Saiz Trucking & Earthmoving v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF SAIZ TRUCKING AND EARTHMOVING, TO ASSESSMENT ISSUED UNDER LETTER ID. NO. L0680042816, 6 SAIZ TRUCKING AND 7 EARTHMOVING, 8 Protestant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, 9 v. NO. 35,026 10 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND 11 REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 12 Respondent-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 13 APPEAL FROM THE TAXATION & REVENUE DEPARTMENT 14 Dee Dee Hoxie, Hearing Officer 15 Wayne G. Chew, P.C. 16 Wayne G. Chew 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellant/Cross-Appellee 19 20 21 22 Hector Balderas, Attorney General Elena Morgan, Special Assistant Attorney General New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department Legal Services Bureau 1 Santa Fe, NM 2 for Appellee/Cross-Appellant 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION 4 KENNEDY, Judge. 5 {1} The disposition in this memorandum opinion relates only to the cross-appeal 6 filed by New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (the Department). The 7 Department filed a cross-appeal from the hearing officer’s administrative decision 8 denying the Department’s motion to reconsider. Unpersuaded that the Department’s 9 docketing statement demonstrated error, our notice proposed summary affirmance 10 relative to the Department’s cross-appeal. The Department has not filed a 11 memorandum opposing summary affirmance, and the time for doing so has expired. 12 For the reasons in our notice, we affirm. Saiz Trucking and Earthmoving’s direct 13 appeal, alone, will proceed to be decided on the general calendar. 14 {2} The Department’s cross-appeal is HEREBY AFFIRMED. 15 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 WE CONCUR: _______________________________ RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 19 _________________________________ 20 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 2 1 _________________________________ 2 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
