File; Pacheco Lien Verif.

4 Ex. E]

5 23. The record concerning the $1,424.95 lien includes the Request for Hearing

6 identifying William Gardner DDS PA, taxpayer identification number ending 4937, Lien No.

7 1129031, and a total amount in controversy of $1,424.95. The Department’s exhibit copy of

8 Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031 identifies “GARDNER WILLIAM C DDS,” FEIN

9 ending 4937, a Bernalillo County filing, and a total amount of $1,424.95. The lien schedule

10 identifies the tax programs, periods, tax, penalty, interest, and total included in the lien.

11 [Administrative File; Pacheco Lien Verif. Exs. E-F]

12 24. The Request for Hearing concerning Letter ID No. L1374183664 indicated that

13 Taxpayer was self-represented, that the hearing was requested by Taxpayer, and that Taxpayer

14 requested a scheduling hearing rather than an immediate merits hearing. [Administrative File]

15 25. Taxpayer disputed the taxpayer identity, taxpayer name, FEIN, CRS/BTID, letter

16 identifier, and account identifier associated with the $1,424.95 lien and requested discovery

17 concerning the taxpayer identifiers used on the assessment, Notice of Intent to Lien, and lien,

18 including documents reconciling any FEIN to BTID 02-368292-00-2. AHO has considered those

19 identity and identifier arguments for purposes of determining whether Taxpayer established a

20 statutory basis for release or extinguishment of Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031.

21 [Taxpayer’s June 11, 2026 discovery requests concerning Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No.

22 1129031]

23 26. Taxpayer has not paid all or any part of the $1,424.95 lien. Notice of Claim of Tax

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 7 of 38
1 Lien No. 1129031 was filed in 2026, and ten years have not passed since its filing. [Dept. Lien

2 MSJ, UMF ¶¶ 6, 9; Pacheco Lien Verif. ¶¶ 10, 13 and Ex. E]

3 C. Procedural Background, Consolidation, And Dispositive-Motion Practice

4 27. On May 6, 2026, AHO issued a Notice of Videoconference Merits Hearing,

5 assigned the matter to Hearing Officer Dee Dee Hoxie, and set a merits hearing for June 29,

6 2026. [Administrative File]

7 28. On May 6, 2026, Taxpayer filed a notice of peremptory excusal of Hearing

8 Officer Hoxie. [Administrative File]

9 29. On May 7, 2026, Chief Hearing Officer Brian VanDenzen reassigned the matter to

10 Hearing Officer Chris Romero and advised that the May 6, 2026 Notice of Videoconference

11 Merits Hearing remained valid and in effect except for the change in hearing officer assignment.

12 [Administrative File]

13 30. On May 8, 2026, David Mittle entered his appearance for the Department in

14 substitution for prior counsel. [Administrative File]

15 31. Also on May 8, 2026, AHO entered an Order Consolidating Tax Protests,

16 consolidating under AHO Case No. 26.05-008A the protest involving the approximately

17 $160,173.06 amount and the protest involving Letter ID L1374183664 in the amount of

18 $1,424.95. The Order Consolidating Tax Protests provided that the hearing on the consolidated

19 matters would proceed under the May 6, 2026 Notice of Videoconference Merits Hearing.

20 [Administrative File]

21 32. On May 12, 2026, the Department filed its Original Answer. The Department

22 asserted that the approximately $160,000 protest was barred by res judicata and collateral

23 estoppel and that the separate protest concerning the smaller lien amount was barred by Section

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 8 of 38
1 7-1-24. [Administrative File]

2 33. On May 19, 2026, the Department filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss directed to

3 the approximately $160,000 protest, arguing that the protest was barred by res judicata because

4 the same assessment had already been adjudicated in AHO No. 24.01-006A and affirmed on

5 appeal. [Administrative File]

6 34. On May 28, 2026, Taxpayer filed a Consolidated Response in Opposition to the

7 Department’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. In addition to opposing dismissal, Taxpayer requested

8 that AHO determine as a matter of law that the November 2023 reassessment and the November

9 2025 demand were void or otherwise unenforceable and abate the approximately $160,000

10 liability in full. On June 1, 2026, Taxpayer filed Protestant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

11 Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities, seeking summary judgment on the

12 approximately $160,000 protest and abatement of the November 22, 2023 assessment and

13 November 26, 2025 collection demand. [Administrative File; Taxpayer’s Consolidated Response

14 in Opposition to the Department’s Partial Motion to Dismiss; Taxpayer MSJ]

15 35. On June 2, 2026, the Department filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

16 directed to the approximately $160,000 protest, supported by exhibits and the verification of

17 Nicholas Pacheco. [Administrative File; Dept. $160,000 MSJ; Pacheco $160,000 Verif.]

18 36. After filing the June 2, 2026 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment directed to

19 the approximately $160,000 protest, the Department withdrew its earlier Partial Motion to

20 Dismiss. [Administrative File]

21 37. Also on June 2, 2026, the Department filed a separate Motion for Partial

22 Summary Judgment directed to the $1,424.95 lien protest, supported by exhibits and a separate

23 verification of Nicholas Pacheco. [Administrative File; Dept. Lien MSJ; Pacheco Lien Verif.]

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 9 of 38
1 38. On June 2, 2026, the Department filed a Motion to Strike Gardner’s Motion for

2 Summary Judgment, directed to Taxpayer’s June 1, 2026 motion. [Administrative File;

3 Department’s Motion to Strike Gardner’s Motion for Summary Judgment]

4 39. On June 3, 2026, Taxpayer filed a response opposing the Department’s motion to

5 strike, requesting that AHO rule on the merits of his June 1, 2026 motion, and requesting

6 sanctions. [Administrative File; Taxpayer’s Response in Opposition to the Department’s Motion

7 to Strike Taxpayer’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for Sanctions]

8 40. On June 11, 2026, Taxpayer filed a response opposing the Department’s Motion

9 for Partial Summary Judgment directed to the $1,424.95 lien protest. In that response, Taxpayer

10 stated that he intended to file his own motion for summary judgment directed to the lien

11 assessment after discovery and separately stated that his June 1, 2026 Motion for Summary

12 Judgment directed to the approximately $160,000 protest remained pending. No separately

13 captioned motion for summary judgment directed to the $1,424.95 lien protest was filed.

14 [Administrative File; Taxpayer’s Response in Opposition to the Department’s Motion for Partial

15 Summary Judgment]

16 41. On June 16, 2026, AHO held a telephonic prehearing conference. William

17 Gardner appeared representing himself. David Mittle appeared for the Department, accompanied

18 by Nicholas Pacheco. The parties were afforded an opportunity to address the pending

19 dispositive motions, procedural issues, discovery, subpoenas, witnesses, and scheduling.

20 [Administrative File]

21 42. Taxpayer filed written responses, exhibits, and arguments in opposition to the

22 Department’s dispositive filings, requested affirmative dispositive relief concerning the

23 approximately $160,000 protest in his May 28, 2026 Consolidated Response and June 1, 2026

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 10 of 38
1 Motion for Summary Judgment, and addressed the dispositive issues at the June 16, 2026

2 prehearing conference. [Administrative File; Taxpayer MSJ]

3 D. Discovery, Subpoenas, Depositions, Witnesses, Motion in Limine, and Related
4 Procedural Requests

5 43. On May 7, 2026, Taxpayer filed a request for production of documents.

6 [Administrative File]

7 44. On May 10, 2026, Taxpayer filed a witness list identifying numerous anticipated

8 witnesses, including witnesses associated with the Department, the Office of Superintendent of

9 Insurance, the district attorney, and Delta Dental. [Administrative File]

10 45. On or about May 10 or 11, 2026, Taxpayer served combined discovery requests

11 directed to the Department. The discovery document is dated May 11, 2026, while the certificate

12 of service and a separately filed certificate identify May 10, 2026 as the service date.

13 [Administrative File; Taxpayer’s Combined First and Second Sets of Discovery Requests;

14 Certificate of Service]

15 46. On May 20, 2026, AHO entered a Supplemental Order Setting Prehearing

16 Conference and Requiring Witness Proffers. The Supplemental Order set a June 16, 2026

17 prehearing conference, required witness lists and proffers by June 5, 2026, set deadlines for

18 motions or objections concerning witnesses or subpoenas, and stated that the merits hearing

19 would be limited to issues properly raised by the protest and the Department’s answer.

20 [Administrative File]

21 47. In order to facilitate consideration of the various objections or motions, AHO on

22 May 21, 2026 entered an Order Requiring Filing of Certificates of Service and Responses to

23 Subpoena-Related Motions. [Administrative File]

24 48. In May 2026, subpoena-related motions and objections were filed by or

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 11 of 38
1 concerning various nonparties and the Department, including filings relating to subpoenas

2 directed to Cabinet Secretary Stephanie Schardin Clarke. [Administrative File]

3 49. On May 22, 2026, Taxpayer filed a response to the motion to quash and request

4 for protective order directed to Cabinet Secretary Stephanie Schardin Clarke. [Administrative

5 File]

6 50. On May 22, 2026, AHO entered an Order on Cabinet Secretary Stephanie

7 Schardin Clarke’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order, quashing the subpoena and

8 document production directed to the Cabinet Secretary and requiring any future request for her

9 testimony or documents to comply with applicable law and demonstrate relevance, materiality,

10 necessity, non-duplication, and the absence of a less burdensome source. [Administrative File]

11 51. Also on May 22, 2026, AHO entered an Order Temporarily Staying Issuance,

12 Service, and Enforcement of Subpoenas. The order stayed existing subpoenas, prohibited new

13 subpoenas without leave of the Hearing Officer, reserved remaining subpoena-related issues, and

14 provided that remaining subpoena, witness, or scheduling issues would be addressed as

15 appropriate at the June 16, 2026 prehearing conference. [Administrative File]

16 52. On June 11, 2026, Taxpayer filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and

17 for Expedited Consideration, requesting, among other relief, compelled discovery responses,

18 admissions or adverse inferences, and deferral of the Department’s pending dispositive motion

19 until discovery was completed. [Administrative File; Taxpayer’s Motion to Compel Discovery

20 Responses and for Expedited Consideration]

21 53. On June 15, 2026, the Department filed objections concerning witnesses and

22 anticipated testimony. [Administrative File]

23 54. The pre-hearing conference occurred on June 16, 2026 at which time the parties

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 12 of 38
1 were heard on all issues outstanding as of that date, including the determination to continue the

2 merits hearing originally noticed for June 29, 2026 to August 12, 2026. [Administrative File]

3 55. On June 18, 2026, Taxpayer filed a Motion in Limine to Limit the Scope of the

4 Merits Hearing, to Preclude Preclusive or Controlling Effect of the 2024 Decision, and to

5 Compel Discovery concerning BTID 03-637127-00-0. [Taxpayer Motion in Limine]

6 56. On July 2, 2026, the Department filed a Motion to Strike Taxpayer’s Motion in

7 Limine. [Department’s Motion to Strike Taxpayer’s Motion in Limine]

8 57. On July 3, 2026, Taxpayer filed a Motion for Clarification of the Discovery

9 Schedule and, in the alternative, to permit depositions and compel outstanding discovery.

10 [Taxpayer’s Motion for Clarification of the Discovery Schedule and, in the Alternative, to Permit

11 Depositions and Compel Outstanding Discovery]

12 58. As of issuance of this Decision and Order, the pending matters before AHO

13 included the Department’s dispositive motions directed to both consolidated protests, Taxpayer’s

14 requests for affirmative dispositive relief concerning the approximately $160,000 protest, the

15 Department’s motions to strike, and Taxpayer’s related requests concerning discovery,

16 subpoenas, depositions, witness testimony, evidentiary limits, hearing scope, and scheduling.

17 [Administrative File]

18 DISCUSSION

19 I. Overview

20 This consolidated case presents two related but distinct disputes.

21 The first dispute concerns Taxpayer’s protest of later collection activity, including the

22 November 26, 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure, relating to the Department’s November 22,

23 2023 assessment issued to William C. Gardner personally in the amount of $162,534.06. That

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 13 of 38
1 assessment was previously protested in AHO No. 24.01-006A, resolved by Decision and Order

2 No. 24-10, and affirmed on appeal by the New Mexico Court of Appeals. The dispositive

3 question is whether Taxpayer may use this later protest to relitigate the validity of that same

4 personal assessment. He may not.

5 The second dispute concerns Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031, filed in

6 Bernalillo County in the amount of $1,424.95. That lien arises from separate assessments for

7 gross receipts tax, compensating tax, and corporate income tax. The dispositive question is

8 whether Taxpayer has established a statutory basis for release or extinguishment of the lien under

9 the Tax Administration Act. He has not.

10 The Department moved for partial summary judgment on both protests. Taxpayer

11 opposed the Department’s motions and moved for summary judgment in his own favor.

12 Taxpayer also filed or pursued related requests concerning discovery, subpoenas, depositions,

13 witnesses, evidentiary limitations, hearing scope, and scheduling. For the reasons below, the

14 Department is entitled to partial summary judgment on both protests. Taxpayer is not entitled to

15 summary judgment. The remaining procedural, discovery, subpoena, deposition, witness,

16 evidentiary, hearing-scope, and scheduling requests are moot or immaterial in light of the

17 dispositive rulings.

18 Although the Department’s motions were styled as motions for partial summary

19 judgment, the rulings below dispose of all claims, protests, and requests for relief remaining in

20 this consolidated matter.

21 II. AHO’s Authority to Resolve the Pending Motions

22 AHO has jurisdiction to hear tax protests under the Tax Administration Act. See NMSA

23 1978, Section 7-1B-6(C)(1). In tax protest proceedings, the Rules of Civil Procedure for the

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 14 of 38
1 District Courts do not apply unless otherwise specifically prescribed by statute, regulation, or

2 order of the hearing officer. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-6(D)(2); Regulation 22.600.3.24(C)

3 NMAC.

4 The hearing officer must allow the fair and ample presentation of complaints and

5 defenses, hear arguments, permit appropriate discovery, entertain and dispose of motions, and

6 render a decision in accordance with the law and the evidence presented and admitted. See

7 NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-6(D)(2); Regulation 22.600.3.24(C) NMAC. AHO is expressly

8 authorized to decide dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment, motions for

9 partial summary judgment, and motions to dismiss. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-8(G);

10 Regulation 22.600.3.16(I) NMAC.

11 The Department initially filed a partial motion to dismiss directed to the approximately

12 $160,000 protest. The Department later withdrew that motion and substituted a motion for partial

13 summary judgment supported by exhibits and verification. Accordingly, AHO does not decide

14 the withdrawn motion to dismiss. The operative dispositive filing concerning the approximately

15 $160,000 protest is the Department’s motion for partial summary judgment. Taxpayer had notice

16 of the Department’s preclusion theory, filed written responses, submitted exhibits and argument,

17 filed his own motion for summary judgment, and addressed the dispositive issues at the June 16,

18 2026 prehearing conference.

19 AHO also takes administrative notice of its own file in this consolidated matter and of the

20 prior AHO and appellate proceedings referenced by the parties. The parties submitted or

21 addressed those materials in connection with the pending motions and were afforded an

22 opportunity to respond. AHO considers those materials for the limited purpose of resolving the

23 pending dispositive motions, including the procedural history, finality, scope, and preclusive

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 15 of 38
1 effect of the prior adjudication.

2 III. Summary Judgment Standard

3 Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and

4 the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc.,

5 2010-NMSC-035, ¶ 7, 148 N.M. 713; Koenig v. Perez, 1986-NMSC-066, ¶¶ 10-11, 104 N.M.

6 664. Summary judgment is particularly appropriate where the material facts are not genuinely

7 disputed and the issue is the legal effect of those facts. See Koenig, 1986-NMSC-066, ¶¶ 10-11.

8 The moving party bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it is

9 entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Romero, 2010-NMSC-035, ¶ 10; Roth v. Thompson,

10 1992-NMSC-011, ¶ 17, 113 N.M. 331. Once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the

11 opposing party to demonstrate specific evidentiary facts requiring a trial or merits hearing. See

12 Romero, 2010-NMSC-035, ¶ 10; Roth, 1992-NMSC-011, ¶ 17. Unsupported assertions, legal

13 conclusions, speculation, and allegations that do not create a genuine dispute of material fact are

14 insufficient. See Romero, 2010-NMSC-035, ¶¶ 10-11.

15 A fact is material only if it affects the outcome under the governing substantive law. See

16 Romero, 2010-NMSC-035, ¶ 11. Accordingly, factual disputes that are collateral, precluded,

17 outside AHO’s jurisdiction, or immaterial under the governing statutes do not prevent summary

18 judgment.

19 IV. Taxpayer May Not Use the Approximately $160,000 Protest to Relitigate the Prior
20 Assessment

21 The dispositive issue concerning the approximately $160,000 protest is whether Taxpayer

22 may use a protest of later collection activity to relitigate the validity of the same personal

23 assessment previously adjudicated in AHO No. 24.01-006A and affirmed on appeal. He may not.

24 Res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, bars relitigation of claims that were

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 16 of 38
1 raised or could have been raised in a prior proceeding. See Kirby v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

2 Am., 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 61, 148 N.M. 106; Bank of Santa Fe v. Marcy Plaza Assocs., 2002-

3 NMCA-014, ¶ 14, 131 N.M. 537. The doctrine relieves parties of the cost and burden of repeated

4 litigation, conserves adjudicatory resources, prevents inconsistent decisions, and promotes

5 reliance on final adjudications. See Potter v. Pierce, 2015-NMSC-002, ¶ 10, 342 P.3d 54;

6 Computer One, Inc. v. Grisham & Lawless, P.A., 2008-NMSC-038, ¶ 31, 144 N.M. 424.

7 A party asserting claim preclusion must establish that: (1) there was a final judgment in

8 an earlier action; (2) the earlier judgment was on the merits; (3) the parties in the two

9 proceedings are the same or in privity; and (4) the cause of action is the same in both

10 proceedings. See Potter, 2015-NMSC-002, ¶ 10; Kirby, 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 61; Deflon v.

11 Sawyers, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 2, 139 N.M. 637. Whether claim preclusion applies is a question of

12 law. See Kirby, 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 61.

13 New Mexico applies a transactional approach to determine whether two proceedings

14 involve the same cause of action. See Potter, 2015-NMSC-002, ¶ 11; Three Rivers Land Co. v.

15 Maddoux, 1982-NMSC-111, ¶ 27, 98 N.M. 690, overruled on other grounds by Universal Life

16 Church v. Coxon, 1986-NMSC-086, 105 N.M. 57. Under that approach, claims arising from a

17 common nucleus of operative facts are treated as the same cause of action for preclusion

18 purposes. See Potter, 2015-NMSC-002, ¶¶ 11-14; Anaya v. City of Albuquerque, 1996-NMCA-

19 092, ¶¶ 8, 12, 122 N.M. 326. Claim preclusion also requires consideration of whether the party

20 against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. See Potter, 2015-

21 NMSC-002, ¶ 15; Brooks Trucking Co. v. Bull Rogers, Inc., 2006-NMCA-025, ¶ 11, 139 N.M.

22 99.

23 Administrative adjudications may have preclusive effect when the agency acted in a

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 17 of 38
1 judicial capacity, resolved issues properly before it, and the parties had an opportunity to fully

2 and fairly litigate. See Shovelin v. Central N.M. Elec. Coop., Inc., 1993-NMSC-015, ¶¶ 10-14,

3 115 N.M. 293. AHO No. 24.01-006A was an adjudicative tax protest proceeding conducted

4 under the Tax Administration Act and the Administrative Hearings Office Act. Mr. Gardner also

5 pursued appellate review under Section 7-1-25. This case therefore presents stronger grounds for

6 preclusion than an informal or expedited administrative determination. The prior AHO

7 proceeding involved the same assessment, the same taxpayer, a merits hearing, a written

8 decision, and direct appellate review. An appeal from an AHO decision is on the record and is

9 not de novo, and if no timely appeal is taken the hearing officer’s decision is conclusive. See

10 NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-25(A). Where, as here, appellate review was pursued and the decision

11 was affirmed, the adjudication is final between the parties.

12 The Department has established the elements of claim preclusion. First, there was a final

13 decision in the prior proceeding. D&O No. 24-10 resolved Taxpayer’s protest of the November

14 22, 2023 assessment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The fact that the appellate

15 disposition was nonprecedential does not prevent it from having finality between these parties.

16 Rule 12-405(A) NMRA provides that nonprecedential dispositions are not precedent, but may be

17 cited for persuasive value and under the doctrines of law of the case, claim preclusion, and issue

18 preclusion. Thus, the appellate disposition does not have precedential value for unrelated cases,

19 but it does not lack finality between the parties to that appeal.

20 Second, the prior decision was on the merits. The assigned hearing officer denied the

21 Department’s summary judgment motion, conducted a merits hearing, and issued a decision

22 resolving the validity of the assessment. Mr. Gardner therefore received a full and fair

23 opportunity to litigate the issues he now seeks to raise again. He also pursued appellate review.

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 18 of 38
1 Third, the parties are the same for preclusion purposes. The prior proceeding involved

2 William C. Gardner personally and the Department. The present protest again seeks to prevent

3 the Department from collecting the same personal assessment from Mr. Gardner. Although the

4 caption in this consolidated matter contains references to William Gardner DDS and William

5 Gardner DDS PA, and although some Department documents contain references to “DDS,” the

6 operative dispute concerning the approximately $160,000 balance concerns the Department’s

7 assessment and collection of the liability from Mr. Gardner personally. That is the same dispute

8 that was presented in AHO No. 24.01-006A.

9 To the extent Taxpayer relies on the caption’s reference to William Gardner DDS or

10 William Gardner DDS PA to argue that the current protest involves a different party, AHO rejects

11 that argument. The operative relief sought in the approximately $160,000 protest is relief from

12 collection of the same personal assessment previously issued to and adjudicated against William

13 C. Gardner. Taxpayer’s own protest challenges collection from him personally and asserts that

14 the Department may not assess or collect the liability from him individually. The caption’s

15 business-name references do not alter the identity of the real party in interest for purposes of

16 claim preclusion. In any event, the interests asserted in the current protest are aligned with,

17 controlled by, and derivative of Mr. Gardner’s challenge to the same personal assessment

18 previously adjudicated in AHO No. 24.01-006A.

19 Fourth, the cause of action is the same. Both proceedings arise from the Department’s

20 November 22, 2023 assessment issued in the amount of $162,534.06 based on the unpaid-tax

21 restitution obligation contained in Mr. Gardner’s Plea and Disposition Agreement. Both

22 proceedings concern whether the Department may assess and collect that liability from Mr.

23 Gardner personally. Both proceedings involve the same common nucleus of operative facts: the

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 19 of 38
1 plea agreement, the restitution amount, the Department’s issuance of the assessment, Mr.

2 Gardner’s contention that he is not personally liable for gross receipts tax, and his assertion that

3 the Department lacked authority or failed to comply with taxpayer-rights requirements.

4 The present proceeding includes later collection activity, including the November 26,

5 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure. But later collection activity does not create a new cause of

6 action on the merits of the already-adjudicated assessment. A taxpayer may protest an assessment

7 or other application of the Tax Administration Act in the manner and within the time provided by

8 Section 7-1-24. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24(A), (B), (E). If a taxpayer fails to timely protest

9 an assessment, the undisputed amount assessed and not protested becomes final, the taxpayer is

10 deemed to have waived the right to protest the assessment, and the Secretary may proceed to

11 enforce collection if the taxpayer is delinquent. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24(F). Here, Mr.

12 Gardner timely protested the November 22, 2023 assessment, but that protest was adjudicated

13 against him and affirmed on appeal. The later collection notice did not reopen the underlying

14 assessment, create a new opportunity to litigate personal liability, or permit Taxpayer to raise

15 again arguments that were or could have been raised in the prior protest and appeal.

16 AHO does not hold that collection activity can never be protested under Section 7-1-24.

17 Section 7-1-24 permits a taxpayer to dispute certain applications of the Tax Administration Act

18 and certain peremptory notices or demands. The point here is narrower. Even assuming the

19 November 26, 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure was protestable as later collection activity, the

20 scope of that protest did not include a renewed merits challenge to the November 22, 2023

21 assessment after that assessment had already been adjudicated and affirmed on appeal.

22 Taxpayer’s arguments concerning allegedly incorrect BTID, CRS account, Social

23 Security number, taxpayer name, professional association, former spouse, and other identifiers

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 20 of 38
1 do not avoid claim preclusion. AHO recognizes that Taxpayer places substantial emphasis on

2 those asserted defects. He argues that gross receipts tax may be imposed only on a person

3 engaging in business, that the Department may not impose gross receipts tax on the wrong

4 taxpayer, and that Department records or account identifiers show that the assessment or

5 collection activity was directed to the wrong person or account. Even assuming those arguments

6 would be relevant in an original protest of the assessment, they do not defeat preclusion here.

7 Taxpayer’s personal-liability theory was central to the prior protest. He argued in the prior matter

8 that he was an individual and did not owe gross receipts tax personally. He also challenged the

9 Department’s authority to assess him based on the plea agreement and restitution obligation.

10 Those arguments were rejected in D&O No. 24-10 and on appeal. Claim preclusion bars not only

11 claims actually raised, but also claims arising from the same transaction that could have been

12 raised in the first proceeding. See Kirby, 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 61; Bank of Santa Fe, 2002-

13 NMCA-014, ¶ 14.

14 Taxpayer’s citation to New Mexico Depo v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue

15 Department, 2021-NMCA-011, 485 P.3d 773, does not change this result. New Mexico Depo

16 involved a timely protest of the original gross receipts tax assessment and addressed whether

17 substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s merits determination that the assessed

18 taxpayer was the person engaging in business during the taxable period. The Court of Appeals

19 held that gross receipts tax may be imposed only on the person engaging in business and

20 reversed because the record showed that the LLC, not the individual taxpayer as sole proprietor,

21 was the person engaging in business during the period at issue.

22 This case is materially different. The approximately $160,000 protest is not a timely

23 original merits protest of a newly issued gross receipts tax assessment based solely on

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 21 of 38
1 Department registration records. It is a later protest of collection activity on the same personal

2 assessment that was already protested, adjudicated in AHO No. 24.01-006A, and affirmed on

3 appeal. New Mexico Depo did not involve a prior final administrative decision, an affirmed

4 appeal, a criminal plea and restitution obligation, or a taxpayer’s attempt to use later collection

5 activity to relitigate personal liability after final adjudication. Accordingly, New Mexico Depo

6 may describe the merits inquiry that can apply in a timely original assessment protest, but it does

7 not authorize AHO to disregard claim preclusion, reopen the November 22, 2023 assessment, or

8 conduct a second merits hearing on issues that were or could have been raised in the prior protest

9 and appeal.

10 New Mexico Depo would be most material in a timely original assessment protest before

11 final adjudication of the assessed taxpayer’s liability. It does not create an exception to claim

12 preclusion after the assessment has been finally adjudicated.

13 Nor does any alleged imprecision in later collection documents transform the November

14 26, 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure into a new assessment. AHO’s ruling does not depend on

15 whether every later Department collection document used the most precise taxpayer name,

16 account label, or identifier. The dispositive point is that the record identifies the November 26,

17 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure as collection activity on the same November 22, 2023

18 assessment previously sustained in AHO No. 24.01-006A and affirmed on appeal. The

19 Department’s verified evidence explains that the difference between the original $162,534.06

20 assessment and the later approximately $160,000 balance resulted from payments applied to the

21 assessment. Taxpayer has not identified evidence showing that the Department issued a new

22 assessment in 2025 or that the later collection notice created a new substantive liability.

23 Taxpayer’s reliance on the November 13, 2023 abatement also does not avoid preclusion.

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 22 of 38
1 Taxpayer argues that the abatement extinguished the relevant tax liability and bars the

2 Department from collecting the later personal assessment. The argument is not persuasive in this

3 procedural posture. The personal assessment at issue in AHO No. 24.01-006A was issued after

4 the abatement on which Taxpayer relies. Taxpayer protested that personal assessment. The

5 assigned hearing officer considered the parties’ evidence and arguments and sustained the

6 assessment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. If Taxpayer believed the November 13, 2023

7 abatement barred the later personal assessment, that issue arose from the same common nucleus

8 of operative facts and was required to be raised in the prior protest and appeal. See Potter, 2015-

9 NMSC-002, ¶¶ 11-15; Kirby, 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 61. AHO cannot use the earlier abatement to

10 nullify the later final adjudication. To do so would permit an administrative collateral attack on

11 D&O No. 24-10.

12 Taxpayer’s arguments concerning the Office of Superintendent of Insurance, the criminal

13 prosecution, alleged misrepresentations in the criminal matter, the legal effect of his no-contest

14 plea, and the validity or effect of his plea agreement also do not defeat the Department’s motion.

15 AHO hears tax protests under the Tax Administration Act. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-

16 6(C)(1). Nothing in the tax protest statutes authorizes AHO to reopen, supervise, or modify a

17 criminal proceeding. See NMSA 1978, Sections 7-1B-8(K), 7-1-24(I). AHO is not the criminal

18 court. It does not have authority in this tax protest to vacate a criminal plea agreement, modify a

19 criminal restitution obligation, adjudicate claims against OSI, determine whether a criminal

20 prosecution was properly initiated, or award civil-rights relief. To the extent those matters were

21 relevant to the validity of the Department’s assessment, they were or could have been raised in

22 the prior protest and appeal. To the extent they constitute independent challenges to the criminal

23 case or alleged civil-rights violations, they belong in a different forum.

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 23 of 38
1 Taxpayer’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, due process, statute of limitations, no-contest plea,

2 restitution-versus-tax, taxpayer-identity, and civil-rights arguments likewise do not create a

3 triable issue in this proceeding. Those arguments either were raised, were necessarily implicated,

4 or could have been raised in the prior protest and appeal. A party may not avoid claim preclusion

5 by presenting a new version of an old claim through additional labels, facts, or legal theories

6 after the first proceeding has become final. See Kirby, 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 61; Bank of Santa Fe,

7 2002-NMCA-014, ¶ 14.

8 The Department is therefore entitled to partial summary judgment on the approximately

9 $160,000 protest. Taxpayer’s renewed challenge to the validity or personal enforceability of the

10 November 22, 2023 assessment is barred by claim preclusion and constitutes an impermissible

11 collateral attack on the prior administrative and appellate adjudication.

12 V. The $1,424.95 Lien Protest Does Not Establish a Basis for Release or Extinguishment

13 The $1,424.95 protest is analytically separate from the approximately $160,000 protest

14 because it concerns Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031, filed in Bernalillo County. The

15 question is not whether Taxpayer may relitigate each underlying assessment included in the lien.

16 The question is whether Taxpayer has established a statutory basis for release or extinguishment

17 of the filed lien. AHO therefore considers Taxpayer’s identity and identifier arguments only to

18 the extent they bear on whether the filed lien itself complied with sections 7-1-38 and 7-1-39.

19 Under the Tax Administration Act, if a person liable for tax neglects or refuses to pay

20 after assessment and demand, the amount of tax becomes a lien in favor of the State of New

21 Mexico upon all property and rights to property of that person. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-

22 37(A). The lien arises when assessment and demand have been made and continues until the

23 liability is satisfied, extinguished, or released. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-37(B). A notice of

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 24 of 38
1 lien may be recorded in any county in the state or with the Secretary of State, and recording of

2 the notice is effective as to all property and rights to property of the taxpayer. See NMSA 1978,

3 Section 7-1-38.

4 Once a tax lien has been filed, Section 7-1-39 governs release or extinguishment. A lien

5 must be released or partially released when any substantial part of the amount of tax due is paid.

6 See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-39(A). The Department may release or partially release a lien

7 when the filing was premature, did not follow requirements of law, or when release or partial

8 release would facilitate collection. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-39(B). A lien is extinguished by

9 operation of law when ten years have passed from the date the notice of lien was filed. See

10 NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-39(C).

11 Section 7-1-39 does not provide a general opportunity to relitigate the underlying

12 assessments whenever a lien is filed. A taxpayer who wishes to dispute an assessment must do so

13 within the time and manner provided by Section 7-1-24. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24(E). If

14 the taxpayer fails to timely protest an assessment, the undisputed amount assessed and not

15 protested becomes final, the taxpayer is deemed to have waived the right to protest the

16 assessment, and the Secretary may proceed to enforce collection if the taxpayer is delinquent.

17 See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24(F).

18 The Department made a prima facie showing that Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No.

19 1129031 was filed after the Department issued assessments and a Notice of Intent to Lien. The

20 Department submitted verified evidence that the assessments were mailed to the taxpayer’s

21 address of record, that Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031 was filed in Bernalillo County,

22 that the unpaid amount was $1,424.95, that Taxpayer has not paid all or any part of the lien, and

23 that ten years have not passed since the lien was filed.

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 25 of 38
1 Taxpayer disputes the taxpayer identity, taxpayer name, FEIN, CRS/BTID, letter

2 identifier, and account identifier associated with Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031. AHO

3 has considered those arguments for the limited purpose for which they are material in this lien

4 protest: whether the notice of lien failed to identify the taxpayer whose liability was sought to be

5 enforced, whether the lien was filed against property or rights to property of a person whose

6 liability was not identified in the notice, or whether an identity or identifier defect otherwise

7 establishes that the lien was premature or did not follow requirements of law. See NMSA 1978,

8 Sections 7-1-38, 7-1-39(B).

9 On the record presented, Taxpayer has not established a genuine dispute of material fact

10 requiring a merits hearing on that limited lien-identity issue. The protest concerning the

11 $1,424.95 amount was associated with Letter ID No. L1374183664 and concerned Notice of

12 Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031. The Department’s exhibit copy of the recorded lien identifies

13 Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031, the taxpayer name, the taxpayer identifier ending

14 4937, the Bernalillo County filing, the amount of $1,424.95, the tax programs and filing periods

15 included in the lien, and a schedule allocating the total among tax, penalty, and interest.

16 Taxpayer’s Request for Hearing likewise identified William Gardner DDS PA, taxpayer

17 identification number ending 4937, Letter ID No. L1374183664, and the same $1,424.95

18 amount. Although the record contains different letter identifiers or name styles associated with

19 the lien and related documents, the parties’ filings and exhibits identify the same filed lien

20 number, the same amount, the same taxpayer identifier ending 4937, and the same collection

21 matter. Taxpayer has not shown that any letter-ID, caption, name-style, or identifier discrepancy

22 caused the lien to be filed against property or rights to property of a person whose liability was

23 not identified in the notice.

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 26 of 38
1 To the extent Taxpayer contends that the underlying assessments should not have been

2 issued to William Gardner DDS, William Gardner DDS PA, or an account associated with FEIN

3 ending 4937 or a particular BTID, that argument challenges the validity of the assessments rather

4 than the statutory sufficiency of the filed lien notice. Such an argument was required to be raised

5 through a timely protest of the underlying assessments under Section 7-1-24. A protest of a later-

6 filed lien does not revive the time to contest the merits of assessments that have become final by

7 operation of law. The identity and identifier arguments are therefore rejected on the merits to the

8 extent they challenge the statutory sufficiency of Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031, and

9 rejected as untimely to the extent they seek to reopen the underlying assessments.

10 Nor does New Mexico Depo require release or extinguishment of Notice of Claim of Tax

11 Lien No. 1129031. Unlike New Mexico Depo, this protest concerns a filed lien and the limited

12 statutory grounds for release or extinguishment under Section 7-1-39. AHO has considered

13 Taxpayer’s taxpayer-identity and taxpayer-identifier arguments for purposes of statutory lien

14 compliance, but a lien protest does not revive the time to litigate the merits of the underlying

15 assessments. New Mexico Depo therefore does not establish that this lien was premature, failed

16 to follow requirements of law, or is otherwise subject to release or extinguishment.

17 Taxpayer also asserted that he did not receive one or more assessments and that he

18 believes the amounts were paid or otherwise incorrect. Those assertions do not defeat summary

19 judgment on the record presented. The Department submitted verified evidence of mailing and

20 nonpayment. Taxpayer has not submitted evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of

21 material fact concerning payment, abatement, premature filing, unlawful filing, extinguishment

22 by operation of time, or any other statutory basis for lien release under Section 7-1-39.

23 AHO does not hold that a taxpayer can never obtain relief from a tax lien in a proper

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 27 of 38
1 case. AHO concludes only that, on this record, Taxpayer has not identified evidence or law that

2 would permit release or extinguishment of Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031 or permit

3 relitigation of the underlying assessments through this lien protest. The Department is therefore

4 entitled to partial summary judgment on the $1,424.95 lien protest.

5 VI. Taxpayer Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment

6 Taxpayer’s June 1, 2026 motion seeks summary judgment on the approximately $160,000

7 protest. He advances five related theories: (1) the November 22, 2023 assessment and November

8 26, 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure are void because they use an incorrect CRS/BTID, Social

9 Security number, taxpayer name, or other identifier; (2) the assessment is untimely under Section

10 7-1-18; (3) the November 13, 2023 abatement precludes the Department from enforcing the

11 assessment; (4) the plea agreement covers only two months and criminal restitution cannot

12 support the multi-period civil assessment; and (5) the Department cannot rely on the presumption

13 of correctness or otherwise carry the summary-judgment burden.

14 None of those theories entitles Taxpayer to judgment. With the limited exception of

15 identifying details appearing for the first time in the 2025 collection notice, each theory attacks

16 the validity of the November 22, 2023 assessment itself. That assessment was the subject of

17 AHO No. 24.01-006A, a merits hearing, D&O No. 24-10, and an unsuccessful appeal. Claim

18 preclusion bars a party from relitigating the same claim by offering a new legal theory, a

19 different characterization of the claim, or additional evidence that was available in the first

20 proceeding. See Kirby, 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 61; Bank of Santa Fe, 2002-NMCA-014, ¶ 14.

21 Taxpayer’s description of the assessment as “void” does not change the analysis. The

22 asserted account, limitations, abatement, plea-scope, restitution, and burden-of-proof defects are

23 merits challenges to the assessment. Taxpayer has not identified a jurisdictional defect in AHO

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 28 of 38
1 No. 24.01-006A or authority permitting AHO to collaterally disregard that final adjudication in a

2 later protest of collection activity.

3 Section 7-1-18 governs the time within which an assessment may be made. The

4 November 26, 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure was collection activity on the previously

5 adjudicated assessment, not a new assessment. Any limitations defense to the November 22,

6 2023 assessment was available in the prior protest. AHO therefore does not reach which

7 limitations period would have applied had the issue been timely litigated in the original

8 assessment protest.

9 The same is true of the November 13, 2023 abatement and the asserted scope or legal

10 effect of the plea agreement. The abatement predated both the November 22, 2023 assessment

11 and the prior protest, and its asserted preclusive effect could have been presented in AHO No.

12 24.01-006A. The prior decision also expressly resolved the Department’s reliance on the plea

13 agreement and restitution obligation, and that decision was affirmed. The earlier abatement does

14 not authorize AHO in this later proceeding to disregard the subsequent final adjudication of the

15 personal assessment.

16 To the extent Taxpayer relies on identifying details that first appeared in the November

17 26, 2025 collection notice, AHO does not treat those facts as having been available in the prior

18 case. They nevertheless do not establish entitlement to judgment. The undisputed record

19 identifies the notice as collection activity on the same November 22, 2023 assessment and

20 explains the lower balance as the result of payments. Taxpayer has not identified evidence that

21 the Department made a new assessment in 2025, imposed a new substantive liability, or that any

22 identifier discrepancy changed the identity of the adjudicated liability being collected.

23 Finally, the Department’s entitlement to partial summary judgment on the approximately

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 29 of 38
1 $160,000 protest rests on the finality and preclusive effect of the prior adjudication, not on the

2 presumption of correctness of the assessment. Taxpayer’s arguments concerning the presumption

3 and the Department’s merits burden therefore do not create a material factual dispute or establish

4 his entitlement to judgment.

5 Taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

6 VII. Discovery, Subpoenas, Depositions, Witnesses,
7 Motion in Limine, and Related Procedural Requests

8 Taxpayer pursued additional relief concerning discovery, subpoenas, depositions,

9 witnesses, evidentiary limitations, hearing scope, and scheduling. Those requests are denied as

10 moot or immaterial in light of the dispositive rulings.

11 Section 7-1B-6(D)(2) requires the hearing officer to permit appropriate discovery, and

12 Regulation 22.600.3.17 NMAC provides the procedural framework for discovery in tax protest

13 proceedings. Those provisions do not require discovery into matters that are precluded,

14 collateral, outside AHO’s jurisdiction, or immaterial to the issues remaining for decision.

15 Likewise, although a hearing officer may issue subpoenas for attendance of witnesses and

16 production of relevant books and papers, see NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-6(D)(3), subpoena

17 authority does not require a merits hearing or discovery into matters that cannot affect the

18 outcome of a protest.

19 Because Taxpayer’s renewed challenge to the validity or personal enforceability of the

20 November 22, 2023 assessment is barred by claim preclusion, additional discovery concerning

21 BTID origin records, account labels, OSI, the criminal prosecution, communications surrounding

22 the plea agreement, alleged misconduct in the criminal matter, or the Department’s later

23 collection documents would not alter the preclusive effect of D&O No. 24-10 and the subsequent

24 appeal. Even accepting Taxpayer’s position that Department collection documents contain

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 30 of 38
1 disputed or confusing identifying information, that would not create a new assessment, defeat the

2 finality of the prior adjudication, or authorize AHO to permit relitigation of the same personal

3 liability. Stated differently, even if the requested discovery confirmed the identifier discrepancies

4 Taxpayer alleges, those facts would not alter the dispositive preclusion analysis.

5 Because the $1,424.95 lien protest turns on statutory lien compliance and the limited

6 grounds for release or extinguishment under Section 7-1-39, additional discovery concerning the

7 merits of the underlying assessments is likewise immaterial. AHO has considered Taxpayer’s

8 identity and identifier objections to the lien for purposes of summary judgment. Even assuming

9 additional discovery would further document those asserted discrepancies, the discrepancies

10 would not establish payment, extinguishment, premature filing, failure to follow filing

11 requirements, or any other statutory basis for release under Section 7-1-39. Additional discovery

12 is unnecessary because the asserted discrepancies, even if treated as raised and preserved, do not

13 establish that the notice of lien failed to identify the taxpayer whose liability was sought to be

14 enforced, do not establish that the lien was filed against property or rights to property of a person

15 whose liability was not identified in the notice, and do not reopen the underlying assessments.

16 Taxpayer’s motion in limine is also denied. Although styled as an evidentiary motion, the

17 filing largely restates Taxpayer’s opposition to the Department’s preclusion argument and repeats

18 Taxpayer’s contention that the November 26, 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure and related

19 collection documents create a new opportunity to litigate the validity of the November 22, 2023

20 assessment. For the reasons already stated, AHO rejects that contention. The later collection

21 notice does not reopen the assessment previously adjudicated in AHO No. 24.01-006A and

22 affirmed on appeal.

23 Because the Department is entitled to summary judgment on both consolidated protests,

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 31 of 38
1 no merits hearing, additional discovery schedule, subpoena enforcement, deposition, witness

2 testimony, or evidentiary limitation is necessary. AHO therefore denies Taxpayer’s motion in

3 limine, motion to compel, motion for clarification of the discovery schedule, alternative request

4 for depositions, subpoena-related requests, witness-related requests, evidentiary requests,

5 scheduling requests, and any related prehearing requests as moot or immaterial.

6 The Department’s motions to strike are denied as moot. AHO has considered Taxpayer’s

7 filings to the extent relevant and material to the dispositive motions. Denial of the Department’s

8 motions to strike does not alter AHO’s conclusion that Taxpayer is not entitled to summary

9 judgment and that no further proceedings are required.

10 VIII. Conclusion

11 To the extent the approximately $160,000 protest seeks to relitigate the validity or

12 personal enforceability of the November 22, 2023 assessment, it is barred by claim preclusion.

13 The validity of the November 22, 2023 assessment was previously adjudicated in AHO No.

14 24.01-006A and affirmed on appeal. The November 26, 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure and

15 related collection activity did not create a new assessment or a new right to relitigate the merits

16 of that assessment.

17 The $1,424.95 lien protest also fails. AHO has considered Taxpayer’s taxpayer-identity

18 and taxpayer-identifier arguments as challenges to statutory lien compliance under Sections 7-1-

19 38 and 7-1-39. On the record presented, Taxpayer has not established that Notice of Claim of Tax

20 Lien No. 1129031 failed to identify the taxpayer whose liability was sought to be enforced, was

21 filed against property or rights to property of a person whose liability was not identified in the

22 notice, was premature, failed to follow requirements of law, or was otherwise subject to release

23 or extinguishment. To the extent Taxpayer challenges the correctness of the underlying

24 assessments, the lien protest does not provide a basis to reopen the merits of those assessments

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 32 of 38
1 after the protest period expired.

2 Because the Department is entitled to partial summary judgment on both consolidated

3 protests, Taxpayer is not entitled to summary judgment, and the remaining procedural requests

4 are moot or immaterial, no issues remain for merits hearing before AHO. This Decision and

5 Order is therefore a final decision and order of the Administrative Hearings Office, and

6 Taxpayer’s protests are denied.

7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

8 A. AHO has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these consolidated

9 protests and has authority to resolve the pending dispositive motions. See NMSA 1978, Sections

10 7-1B-6(C)(1), 7-1B-6(D)(2), 7-1B-8(G); Regulations 22.600.3.16(I) NMAC; 22.600.3.24(C)

11 NMAC.

12 B. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material

13 fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party

14 makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the opposing party must demonstrate

15 specific evidentiary facts requiring a trial or merits hearing. Unsupported assertions, legal

16 conclusions, and speculation are insufficient. See Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2010-NMSC-

17 035, ¶¶ 7, 10-11, 148 N.M. 713; Koenig v. Perez, 1986-NMSC-066, ¶¶ 10-11, 104 N.M. 664;

18 Roth v. Thompson, 1992-NMSC-011, ¶ 17, 113 N.M. 331.

19 C. Claim preclusion bars relitigation of claims that were raised or could have been

20 raised in a prior proceeding when there was a final judgment on the merits, the parties are the

21 same or in privity, and both proceedings involve the same cause of action. New Mexico applies

22 the transactional approach, under which claims arising from a common nucleus of operative facts

23 are treated as the same cause of action. See Kirby v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2010-NMSC-

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 33 of 38
1 014, ¶ 61, 148 N.M. 106; Bank of Santa Fe v. Marcy Plaza Assocs., 2002-NMCA-014, ¶ 14, 131

2 N.M. 537; Potter v. Pierce, 2015-NMSC-002, ¶¶ 10-14, 342 P.3d 54; Anaya v. City of

3 Albuquerque, 1996-NMCA-092, ¶¶ 8, 12, 122 N.M. 326.

4 D. Administrative adjudications may have preclusive effect when the agency acted in

5 a judicial capacity, resolved issues properly before it, and the parties had a full and fair

6 opportunity to litigate. See Shovelin v. Cent. N.M. Elec. Coop., Inc., 1993-NMSC-015, ¶¶ 10-14,

7 115 N.M. 293.

8 E. The protest of the Department’s November 22, 2023 assessment to William C.

9 Gardner was finally adjudicated in AHO No. 24.01-006A, resolved by Decision and Order No.

10 24-10, and affirmed on appeal. See William Gardner v. New Mexico Tax’n and Revenue Dep’t,

11 A-1-CA-42090, mem. op (N.M. Ct. App. May 5, 2025) (nonprecedential); see also Rule 12-

12 405(A) NMRA.

13 F. To the extent the present protest challenges the validity, personal enforceability,

14 or underlying merits of the approximately $160,000 assessment, it involves the same parties, the

15 same assessment, and the same common nucleus of operative facts as AHO No. 24.01-006A.

16 G. The November 26, 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure and related collection

17 activity did not create a new assessment or reopen the merits of the November 22, 2023

18 assessment. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24(F).

19 H. Taxpayer’s challenges to the approximately $160,000 liability, including

20 arguments concerning BTID, Social Security number, taxpayer name, prior abatement, OSI

21 involvement, Taxpayer Bill of Rights, criminal restitution, the scope and effect of the no-contest

22 plea, due process, limitations, the presumption of correctness, and civil-rights issues, are barred

23 to the extent they attack the validity or personal enforceability of the November 22, 2023

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 34 of 38
1 assessment because they were raised or could have been raised in the prior protest and appeal. To

2 the extent Taxpayer relies on identifying details first appearing in the November 26, 2025

3 collection notice, those details do not establish a new assessment, a new substantive liability, or a

4 different taxpayer liability. See Kirby, 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 61; Bank of Santa Fe, 2002-NMCA-

5 014, ¶ 14.

6 I. The Department is entitled to partial summary judgment on the protest

7 challenging the approximately $160,000 liability.

8 J. If a person liable for tax neglects or refuses to pay after assessment and demand,

9 the amount of tax becomes a lien in favor of the State of New Mexico upon all property and

10 rights to property of that person. A notice of tax lien may be recorded as provided by law and is

11 effective as to all property and rights to property of the taxpayer. See NMSA 1978, Sections 7-1-

12 37(A)-(B), 7-1-38.

13 K. Release or extinguishment of a filed tax lien is governed by NMSA 1978, Section

14 7-1-39, including payment of a substantial part of the tax due, premature filing, failure to follow

15 legal requirements, facilitation of collection, or extinguishment by operation of law ten years

16 after filing. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-39(A)-(C).

17 L. On the record presented, Taxpayer’s protest of Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No.

18 1129031 does not reopen the merits of the underlying assessments or substitute for a timely

19 protest of those assessments. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24(E), (F).

20 M. Taxpayer has not established a statutory basis for release or extinguishment of

21 Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-39(A)-(C).

22 N. To the extent Taxpayer disputed the taxpayer identity, taxpayer name, FEIN,

23 CRS/BTID, letter identifier, or account identifier associated with Notice of Claim of Tax Lien

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 35 of 38
1 No. 1129031, AHO considered that argument as a challenge to statutory lien compliance under

2 Sections 7-1-38 and 7-1-39. Taxpayer did not establish that the notice of lien failed to identify

3 the taxpayer whose liability was sought to be enforced, that the lien was filed against property or

4 rights to property of a person whose liability was not identified in the notice, that the filing was

5 premature, or that the filing otherwise failed to follow requirements of law. To the extent

6 Taxpayer’s identity argument challenges the correctness of the underlying assessments, the

7 argument is untimely and does not provide a basis for release or extinguishment of the filed lien.

8 See NMSA 1978, Sections 7-1-24(E)-(F), 7-1-38, 7-1-39.

9 O. The Department is entitled to partial summary judgment on the $1,424.95 lien

10 protest.

11 P. Taxpayer’s June 1, 2026 motion for summary judgment directed to the

12 approximately $160,000 protest is denied.

13 Q. Taxpayer’s pending discovery, subpoena, deposition, witness, evidentiary,

14 scheduling, motion in limine, and clarification requests are denied as moot or immaterial to the

15 dispositive issues. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-6(D)(2)-(3); Regulations 22.600.3.17 NMAC;

16 22.600.3.20 NMAC; 22.600.3.16(I) NMAC.

17 R. The Department’s motions to strike are denied as moot and its motion to dismiss

18 is withdrawn.

19 S. Because no issues remain for hearing, the merits hearing is vacated.

20 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:

21 1. The Department’s motion for partial summary judgment directed to the

22 approximately $160,000 protest is GRANTED.

23 2. Taxpayer’s protest of the November 26, 2025 Final Notice Before Seizure and

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 36 of 38
1 related collection activity on the approximately $160,000 liability is DENIED.

2 3. The Department’s motion for partial summary judgment directed to the $1,424.95

3 lien protest is GRANTED.

4 4. Taxpayer’s protest of Notice of Claim of Tax Lien No. 1129031, including

5 Taxpayer’s taxpayer-identity and taxpayer-identifier objections to that lien, is DENIED.

6 5. Taxpayer’s June 1, 2026 motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

7 6. Taxpayer’s motion in limine and request to compel discovery concerning BTID

8 03-637127-00-0 are DENIED.

9 7. Taxpayer’s motion for clarification of the discovery schedule and alternative

10 requests to permit depositions or compel outstanding discovery are DENIED as moot or

11 immaterial.

12 8. The Department’s motions to strike are DENIED as moot.

13 9. Any pending motion to compel, subpoena request, discovery request, witness

14 request, deposition request, evidentiary request, scheduling request, or related prehearing request

15 not expressly granted is DENIED as moot or immaterial.

16 10. The merits hearing set for August 12, 2026 is VACATED.

17 11. All remaining requests for relief are DENIED.

18 12. Taxpayer’s protests are DENIED.

19 DATED: July 10, 2026

20
21
22
23 Chris Romero
24 Hearing Officer
25 Administrative Hearings Office
26 Post Office Box 6400
27 Santa Fe, NM 87502

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 37 of 38
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 INTENTIONALLY BLANK

In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of William Gardner, et al.
Page 38 of 38