Saiz Trucking v. New Mexico Taxation and 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. A-1-CA-35026 10 NEW MEXICO TAXATION 11 AND 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 Santa Fe, NM 1 for Appellee/Cross-Appellant 2 MEMORANDUM OPINION 3 VIGIL, Judge. 4 {1} Saiz Trucking and Earthmoving (Taxpayer) appeals from the hearing officer’s 5 decision and order partially granting and partially denying his protest of the New 6 Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department’s (the Department) assessments for gross 7 receipts taxes, penalty, and interest arising from its work for the City of Albuquerque 8 (City) between 2004 and 2010. Taxpayer makes two arguments on appeal: (1) the 9 evidence was insufficient to support the Department’s assessments of gross receipts 10 taxes, penalty, and interest against it; and (2) if this Court finds that Taxpayer is 11 entitled to deduct the gross receipts, then there will not be a 25 percent understatement 12 of its tax liability and therefore the Department will not have a right to three additional 13 years of assessments pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-18(A), (D) (1994, 14 amended 2013). We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order. Because this is 15 a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural 16 posture of the case, we set forth only such facts and law as are necessary to decide the 17 merits. 18 BACKGROUND 2 1 {2} Taxpayer is a New Mexico corporation engaged primarily in the business of 2 moving and hauling dirt, gravel, spoils, and performing grading at project sites. After 3 an audit of Taxpayer’s tax returns, on February 9, 2012, the Department assessed 4 Taxpayer $606,943.41 in unpaid gross receipts taxes, a $121,388.71 penalty, and 5 $175,418.66 in interest for the tax periods from January 31, 2004 through March 31, 6 2010. Taxpayer protested the Department’s assessment, arguing that most of its gross 7 receipts were deductible as constituting the sale and installation of landscape 8 materials, and that part of the Department’s assessments was barred by the statute of 9 limitations. After a hearing on Taxpayer’s protest of the Department’s assessments 10 and entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the hearing officer determined 11 that Taxpayer was liable for the gross receipts taxes, penalty, and interest for the tax 12 periods between December, 2005 and March, 2010; however, because the assessments 13 from January, 2004 to November, 2005 did not occur until more than six years after 14 the tax was due, those assessments were untimely, barred by the statute of limitations 15 pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-18(D), and therefore abated. Taxpayer appeals 16 the hearing officer’s decision and order to this Court pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 17 7-1-25 (2015). 18 DISCUSSION 3 1 {3} Taxpayer argues that the Department failed to present substantial evidence to 2 support the assessments. Without citation to the record in support of its contention, 3 Taxpayer asserts that the hearing officer erred in upholding the Department’s 4 assessments because she “failed to recognize that . . . Taxpayer sold tangible items of 5 property which were not part of a construction project to the City within the meaning 6 of NMSA 1978, [Section] 7-9-54 [(2003, amended 2018)] and 3.2.212.14 NMAC, as 7 supported by the substantial uncontradicted evidence.” Taxpayer likewise fails to 8 specifically challenge the hearing officer’s findings of fact in accordance with our 9 Rules of Appellate Procedure. We therefore deem the hearing officer’s findings of fact 10 conclusive. See Rule 12-318(A)(4) NMRA (stating that an appellant’s arguments 11 “shall set forth a specific attack on any finding, or the finding shall be deemed 12 conclusive”). 13 {4} “Any assessment of taxes by the Department is presumed to be correct and, in 14 protesting the assessment of taxes, Taxpayer has the burden of proving the deductions 15 were proper.” Arco Materials, Inc. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 1994-NMCA16 062, ¶ 2, 118 N.M. 12, 878 P.2d 330, rev’d on other grounds by Blaze Constr. Co. v. 17 Taxation & Revenue Dep’t of State of N.M., 118 N.M. 647, 884 P.2d 803. If a 18 protestant of a tax assessment “is dissatisfied with the decision and order of the 19 hearing officer, the party may appeal to the court of appeals for further relief, but only 4 1 to the same extent and upon the same theory as was asserted in the hearing before the 2 hearing officer.” Section 7-1-25(A). On appeal, this Court “shall set aside a decision 3 and order of the hearing officer only if found to be: (1) arbitrary, capricious or an 4 abuse of discretion; (2) not supported by substantial evidence in the record; or (3) 5 otherwise not in accordance with the law.” Section 7-1-25(C). “When reviewing for 6 sufficiency of the evidence, we look to the whole record and review the evidence in 7 the light most favorable to the agency’s findings.” Arco Materials, Inc., 1994-NMCA8 062, ¶ 2. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Section 7-9-54(A)(3) (2003) provides: A. Receipts from selling tangible personal property to the United States or New Mexico or any governmental unit or subdivision, agency, department or instrumentality thereof may be deducted from gross receipts or from governmental gross receipts. Unless contrary to federal law, the deduction provided by this subsection does not apply to: .... 16 (3) receipts from selling construction material[.] 17 The applicable regulation further provides that: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Except when the landscape items are part of a construction project, receipts from selling and installing landscape items such as plants, shrubs, sod, seed, trees, rocks and ornaments are receipts from the sale of tangible personal property. Therefore, the receipts from the sale and installation of these landscape items pursuant to a contract with a governmental agency may be deducted from gross receipts pursuant to Section 7-9-54. . . . Receipts from selling these landscape items as part 5 1 of a construction project may not be deducted pursuant to Section 7-9-54. 2 3.2.212.14(A) NMAC. 3 {5} The hearing officer found, in pertinent part, that Taxpayer’s primary client 4 during the assessment period was the City’s Parks Department, which engages in the 5 management, renovation, construction, and landscape of the City’s parks. Taxpayer’s 6 work, the hearing officer found, consisted of the hauling and installation of dirt, 7 gravel, and spoils, as well as performing grading at the City’s park construction 8 project sites, which included “parks, ballfields, and other similar facilities.” These 9 facts support the hearing officer’s conclusion that Taxpayer was providing landscape 10 items and services “to the City on various construction projects[.]” See NMSA 1978, 11 § 7-9-3.4(A) (2003) (defining “construction” as: (1) the building, altering, repairing 12 or demolishing in the ordinary course of business any: (a) road, highway, bridge, 13 parking area or related project; (b) building, stadium or other structure; (c) airport, 14 subway or similar facility; (d) park, trail, athletic field, golf course or similar facility; 15 . . . and (2) the leveling . . . of land”). Accordingly, because Taxpayer sold and 16 installed landscape items, e.g., dirt, gravel, and spoils, to and for the City as part of the 17 City Parks Department’s construction projects, as the hearing officer concluded, the 18 gross receipts for these transactions were not deductible under Section 7-9-54. See 19 3.2.212.14(A) NMAC. 6 1 {6} Because we conclude that Taxpayer was not entitled to deduct the gross receipts 2 from its work for the City, we do not reach Taxpayer’s second argument that the 3 Department did not have the right to assess it for three additional years pursuant to 4 Section 7-1-18(A), (D). 5 CONCLUSION 6 {7} The decision and order of the hearing officer is affirmed. 7 {8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11 12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 13 14 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 7
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.
