Was Linda Wasko's Type 5 NTTC untimely when it was executed one day after the deadline printed on the Department's audit notice?

Plain-English summary

Linda Wasko kept her service-for-resale deduction because the Department did not prove when it mailed the notice that started the 60-day NTTC deadline. Although Elite Home Care executed the Type 5 NTTC one day after the date printed as the deadline, the AHO found no basis to conclude that it was actually late.

Wasko provided in-home elder care services to Elite Home Care in 2012. She did not report the receipts or possess an NTTC when the returns were due. A Schedule C matching audit later identified $12,832 of unreported sole-proprietorship income and asked her to provide supporting NTTCs.

The correct certificate was executed on August 26

The audit notice was dated June 26, 2015 and printed an August 25 deadline. Wasko and Elite Home Care tried to execute the Type 5 NTTC on August 24 and 25 but could not complete the online process. With a Department employee's assistance, Elite successfully executed the correct certificate on August 26.

Ordinarily, Section 7-9-43 made the 60-day rule mandatory. The reason for missing it—including a website problem, hardship, or efforts to comply—would not excuse an actually late certificate.

The evidence put the notice date genuinely in doubt

The Department auditor acknowledged that he did not know the mailing date and that the notice might have gone out on Friday, June 26 or the next business day. Wasko credibly testified that she did not receive it until seven to ten days after the document date.

That evidence was enough to rebut the assessment presumption in this unusual one-day case. The Department then needed to prove the mailing date but produced no postmarked envelope, GenTax mailing information, mailing log, or evidence of standard mailing practices.

If the notice went out the next business day, the August 26 NTTC was within 60 days. Because the Department could not establish otherwise, the certificate supported the Section 7-9-48 deduction.

Result: protest GRANTED. The Department was ordered to abate all assessed tax, penalty, and interest related to the Elite Home Care receipts.

The extracted decision twice gives the possible next-business-day mailing as June 29, 2016, although the notice and surrounding events occurred in 2015. This page avoids assigning a year to that possible mailing date and follows the ruling's timeline without correcting the original text.

What this means for you

Service providers claiming resale deductions

Obtain the correct NTTC when the return is due. The audit-period opportunity is a second chance, and the 60-day deadline remains mandatory when its start date is established.

Taxpayers disputing a one-day deadline

Evidence must raise a genuine issue about when notice was actually mailed or served. Mere speculation usually will not overcome the assessment presumption.

Tax administrators and representatives

When timeliness turns on one or two days, preserve the postmark, mailing log, system record, or evidence of mailing procedures. Once the taxpayer rebuts the presumption, the party relying on mail must prove mailing.

Common questions

Q: Did Wasko have an NTTC when her 2012 returns were due?
A: No.

Q: Was the certificate the correct type and did it cover the receipts?
A: Yes. Elite Home Care executed a Type 5 NTTC covering the elder-care receipts.

Q: Why did the printed August 25 deadline not control?
A: The 60 days ran from notice, and credible evidence put the actual mailing date in doubt.

Q: Did a website problem itself excuse a late NTTC?
A: No. The AHO said the reason for an actually late certificate would be irrelevant; Wasko won because lateness was not proven.

Q: What was abated?
A: All assessed tax, penalty, and interest related to the Elite Home Care receipts.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-9-43 and 7-9-48 — 60-day NTTC rule and service-for-resale deduction
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-9-3.3, 7-9-3.5, 7-9-4, and 7-9-5 — gross receipts tax framework
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-9 and 7-1-17 — effective notice and assessment presumption
• Regulation 3.2.201.12(C) NMAC — no deduction for an untimely NTTC
• Regulations 3.1.4.9(C) and 3.1.6.12 NMAC — mailing timeliness and assessment presumption

Cases cited:

• Proficient Food Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department, 1988-NMCA-042 — an untimely NTTC is a valid basis to deny a deduction
• MPC Ltd. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department, 2003-NMCA-021 — burden shifts after sufficient contrary evidence
• Myers v. Kapnison, 1979-NMCA-085 — party relying on mail bears the burden to prove mailing
• Wing Pawn Shop v. Taxation & Revenue Department, 1991-NMCA-024 — presumption of administrative regularity in notice

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Linda Wasko
• Decision PDF: D&O 16-18

Original ruling text

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE
TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
LINDA WASKO No. 16-18
TO ASSESSMENT ISSUED UNDER LETTER
ID NO. L1074817072 and L0537946160

DECISION AND ORDER

A protest hearing occurred on the above captioned matter February 1, 2016 before Brian

VanDenzen, Esq., Chief Hearing Officer, in Santa Fe. At the hearing, Linda Wasko (“Taxpayer”)

appeared pro se. Staff Attorney Melinda Wolinsky appeared representing the State of New

Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (“Department”). Protest Auditor Thomas Dillon

appeared as a witness for the Department. Taxpayer Exhibits #1-5 and Department Exhibits A-F

were admitted into the record. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, IT IS DECIDED

AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On October 6, 2015, through letter id. no. L1017585712, the Department assessed

Taxpayer for $348.20 in gross receipts tax, $69.64 in penalty, and $33.24 in interest for a total

assessment of $451.08 for the CRS reporting periods from January 1, 2012 through June 30,

2012. [Dept. Ex. B].

2013. On October 6, 2015, through letter id. no. L0537946160, the Department assessed

Taxpayer for $348.20 in gross receipts tax, $69.64 in penalty, and $27.99 in interest for a total

assessment of $445.83 for the CRS reporting periods from July 1, 2012 through December 31,

2012. [Dept. Ex. C].

2013. On October 14, 2015, Taxpayer protested the Department’s assessments.

2014. The Department acknowledged receipt of a valid protest on November 4, 2015.

2015. On December 9, 2015, the Department filed a request for hearing in this matter

with the Administrative Hearings Office, a separate agency from the Department.

6. On December 10, 2015, the Administrative Hearings Office sent Notice of

Administrative Hearing, setting this matter for a merits hearing on February 1, 2016.

7. The February 1, 2016 hearing occurred within 90-days of the Department’s

acknowledgement of receipt of a valid protest.

8. Taxpayer is a sole proprietor that sells artwork outside of New Mexico and also

worked as a teacher.

9. During the relevant period, Taxpayer also provided in-home elder care services

for a company called Elite Home Care. The receipts from this service are what are at issue in this

protest.

10. In order to qualify for the sale of a service for resale deduction from gross receipts

tax for the elder care services Taxpayer performed to Elite Home Care, Taxpayer timely needed

a Type 5 nontaxable transaction certificate (“NTTC or NTTCs”) executed by Elite Home Care.

11. Taxpayer did not receive a NTTC from Elite Home Care at the time her taxes

were due in 2012.

12. Taxpayer did not report, file, or pay gross receipts tax during the period in

question.

13. As part of its Schedule C Tape Match program with the IRS, the Department

discovered $12,832.00 in sole proprietorship income reported on Taxpayer’s personal income tax

federal Schedule C that was not reported as gross receipts on CRS tax return. [Dept. Ex. A].

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 2 of 12

14. On June 26, 2015, the Department prepared a Notice of Limited Scope Audit

Commencement-60 Day Notice asking Taxpayer to explain the mismatch and provide any

necessary NTTCs supporting claimed deductions for the $12,832.00 in business income reported

to the IRS on the Schedule C. [Dept. Ex. A].

15. Department Protest Auditor Tom Dillon is a CPA who has worked for the

Department for more than 20-years in the Department’s protest office. Mr. Dillon has a high-

level of knowledge, experience, and competency with the various tax programs, processes and

systems administered by the Department.

16. Upon questioning, Department Protest Auditor Tom Dillon acknowledged based

on his previous knowledge and experience that the Notice of Limited Scope Audit

Commencement was probably mailed out on Friday, June 26, 2015 but may not have been

mailed until the next working day, Monday, June 29, 2016.

17. The Department did not produce or provide any direct evidence as to the date of

mailing of the Notice of Limited Scope Audit Commencement in this case, such as a postmark

date or a date of mailing of batch noted in GenTax.

18. Aside from Mr. Dillon’s testimony about his general knowledge and experience

with the mailing process, the Department did not produce or provide any other general evidence

about its mailing procedures for such documents that could have established through practice the

date of mailing of the Notice of Limited Scope Audit Commencement in this case.

19. Taxpayer, a Santa Fe resident, did not receive the Notice of Limited Scope Audit

until a week to ten days after the June 26, 2015 date of the document.

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 3 of 12

20. The Notice of Limited Scope Audit Commencement indicated a response deadline

of August 25, 2015 for production of necessary NTTCs, 60-days after the date on the Notice.

[Dept. Ex. A].

21. Taxpayer worked with Steve at Elite Home Care to try to get the NTTC beginning

in August.

22. On August 24, 2015, Taxpayer and Steve of Elite Home Care attempted to

complete the NTTC, but were unable to do so. Taxpayer contacted Department employee Doug

Nava for help, and he indicated they should try again the next day and report if they had

additional troubles.

23. On August 25, 2015, using the Department’s website, Elite Home Care attempted

to execute a Type 5 NTTC to Taxpayer but was unable to do so. [Taxpayer Ex. #3-4].

24. Late in the day on August 25, 2015, Taxpayer contacted Mr. Nava again about the

trouble in executing the NTTC. Mr. Nava told Taxpayer to have Steve at Elite Home Care call or

come in for assistance so Mr. Nava could walk them through the process.

25. Taxpayer did not produce or provide an executed NTTC by the August 25, 2015

deadline stated in the Notice of Limited Scope Audit Commencement.

26. On August 26, 2015, again using the Department’s website and apparently with

the telephonic assistance of Department employee Doug Nava, Elite Home Care successfully

executed a Type 5 NTTC to Taxpayer. [Taxpayer Ex. #3-4; Dept. Ex. D].

27. Because the Type 5 NTTC was executed one-day after the August 25, 2015

deadline listed on the Notice of Limited Scope Audit Commencement, the Department

disallowed Taxpayer the claimed deduction for the Elite Home Care receipts (less the

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 4 of 12
adjustments for the receipts earned for art sales outside of New Mexico) and issued the

assessments referenced in findings of fact #1 and #2.

28. As of the date of hearing, the Department alleged that Taxpayer owed $696.40 in

gross receipts tax, $139.64 in penalty, and $68.33 in interest under both assessments. [Dept. Ex.

F].

DISCUSSION

The issue in this case relates to whether Taxpayer is allowed to claim a deduction for the

sale of a service for resale deduction when she produced a Type 5 NTTC executed one-day after

the 60-day deadline articulated in the Department’s Notice of Limited Scope Audit

Commencement and on what date the Department provided notice to Taxpayer, triggering the

60-day period.

Under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17 (C) (2007), the assessments issued in this case are

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

Archuleta v. O'Cheskey, 1972-NMCA-165, ¶11, 84 N.M. 428. Accordingly, it is Taxpayer’s

burden to present some countervailing evidence or legal argument to show that it is entitled to an

abatement, in full or in part, of the assessments issued against her. See N.M. Taxation & Revenue

Dep't v. Casias Trucking, 2014-NMCA-099, ¶8. “Unsubstantiated statements that the assessment

is incorrect cannot overcome the presumption of correctness." See MPC Ltd. v. N.M. Taxation &

Revenue Dep't, 2003 NMCA 21, ¶13, 133 N.M. 217; See also Regulation 3.1.6.12 NMAC. When a

taxpayer presents sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, the burden shifts to the

Department to show that the assessment is correct. See MPC Ltd., 2003 NMCA 21, ¶13.

For the privilege of engaging in business, New Mexico imposes a gross receipts tax on the

receipts of any person engaged in business. See NMSA 1978, § 7-9-4 (2002). Under NMSA

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 5 of 12
1978, Section 7-9-3.5 (A) (1) (2007), the term “gross receipts” is broadly defined to mean

the total amount of money or the value of other consideration received from
selling property in New Mexico, from leasing or licensing property employed in
New Mexico, from granting a right to use a franchise employed in New Mexico,
from selling services performed outside New Mexico, the product of which is
initially used in New Mexico, or from performing services in New Mexico.

“Engaging in business” is defined as “carrying on or causing to be carried on any activity with

the purpose of direct or indirect benefit.” NMSA 1978, § 7-9-3.3 (2003). Gross receipts applies

to the performance of a service in New Mexico. See NMSA 1978, § 7-9-3.5 (2007). Under the

Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax Act, there is a statutory presumption that all receipts of a

person engaged in business are taxable. See NMSA 1978, § 7-9-5 (2002). In pertinent part,

Taxpayer in this case was engaged in performing elder care services for Elite Home Care, and

therefore any of her receipts from that service were presumed subject to gross receipts tax under

Section 7-9-3.3 and Section 7-9-5.

The New Mexico Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax Act provides numerous deductions

of gross receipts tax. One particular deduction is at issue in this protest: the sale of a service for

resale deductible under NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-48 (2000). Section 7-9-48 states that:

Receipts from selling a service for resale may be deducted from
gross receipts or governmental gross receipts if the sale is made to a
person who delivers a nontaxable transaction certificate to the seller.
The buyer delivering the nontaxable transaction certificate must
resell the service in the ordinary court of business and the resale must
be subject to the gross receipts tax....

Simply performing a service for resale, as the Taxpayer did in this instance for Elite Home Care, is

not enough to satisfy the requirements of the deduction under Section 7-9-48. The statute clearly

and unambiguously conditions the deduction on a sale made to a person/entity who delivers a

NTTC.

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 6 of 12
NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-43 (2011) articulates the requirements for obtaining NTTCs:

All nontaxable transaction certificates...should be in the possession
of the seller or lessor for nontaxable transactions at the time the
return is due for receipts from the transactions. If the seller or lessor
is not in possession of the required nontaxable transaction certificates
within sixty days from the date that the notice requiring possession of
these nontaxable transaction certificates is given the seller or lessor
by the department, deductions claimed by the seller or lessor that
require delivery of these nontaxable transaction certificates shall be
disallowed.

Under Section 7-9-43, Taxpayer had a statutory obligation to possess a NTTC at the time when the

gross receipts tax was initially due for the 2012 performance of elder care services for Elite Home

Care. There is no evidence that Taxpayer possessed a NTTC at that time.

While taxpayers “should” have possession of required NTTCs at the time the return is due

from the receipts at issue, Section 7-9-43 gives taxpayers audited by the Department a second

chance to obtain these NTTCs: within 60-days of when the Department gives notice, taxpayers must

possess a NTTC in order to claim a deduction. Taxpayers who rely on this second chance provision

run the risk of having their deductions disallowed if they are unable to meet the 60-day deadline set

by the Legislature. The reason why a taxpayer cannot obtain a NTTC is irrelevant. The language of

Section 7-9-43 is mandatory: if a seller is not in possession of required NTTCs within 60 days from

the Department's notice, "deductions claimed by the seller ... that require delivery of these

nontaxable transaction certificates shall be disallowed." (emphasis added). 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).

Consistent with the statutory language, under Regulation 3.2.201.12 (C), a taxpayer “is not

entitled to the deduction” when the NTTC is untimely. The New Mexico Court of Appeals has held

that despite its general reluctance to place “form over substance,” the failure to timely and properly

present a requisite NTTC is a “valid basis” for the Department to deny a claimed deduction.

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 7 of 12
Proficient Food Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 1988-NMCA-042, ¶22, 107 N.M.

392.

When does the Department give notice to a taxpayer for the purposes of triggering Section

7-9-43’s timeliness requirement? Under Section 7-9-43 (C), “(n)otice… is sufficient if the notice is

mailed or served as provided in Subsection A of Section 7-1-9 NMSA 1978.” Under NMSA 1978,

Section 7-1-9 (A) (1997), notice is effective when mailed to the person at the last address shown

on the registration certificate or other record of the Department. Section 7-1-9 (B) also grants the

Department’s secretary authority to promulgate regulations to determine what is adequate for

actual time of delivery. Under Regulation 3.1.4.9 NMAC (C), the Department generally looks to

the postmark date to determine timeliness of mailings required under the Tax Administration

Act, as Mr. Dillon indicated was controlling in determining when the Department notified a

taxpayer of the 60-day deadline. Here, there is no doubt that the Department sent the Notice of

Limited Scope Audit Commencement notice to Taxpayer at her address of record, but the

evidence presented raised a legitimate issue as to when such notice was mailed.

The Department asserts in this case that the NTTC was executed one-day late, which if

correct, would require that the deduction be disallowed. It is undisputed in this case that the Type 5

NTTC (which was of the correct type and covered the receipts in question) was not executed by

Elite Home Care to Taxpayer until August 26, 2015. If August 26, 2015 was more than 60-days

“from the date that the notice requiring possession of these nontaxable transaction certificates is

given the seller or lessor by the department…”, then under Section 7-9-43 that Department had no

choice but to disallow Taxpayer’s claimed deduction regardless of the reason she was unable to

obtain it. Under the language of the applicable statute, regulation, and case law, Taxpayer’s asserted

claim that the Department’s computer system had a glitch, her assertion of a her own financial

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 8 of 12
hardship, or her assertion of her efforts to be a compliant taxpayer would be insufficient to allow for

the deduction. Again, this is because the 60-day window is already a taxpayer’s second chance to

obtain what they were required to obtain at the time the tax was due on the transaction.

The Department is fully entitled to the presumption of correctness of its assessments and

as such it is the burden of Taxpayer to establish that Notice of Limited Scope Audit

Commencement was not mailed or personally delivered on the date asserted on the face of that

document. Therefore, in most cases related to this issue, there will be little evidence or issue to

dispute that the Notice of Limited Scope Audit was mailed on the date listed on the face of the

document. But in this particular case, upon questioning by Taxpayer and the hearing officer, the

highly knowledgeable, experienced, and competent Department protest auditor Tom Dillon

acknowledged that he did not know when the Notice of Limited Scope Audit was mailed and that

based on his own experience, the Notice of Limited Scope Audit Commencement could have been

mailed on Friday, June 26, 2015 or may have not been mailed until the following business day,

Monday, June 29, 2015.1 If it was the former, then the NTTC was untimely but if it was the latter,

then the NTTC was timely and Taxpayer was entitled to her claimed deduction. Taxpayer, a Santa

Fe resident, credibly testified that she did not receive the Notice of Limited Scope Audit until a

week to ten days after its listed June 26, 2015 date, which (even acknowledging the mailing went to

a P.O. Box) is more consistent with the possibility that the letter was not mailed in fact until June

29, 2015.

1
Interestingly, in a separate decision and order being issued at the same time as this case, In the Matter of the
Protest of Reggie Olguin, No. 16-19, the Department did provide mailing information to demonstrate that an
assessment dated on its face as October 26, 2016 was not in fact mailed until the following business day, October
27, 2016, illustrating exactly this potential scenario and why mailing information on a case involving an allegation
of one-day’s tardiness could be important.

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 9 of 12
Once a taxpayer meets the presumption of correctness, the burden shifts back to the

Department to establish the correctness of its assessments. See MPC Ltd., 2003 NMCA 21, ¶13.

In this case, the Department was relying on the mailing of the Notice of Limited Scope Audit to

establish the date it gave notice to Taxpayer that it had 60-days to provide executed NTTCs. A

“party relying on service by mail has the burden of proving the mailing.” Myers v. Kapnison,

1979-NMCA-085, ¶8, 93 N.M. 215. Here, the Department presented no evidence of the actual date

of mailing of the Notice of Limited Scope Audit Commencement such as a copy of the postmarked

envelope, GenTax mailing information, or a mailing log. In the absence of actual proof of

mailing, the Department also did not attempt to present any general testimony or evidence

regarding the Department’s Notice of Limited Scope Audit mailing procedures, practices,

routines, or policies that might have established that this notice was mailed in conformance

therewith. That is not to say that this type of detailed evidence of mailing is always required,

especially in light of the presumption of correctness. However, considering that in this protest the

Department avers that Taxpayer’s NTTC was one-day late and through questioning there is some

evidence that the Notice of Limited Scope Audit Commencement may not have been mailed out

until the next business day, June 29, 2016, rather than the date on the document, detailed

evidence and proof of actual date of mailing is critical to the question of timeliness of the NTTC

in this specific case. Without such information, there is no basis to conclude that Taxpayer’s

NTTC was untimely in this matter. Consequently, Taxpayer was entitled to the claimed

deduction under Section 7-9- 48 and her protest is granted as it relates to the Elite Home Care

receipts.

Despite the outcome of this particular case, it is important to reiterate that taxpayers must

overcome the presumption of correctness and thus in most instances the Department will not

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 10 of 12
need to show the specific date of mailing triggering the 60-day deadline under Section 7-9-43

(though it may be best practice to do so when a NTTC is considered only a day or two late). It is

not enough for a taxpayer to overcome this presumption and shift this burden back to the

Department by merely speculating that the notice may have not been mailed out when indicated

on the face of the document. See MPC Ltd., 2003 NMCA 21, ¶13, 133 N.M. 217; See also

Regulation 3.1.6.12 NMAC; See also Wing Pawn Shop v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 1991-

NMCA-024, ¶29, 111 N.M. 735 (there is a presumption of administrative regularity that a

taxpayer must overcome when it comes to adequacy of notice). Like in the present case, rather

than a mere speculative possibility, there must be some actual evidence on the record from a

credible source to raise a genuine question as to the date of the Department’s notice, especially in

instances where a taxpayer is alleged to miss a deadline by one day2. But when a taxpayer is able

to overcome the presumption of correctness related to the timeliness of the mailing of a Notice of

Limited Scope Audit with credible testimony or evidence, especially in a case involving one-day

difference under the deadline, then the Department must be prepared to establish the mailing date

(or service date if relying on personal delivery) of the Notice of Limited Scope Audit

Commencement.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Taxpayer filed a timely, written protest to the Department’s assessment, and

jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest.

B. The hearing was timely set and held within 90-days of the Department’s

acknowledgment of receipt of a valid protest under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-8 (2015).

2
See In the Matter of Club 33, Inc, Decision and Order Number 12-13 (non-precedential) for a similar example but
with the notable exception that in that case no presumption of correctness had attached yet under the statute. With
this issue, taxpayers have an affirmative duty to overcome the presumption of correctness that attached to the
assessment.

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 11 of 12
C. Taxpayer received an executed NTTC of the correct type, establishing Taxpayer’s

entitlement to sale of a service for resale deduction under NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-48 if not

untimely.

D. Taxpayer established a genuine issue as to the Department’s date of mailing of the

Notice of Limited Scope Audit that triggered the 60-day Notice based on her own receipt date of the

mailing, the acknowledgements that the highly-experienced and credible Mr. Dillon made upon

questioning about the possible date of mailing being the following business day, and alleged one-

day tardiness on the submission of the NTTC.

E. When the burden shifted back to the Department, the Department did not present

any evidence of actual mailing or mailing practice to establish when it gave notice of the 60-day

NTTC deadline to Taxpayer. See MPC Ltd. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2003 NMCA 21,

¶13, 133 N.M. 217.

For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayers’ protest IS GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED that

the Department abate all of the assessed tax, penalty, and interest that relates to the Elite Home Care

receipts.

DATED: May 20, 2016.

Brian VanDenzen
Chief Hearing Officer
Administrative Hearings Office
P.O. Box 6400
Santa Fe, NM 87502

In the Matter of the Protest of Linda Wasko, page 12 of 12