Did informal discussions with a Department auditor extend the deadline to protest a corporate income-tax assessment?

Plain-English summary

Informal efforts to resolve New Mexico Tech University Research's corporate income-tax assessment did not extend the statutory protest deadline. The unit's first written objection arrived after 30 days and did not request a retroactive extension, so the underlying net-operating-loss dispute was never reached.

The Department disallowed a net operating loss carried from the tax year ending June 30, 2008 to the return ending June 30, 2012. On May 20, 2013, it assessed $80,749.14 tax, $3,229.96 penalty, and $1,590.93 interest, totaling $85,570.03.

The assessment included written information explaining the protest remedy. The university research unit gave it to its CPA around May 28.

Informal discussions did not stop the clock

On June 6, the CPA spoke with a Corporate Audit and Compliance employee. His notes said “can resolve – no protest required.” But the Department never provided a written extension or written direction that a timely protest was unnecessary while informal discussions continued.

The governing 2003 statute required a protest within 30 days of mailing. A taxpayer could request a 60-day extension or, upon the required showing, a retroactive extension—making 90 days the maximum possible period.

The mailing of the formal assessment, not the end of informal negotiations, triggered the deadline.

The June letter was a protest, but it was late

On June 26—37 days after assessment—the CPA sent a letter explaining the unit's position and asking the Department to accept the return and abate the assessment.

The decision treated that as a clear protest in substance. It nevertheless arrived seven days late and did not expressly or implicitly request a retroactive extension.

The Department sent a collection notice on June 28 and a notice of intent to lien on August 1. Both should have alerted the representative that informal work had not suspended collection, and both arrived while time remained to request a retroactive extension. No request was filed.

The November protest was far outside the maximum period

After an auditor said around August 27 that the carryover would not be allowed, the CPA believed the unit had 90 days from that conversation. He mailed a formal protest on November 19—197 days after assessment.

Even if that letter had requested an extension, the Department no longer had authority to grant one after the maximum 90-day period.

Estoppel did not restore jurisdiction

Statutory estoppel required reliance on an effective regulation or a written ruling personally addressed by the secretary. The unit relied on neither.

The hearing officer also lacked general authority to grant equitable relief. In any event, reliance on the alleged oral assurance was not reasonable because the unit had a CPA capable of researching the deadline, received no written extension, and later received collection and lien notices while corrective action remained possible.

Result: protest DENIED. The Department properly rejected the protest as untimely, leaving the $85,570.03 assessment in place. The decision did not resolve whether the net operating loss was substantively deductible.

What this means for you

Businesses disputing an assessment

File the formal protest by the statutory deadline even while working informally with an auditor. Settlement discussions and protest preservation can proceed at the same time.

Tax professionals

Oral assurances do not replace a written extension. If the deadline has passed but the extension window remains open, expressly request a retroactive extension and make the required showing.

Taxpayers receiving collection notices

Treat a collection or lien notice as evidence that an assessment remains active. Recheck all protest deadlines immediately rather than assuming informal review has paused enforcement.

Common questions

Q: Did the June 26 letter count as a protest?
A: Yes in substance, but it was filed 37 days after assessment and therefore missed the 30-day deadline.

Q: Could the Department grant more time automatically?
A: No. The unit did not request an extension or retroactive extension, and the governing statute capped the total possible period at 90 days.

Q: Did the August 27 conversation restart the clock?
A: No. The May 20 formal assessment triggered the protest period.

Q: Was the net operating loss actually disallowed on the merits in this decision?
A: No. The ruling decided only that the protest of the assessment was untimely.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulation:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-24(B) — 30-day protest deadline and extension or retroactive extension
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-16 and 7-1-17 — delinquency and assessment consequences
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-60 — statutory estoppel
• Regulation 3.1.7.11 NMAC — jurisdictional protest period

Cases cited:

• Lopez v. New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue, 1997-NMCA-115 — untimely protest and substantive review of a protest letter
• Kilmer v. Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122 — equitable estoppel, accountant expertise, and oral statements
• AA Oilfield Service v. New Mexico State Corporation Commission, 1994-NMSC-085 — administrative agency's lack of general equitable-remedy power

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: New Mexico Tech University Research
• Decision PDF: D&O 14-24

Original ruling text

BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER
OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
NEW MEXICO TECH UNIVERSITY RESEARCH No. 14-24
TO DENIAL OF PROTEST ISSUED UNDER LETTER
ID NO. L1233765840

DECISION AND ORDER

A protest hearing occurred on the above captioned matter on May 7, 2014 before Brian

VanDenzen, Esq., Tax Hearing Officer, in Santa Fe. Mr. M. Blake Motl, CPA, and Mr. Clark

Kegel, CPA, from Atkinson & Co., Ltd. appeared, representing New Mexico Tech University

Research (“Taxpayer”). Staff attorney Peter Breen appeared, representing the Taxation and

Revenue Department of the State of New Mexico (“Department”). Protest Auditor Milagros

Bernardo appeared as a witness for the Department. Taxpayer Exhibits #1-10 and Department

Exhibits A-D were admitted into the record, as more thoroughly described in the Administrative

Exhibit Coversheet1. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, IT IS DECIDED AND

ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On May 20, 2013, under letter identification number L1196974912, the

Department assessed Taxpayer for $80,749.14 in corporate income tax, $3,229.96 in penalty, and

$1,590.93 in interest for a total assessed liability of $85,570.03.

1
Department Exhibits A & B, FYI- 402 rev. 9/10 and FYI-402 rev 7/2013 respectively, although present and
admitted during the hearing, were not in the administrative file at the conclusion of the hearing. Copies of both
public records (identical to those used during the hearing) were obtained after the hearing and placed in the
administrative file as part of the record.

2. On November 19, 2013, Taxpayer through its representative Mr. Motl, CPA,

protested the assessment issued under letter id. no. L1196974912.

3. On December 2, 2013, under letter id. no. L1233765840, the Department denied

Taxpayer’s protest of the assessment as untimely.

4. On January 10, 2014, through its representative Mr. Motl, CPA, Taxpayer

protested the Department’s denial of the protest under letter id. no. L1233765840.

5. On April 21, 2014, the Department requested a hearing in this matter with the

Hearings Bureau.

6. On April 23, 2014, the Hearings Bureau issued Notice of Administrative Hearing,

scheduling this matter for a protest hearing on May 7, 2014.

7. For context, the underlying assessment involves Taxpayer’s Corporate Income

Tax return for the tax year ending on June 30, 2012. In that return, Taxpayer attempted to deduct

a net operating loss carryover dating from the corporate income tax year ending on June 30,

2008. The Department disallowed Taxpayer’s net operating loss carryover in the 2012 return.

2009. On May 7, 2013, the Department sent Taxpayer a “Return Adjustment Notice,”

warning Taxpayer that unless the liability cited was paid or resolved, the Department would be

issuing a formal notice of assessment.

9. On May 20, 2013, the Department issued the assessment referenced in Finding of

Fact #1 and enclosed a copy of FYI-402, rev. 9/2010, which provided Taxpayer with an

explanation of Taxpayer’s remedy to protest the assessment.

10. Taxpayer presented the Department’s May 20, 2013 assessment to Taxpayer’s

representative, Mr. M. Blake Motl, CPA, on approximately May 28, 2013. [Taxpayer Ex. #3].

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 2 of 13

11. On or about June 6, 2013, Mr. Motl spoke with Leann Carrillo of the

Department’s Corporate Audit and Compliance Division about the Department’s assessment. Mr.

Motl’s notes of his June 6, 2013, conversation with Ms. Carrillo reflect his belief that the

assessment could be resolved without protesting: “can resolve – no protest required.” [Taxpayer

Ex. #10].

12. The Department did not provide Taxpayer with any written document or email

purporting to extend the protest period or directing Taxpayer that there was no need to timely

protest the assessment so long as Taxpayer’s representative worked with the Corporate Audit and

Compliance Division to resolve the assessment.

13. Taxpayer did not protest within 30-days of the assessment issued under letter id.

no. L1196974912.

14. Taxpayer did not seek an extension of time in which to protest or a retroactive

extension of time in which to a file protest within 90-days the assessment issued under letter id.

no. L1196974912.

15. The Department did not grant Taxpayer an extension or a retroactive extension of

time in which to a file a protest.

16. On June 26, 2013, 37-days after the Department’s assessment, Mr. Motl, CPA,

submitted a letter to the Department (with an enclosed copy of the assessment), explaining

Taxpayer’s understanding of the basis of the Department’s assessment, Taxpayer’s position on

why its filed return was proper, and requesting “that the return be accepted as filed and any

assessments relating to the year ending June 30, 2012, be abated.” [Taxpayer Ex. #1].

17. On June 28, 2013, the Department sent Taxpayer a “Tax Collection Notice” for

the assessed tax liability amount plus accrued interest. [Taxpayer Ex. #5].

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 3 of 13

18. Mr. Motl continued to have contact with Department representative throughout

July and August of 2013 about resolving the assessment. [Taxpayer Ex. #4].

19. On August 1, 2013, the Department sent Taxpayer a “Notice of Intent to Lien” for

the assessed tax liability amount plus accrued interest. [Taxpayer Ex. #6].

20. On or about August 27, 2013, Ms. Carrillo informed Mr. Motl that the

Department would not allow Taxpayer’s carry-over loss on its 2012 corporate income tax

returns. [Taxpayer Ex. #4].

21. Believing that he had 90-days from when Ms. Carrillo told him about the decision

to disallow the carry-over losses on or about August 27, 2013, Mr. Motl mailed Taxpayer’s

protest letter on November 19, 2013, 197-days after the May 20, 2013 assessment.

DISCUSSION

There are two main issues at protest. The first issue is whether Taxpayer timely filed a

protest to the Department’s assessment. The second issue is if Taxpayer’s protest letter was

untimely, whether Taxpayer was still entitled to relief under an estoppel theory based on

Taxpayer’s representative’s assertions that Department employees informed Taxpayer’s

representative that a formal protest was not necessary so long as the parties worked at resolving

the assessment.

The assessment was issued in this case on May 20, 2013, before the July 1, 2013

effective date of NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24 (2013). The previous version of the protest statute,

NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24 (2003, amended 2013), in effect at the time the Department issued

the assessment governs this matter. See GEA Integrated Cooling Tech. v. State Taxation &

Revenue Dep't, 2012-NMCA-010 (date of assessment determines whether a previous version or

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 4 of 13
amended version of penalty statute applies). Under Section 7-1-24, a taxpayer “shall” file a

protest “within thirty days of the date of mailing to the taxpayer by the department of the notice

of assessment.” See Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 2009-NMSC-013,

¶22, 146 N.M. 24 (use of the word “shall” in a statute indicates provision is mandatory absent clear

indication to the contrary). Section 7-1-24 (B) allows a taxpayer to make a written request to

extend the period to file a protest by 60-days. If a taxpayer demonstrates substantial merit to the

protest grounds and an inability to timely file a protest or a written request for extension within

thirty days, the secretary is also empowered under Section 7-1-24 (B) to grant a taxpayer a

retroactive extension of no more than 60-days after the expiration of the initial thirty day period

to file a protest. In other words, under Section 7-1-24 (B) including the possibility of an

extension or retroactive extension, a taxpayer has at most 90-days from the date of the

assessment to file a protest.

In Associated Petroleum Transp. v. Shepard, 1949-NMSC-002, ¶6 & ¶11, 53 N.M. 52,

the New Mexico Supreme Court noted that a taxpayer’s inability to timely follow the then-in-

place designated protest procedure deprived the State Tax Commission of jurisdiction over the

protest. More recently, the New Mexico Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of a property tax

taxpayer’s complaints for refund when such complaints were not timely filed in compliance with

the Legislature’s statutorily imposed deadlines. See Chan v. Montoya, 2011-NMCA-72, 150

N.M. 44. Department Regulation 3.1.7.11 NMAC (01/15/01) finds that the 90-day period (which

includes the 30-day period plus the additional 60-day period possible assuming an extension)

articulated under NMSA 1978, § 7-1-24 (B) (2003) is jurisdictional. Department regulations

interpreting a statute are presumed proper and are to be given substantial weight. See Chevron

U.S.A., Inc. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Taxation & Revenue, 2006-NMCA-50, ¶16, 139 N.M. 498.

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 5 of 13
In Lopez v. New Mexico Dep't of Taxation & Revenue, 1997-NMCA-115, 124 N.M. 270,

the Court of Appeals had opportunity to consider whether a taxpayer timely and properly filed a

protest against the Department’s notice of audit. At the administrative tax protest hearing, the tax

hearing officer found that the Lopez taxpayer had failed to timely protest the Department’s audit

under Section 7-1-24. See id., ¶6. The Lopez taxpayer appealed that hearing officer’s decision

and order, arguing in part that he had “actually or constructively” protested the audit within the

required time. See id., ¶7. The Court of Appeals in Lopez noted that Section 7-1-24 imposed a

30-day time restriction on a protest. See id., ¶6. In Lopez, the Court of Appeals looked closely at

the only letter filed within the 30-days and found that it did not constitute a protest. See id., ¶9.

The Court of Appeals in Lopez affirmed that hearing officer’s conclusion that the Lopez taxpayer

did not timely protest the Department’s audit. See id., ¶9.

Applying the statutes, regulations, and case law to the facts of this case, Taxpayer did

not timely file a protest. Taxpayer did not file protest or a request for an extension of time in

which to file a protest within 30-days of the May 20, 2013 assessment. In Lopez, the Court of

Appeals carefully reviewed that taxpayer’s sole letter submitted within the statute’s 30-day

window. However, unlike in Lopez, there is no evidence in this case that Taxpayer submitted any

written communication to the Department within that 30-day window. As such, there is nothing

in the record that even under a broad reading might constitute a protest within 30-days. See cf. In

the Matter of Collin Sanchez, D&O 13-8 (non- precedential; under a broad reading, hearing

officer found one letter submitted within the 30-day period constituted a protest).

Taxpayer did send the Department a letter on June 26, 2013, 37-days after the

assessment. That letter included a copy of the Department’s May 20, 2013 assessment and the

final paragraph of that letter makes clear Taxpayer’s intent to protest the assessment: “we request

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 6 of 13
that the return be accepted as filed and any assessments relating to the year ending June 30, 2012

be abated.” Any reasonable reading of this document makes clear that it was a protest letter

addressed to the Department. The problem is that this letter was filed seven-days after Section 7-

1-24 (B)’s 30-days deadline and did not make any express or implied request for a retroactive

extension of time to file a protest. Without a request for a retroactive extension under Section 7-

1-24 (B), the Department never granted an extension or retroactive extension in this matter.

The protest letter Taxpayer sent to the Department’s Protest Office on November 19,

2013 was submitted 197-days after the assessment. Again, that November 19, 2013, letter did not

contain a request for retroactive extension. Even if the November 19, 2013 letter contained a

request for a retroactive extension, the Department would have been without authority to grant

Taxpayer an extension at that time. Taxpayer’s November 19, 2013, protest letter was filed well

beyond the maximum 90-days period including an extension for which to file a protest. On

December 2, 2013, the Department’s Protest Office denied Taxpayer’s November 19, 2013

protest as untimely.

Taxpayer argues that its protest was either timely or should be deemed timely because

Department employee Leann Carrillo assured Taxpayer verbally that no formal protest was

necessary while the Department’s Audit and Compliance Division worked with Taxpayer on

resolving the assessment. Taxpayer believes that the statutorily limited window for a protest did

not start until Ms. Carrillo informed Taxpayer’s representative on August 27, 2013 that the

Department was unable to accept Taxpayer’s carry-over losses. Taxpayer’s argues that its

November 19, 2013 protest letter was filed timely, within 90-days of August 27, 2013. In the

alternative, Taxpayer argues that it relied on Ms. Carrillo’s statement that no formal protest was

necessary in good faith like any reasonable person would in that situation, and to deny

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 7 of 13
Taxpayer’s protest in this situation where Taxpayer, a component unit of a public university,

received no tax benefit would be unjust.

Under the Tax Administration Act (“TAA”), a notice of assessment is a triggering action

with specific legal implications and consequences. The date of mailing of an effective

assessment legally triggers the 30-days protest period under Section 7-1-24. Another legal

consequence is that unless a notice of assessment is timely protested, a taxpayer becomes a

delinquent taxpayer under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-16 (2007, amended 2013). Absent a timely

protest, the TAA provides numerous enforcement and collection actions for the Department to

satisfy the assessed tax liability, actions which the Department in fact pursued in this matter on

June 28, 2013 and August 1, 2013. Taxpayer was represented by a CPA, a professional capable

of researching and understanding these significant legal implications of the assessment under the

TAA. While it is understandable that Taxpayer wanted to continue to work informally to resolve

the assessment, given the clear legal implications of the assessment, Taxpayer needed to file its

protest and then continue with informal efforts to resolve the assessment after the filing of a

formal protest.

Moreover, the fact that Taxpayer received the June 28, 2013 tax collection notice and the

August 1, 2013 notice of intent to lien put Taxpayer on notice that its understanding that it could

wait to file a protest until after it had worked informally with the Department was not accurate.

At those points, Taxpayer was still within the window to request a retroactive extension of time

to file a protest. However, Taxpayer never did file any request for a retroactive extension in

which to protest in this matter.

Without citing any supporting legal authority, Taxpayer argued that the period to protest

did not commence until Ms. Carrillo informed Taxpayer’s representatives that the amended

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 8 of 13
return would not be accepted on August 27, 2013. While Taxpayer’s approach to work

informally with the Department may have been appropriate in response to the Department’s May

7, 2013 return adjustment notice, it is not consistent with the TAA’s legal requirements

associated with the notice of assessment issued in this matter. When a formal notice of

assessment is effectively issued to a taxpayer, the TAA does not give a taxpayer the option of

waiting to protest until the taxpayer determines that its informal efforts at resolving the protest

with the Department are unsuccessful. Rather, the TAA requires a taxpayer to act in response to

the assessment within the statutory limit. In this case, once the Department issued its assessment,

Taxpayer was required to act within 30-days or request an extension or retroactive extension.

Turning to Taxpayer’s fairness arguments, NMSA 7-1-60 (1993) establishes statutory

estoppel in certain circumstances. In pertinent part, under Section 7-1-60 (emphasis added), the

Department is estopped from acting when a taxpayer’s actions were “in accordance with any

regulation effective during the time the asserted liability for tax arose or in accordance with any

ruling addressed to the party personally and in writing by the secretary…” In this case,

Taxpayer’s actions were not done in reliance of a regulation or a ruling addressed to Taxpayer in

writing. Consequently, Section 7-1-60 does not provide Taxpayer with any grounds for statutory

estoppel.

Taxpayer’s good faith and fairness argument also amount to a claim for equitable

estoppel. Equitable estoppel does not appear to be a possible remedy in an administrative protest

hearing before the Department. See AA Oilfield Service v. New Mexico State Corporation

Commission, 1994-NMSC-085, ¶18, 118 N.M. 273 (equitable remedies are not part of the

“quasi-judicial” powers of administrative agencies). Even if it is available in this context, courts

are reluctant to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the state in cases involving the

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 9 of 13
assessment and collection of taxes. See Taxation & Revenue Dep’t v. Bien Mur Indian Mkt. Ctr.,

Inc., 1989-NMSC-015, ¶9, 108 N.M. 22. In such cases, estoppel applies only pursuant to statute or

when “right and justice demand it.” Bien Mur Indian Market, ¶9. Oral statements not reduced to

writing are generally not grounds to grant equitable estoppel. See Kilmer v. Goodwin, 2004-

NMCA-122, ¶28, 136 N.M. 440. Estoppel cannot lie against the state when the act sought would

be contrary to the requirements expressed by statute. See Rainaldi v. Public Employees

Retirement Board, 1993-NMSC-028, ¶18-19, 115 N.M. 650.

In Kilmer, ¶25, the Court of Appeals considered that taxpayer’s claims for equitable relief

in the context of an untimely claim for refund. Under Kilmer, ¶26 (internal citations omitted), in

order for a taxpayer to establish an equitable estoppel claim against the Department, a taxpayer

must show that

(1) the government knew the facts; (2) the government intended its
conduct to be acted upon or so acted that plaintiffs had the right to believe
it was so intended; (3) plaintiffs must have been ignorant of the true facts;
and (4) plaintiffs reasonably relied on the government's conduct to their
injury.

The claimant must also show “affirmative misconduct on the part of the government.” id., ¶27

(internal citations omitted).

In a relevant portion to the resolution of this protest, the Kilmer Court of Appeals

considered the conduct of both parties as part of its estoppel analysis. id., ¶41. The Kilmer Court

of Appeals found that the Department’s own failings in that case were mitigated by the fact that

the Kilmer taxpayer was represented by an accountant, a “professional [] capable of performing

her own research… on New Mexico tax law.” id., ¶41, 700, 450. The Kilmer Court of Appeals

found that estoppel could not apply because of the accountant’s “expertise, the resources

available to [the accountant], and the language” of the relevant statute articulating a clear

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 10 of 13
timeline for action. id. Further, the Court of Appeals found it was “not reasonable” for the

accountant “to assume that [the accountant] would not need to do anything further except wait

for the claim to be denied.” id.

The Kilmer rationale extends to the facts of this protest. Taxpayer received nothing in

writing from the Department that the Department was extending the protest deadline pending

Taxpayer’s efforts to informally resolve the assessment with the Department or for any other

reasons. Taxpayer’s representative did not attempt to memorialize Ms. Carrillo’s statements in

the form of a confirmation letter. Oral statements not reduced to writing are generally not

amendable to equitable estoppel. See Kilmer, ¶28. This is particularly true when Taxpayer was

represented by a certified public accountant with the knowledge and means to research the legal

requirements for perfecting Taxpayer’s protest under Section 7-1-24.

Even if the Department suggested that Taxpayer need not file a formal protest while it

tried to resolve the assessment informally with the Department, like in Kilmer, Taxpayer’s

representative could have verified quickly the clear statutory requirement for a timely protest.

Moreover, the Department’s collections actions on June 28, 2013 and August 1, 2013 should

have alerted Taxpayer’s representative that its understanding of either the legal requirements of a

protest or its belief in the Department’s verbal assurances that no formal protest was yet required

were misguided. At the point of those collection notices, there was still sufficient time for

Taxpayer to remedy the problem by filing a request for a retroactive extension. As such,

Taxpayer was not ignorant of the true facts and could not reasonably rely on Ms. Carrillo’s

alleged statements. Under Kilmer, equitable estoppel does not apply to Taxpayer’s failure to file

a protest within 30-days or request an extension or a retroactive extension of time in which to file

a protest. Taxpayer’s protest is denied.

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 11 of 13
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Taxpayer filed a timely, written protest to the Department’s denial of the untimely

protest under letter id. no. L1233765840. Jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject matter of

this protest.

B. Taxpayer’s June 26, 2013 letter and November 19, 2013 protest letter to the

assessment issued under letter id. no. L1196974912 were untimely under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-

24 (B) (2003, amended 2013).

C. Under the requirements of NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24 (B) (2003, amended 2013),

Taxpayer did not request an extension of time or retroactive extension of time to file a protest.

D. Taxpayer’s failure to timely submit a protest letter, or a request for extension, within

the 30-day jurisdictional limit articulated under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24 (B) (2003, amended

2013) deprived the Department of authority to consider Taxpayer’s protest. See Lopez v. New

Mexico Dep't of Taxation & Revenue, 1997-NMCA-115, 124 N.M. 270.

E. Taxpayer is not entitled to statutory estoppel under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-60

(1993) because Taxpayer did not rely on a regulation or a ruling addressed in writing to Taxpayer.

F. Taxpayer is not entitled to equitable estoppel in this matter under Kilmer v.

Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122, 136 N.M. 440.

For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer's protest IS DENIED. The Department properly

denied Taxpayer’s protest of the underlying assessment as untimely.

DATED: June 11, 2014.

Brian VanDenzen, Esq.
Tax Hearing Officer
Taxation & Revenue Department
Post Office Box 630
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0630

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 12 of 13
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, §7-1-25 (1989), the parties have the right to appeal this

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

the date shown above. See NMRA, 12-601 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. If an appeal is

not filed within 30 days, this Decision and Order will become final. A party filing an appeal shall

file a courtesy copy of the appeal with the Hearings Bureau contemporaneously with the filing of

the Notice with the Court of Appeals so that the Hearings Bureau may prepare the record proper.

In the Matter of the Protest of New Mexico Tech University Research, page 13 of 13