Could Hydrotech avoid IFTA tax and IRP penalties after a departing employee and office move left fleet fuel and mileage records unavailable during audit?

Plain-English summary

Hydrotech Services remained liable for IFTA tax, interest, and an IRP record-deficiency penalty because it could not timely produce complete fleet records. The AHO separately waived the $350 IFTA penalty for reasonable cause.

Hydrotech operated hydro-excavation trucks in New Mexico and Texas from a Hobbs base. Its “hydroback” trucks used fuel both for highway travel and for pressurized-water and vacuum equipment while parked at jobsites. Some odometers continued advancing in work mode even when the vehicle was not traveling.

New Mexico audited Hydrotech as the fleet's IFTA and IRP base jurisdiction. During the audit, the company was changing bookkeepers and moving offices. The employee who had handled the reporting left to form another business, and Hydrotech could not locate all supporting records.

Later-produced records did not substantiate the returns

IFTA required vehicle-level distance and fuel records, including:

• trip dates, origins, destinations, and routes;
• odometer or hubodometer readings;
• total distance and distance by jurisdiction;
• vehicle or unit identification;
• taxable and nontaxable fuel use; and
• fuel purchase dates, sellers, quantities, types, and vehicles receiving the fuel.

IRP likewise required detailed trip and jurisdiction mileage records and fleet summaries retained for audit.

Hydrotech gradually found quarterly returns, summaries, handwritten documents, Gascard reports, and raw fuel-purchase data. But the materials were incomplete and difficult to reconcile. Some records referenced Gascard, others Voyager, while only Gascard purchases were supplied.

The evidence could not fully reconstruct mileage, fuel use, or the distinction between highway fuel and fuel consumed by parked excavation equipment. The AHO therefore upheld the assessment presumption.

The IRP penalty remained

IRP imposed a record-deficiency assessment when a registrant's fleet records were inadequate or not produced within 30 days of a written request.

The Department had made repeated requests and granted extra time. Records later found for the hearing did not cure the failure to provide adequate, timely audit records.

The $1,313.80 IRP penalty remained due.

IFTA tax and interest remained

The IFTA assessment reflected missing support for the reported 2013 mileage and fuel. Although parked equipment use could potentially justify an adjustment, Hydrotech lacked sufficiently detailed records to calculate one.

After offsets and reapplication of a prior penalty payment, the decision upheld $9,582.18 IFTA tax and $799.69 interest. Interest continued until the principal was paid.

IFTA's reasonable-cause rule allowed penalty relief

Unlike New Mexico's mandatory civil-negligence framework, IFTA Article XII allowed the base-jurisdiction commissioner to waive penalty for reasonable cause.

The AHO found an isolated records problem caused by the responsible employee's departure and the office relocation. Those circumstances justified waiver of the full $350 IFTA penalty.

The Department had already offset $150 against that penalty. The AHO ordered that amount applied instead to outstanding tax principal.

Result: protest GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Hydrotech owed $1,313.80 IRP penalty, $9,582.18 IFTA tax, and $799.69 interest—a total of $11,695.67—but no IFTA penalty.

What this means for you

Interstate commercial fleets

Keep audit-ready vehicle-level mileage and fuel documentation, not only quarterly summaries. Base jurisdictions audit for every participating IFTA and IRP jurisdiction.

Fleets with work-mode fuel use

Track fuel consumed by stationary equipment separately and document odometer behavior. A valid operational adjustment still requires records detailed enough to calculate it.

Businesses changing staff or offices

Transfer custody of tax records before personnel departures or relocations. Organizational disruption may support discretionary reasonable-cause relief, but it may not eliminate tax, interest, or a separate agreement's records penalty.

Common questions

Q: Why was the IRP penalty upheld?
A: Hydrotech did not produce the required adequate fleet records within the audit timeframe despite requests and an extension.

Q: Why was IFTA tax upheld?
A: The recovered records did not reliably reconstruct fuel purchases, mileage, jurisdictions, or stationary equipment use.

Q: Why did the IFTA penalty have a different result?
A: IFTA expressly allowed waiver for reasonable cause, and the employee departure plus office move satisfied that standard.

Q: Did later production at the hearing fix the audit failure?
A: No. The records were still incomplete, and IRP focused on adequate, timely production for audit.

Q: What remained due?
A: $11,695.67, consisting of $1,313.80 IRP penalty, $9,582.18 IFTA tax, and $799.69 interest.

Citations and references

Authorities:

• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-3 and 7-1-17 — tax definition and assessment presumption
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-67 and 7-1-69 — interest and New Mexico negligence penalty framework
• IFTA Article VII, § R700 and Article X, §§ P540 and P550 — required distance and fuel records
• IFTA Article XII, §§ 1210, 1220, 1230, 1260, and 1270 — assessments, reasonable-cause penalty waiver, and license enforcement
• IRP Article X, §§ 1000, 1010, 1015, and 1065 — retention, adequate records, penalty, and appeal

Cases cited:

• El Centro Villa Nursing Center v. Taxation & Revenue Department, 1989-NMCA-070 — assessment presumption and inadvertent error
• Marbob Energy Corp. v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission, 2009-NMSC-013 — mandatory effect of “shall”

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Hydrotech Services, LLC
• Decision PDF: D&O 17-10

Original ruling text

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE
TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
HYDROTECH SERVICES, LLC. No. 17-10
TO THE ASSESSMENT ISSUED UNDER
LETTER ID NOS. L1307427376 AND L0362582576

DECISION AND ORDER

A formal hearing on the above-referenced protest was held on January 12, 2017 before

Hearing Officer Ignacio V. Gallegos, Esq. The Taxation and Revenue Department (Department)

was represented by Mr. Marek Grabowski, Staff Attorney. Ms. Veronica Galewaler, Auditor, also

appeared as a witness for the Department. Mr. Joseph Cotton, Operations Manager for

Hydrotech Services, LLC (Taxpayer), appeared representing Taxpayer for the hearing, and as a

witness. The Hearing Officer took notice of all documents in the administrative file. Taxpayer

presented Exhibits 1, 2A through 2V, 3A through 3M, and 4A through 4VV (double sided). The

Department presented Exhibits A through H. The exhibits were admitted upon stipulation of

parties. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS

FOLLOWS:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On January 6, 2016, the Department assessed the Taxpayer for International Registration

Plan (IRP) penalty and interest for the tax reporting period ending December 31, 2014.

The assessment was for $0.00 tax, $1,313.80 penalty, and $0.00 interest.

2. On January 6, 2016, the Department assessed the Taxpayer for International Fuel Tax

Agreement (IFTA) Tax, penalty, and interest for the tax reporting periods from March 31,

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 1 of 14
2013 through December 31, 2013. The assessment was for $10,853.11 tax, $200.00

penalty, and $799.69 interest.

3. On March 22, 2016, the Taxpayer filed a formal protest letter, received by the

Department on April 7, 2016. The protest was timely.

4. On April 19, 2016, the Department acknowledged receipt of the formal protest of the IRP

audit assessment.

5. On April 27, 2016, the Department acknowledged receipt of the formal protest of the

IFTA audit assessment.

6. On May 27, 2016 the Department filed a Request for Hearing asking that the Taxpayer’s

protest of the IRP audit assessment be scheduled for a formal administrative hearing.

7. On May 27, 2016, the Administrative Hearings Office issued a notice of hearing

concerning the IRP audit assessment.

8. On May 31, 2016 a Joint Motion for Continuance and Consolidation with Taxpayer

Protest of Assessment Issued under Letter ID L1307427376” was filed.

9. On June 1, 2016, the Department filed a Request for Hearing asking that the Taxpayer’s

protest of the IFTA audit assessment be scheduled for a formal administrative hearing.

10. On June 1, 2016, the Administrative Hearings Office issued an “Order Converting Merits

Hearing to Telephonic Scheduling Conference and Notice of Telephonic Scheduling

Hearing.”

11. On June 9, 2016, a telephonic scheduling hearing was held. The parties agreed that the

telephonic hearing satisfied the 90-day requirement of the statute.

12. On June 9, 2016, a scheduling order and notice of administrative hearing was issued.

13. On September 22, 2016 the parties submitted a Joint Motion for Continuance.

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 2 of 14

14. On September 29, 2016, the Administrative Hearings Office issued a Continuance Order ,

Amended Scheduling Order and Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing.

15. On January 11, 2017, the matter was re-assigned to Administrative Hearing Officer

Ignacio V. Gallegos.

16. On January 12, 2017 a hearing on the merits took place in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

17. The Taxpayer is Hydrotech Services, LLC.

18. The Taxpayer is subject to reporting and record-keeping requirements of IRP and IFTA.

19. Taxpayer has several vehicles which travel within Texas and New Mexico.

20. Taxpayer’s vehicles home base is in Hobbs, New Mexico.

21. The State of New Mexico is an IRP and IFTA fleet Base Jurisdiction, required to

administer, audit and enforce the law’s requirements of fleets registered in New Mexico

as their Base Jurisdiction.

22. Hydrotech Services, LLC is a company that engages in the business of excavating using

pressurized water and high-power vacuums to safely remove the soils surrounding

sensitive underground utilities, primarily pipelines and electrical lines.

23. Hydrotech Services, LLC uses fuel for the large trucks known as “hydrobacks” to move

on highways, and to power the pressurized water and vacuum machinery.

24. The Taxpayer also has chase trucks, to assist moving its employees from the worksite to

the home base, since the hydroback trucks typically remain at the work-site for several

days at a time.

25. Some of the trucks have odometers that continue to progress when the truck is parked but

operating the hydro-excavating systems.

26. The vehicles have a drive mode and a work mode.

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 3 of 14

27. Mr. Cotton credibly testified that the Taxpayer’s difficulty obtaining the documents was

in part due to a change of bookkeeper and the fact that the business was relocating from

one office location to another during the audit.

28. Mr. Cotton credibly testified that he had just been hired by Taxpayer in 2014, and his

predecessor, Mr. Rocky Garcia, was in charge of the tax filings during the periods

covered by the IFTA and IRP audits.

29. Mr. Cotton credibly testified that Mr. Garcia left Hydrotech Services, LLC in order to

form his own company.

30. The Taxpayer was unable to locate the complete records requested during the audit

periods.

31. Mr. Cotton would find the requested records little-by-little, and as he found them he

would send them to the Department through its auditor Ms. Galewaler.

32. The reports Mr. Cotton found were the tax reports indicating summaries of the fuel used

by each truck, each month, as well as a breakdown of what state to attribute the usage.

33. Mr. Cotton provided Exhibit 2A through 2V, which is the IFTA Quarterly Tax Return for

the second quarter of 2013, along with a summary and original handwritten supporting

documents for the fuel purchases and mileage per truck during the months of April, May

and June 2013.

34. Mr. Cotton provided Exhibit 3A through 3M, a Gascard fuel management report for the

month of June 2013.

35. Mr. Cotton provided Exhibit 4A through 4VV, raw fuel purchase transaction data for

months April 2013 through June 2013.

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 4 of 14

36. Mr. Cotton provided Exhibit 1, a summary of fuel and mileage without supporting

documents for the third quarter of 2013.

37. The Taxpayer has an accountant, but that person does not share responsibility for IFTA

and IRP record-keeping and reporting.

38. The Taxpayer used the National Truck Service Group to assist with filing required IFTA

and IRP reports.

39. The Department conducted an IRP audit and an IFTA audit using established procedures.

40. For the IFTA audit, the entire year of 2013 was under audit, but the Auditor had only

requested a sample of the third quarter because it was an area of concern, and to reduce

the number of records requested.

41. The IFTA Licensee is required to maintain and provide upon request records such as fuel

purchases, driver logs, fuel logs, odometer readings, a list of records to support how

many miles and how much fuel they are using.

42. The IRP Registrant is required to maintain and provide upon request records that are

listed in the agreement.

43. The tax agreements require keeping all of the supporting records, and the Taxpayer is

required to provide the records when audited.

44. Base Jurisdiction states are required to audit a certain percentage of IRP and IFTA

participants not only for the Base Jurisdiction but also for the other states that participate

as members.

45. The fact that a vehicle is not travelling but still using fuel is a possible reason to adjust

the audit, but in this case, there was insufficient information to allow adjustments.

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 5 of 14

46. The Auditor testified that the records were not sufficiently detailed and organized to re-

construct fuel purchases and mileage under the established procedures.

47. The Auditor testified that the records, specifically, Taxpayer’s Exhibit 2, would be an

acceptable record of mileage, but because the fuel purchase records (Taxpayer’s Exhibit

3) were difficult to read and did not justify a valid adjustment.

48. The Auditor testified that she communicated to Mr. Cotton several of the different issues

she was experiencing with the records, both over the phone and by email.

49. Some information the Auditor received indicated a Gascard fuel card, and others

indicated a Voyager fuel card, and the records she obtained were only from the Gascard

purchases.

50. The IRP penalty was based on lack of records available at the time of the audit.

51. The IFTA assessment was based on miles.

52. The Department updated a list of liabilities for the IRP Assessment, indicating an original

tax of $17,392.26 and penalty of $1,393.80, with offsets of -$17,392.26 to the underlying

tax, and -$80 toward the penalty, for a final balance of $1,313.80.

53. The Department updated the list of liabilities for IFTA Assessment, indicating an original

tax of $13,441.58, penalty of $350.00 and interest of $800.52, with offsets of -$3,709.40

to the underlying tax, -$150 to the penalty, and -$0.83 to the interest. Interest will accrue

until the tax principal is paid.

DISCUSSION

The issues to be decided are whether the Taxpayer is liable for the assessment of penalty,

interest and tax during the IFTA and IRP reporting periods. Taxpayer argued for reduction of

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 6 of 14
tax, penalties and interest since at the time of the hearing much of the original paperwork had

been recovered and was provided to the Department.

Burden of Proof.

Assessments by the Department are presumed to be correct. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17;

IFTA Article XII, Section 1210 (The assessment made by a base jurisdiction pursuant to this

procedure shall be presumed to be correct…); and IRP Article X, Section 1065 (“an appeal shall

proceed in accordance with the administrative and appellate procedures of the Base

Jurisdiction”).

Tax includes, by definition, the amount of tax principal imposed and, unless the context

otherwise requires, “the amount of any interest or civil penalty relating thereto.” NMSA 1978, §

7-1-3. See also El Centro Villa Nursing Ctr. v. Taxation and Revenue Department, 1989-NMCA-

070, 108 N.M. 795. Therefore, the assessment issued to the Taxpayer is presumed to be correct,

and it is the Taxpayer’s burden to present evidence and legal argument to show that it is entitled

to an abatement.

International Registration Plan (IRP) Audit assessment.

Taxpayer is a Registered IRP participant, engaged as a commercial carrier in New

Mexico and Texas. As an IRP Registrant, the Taxpayer is subject to the reporting and record-

keeping requirements of the IRP. See IRP Article X, Section 1000 (a) (“A Registrant shall retain

the Records on which the Registrant’s application for apportioned registration is based for a

period of three years following the close of the Registration year to which the application

pertains, and on request, shall make such Records available for Audit.). Inadequate, or missing

records is a basis for assessment of penalty. See IRP Article X, Section 1015 (“ If the Records

produced by the Registrant for Audit do not, for the Registrant’s Fleet as a whole, meet the

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 7 of 14
criterion in Section 1005(a), or if, within 30 calendar days of the issuance of a written request by

the Base Jurisdiction, the Registrant produces no Records, the Base Jurisdiction shall impose on

the Registrant an assessment in the amount of twenty percent of the Apportionable Fees paid by

the Registrant for the registration of its Fleet in the Registration Year to which the Records

pertain.”). The penalties increase with repeated errors. Id.

The IRP, Article X, Section 1010 requires that the Registrant retain records:

Records containing the following elements shall be accepted by the Base
Jurisdiction as adequate under Section 1005(a):
(a) For Records produced by a means other than a vehicle-tracking
system:
(i) the beginning and ending dates of the trip to which the Records
pertain
(ii) the origin and destination of the trip
(iii) the route of travel
(iv) the beginning and ending reading from the odometer,
hubodometer, engine control module (ECM), or any similar device for the trip
(v) the total distance of the trip
(vi) the distance traveled in each Jurisdiction
(vii) the Vehicle identification number or Vehicle unit number
(b) For Records produced wholly or partly by a vehicle-tracking system,
including a system based on a global positioning system (GPS):
(i) the original GPS or other location data for the Vehicle to which
the Records pertain
(ii) the date and time of each GPS or other system reading
(iii) the location of each GPS or other system reading
(iv) the beginning and ending reading from the odometer,
hubodometer, engine control module (ECM), or any similar device for the period
to which the Records pertain
(v) the calculated distance between each GPS or other system
reading
(vi) the route of the Vehicle’s travel
(vii) the total distance traveled by the Vehicle
(viii) the distance traveled in each jurisdiction
(ix) the Vehicle identification number or Vehicle unit number
(c) Summaries:

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 8 of 14
(i) a summary of the Fleet’s operations for each month, which
includes both the full distance traveled by each Apportioned Vehicle in the Fleet
during the calendar month, and the distance traveled in the month by each
Apportioned Vehicle in each Jurisdiction
(ii) a summary of the Fleet’s operations for each calendar quarter,
which includes both the full distance traveled by Vehicles in the Fleet during the
calendar quarter, and the distance traveled in each Jurisdiction by the Vehicles in
the Fleet during the calendar quarter
(iii) a summary of the quarterly summaries.

Mr. Cotton testified that in 2014 he had just been hired by the Taxpayer, and his

predecessor, Rocky Garcia, was still in charge of the tax reports. Mr. Garcia left Hydrotech

Services, LLC in order to start his own company. Mr. Cotton was unable to locate the records

from his predecessor in a timely fashion during the audit, despite diligent efforts.

Mr. Cotton testified that Taxpayer has been using the National Truck Service Group to

file its mileage and fuel reports. The process involves gathering the data and sending it to

“Darshan” at the National Truck Service Group. If the data is incomplete or inaccurate, Darshan

will request clarification. Taxpayer provided no evidence to contradict the alleged failure to

produce records required for the IRP audit. The Taxpayer’s records provided at the hearing were

not adequate to overcome the timeliness provision of the IRP. The supporting documentation of

the IRP audit indicate that the Department made multiple attempts to obtain the records, and

granted an extension of time to the Taxpayer to obtain the records. Although the change in the

Taxpayer’s physical office and the change of staffing may have contributed to the untimeliness,

the assessment of penalty under the IRP was justified.

International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) Audit assessment.

IFTA Tax.

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 9 of 14
Taxpayer is a Licensed IFTA participant, engaged as a commercial carrier in New

Mexico and Texas. As an IFTA Licensee, the Taxpayer is subject to the reporting and record-

keeping requirements of the IFTA. See IFTA Article VII, Section R700 (“Every licensee shall

maintain records to substantiate information reported on the tax returns. Operational records

shall be maintained or be made available for audit in the base jurisdiction.”). The Taxpayer

purchased fuel for its vehicle travel and excavating operations. The Taxpayer submitted IFTA

tax returns, but when audited, was unable to produce the supporting documentation for the

accuracy of the returns for a sample time period as determined by the Auditor.

IFTA requires that Licensees retain distance records as itemized under Article X, Section

P540:

.100 Licensees shall maintain detailed distance records which show operations on
an individual-vehicle basis. The operational records shall contain, but not be
limited to:
.005 Taxable and non-taxable usage of fuel;
.010 Distance traveled for taxable and non-taxable use; and
.015 Distance recaps for each vehicle for each jurisdiction in which the
vehicle operated.
.200 An acceptable distance accounting system is necessary to substantiate the
information reported on the tax return filed quarterly or annually. A licensee's
system at a minimum, must include distance data on each individual vehicle for
each trip and be recapitulated in monthly fleet summaries. Supporting information
should include:
.005 Date of trip (starting and ending);
.010 Trip origin and destination;
.015 Route of travel (may be waived by base jurisdiction);
.020 Beginning and ending odometer or hubodometer reading of the trip
(may be waived by base jurisdiction);
.025 Total trip miles/kilometers;
.030 Miles/kilometers by jurisdiction;
.035 Unit number or vehicle identification number;
.040 Vehicle fleet number;
.045 Registrant's name; and

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 10 of 14
.050 may include additional information at the discretion of the base
jurisdiction.

IFTA requires that Licensees retain fuel records as itemized under Article X, Section

P550:

.100 The licensee must maintain complete records of all motor fuel purchased,
received, and used in the conduct of its business.
.200 Separate totals must be compiled for each motor fuel type.
.300 Retail fuel purchases and bulk fuel purchases are to be accounted for
separately.
.400 The fuel records shall contain, but not be limited to:
.005 The date of each receipt of fuel;
.010 The name and address of the person from whom purchased or
received;
.015 The number of gallons or liters received;
.020 The type of fuel; and
.025 The vehicle or equipment into which the fuel was placed.

Taxpayer’s documentation does not satisfy the IFTA records-keeping requirements for

the tax period subject to the Department’s audit.

The inability to provide the proper support documentation when audited is a basis for

assessment of IFTA tax, penalty and interest. See IFTA Article XII, Sections 1210, 1220 and

1230. The Base Jurisdiction may also suspend or revoke the IFTA Licensee’s license. See IFTA

Article XII, Sections1210 and 1270.

The Assessment for Tax and interest was justified. Evidence presented did not overcome

the presumption of correctness of the assessment.

Assessment of Penalty.

The IFTA agreement gives its Licensees greater leverage to argue for abatement of

penalties than the tax laws of New Mexico. Under New Mexico law, penalty “shall be added to

the amount assessed” when a tax is not paid on time due to negligence. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-
Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 11 of 14
69 (2007) (emphasis added). The word “shall” indicates that the assessment of penalty is

mandatory, not discretionary. See Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm’n.,

2009-NMSC-013, ¶ 22, 146 N.M. 24. Assessments of penalty are presumed to be correct and it is

a taxpayer’s burden to show that the assessment was not correct. See 3.1.11.8 NMAC (2001). See

NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17. See also El Centro, 1989-NMCA-070. It is a taxpayer’s responsibility to

make payments, whether they are done electronically or in another fashion. See NMSA 1978, §

7-1-13.1 (2005). Negligence includes inadvertence. See 3.1.11.10 (C) (2001). Under the statute

and regulations, an honest mistake is tantamount to inadvertence, and is subject to penalty. See

id.

The IFTA license agreement, on the other hand, Article XII, Section 1260, allows for

greater discretion. “The base jurisdiction commissioner may waive penalties authorized by this

Article for reasonable cause.” Id. In this case, the Taxpayer made the case that because the

records-keeping responsibilities were under the control of a different employee, who

subsequently left the employment of the Taxpayer, and the office was in the process of moving

during the time of the audit, that there was reasonable cause to justify the absence of

substantiating documents. This appears to be an isolated case of misplacing records. The facts

of this case justify a waiver of penalties for reasonable cause.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. The Taxpayer filed a timely written protest to the assessment of penalty issued

under Letter ID number L1307427376 and L0362582576, and jurisdiction lies over the parties and

the subject matter of this protest.

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 12 of 14
B. A hearing was held within 90 days of the protest. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (A)

(2015).

C. The Taxpayer acknowledged that it had difficulty obtaining and delivering the

documents requested in the IFTA and IRP audits in a timely fashion.

D. The Taxpayer was properly assessed for IRP penalty.

E. The IRP penalty assessment is still outstanding as to $1,313.80.

F. The Taxpayer was properly assessed for IFTA tax and interest.

G. The Taxpayer provided evidence of reasonable cause to waive the assessment of

IFTA penalties of $350.00.

H. Offsets/payments of $150.00 previously attributed to IFTA penalties shall be

attributed to outstanding tax principal.

I. After offsets and elimination of the IFTA penalty, the IFTA assessment is still

outstanding as to $9,582.18 tax, $799.69 interest. Interest continues to accrue until the tax

principal is paid.

J. Failure to pay the assessment will cause the Taxpayer to become a delinquent

taxpayer under Section 7-1-16 NMSA 1978.

K. Failure to pay the IFTA assessment within thirty days will cause the Department to

revoke the IFTA Licensee’s fuel tax license. See IFTA Article XII, Section 1270.

For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer's protest is DENIED in part and GRANTED in

part. Taxpayer is ordered to pay the IRP assessment of $1,313.80 penalty. Taxpayer is ordered to

pay the IFTA assessment of $9,582.18 tax and $799.69 interest. Taxpayer is not required to pay

$350 in IFTA penalty, and the Department shall apply any previous payments applied to that

penalty to other taxes owed.

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 13 of 14
DATED: February 27, 2017.

Ignacio V. Gallegos, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Administrative Hearings Office
Post Office Box 6400
Santa Fe, NM 87502

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 7-1-25, 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 Rule 12-601 NMRA. If an appeal is not filed within 30 days, this Decision

and Order will become final. A copy of the Notice of Appeal should be mailed to John Griego,

P. O. Box 6400, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502. Mr. Griego may be contacted at 505-827-0466.

Hydrotech Services, LLC
Letter ID No. L1307427376 and L0362582576
page 14 of 14