Did employees Raytheon rehired through its Ktech asset acquisition occupy new jobs eligible for New Mexico's High-Wage Jobs Tax Credit?

Plain-English summary

Raytheon did not prove that jobs filled by employees transitioning from Ktech Corporation were newly created High-Wage Jobs Tax Credit positions rather than jobs arising from an acquisition and performing the same or functionally equivalent work. The AHO upheld nearly all of the Department's denied credit.

Raytheon filed two applications on December 22, 2015:

• Application 1: $1,059,437.09 for 120 claimed periods; and
• Application 2: $906,347.66 for 101 claimed periods.

The Department denied Application 1 in full. It approved $102,098.87 of Application 2 and denied the remaining $804,248.79.

The 2013 credit law controlled the 2015 claims

Raytheon argued that the 2008 statute should apply because the jobs were allegedly created in 2011. The 2008 version did not contain the later express restriction on jobs arising from a business acquisition.

The AHO applied the 2013 statute. The session law said the amendment applied to credit claims received after its effective date and to later reporting periods. Raytheon's applications were received in 2015.

Applying the 2013 law was not impermissibly retrospective. Tax credits were legislative grants rather than vested rights, and the new law applied prospectively to applications filed after its effective date. Potential claimants had an opportunity to file under the earlier law before the change.

The Ktech transaction was an acquisition

In March 2011, Raytheon signed an asset purchase agreement for substantially all of Ktech's assets and contract interests. Raytheon's public statements described the transaction as an acquisition that brought Ktech's people, expertise, technology, customer relationships, and Sandia and Air Force relationships into Raytheon's operations.

The agreement addressed the workforce in detail. Ktech would terminate employees who accepted Raytheon offers, and Raytheon expected to offer employment to substantially all employees. The offers were intended to provide:

• similar job functions;
• the same location;
• similar compensation and benefits;
• service credit for leave, FMLA, and benefit vesting; and
• related retirement and flexible-benefit arrangements.

Raytheon also called itself the successor employer for wage-reporting purposes. Approximately 120 Ktech employees were terminated and then hired by Raytheon.

Buying less than 100% of Ktech did not avoid the ordinary meaning of acquisition. Raytheon gained the assets, workforce expertise, and relationships it wanted to expand its business.

Raytheon did not prove genuinely different jobs

Section 7-9G-1(F) disqualified a job created because of an acquisition when a terminated employee or replacement performed the same job or its functional equivalent.

Three former Ktech employees testified that their duties changed after moving to Raytheon. But the AHO found that the differences primarily concerned procedures, management structures, orientation, training, or the companies' broader missions. Raytheon supplied no written job descriptions establishing materially different positions.

That testimony also conflicted with the acquisition agreement's promise to use best efforts to offer similar job functions. Raytheon therefore did not carry its burden to show that the claimed jobs were new rather than the same or functionally equivalent.

Two employees proved residency, but relief was conditional

The credit required an employee to reside and work in New Mexico. The Department used databases and requested Forms I-9 when residency could not be verified.

Raytheon failed to provide required I-9s for several employees. But Mary Clum and Angelina Montoya credibly testified that they were New Mexico residents throughout the relevant periods, satisfying the residency issue for themselves.

Residency alone did not establish credit eligibility. The final order required the Department to grant credit for their positions only if, apart from residency, those positions satisfied every other statutory condition. The decision did not determine an amount or conclude that the acquisition restriction was overcome for either position.

Other claimed employees with unproved residency, missing I-9s, or failed job-increase requirements remained denied.

No attorney-fee award

Raytheon did not prevail on the principal issue. The AHO also found that the Department's position was a reasonable application of law to the facts, independently defeating an administrative-cost award.

Result: protest DENIED except for conditional treatment of the Clum and Montoya positions. The Department was to determine any credit for those two positions only if all non-residency requirements were otherwise satisfied.

What this means for you

Employers acquiring a workforce

Jobs do not become new merely because employees are terminated by the seller and rehired by the buyer. Similar duties, location, compensation, benefits, and service continuity can show functional equivalence.

Businesses drafting acquisition agreements

Workforce-continuity clauses can become important tax-credit evidence. Promises of similar positions and preserved benefits may undermine a later claim that the jobs were newly created.

Employers applying for New Mexico job credits

Identify the statutory version governing the application date, not only the year employees began work. Preserve job descriptions, organizational changes, payroll records, and objective evidence of genuinely new functions.

Credit applicants proving employee residency

Respond to agency requests for I-9s or other residence evidence. Credible testimony worked for two employees here, but it cured only residency—not every other eligibility issue.

Common questions

Q: How much credit had the Department already approved?
A: $102,098.87 from Application 2.

Q: Why did the 2013 statute apply to jobs allegedly created in 2011?
A: The applications were filed in 2015, and the 2013 session law expressly applied the amendments to later-filed claims.

Q: Was the transaction only an asset purchase?
A: It was structured as an asset purchase, but Raytheon acquired substantially all desired Ktech assets and deliberately transitioned the workforce, expertise, and customer relationships. The AHO treated that as an acquisition.

Q: Did orientation and changed procedures make the jobs new?
A: No. Those differences did not prove that the actual job functions were materially different.

Q: What did Clum and Montoya win?
A: They proved New Mexico residency. Their positions received credit only if they otherwise satisfied every statutory requirement.

Q: Did Raytheon prove residency for all disputed employees?
A: No. Other employees remained unsupported by requested I-9s or other sufficient evidence.

Q: Did Raytheon receive attorney fees?
A: No. It did not substantially prevail, and the Department's position was reasonable.

Citations and references

Statutes and session law:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-9G-1(A), (B), (D), (F), and (M) (2013) — High-Wage Jobs Tax Credit requirements
• NMSA 1978, § 7-9G-1(F) (2013) — acquisition and functionally equivalent jobs
• NMSA 1978, § 7-9G-1(M)(2) and (5) (2013) — eligible employee and new high-wage job
• 2013 N.M. Laws, ch. 160, § 14(E) — application of the 2013 amendments
• NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 — prospective operation of statutes
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-29.1(A) and (C) — prevailing-party costs and fees

Cases cited:

• Team Specialty Products v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department, 2005-NMCA-020 — tax credits as legislative grants the claimant must prove
• GEA Integrated Cooling Technologies v. State Taxation and Revenue Department, 2012-NMCA-010 — prospective application to existing conditions
• Regents of the University of New Mexico v. New Mexico Federation of Teachers, 1998-NMSC-020 — plain-language statutory construction
• Security Escrow Corp. v. State Taxation and Revenue Department, 1988-NMCA-068 — reasonable construction of tax benefits

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Raytheon Company
• Decision PDF: D&O 18-20

Original ruling text

STATE OF NEW MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE
TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
RAYTHEON COMPANY
TO PARTIAL DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR HIGH WAGE JOB TAX CREDIT
ISSUED UNDER LETTER ID Nos. L1537893936 & L0929752624

v. D&O No. 18-20

NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

DECISION AND ORDER

A hearing in the above-captioned protest occurred on May 14, 2018 before Chris Romero,

Hearing Officer, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Attorney, Mr. Eric Anderson, Esq. (Andersen Tax)

appeared representing Raytheon Company (Taxpayer) and was accompanied by Ms. Catherine

Kauffelt, Esq. and Ms. Jacqueline Orea, Esq. Ms. Mary Rice, Ms. Mary Clum, and Ms. Angelina

Montoya appeared as witnesses for Taxpayer. Ms. Kelsey Cooley was also present on behalf of

Taxpayer, but was not called upon to testify in the matter.

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

Department of the State of New Mexico (Department). Auditors, Mr. Steven Valenzuela, Ms.

Elizabeth Florence, and Ms. Milagros Bernardo appeared as witnesses for the Department. Several

employees of the Department were also present to observe the hearing for training purposes.

Department employees present for training purposes were Ms. Pauline Romero, Mr. Hector

Gomez, Ms. Marcy Coca, Ms. Linda Montoya, and Ms. Carla Phillips.

Taxpayer Exhibits 1.1 through 1.17 and Department Exhibits A through F were admitted

into the evidentiary record. All exhibits are described in the Administrative Exhibit Log. Based on

the evidence and arguments presented, IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On December 22, 2015, Taxpayer executed an Application for High Wage Jobs

Tax Credit seeking a total high wage jobs tax credit in the amount of $1,059,437.09 for 120 periods

between June 11, 2013 and June 10, 2014 (“Application 1”). [See Administrative File; Taxpayer

Exhibit 1.1; Taxpayer Exhibit 1.14].

2. On December 22, 2015, Taxpayer executed an Application for High Wage Jobs

Tax Credit seeking a total high wage jobs tax credit in the amount of $906,347.66 for 101 periods

between June 22, 2013 and June 10, 2015 (“Application 2”). [See Administrative File; Taxpayer

Exhibit 1.4; Taxpayer Exhibit 1.13].

3. On June 15, 2016, the Department denied Application 1 in the entire amount of

$1,059,437.09 under Letter ID No. L1537893936. [See Administrative File; Taxpayer Exhibit

1.14].

4. On June 15, 2016, the Department partially approved Application 2 in the amount

of $102,098.87 under Letter ID No. L0929752624, and denied the remaining amount of

$804,248.79. [See Administrative File; Taxpayer Exhibit 1.13.].

5. On September 20, 2016, the Department’s Protest Office received Taxpayer’s

protest of the Department’s denials of Applications 1 and 2 (collectively “Applications”). [See

Administrative File; Taxpayer Exhibit 1.12].

6. On September 30, 2016, the Department acknowledged receipt of Taxpayer’s

protest under Letter ID No. L1171652912. [See Administrative File].

7. On October 5, 2016, the Department filed a Hearing Request in which it requested

a scheduling hearing for the purpose of setting a date for a hearing on the merits of Taxpayer’s

protest and establishing associated prehearing deadlines. [See Administrative File].

8. On October 6, 2016, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Notice of

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 2 of 24
Telephonic Scheduling Conference that set a telephonic scheduling hearing for November 4, 2016.

[See Administrative File].

9. On November 4, 2016, a telephonic scheduling hearing occurred at which time the

parties did not object that the hearing was within 90 days of the date of Taxpayer’s protest and that

the hearing satisfied the 90-day hearing requirement. [See Administrative File].

10. On November 7, 2016, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Scheduling

Order and Notice of Administrative Hearing, which in addition to establishing various prehearing

deadlines, set a hearing on the merits of Taxpayer’s protest for August 1, 2017. [See Administrative

File].

11. On February 13, 2017, counsel for the Department filed a Notice of Substitution of

Counsel for the Department. [See Administrative File].

12. On June 30, 2017, the Department filed Department’s Unopposed Motion to

Convert Hearing on the Merits into Scheduling Conference. [See Administrative File].

13. On July 12, 2017, the Administrative Hearings Office entered an Order Converting

to Scheduling Hearing and Notice of Telephonic Scheduling Hearing setting a telephonic

scheduling hearing for August 1, 2017 in lieu of a hearing on the merits of the protest. [See

Administrative File].

14. On August 1, 2017, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Scheduling Order

and Notice of Administrative Hearing, which in addition to establishing various prehearing

deadlines, set a hearing on the merits of Taxpayer’s protest for February 27, 2018. [See

Administrative File].

15. On January 3, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Convert Hearing on the

Merits into Scheduling Conference. [See Administrative File].

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 3 of 24

16. On January 19, 2018, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Notice of

Telephonic Status Hearing that set a telephonic scheduling hearing for February 2, 2018 in lieu of

a hearing on the merits of the protest.

17. On February 5, 2018, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Continuance

Order, Scheduling Order, and Notice of Administrative Hearing, which in addition to establishing

various prehearing deadlines, also set a hearing on the merits of Taxpayer’s protest for May 14,

2018. [See Administrative File].

2019. On April 20, 2018, counsel for Taxpayer, Mr. Anderson, entered his appearance

which was accompanied by an Affidavit of Non-Admitted Lawyer and Registration Certificate of

Non-Admitted Lawyer. [See Administrative File].

19. On April 27, 2018, the parties filed their Joint Prehearing Statement. [See

Administrative File].

20. On May 11, 2018, the Administrative Hearings Office entered a Notice of

Reassignment of Hearing Officer for Administrative Hearing in which the above-captioned protest

was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer. [See Administrative File].

21. As of 2011, Ktech Corporation was engaged in the business of pulse power,

directed energy, information technology and controls, and advanced manufacturing. [See Taxpayer

Ex. 1.9, Page 3, Para. 1.13] and was significantly involved in providing staff augmentation services

in the operation of pulse power facilities at Sandia National Laboratory. [Testimony of Ms. Rice].

22. During the same period of time, Taxpayer was primarily engaged in the

manufacture and sale of goods, primarily in the fields of defense and homeland security.

[Testimony of Ms. Rice; Department Ex, C].

23. On or about March 15, 2011, Ktech Corporation and Taxpayer executed an Asset

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 4 of 24
Purchase Agreement recognizing that Ktech Corporation owned various assets and interests in

contracts that Taxpayer wished to procure through purchase and assignment. [Testimony of Ms.

Rice; See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Recitals)].

24. The Asset Purchase Agreement was comprehensive and addressed various facets

of Taxpayer’s acquisition of Ktech Corporation, including matters relevant to employees of Ktech

Corporation who would be affected by the acquisition. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

25. The Asset Purchase Agreement provided in relevant part that Taxpayer would be

“solely responsible for all liabilities and obligations of any kind with respect to all past and present

employees of [Ktech Corporation] for matters occurring prior to and as of” the date of closing,

subject to various exceptions. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

26. The Asset Purchase Agreement further provided that Ktech Corporation would

terminate any employee who had received and accepted an offer of employment from Taxpayer.

Such employees were considered to be “Continuing Employees” under the agreement. [See

Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

27. With concern for its obligations to Continuing Employees, Taxpayer assented to

treating their service with Ktech Corporation as a service to Taxpayer for the purposes of employee

leave, FMLA, and for purposes of vesting in any retirement plan, pension plan, or employee

pension benefit plan. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)]

28. Taxpayer assented to providing Continuing Employees with benefits under a 401

(k) plan which were “as close as reasonably feasible to those provided under the Ktech Corporation

401 (k) Profit Sharing Plan[.]” [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

29. Taxpayer assented to providing Continuing Employees with benefits under a

flexible benefits plan “as close as reasonably feasible to those provided under Ktech Corporation

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 5 of 24
Flexible Benefits Plan[.]” [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

30. Taxpayer assented to providing that Continuing Employees would be subject to

“other personnel and compensation policies and practices of [Taxpayer] in the same manner as

[Taxpayer’s] similarly situated employees based on their date of hire through the first anniversary

of the Closing Date[.]” [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

31. Taxpayer assented to establishing an “excess paid time off” account for Continuing

Employees under Ktech Corporation’s sick leave policy. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

32. Taxpayer notified Ktech Corporation that it expected to extend offers of

employment to “substantially all of the Employees” and that it would use its best efforts to assure

that each offer of employment was for a position with a “similar job function” to the employee’s

position with Ktech Corporation, at the same location, at a similar rate of compensation, and with

similar benefits. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

33. Taxpayer assented to establishing or designating a qualified defined contribution

plan capable of accepting rollovers from Continuing Employees participating in Ktech

Corporation’s plan, subject to various exceptions. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

34. Taxpayer, acknowledging itself as “successor employer,” assented to preparing and

filing Forms W-2 for each Continuing Employee reflecting wages paid and taxes withheld for the

portion of the calendar year beginning with the closing date of the agreement. Ktech Corporation,

as acknowledging itself as “predecessor employer,” agreed to provide the same for the previous

year through the date of closing. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Para. 5.9)].

35. Ktech Corporation agreed to use its best efforts to terminate employment

agreements, effective as of the time of closing, and the effective time of any “Retention

Agreement” between Taxpayer and Continuing Employees. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9 (Paras. 1.85,

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 6 of 24
5.9, 6.1g].

36. Although Taxpayer agreed to retain Continuing Employees in positions having

similar job functions, some Continuing Employees experienced varying degrees of modification

in their job functions or duties. [Testimony of Ms. Rice; Testimony of Ms. Clum; Testimony of

Ms. Montoya].

37. Taxpayer did not acquire all of Ktech Corporation’s assets. In Taxpayer’s Form 10-

K addressing the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012, Taxpayer reported that it “acquired …

substantially all of the assets of Ktech Corporation” and that the “Ktech Corporation acquisition

is part of [its] strategy to extend and enhance [its] Missile Systems (MS) offerings.” [See

Department Ex. B-00002].

38. Taxpayer further acknowledged the value of its various acquisitions, including the

value of the accompanying workforce. [See Department Ex. B-00002].

39. A press release announcing the acquisition of Ktech Corporation acknowledged the

acquisition of its assets, as well as its expertise in directed energy and pulsed power. It stated

“Ktech brings world-class people, technology and strong relationships with the U.S. Air Force

Research Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories to [Taxpayer] and its customers.” [See

Department Ex. C-00001].

40. Assets which were not conveyed as part of the Asset Purchase Agreement were

retained by KTP Holding Company, Inc. [Testimony of Ms. Rice; See Taxpayer Ex. 1.7 – 1.8].

41. Ms. Rice, Ms. Clum, and Ms. Montoya are presently employed by Taxpayer. They

have resided in New Mexico at all times relevant to the protest and were formerly employed by

Ktech Corporation. [Testimony of Ms. Rice, Testimony of Ms. Clum; Testimony of Ms. Montoya].

42. Approximately 120 Ktech Corporation employees were terminated from

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 7 of 24
employment with Ktech Corporation and subsequently rehired by Taxpayer. [Testimony of Ms.

Rice].

43. Continuing Employees were required to participate in orientation and training

programs in similar manner to other new employees. [Testimony of Ms. Montoya].

44. The Department denied Application 1 because it determined that all employees

representing the claimed periods did not occupy newly created jobs, because those jobs resulted

from the acquisition of Ktech Corporation’s assets. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.14; Joint Prehearing

Statement].

45. In Application 1, seven employees were also denied because Taxpayer was unable

to provide proof of residency. Two of those seven employees testified at the hearing: Ms. Clum;

and Ms. Montoya. [See Taxpayer Ex. 1.14; Joint Prehearing Statement].

46. The Department denied substantial portions of Application 2 because 91 employees

representing the claimed periods did not occupy newly created jobs, because those jobs resulted

from the acquisition of Ktech Corporation’s assets.

47. Other periods in Application 2 were similarly rejected as follows:

a. Four employees were determined to be non-residents;

b. Taxpayer was unable to provide an I-9 form for one employee;

c. Two employees did not meet the job-increase requirement;

d. Taxpayer was unable to provide I-9 forms for two employees whose positions

resulted from the acquisition of Ktech Corporation’s assets.

[See Taxpayer Ex. 1.13; Joint Prehearing Statement].

DISCUSSION

The issues presented in this protest concern the application of NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 8 of 24
1 which establishes the High Wage Job Tax Credit (also referred to as the “Act”). Taxpayer presents

five issues for consideration: (1) whether Taxpayer’s Applications are governed by the Act as it

existed at the time Taxpayer allegedly created the new jobs subject of its Applications (2011), or

the Act as it existed at the time it submitted its Applications (2015); (2) whether the transaction

represented by the Asset Purchase Agreement was an acquisition, merger, or other change in

business organization; (3) whether the new jobs were the same jobs or their functional equivalent;

(4) whether certain employees were New Mexico residents; and (5) whether Taxpayer should be

entitled to recover fees and costs as prevailing party under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-29.1 (A).

Whether the protest is controlled by the 2013 or 2008 version of the Act.

As a preliminary issue, the Hearing Officer will address the question of which version of

the statute should apply to the facts underlying the protest. Taxpayer asserts that the Applications

should be governed by the version of the statute in effect when the jobs were purportedly created, that

being NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-1 (2008) (or “2008 enactment”). It argues that application of the

2013 enactment should be limited to jobs created on or after its effective date. In contrast, the

Department asserts that NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-1 (2013) (or “2013 enactment”) should govern

because that was the version of the statute in effect at the time the Applications were filed. For the

purpose of this protest, the principal difference arises from the 2008 enactment’s silence in reference

to jobs created by virtue of a business merger or acquisition or other change in business organization,

which is an issue central to the present dispute.

The starting point for addressing this preliminary inquiry resides in the plain wording of the

relevant statutes. It is a canon of statutory construction in New Mexico to adhere to the plain

wording of a statute except if there is ambiguity, error, absurdity, or a conflict among statutory

provisions. See Regents of the Univ. of N.M. v. N.M. Fed’n of Teachers, 1998-NMSC-020, ¶28, 125

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 9 of 24
N.M. 401, 962 P.2d 1236. In Wood v. State Educ. Ret. Bd., 2011-NMCA-020, ¶12, 149 N.M. 455,

250 P.3d 881 (internal quotations and citations omitted), the New Mexico Court of Appeals stated:

the 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.

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 P.2d 327; See also Amoco Prod. Co. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 1994-

NMCA-086, ¶8 & ¶14, 118 N.M. 72, 878 P.2d 1021. Only if the plain language interpretation would

lead to an absurd result not in accord with the legislative intent and purpose is it necessary to look

beyond the plain meaning of the statute. See Bishop v. Evangelical Good Samaritan Soc’y, 2009-

NMSC-036, ¶11, 146 N.M. 473, 212 P.3d 361. Because this case also involves a tax credit, which

is an act of legislative grace, the language of the credit statute must be narrowly construed. See

Team Specialty Prods, 2005-NMCA-020, ¶9.

Taxpayer relies on Wilson v. N.M. Lumber & Timber Co., 1938-NMSC-040, 42 N.M. 438, 81

P.2d 61 and Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Casados, 21 F.Supp. 989 (D.N.M. 1938), cautioning that

statutes should not be applied retrospectively unless the language of the statute is so clear, strong and

imperative that no other meaning can be inferred or the Legislature’s intention cannot otherwise be

satisfied. Although not cited by Taxpayer, its position is analogous to NMSA 1978, Section 12-2A-8

which provides that “[a] statute or rule operates prospectively only unless the statute or rule expressly

provides otherwise or its context requires that it operate retrospectively.”

Adhering to the foregoing, the Hearing Officer finds that the Legislature’s intentions were

clearly embodied in the language used in the 2013 enactment, particularly in Section 14 (E) of 2013

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 10 of 24
N.M. Ch. 160, which neither party cited, but which is nevertheless dispositive on the Legislature’s

intentions. It explicitly states, “Section 10 of this act applies to credit claims received on or after the

effective date of Section 10 of this act and to reporting periods beginning on or after that date.” See

2013 N.M. Ch. 160, Sec. 14. (Emphasis Added). Section 10 of the act contains the 2013 enactment.

Id. at Sec. 10

Although the Hearing Officer will not speculate regarding arguments either party could have

asserted in reference to 2013 N.M. Ch. 160, Sec. 14, the Hearing Officer might anticipate the assertion

that Section 14 restricts the application of the 2013 enactment to facts in which both the submission

of the claim and the relevant reporting periods are subsequent to the enactment’s effective date.

However, the rules of statutory construction efficiently resolve such claim because that interpretation

would require that the Legislature’s reference to “credit claims received on or after the effective date

of Section 10 of this act” be disregarded as superfluous because, had that been the Legislature’s

intention, it would have simply stated the 2013 enactment was applicable only to “reporting periods

beginning on or after” the effective date. This approach would have been sufficient had that result

been intended because nothing in the 2013 enactment otherwise permits a credit to be claimed in

advance of a reporting period.

The plain language of the remaining portions of the 2013 enactment is similarly persuasive.

It retained a high-wage jobs tax credit to provide an incentive for urban and rural businesses to create

and fill new high-wage jobs in New Mexico. See NMSA 1978, Sections 7-9G-1 (A) and (B) (2013).

Eligibility for the credit was established to commence in the year the job was created and continue

for three additional consecutive qualifying periods. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-1 (D) (2013).

Equally significant was the Legislature’s unambiguous expression of intent that the term, “new high-

wage economic based job,” would mean a “new job created in New Mexico . . . on or after July 1,

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 11 of 24
2004[.]” See NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-1 (M) (5) (2013) (Emphasis Added).

Therefore, contrary to Taxpayer’s arguments, any finding that the Legislature intended the

2013 enactment to apply only to new jobs created after its effective date would require that the

Hearing Officer disregard significant portions of the statute as surplusage or superfluous contrary to

the rules of statutory construction. See Katz v. N.M. Dep’t of Human Servs., Income Support Div.,

1981-NMSC-012, ¶18, 95 N.M. 530, 624 P.2d 39 (a statute must be construed so that no part of

the statute is rendered surplusage or superfluous). It would also require that the Hearing Officer

read language into the statute which the Legislature has not included. However, that would also

contradict the rule of statutory construction that 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, 1999-NMSC-021,

¶27.

The next issue is whether application of the 2013 enactment is an improper retrospective

application of the law to the facts in this protest, considering Taxpayer’s argument that the jobs

were purportedly created in 2011. Our courts have acknowledged that “[a]lthough the presumption

of prospectivity appears straightforward, confusion often arises as to what retroactivity means in

particular contexts.” See Gadsden Fed’n of Teachers v. Bd. of Educ., 1996-NMCA-069, ¶14, 122

N.M. 98, 920 P.2d 1052. A statute is considered retroactive if it impairs vested rights or requires

new obligations, imposes new duties, or affixes new disabilities to past transactions. See GEA

Integrated Cooling Tech. v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2012-NMCA-010, ¶18, 268 P.3d 48.

“[A] statute does not operate retroactively just because it is applied to facts and conditions existing

on its effective date, even though the condition results from events that occurred prior to its

enactment.” Id. citing State v. Morales, 2010-NMSC-026, ¶9, 148 N.M. 305, 236 P.3d 24.

In GEA, the New Mexico Court of Appeals considered whether a 2007 amendment to the

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 12 of 24
statute establishing the rate at which tax penalty was to be calculated and assessed should be

applied to liabilities arising prior to its effective date, but assessed subsequent to its effective date,

and whether such application gave the amendment an improper retroactive effect. GEA

acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s holding in Crane v. Cox, 1913-NMSC-089, ¶6, 18 N.M.

377, 137 P. 589 was dispositive, having addressed an analogous issue in which it considered

whether there was an impermissible retrospective application of a new law providing for collection

of delinquent taxes outstanding as of the enactment of that statue.

In its discussion, GEA recognized the long-standing presumption against the retroactive

application of a statute, but nevertheless held that the application of a new law to pre-existing facts

did not automatically give the statute retroactive effect. Relying on the reasoning in Crane, it

agreed that “[a] statute does not operate retroactively from the mere fact that it relates to antecedent

events. A retrospective law [is] intended to affect transactions which occurred . . . before it became

operative . . . and which ascribes to them affects not inherent in their nature in view of the law in

force at the time of their occurrence.” See GEA, 2012-NMCA-010, ¶20 quoting Crane, 1913-

NMSC-089, ¶6.

GEA summarized the holding in Crane, stating “the new act . . . did not operate

retroactively because the operation of the statute did not affect any right the taxpayer possessed

under prior law, did not change the taxpayer’s status, and did not impose a consequence that was

not already anticipated.” See GEA, 2012-NMCA-010, ¶20.

Comparable to GEA and Crane, the 2013 enactment did not affect any right Taxpayer

possessed under prior law. At this stage, it is important to acknowledge that the New Mexico Court

of Appeals has described tax credits as legislative grants of grace that must be narrowly interpreted

and construed against a taxpayer. See Team Specialty Prods. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t,

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 13 of 24
2005-NMCA-020, ¶9, 137 N.M. 50, 107 P.3d 4.

Considering Team Specialty at this juncture is necessary because GEA and Crane both

make specific reference to rights under prior law. However, our courts have not expressly

perceived tax credits as rights, and Taxpayer presents no authority to suggest that an act of

legislative grace is equivalent to a right under law. Nevertheless, as similarly observed in GEA,

because the Legislature could amend the relevant statute at any time, and the prior statute did not

necessarily bestow a right on either party, the application of the 2013 enactment to jobs purportedly

created approximately four years prior to the 2013 enactment taking effect did not impose

consequences that could not be anticipated. See GEA, 2012-NMCA-010, ¶21.

In this regard, 2013 N.M. Ch. 160, Sec. 14 notified the public that it would apply to claims

made after its effective date, thereby providing an opportunity for potential claimants, including

Taxpayer, to submit applications before that date, in order for them to be evaluated under the prior

law. This observation is significant because had there been genuine concern for the effect of the

2013 enactment, Taxpayer had ample opportunity to submit its Applications under the previous

version of the Act, but did not do so.

As GEA concluded, “Taxpayer’s case is an example of a statute applying prospectively to

conditions in existence at the time of its effective date.” See GEA, 2012-NMCA-010, ¶25.

The 2013 enactment clearly controls this protest because the jobs at issue were purportedly

created on or after July 1, 2004 and the relevant applications were submitted on or about December

22, 2015, after it became effective.

Burden of Proof

Having considered which version of the Act should apply to the protest at hand, it is now

appropriate to discuss the burden of proof. Although the current protest does not arise from an

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 14 of 24
assessment, but rather from a partial denial of one credit application and a complete denial of

another, Taxpayer bears the burden of establishing entitlement to the credit central to its protest.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has found that tax credits are legislative grants of grace that

must be narrowly interpreted and construed against a taxpayer. See Team Specialty Prods. v. N.M.

Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2005-NMCA-020, ¶9, 137 N.M. 50, 107 P.3d 4. Accordingly,

Taxpayer carries the burden of proving that it is entitled to the claimed credit.

Although, pursuant to Team Specialty, a credit must be narrowly interpreted and construed

against a taxpayer, the credit must also 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, 760 P.2d 1306 (although construed narrowly against a taxpayer, deductions

and exemptions—similar to credits—are still to be construed in a reasonable manner).

Whether the transaction that occurred pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement is an
acquisition, merger, or other change in business organization.

Neither party asserts that the Asset Purchase Agreement represented a merger or change in

business organization for Taxpayer. Consequently, the Hearing Officer will focus on the primary term

in contention at the hearing, “acquisition”.

Whether or not the Asset Purchase Agreement represented an “acquisition” is significant

because the Act expressly disqualifies new high-wage economic based jobs under the following

circumstances: (1) the new high-wage economic-based job is created due to a business merger or

acquisition or other change in business organization; (2) the eligible employee was terminated from

employment in New Mexico by another employer involved in the business merger or acquisition or

other change in business organization with the taxpayer; and (3) the new high-wage economic-based

job is performed by: (a) the person who performed the job or its functional equivalent prior to the

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 15 of 24
business merger or acquisition or other change in business organization; or (b) a person replacing the

person who performed the job or its functional equivalent prior to a business merger or acquisition or

other change in business organization. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-1 (F) (2013).

Although Taxpayer disputed that the new jobs it claimed in its Applications were created due

to an acquisition, instead characterizing its transaction as a purchase of assets, the scenario central to

this protest falls directly within the language of the statute. The term “acquisition” is defined to mean

“[t]he gaining of possession or control of something” which is what occurred in the present case. See

Black’s Law Dictionary, 26 (9th ed. 2009)

Taxpayer’s aversion to the term “acquisition” was apparent. It claimed that it did not “acquire”

Ktech Corporation because it merely purchased some, but not all, of Ktech Corporation’s assets. In

contrast, the evidence demonstrated that Taxpayer acquired those portions of Ktech which it desired

for the purposes of expanding its operations. The fact that Taxpayer did not acquire 100 percent of

Ktech Corporation was not persuasive or dispositive.

The totality of the evidence established that Taxpayer’s intentions were not only to acquire

Ktech Corporation’s assets, but also the expertise of its personnel. This was clearly the message

conveyed to the public as Taxpayer announced its acquisition stating, “Ktech’s expertise in directed

energy and pulsed power make it a natural fit with [Taxpayer’s] Advanced Security and Directed

Energy Systems product line” and “Ktech brings world-class people, technology and strong

relationships with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories to

[Taxpayer] and its customers.” See Department Ex. C-00001.

This view remained consistent when Taxpayer filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending

December 31, 2012 when it stated “we acquired [other entities] and substantially all of the assets of

Ktech Corporation[.]” It went on to explain that, “[i]n connection with these acquisitions, we recorded

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 16 of 24
$112 million of goodwill, primarily related to expected synergies from combining operations and the

value of the existing workforce, and $26 million of intangible assets, primarily related to customer

relationships, trade names and technology with an initial estimated weighted-average life of seven

years.”

These pronouncements are significant because they represent the public statements of the

Taxpayer, and its perception that it received significant value not only in the form of Ktech

Corporation’s assets, but also from its workforce.1 When Taxpayer referred to expertise, world-class

people, or customer relationships, it was referring to employees as people, not assets which are

incapable of possessing experience or establishing or maintaining relationships.

However, Taxpayer argued that “because [it] was not obligated to hire any employees, it

deemed the former Ktech employees eligible for a high wage jobs credit.” See Joint Prehearing

Statement. Taxpayer’s perception of it obligation is problematic. According to Taxpayer Exhibit 1.9,

Taxpayer represented to Ktech Corporation that “it expects to offer employment, as of the Effective

Time of Closing, to substantially all of the Employees employed on the date hereof in the Business[.]”

See Taxpayer ex. 1.9, Sec. 5.9 (b), Page 44. The Asset Purchase Agreement also established in

significant detail the benefits to which Ktech Corporation employees would be entitled upon assuming

employment with Taxpayer. For example, employees would receive service credit for purposes of

accruing leave, FMLA, and for acquiring a vested interest in relevant savings plans. Taxpayer also

agreed to provide comparable benefits to 401 (k) and flexible benefits plan offered by Ktech

1
The Department also proffered Department Exhibits D, E, and F which were admitted without objection. The
Hearing Officer gives those statements no weight because those statements consist of media reports or statements by
non-parties, and the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the party propounding the evidence established the
reliability of the statements. Department Exhibit C, in contrast, represents the statement of a party, which unlike a
media report, does not rely on the ability of a third party to accurately perceive an event or correctly report the event
to its audience.

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 17 of 24
Corporation, and provide an “excess paid time off” account. See Taxpayer Ex. 1.9, Sec. 5.9 (a), Page

43 – 44.

Consequently, although Taxpayer may not have been strictly obligated to hire all Ktech

Corporation employees, it was clear from the Asset Purchase Agreement that significant consideration

had been provided to encourage most, if not all Ktech Corporation employees, to transition to

Taxpayer’s employment with minimal disruption, and that Taxpayer viewed the acquisition of those

employees as having significant value to its business.

Although Ms. Clum, Ms. Rice, and Ms. Montoya testified that the actual transition from

employment with Ktech Corporation to Taxpayer did not strictly adhere to the terms of the Asset

Purchase Agreement, the Hearing Officer finds that the Asset Purchase Agreement remains the best

evidence of the manner through which the acquisition of Ktech Corporation assets was accomplished,

and there was no reliable evidence to suggest that the agreement did not continue to be the best

evidence of the parties intentions and subsequent actions.

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer was persuaded that the Asset Purchase Agreement

represented not only the desire and intention to acquire certain assets of Ktech Corporation, but also

the objective to benefit from the additional procurement of the knowledge and experience vested in

its workforce.

Whether new jobs with Taxpayer were the same jobs or their functional equivalent to jobs with
Ktech Corporation.

In this protest, the claimed new high-wage economic-based jobs were created due to an

acquisition in which the eligible employees were terminated from employment by Ktech Corporation

and rehired by Taxpayer. The next question is whether those employees or their replacements were

hired to perform the same job or their functional equivalent prior to the acquisition. See NMSA 1978,

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 18 of 24
Section 7-9G-1 (F) (2013).

Taxpayer presented the testimony of Ms. Clum, Ms. Rice, and Ms. Montoya to assert that the

positions they assumed with Taxpayer were so vastly different that they could not be considered to

be the functional equivalent of the positions they previously occupied with Ktech Corporation.

The evidence on this issue was unpersuasive. All three witnesses testified that their job duties

had been modified in various respects, but none of the witnesses presented compelling evidence that

the positions they occupied after the acquisition were not the functional equivalent of positions they

previously held with Ktech Corporation. In fact, the substance of their testimony focused primarily

on differences in procedures or managerial structures, training and orientation requirements, or in the

difference between the core missions of Ktech Corporation and Taxpayer. To the extent there were

material differences in job descriptions, those differences were speculative and unsupported by

reference to any other evidence, such as written job descriptions.

Referring once again to the Asset Purchase Agreement, Taxpayer agreed to utilize its best

efforts to assure that offers of employment to Ktech Corporation employees would be extended for

positions having similar functions to the employee’s position immediately prior to the closing of the

transaction. Testimony at the hearing that few, if any, employees actually occupied positions with

similar job functions, or equivalent job functions, contradicts the Taxpayer’s obligations under the

Asset Purchase Agreement, which the Hearing Officer finds to be the best evidence of Taxpayer’s

intentions and subsequent conduct in reference to the employment of Ktech Corporation employees.

Whether certain denied employees were residents of New Mexico.

The issue of employee residency is germane in this matter because the Act specifically

requires that an individual reside and be employed in New Mexico in order for a taxpayer to receive

a credit for the position occupied by that individual. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-1 (M) (2)

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 19 of 24
(2013).

In evaluating residency, the Department refers to information contained in various

databases to which it has access. See Taxpayer Exhibits 1.13 and 1.14. If the information obtained

from those databases is inconclusive, then it may request additional information as it did in the

relevant applications. Consequently, in reference to all employees whose residency in New Mexico

could not be determined, the Department requested federal Forms I-9 (Employment Eligibility

Verification) which would indicate the employee’s place of residence. However, Taxpayer did not

produce Forms I-9 for those employees whose residency could not be verified. Two of those

employees were Ms. Clum and Ms. Montoya, who both credibly testified that they were residents

of New Mexico during all relevant periods of time.

However, the testimony of Ms. Clum and Ms. Montoya was sufficient to establish their

own New Mexico state residency. Yet, finding that Ms. Clum and Ms. Montoya are residents will

not necessarily entitle Taxpayer to a corresponding credit unless it can satisfy the remaining

requirements for eligibility. In other words, if their jobs were created as a result of the acquisition,

then they are disqualified under NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-1 (F) (2013).

Whether Taxpayer is entitled to recovery of costs and fees pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-
1-29.1 (A).

Taxpayer argued that it was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in this protest. Under NMSA

1978, Section 7-1-29.1, when a taxpayer is the prevailing party in an administrative proceeding before

the Department, the taxpayer shall be awarded reasonable administrative costs, including attorney’s

fees. The taxpayer is a “prevailing party” if it has substantially prevailed with respect to (a) the amount

in controversy or (b) most of the issues involved in the case or the most significant issue or set of

issues involved in the case. See NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-29.1 (C) (1). The taxpayer will not be

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 20 of 24
treated as a prevailing party if the Department “establishes that the position of the department in the

proceeding was based upon a reasonable application of the law to the facts of the case.” See NMSA

1978, Section 7-1-29.1 (C) (2).

In this case, Taxpayer did not prevail on the major issue. Even if Taxpayer had prevailed, the

Department’s position in this proceeding would still have been based on a reasonable application of

the law to the facts of this protest. Taxpayer’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied under

Section 7-1-29.1 (C) (2).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

of its Applications for high wage jobs tax credit, and jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject

matter of this protest.

B. A scheduling hearing occurred on November 4, 2016 that satisfied the 90-day hearing

requirement of NMSA 1978, Section 7-1B-8 (A).

C. Taxpayer did not establish entitlement to the High Wage Jobs Tax Credit that the

Department denied on June 15, 2016 under Letter ID Nos. L0929752624 and L1537893936, or

otherwise establish that the Department’s interpretation or implementation of the Act was not in

accordance with the law. See Team Specialty Prods. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2005-

NMCA-020, ¶9, 137 N.M. 50, 107 P.3d 4 (Tax credits are legislative grants of grace to a taxpayer

that must be narrowly interpreted and construed against a taxpayer).

D. Taxpayer did not establish entitlement to the credit under the Act where it failed to

substantiate that the jobs claimed were newly created as required by NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-1

(2013).

E. Taxpayer did not establish entitlement to the credit under the Act where it failed to

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 21 of 24
substantiate that claimed employees were eligible as residents of the state as required by NMSA

1978, Section 7-9G-1 (M) (2013).

F. Taxpayer did establish the residency of Ms. Clum and Ms. Montoya as required by

NMSA 1978, Section 7-9G-1 (M) (2013).

For the foregoing reasons, Taxpayer’s protest IS DENIED except as follows: if but for the

issue of residency for Ms. Clum and Ms. Montoya, their positions would have otherwise qualified for

a high wage job tax credit, then such credit shall be granted for those positions in an amount to be

determined by the Department subject to the requirements of the Act.

DATED: July 5, 2018

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

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 22 of 24
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 Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 23 of 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On July 5, 2018, a copy of the foregoing Decision and Order was submitted to the parties

listed below in the following manner:

First Class Mail Interdepartmental Mail

In the Matter of Raytheon Company
Page 24 of 24