Could Wall Colmonoy correct a timely Technology Jobs and R&D Credit application that named Wall Co., Inc. and used the wrong CRS number after the deadline?

Plain-English summary

A timely Technology Jobs and Research and Development Tax Credit application was invalid because it named the wrong business and supplied the wrong CRS number. The correct entity could not be substituted after the one-year deadline, so the requested $36,196 credit was denied.

The application sought credit for qualified expenditures made during 2015. The statutory deadline was December 31, 2016.

The application was sent by certified mail on December 29 and received by the Department on January 3. It identified the applicant as Wall Co., Inc. and listed CRS number 762328.

That CRS number was invalid for the applicant, and Wall Co., Inc. was not registered with the Department to remit gross receipts, withholding, or compensating tax.

The correct entity was different

On February 3, 2017, the Department denied the application because the named company was not registered as a taxpayer.

Wall immediately supplied corrected information. It said the entity seeking the credit was Wall Colmonoy Corp., with CRS number 01-788319-00-9.

The correction did not merely fix a spelling error or transposed digit. It sought to replace one business entity with another after the deadline.

Taxpayer identity was a threshold requirement

The credit statute limited eligibility to a defined “taxpayer.” The Department's application form required the applicant's name and CRS number so the agency could identify the entity and verify taxpayer status.

Because the original name and number did not identify a registered taxpayer, the Department could not verify the most basic eligibility requirement.

The AHO held that the original application was timely but critically invalid.

The correction could not relate back

The Act required an application within one year after the end of the reporting period in which the qualified expenditure was made. It did not authorize:

• substituting a different applicant after the deadline;
• relating an untimely amended application back to a timely invalid one; or
• accepting a late application.

Administrative agencies could act only within authority expressly or necessarily granted by statute. Wall cited no law allowing the Department or AHO to make the substitution.

Waiting until the deadline left no room to cure

Wall relied on a December 20 email as evidence of diligence. The email made a general inquiry about the application process and verified whether an address was rural, but it did not identify a taxpayer by name or CRS number.

The AHO found that the email also showed preparation may not have begun until 11 calendar days before the deadline. Mailing the application on December 29 left no practical opportunity for Department review and correction before December 31.

Tax credits were legislative grants of grace construed against the taxpayer. Without a valid application from Wall Colmonoy by the deadline, the Department lacked authority to allow the credit.

Result: Department summary judgment GRANTED; protest DENIED. The $36,196 credit remained denied.

What this means for you

Related companies filing credit applications

Confirm the exact legal entity that incurred the qualified expenditures and will claim the credit. Do not use a related company's name or tax account.

Applicants entering a CRS number

Validate the number against Department registration records before filing. Taxpayer identity can be a substantive eligibility element, not a clerical detail.

Businesses facing a year-end credit deadline

Prepare early enough to review legal names, entity structure, registration status, reporting period, signatures, and identification numbers before submission.

Taxpayers seeking to amend an application

Check whether the statute authorizes amendments, relation back, or late correction. An agency may lack equitable power to fix even an understandable mistake.

Common questions

Q: How much credit was requested?
A: $36,196 for the 2015 reporting period.

Q: What was wrong with the original application?
A: It named Wall Co., Inc. and supplied an invalid CRS number.

Q: What was the correct entity?
A: Wall Colmonoy Corp., CRS number 01-788319-00-9.

Q: When was the correction supplied?
A: February 3, 2017, after the December 31, 2016 deadline.

Q: Was the original application itself late?
A: The AHO described it as timely but invalid; the problem was the wrong applicant identity and CRS number.

Q: Could the corrected entity relate back to the original filing?
A: No. The Act provided no authority for entity substitution, relation back, or late acceptance.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-9F-2 and 7-9F-3(L) — credit purpose and taxpayer definition
• NMSA 1978, § 7-9F-9(A) and (B) — application deadline and available offsets
• NMSA 1978, § 7-9F-10 — Department application procedures
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-2(A)(16) — Tax Administration Act coverage
• Regulations 3.13.5.9 and 3.1.1.15(A)(1) NMAC — application deadline and taxpayer registration

Cases cited:

• Team Specialty Products v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department, 2005-NMCA-020 — mandatory one-year deadline, narrow construction, and due diligence
• In re Application of PNM Electric Services, 1998-NMSC-017 — agency authority is limited to powers granted or necessarily implied by statute
• Security Escrow Corp. v. State Taxation and Revenue Department, 1988-NMCA-068 — tax benefits still receive reasonable construction

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Wall Company Inc
• Decision PDF: D&O 18-08

Original ruling text

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE
TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
WALL COMPANY INC.
TO DENIAL OF TECHNOLOGY JOBS AND
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
ISSUED ON February 3, 2017

v. D&O No. 18-08

NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A telephonic summary judgment hearing on the above-referenced protest occurred on

November 3, 2017, before Chris Romero, Esq., Hearing Officer, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Staff

Attorney, Mr. David Mittle, Esq., appeared telephonically representing the Taxation and Revenue

Department (“Department”) and was accompanied by Protest Auditor, Mr. Thomas Dillon. Mr.

Tony Pastoria, C.P.A. (Wall Colmonoy), and Mr. Robert Hartman, C.P.A. and Mr. Donny Lucaj,

C.P.A. (Plante & Moran, P.L.L.C.) appeared by telephone on behalf of Wall Co., Inc.

(“Taxpayer”).

The matter came before the Hearing Officer on the Department’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (hereinafter “Motion”) filed on September 18, 2017 and Taxpayer’s Response to

Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter “Response”) filed on October 2, 2017.

The Department’s Motion presented a statement of facts which Taxpayer did not dispute.

Based on the undisputed facts, review of exhibits and arguments presented, IT IS DECIDED AND

ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about December 29, 2016, Taxpayer submitted its Application for

Technology Jobs and Research and Development Tax Credit (hereinafter “Application”) to the

Department. [See Administrative File].

2. Taxpayer’s Application sought a credit in the amount of $36,196.00 for the period

from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. [See Administrative File].

3. The Application was mailed to the Department by Certified U.S. Mail on Thursday,

December 29, 2016. [See Administrative File].

4. The Application was received by the Department on Tuesday, January 3, 2017.

[See Response, Pg. 2, ¶6].

5. The deadline to claim the Technology Jobs and Research and Development Tax

Credit under the facts of this protest was December 31, 2016. [See Formal Protest; Motion, Pg. 1,

¶1; Response, Pg. 1, ¶1].

6. The Application identified the name of Taxpayer as Wall Co., Inc. and provided a

New Mexico CRS Identification Number of 762328. [See Application, Administrative File].

7. The Application provided an incorrect CRS number. [See Motion, Pg. 2, ¶7;

Response, Pg. 2, ¶7].

8. On February 3, 2017, the Department mailed correspondence to Taxpayer notifying

it that Taxpayer’s Application was denied because Wall Co., Inc. was not registered with the

Department to engage in business in the State of New Mexico. [See Administrative File; Motion,

Pg. 2, ¶8; Response, Pg. 2, ¶8].

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 2 of 14.

9. In response, also on February 3, 2017, Taxpayer provided a correct name and valid

CRS number. [See Motion, Pg. 2, ¶9; Response , Pg. 2, ¶9]. Taxpayer indicated that the correct

name of the entity seeking the credit was Wall Colmonoy Corp., and that its CRS number was 01-

788319-00-9. [See Formal Protest, Administrative File].

10. Taxpayer’s Application was nevertheless denied. [See Motion, Pg. 2, ¶¶9 – 11;

Response, Pg. 2, ¶¶9 – 11].

11. On May 1, 2017, the Department received Taxpayer’s Formal Protest of the Denial

of its Application for Technology Jobs and Research Development Tax Credit. [See

Administrative File].

12. On May 12, 2017, the Department acknowledged Taxpayer’s Formal Protest of the

Denial of its Application for Technology Jobs and Research Development Tax Credit. [See

Administrative File].

13. On May 18, 2017, the Department filed a Hearing Request with the Administrative

Hearings Office in which it requested that the matter be set to address scheduling. [See

Administrative File].

14. On May 19, 2017, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Notice of

Telephonic Scheduling Conference that set a telephonic scheduling hearing on June 16, 2017. [See

Administrative File].

15. A telephonic scheduling hearing occurred on June 16, 2017. Neither party objected

that the hearing was within 90 days of Taxpayer’s protest and should satisfy the 90-day hearing

requirement. [See Administrative File].

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 3 of 14.

16. On June 19, 2017, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Second Notice of

Telephonic Scheduling Conference that set a scheduling conference for August 18, 2017. [See

Administrative File].

17. On August 18, 2017, Taxpayer requested a continuance of the telephonic

scheduling hearing also set for August 18, 2017. The Department did not oppose the request. [See

Administrative File].

18. On August 18, 2017, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Continuance

Order and Amended Notice of Second Telephonic Scheduling Hearing. [See Administrative File].

19. On September 11, 2017, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Scheduling

Order and Notice of Motions Hearing that set a hearing on any potentially dispositive motions for

November 9, 2017. [See Administrative File].

20. On September 18, 2017, the Department filed its Motion. [See Administrative File].

21. On September 22, 2017, the Administrative Hearings Office entered an Order

Allowing Telephonic Appearance. [See Administrative File].

22. On October 2, 2017, Taxpayer filed Taxpayer’s Response to Department’s Motion.

[See Administrative File].

23. On November 9, 2017, the Department verbally acknowledged at the hearing that

Exhibits A through G to its Motion were attached in error and should be disregarded.

DISCUSSION

The sole issue at hand is whether Taxpayer’s Application for Technology Jobs and Research

and Development Tax Credit for 2015 is barred due to errors contained in the Application it

submitted no more than two calendar days before the statutory deadline. The parties do not contest

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 4 of 14.
that Taxpayer’s Application misstated Taxpayer’s name and provided an incorrect CRS number, nor

do the parties dispute that Taxpayer’s first attempt to cure the errors did not occur until after the

statutory deadline for submission passed.

Accordingly, the dispositive questions are whether or not the error should preclude

Taxpayer’s Application, or whether the law permits an amendment under the circumstances to relate

back to the initial submission of the Application, or whether the law permits the application to be

filed beyond the one-year deadline. These are the questions of law presented for summary judgment.

Summary Judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. See Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc.,

2010-NMSC-035, ¶7, 148 N.M. 713. In controversies involving a question of law, or application

of law where there are no disputed facts, summary judgment is appropriate. See Koenig v. Perez,

1986-NMSC-066, ¶10-11, 104 N.M. 664.

Turning to the legal questions central to the protest, evaluation of what constitutes a timely

application is determined from the Act and applying the plain meaning rule. “[T]he guiding principle

in statutory construction requires that we look to the wording of the statute and attempt to apply the

plain meaning rule, recognizing that when a statute contains language which is clear and

unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory interpretation.”

See Wood v. State Educ. Ret. Bd., 2011-NMCA-020, ¶12; 149 N.M. 455, 250 P.3d 881. A statutory

construction analysis begins by examining the words chosen by the legislature and the plain meaning

of those words. See State v. Hubble, 2009-NMSC-014, ¶13, 146 N.M. 70, 206 P.3d 579. Extra words

should not be read into a statute if the statute is plain on its face, especially if it makes sense as

written. See Johnson v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm’n, 1999-NMSC-021, ¶ 27, 127 N.M. 120, 978

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 5 of 14.
P.2d 327.

The purpose of the Technology Jobs and Research and Development Tax Credit Act

(hereinafter “Act”) is “to provide a favorable tax climate for technology-based businesses engaging in

research, development and experimentation and to promote increased employment and higher wages

in those fields in New Mexico.” See NMSA 1978, Section 7-9F-2 (2015); Team Specialty Prods. v.

N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2005-NMCA-020, ¶14, 137 N.M. 50, 107 P.3d 4.

The Act states “A taxpayer may apply for approval of a credit within one year following the

end of the reporting period in which the qualified expenditure was made.” See NMSA 1978, Section

7-9F-9 (A) (2015); Regulation 3.13.5.9 NMAC. Subject to exceptions which are not pertinent to the

issue before the Hearing Officer, a taxpayer thereafter approved to receive the credit may claim the

credit against the taxpayer’s compensating tax, withholding tax or gross receipts tax due to the state

of New Mexico. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-9F-9 (B) (2015).

Notwithstanding the use of “may,” “[i]f a taxpayer chooses to apply for either a basic and/or

an additional credit, the taxpayer is required to apply for approval of the credit within one year

following the end of that taxable year. The Technology Act does not allow a taxpayer to apply for a

tax credit during any other period.” (Emphasis Added). See Team Specialty Prods., 2005-NMCA-

020, ¶13.

The Act restricts eligibility to “taxpayers” as the Legislature specifically defined the term at

NMSA 1978, Section 7-9F-3 (L):

“taxpayer” means any of the following persons, other than a federal,
state or other governmental unit or subdivision or an agency,
department, institution or instrumentality thereof: (1) a person liable
for payment of any tax; (2) a person responsible for withholding and
payment or collection and payment of any tax; (3) a person to whom
an assessment has been made if the assessment remains unabated or

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 6 of 14.
the assessed amount has not been paid; or (4) for purposes of the
additional credit against the taxpayer’s income tax pursuant to the
Technology Jobs and Research and Development Tax Credit Act and
to the extent of their respective interest in that entity, the shareholders,
members, partners or other owners of: (a) a small business corporation
that has elected to be treated as an S corporation for federal income tax
purposes; or (b) an entity treated as a partnership or disregarded entity
for federal income tax purposes[.]

Accordingly, the Act provides two threshold issues to consider when evaluating an

application for the credit: 1) is the applicant a “taxpayer”; and 2) is the application timely?

The Legislature has conferred authority on the Department to establish the procedure through

which taxpayers apply for the credit. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-9F-10 (2015). In adhering to its

responsibility under the Act, the Department developed and presently utilizes RPD – 41385 (Rev.

10/16/2015), which is the form Taxpayer utilized in the present matter. The form consists of a fill-in-

the-blank application and detailed instructions for its completion and submission.

As might be expected, the form requires an applicant to identify itself by name and CRS

number. Not only is that information necessary for identifying the entity or individual submitting the

application, but it is also relevant for establishing whether an applicant is a “taxpayer” under the Act.

Because the Department is tasked with administering numerous tax programs involving countless

taxpayers, it has implemented a system for the registration and identification of taxpayers who are

subject to taxes and various tax acts, including the Act subject of this protest. See Regulation 3.1.1.15

(A) (1) NMAC; NMSA 1978, Section, 7-1-2 (A) (16).

A significant component of that system is the assignment of a unique identification number,

or CRS number, which is associated with the taxpayer’s name and other information relevant to the

character of the business. See ACD – 31015 (Rev. 12/14). By use of the CRS number, the

Department may identify a single taxpayer amid a myriad of other taxpayers in its system, even

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 7 of 14.
among taxpayers potentially having similar names.

Consequently, it is evident that Taxpayer’s failure to provide a valid CRS number on its

Application posed a significant problem, especially when the first step to establishing entitlement to

the credit required establishing its identity as a “taxpayer.”

There is no dispute that Taxpayer’s application was critically flawed in this regard. The

Department was unable to verify the most fundamental information provided by Taxpayer in its

Application and the Department was well within its authority to respond as it did on February 3,

2017:

“Unfortunately, because your company is not registered with a
Combined Reporting System (CRS) number to remit gross receipts,
withholding, or compensating taxes, your company does not qualify to
be awarded the credit.”

[See Administrative File, Correspondence by J. Wittig, Feb. 3, 2017].

In response, Taxpayer immediately attempted to correct the erroneous information 1. Having

found that Taxpayer’s Application was properly denied because it was not a “taxpayer”, the next

issue is whether a subsequent correction, submitted after the deadline, could relate back to the original

Application, or whether the Department could accept it after the one-year deadline had passed. The

correction in this protest sought to fundamentally substitute one entity (Wall Co., Inc.) for another

(Wall Colmonoy Corp.), after the latter had neglected to timely apply for the requested credit, and the

prior’s Application had been denied because it was not a taxpayer.

Taxpayer cited no legal authority in support of either option. The New Mexico Court of

Appeals has found that tax credits are legislative grants of grace to a taxpayer that must be narrowly
1
Although the parties make reference to an “amended application,” the record is lacking of such document.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of this analysis, the Hearing Officer finds that a copy of an amended application is
immaterial to the ultimate issue. The parties do not dispute the critical facts that Taxpayer’s Application contained an
incorrect name and CRS number, and that Taxpayer provided corrected information on or about February 3, 2017.

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 8 of 14.
interpreted and construed against a taxpayer. See Team Specialty Prods., 2005-NMCA-020, ¶9.

Under the rationale of Team Specialty Prods, Taxpayer carries the burden of proving that it is entitled

to the claimed credit. Although a credit must be narrowly interpreted and construed against a

taxpayer, it still should be construed in a reasonable manner consistent with legislative language. See

Sec. Escrow Corp. v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 1988-NMCA-068, ¶9, 107 N.M. 540

(although construed narrowly against a taxpayer, deductions and exemptions—similar to credits—are

still to be construed in a reasonable manner).

Taxpayer does not direct the Hearing Officer to any language in the Act, nor does

examination of the Act reveal any Legislative intent to confer authority on the Department to permit

the substitution of entities to relate back to the date of the initial application, or in the alternative, to

permit it to accept a late-filed application. See In re Application of PNM Elec. Servs.,1998-NMSC-17,

¶10, 125 N.M. 302, 961 P.2d 147 (because administrative agencies are creatures of statute, their

power and authority are limited to that which is expressly granted and necessarily implied by statute);

Maxwell Land Grant Co. v. Jones, 1923-NMSC-008, 28 N.M. 427, 213 P. 1034 (“The state tax

commission is a creature of statute, and it has only such powers as are conferred upon or granted to it

by the statute under which it assumed to act[.]”); Chalamidas v. Envtl. Improvement Div. (In re

Proposed Revocation of Food & Drink Purveyor’s Permit for House of Pancakes), 1984-NMCA-

109, 102 N.M. 63, 691 P.2d 64 (“Administrative bodies are creatures of statute and can act only on

those matters which are within the scope of authority delegated to them.”)

Given the opportunity to examine the Department’s authority to extend an application

deadline or to accept a late application, the court in Team Specialty Prods declined finding that the

facts in that case did not require such determination because the evidence was devoid of evidence to

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 9 of 14.
establish that the taxpayer exercised due diligence in pursuit of the credit. See Team Specialty Prods.,

2005-NMCA-020, ¶¶16 – 17.

In that case, a taxpayer filed an application for tax credit nine months after the one-year

deadline. The taxpayer provided various reasons justifying the lateness of its application, including

misconduct and potential criminal behavior of employees responsible for its finances and taxes.

Nevertheless, the court observed that the taxpayer did not present evidence in the record to establish

any due diligence, despite the misconduct of its employees. See Team Specialty Prods., 2005-

NMCA-020, ¶17, citing El Centro Villa Nursing Ctr. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t., 1989-NMCA-

070, ¶ 14, 108 N.M. 795, 779 P.2d 982 (“Every person is charged with the reasonable duty to

ascertain the possible tax consequences of his action [or inaction]. We are not inclined to hold that the

taxpayer can abdicate this responsibility merely by appointing an accountant as its agent in tax

matters.”)

In this protest, as a demonstration of due diligence, Taxpayer relied on an email attached as

Exhibit B to its Response. Taxpayer asserted that the email placed the Department on notice of its

intention to submit an application. The email is dated December 20, 2016 and indicates that on or

about that date, Taxpayer made a general inquiry regarding the application process. The email

appears to memorialize a preceding conversation and to provide additional information. The email

does not indicate that it was specific to a particular taxpayer by reference to any taxpayer’s name or

CRS number. The email makes reference to an address, but only for the purpose of verifying that the

address was in a “rural area” as applicable to the Act.

Otherwise, the email tends to give credence to the Department’s claim that Taxpayer did not

act with due diligence, because it demonstrated that Taxpayer may have delayed, at least until

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 10 of 14.
December 20, 2016, to begin preparation of its Application. Eleven calendar days remained, at the

peak of the holiday season, between December 20, 2016 and the deadline. Had the Application been

submitted without error, then this protest would not have arisen because Taxpayer had through

December 31, 2016 to submit its application.

Yet, delaying until such a late date left no room for error, especially one as significant as

submitting an application on behalf of an incorrect business entity. The earliest occasion for the

Department to review, potentially discover, and notify Taxpayer of its error, was January 3, 2017.

According to Taxpayer, that was the date the postal service completed delivery of the package

containing the Application. By that date, however, the deadline had passed.

Because there is no statutory authority permitting a correction of this nature, the substitution

of entities, to relate back to the date of the initial application, or permitting the Department to accept a

late-filed application, Taxpayer’s Application is barred. This is further supported by the guiding

principle that “tax credits are strictly matters of legislative grace and are to be construed against the

taxpayer.” See Team Specialty Prods., 2005-NMCA-020, ¶9, citing Murphy v. Taxation & Revenue

Dep’t., 1979-NMCA-065, 94 N.M. 90, 607 P.2d 628.

Since Taxpayer failed to file a valid application on or before December 31, 2016, the

Department’s Motion should be GRANTED and Taxpayer’s protest should be DENIED.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

Application for Technology Jobs and Research and Development Tax Credit for 2015, and

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

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 11 of 14.
B. A hearing was held within 90 days of Taxpayer’s protest. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-

1B-6 (D).

C. There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and summary judgment is

appropriate in this matter. See Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2010-NMSC-035, ¶7, 148 NM 713.

D. Taxpayer’s Application for Technology Jobs and Research and Development Tax

Credit for 2015 refund was invalid under NMSA 1978, Section 7-9F-9 (A) (2015) because it failed

to establish that it was a taxpayer under the Act.

E. The Technology Jobs and Research and Development Credit does not authorize the

Department to accept an untimely application for credit, to permit an untimely amended

application to relate back to the date of a timely, but invalid application, or for a substitute of

applicants. See In re Application of PNM Elec. Servs.,1998-NMSC-17, ¶10, 125 N.M. 302, 961 P.2d

147.

For the foregoing reasons, Taxpayer’s protest is DENIED.

DATED: March 8, 2018

Chris Romero
Hearing Officer
Administrative Hearings Office
P.O. Box 6400
Santa Fe, NM 87502

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 12 of 14.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-25 (2015), 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. If an appeal is not timely filed with the Court of Appeals within 30 days, this

Decision and Order will become final. Rule of Appellate Procedure 12-601 NMRA articulates the

requirements of perfecting an appeal of an administrative decision with the Court of Appeals.

Either party filing an appeal shall file a courtesy copy of the appeal with the Administrative

Hearings Office contemporaneous with the Court of Appeals filing so that the Administrative

Hearings Office may begin preparing the record proper. The parties will each be provided with a

copy of the record proper at the time of the filing of the record proper with the Court of Appeals,

which occurs within 14-days of the Administrative Hearings Office receipt of the docketing

statement from the appealing party. See Rule 12-209 NMRA.

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 13 of 14.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On March 8, 2018, a copy of the foregoing Decision and Order Granting Summary Judgment

was mailed to the parties listed below in the following manner:

First Class Mail Interagency Mail

In the Protest of Wall Co., Inc.
Page 14 of 14.