Could a film company claim credits for a late 2015 application and a timely 2016 application supported by paid invoices but no matching canceled checks?

Plain-English summary

Working Boy Productions lost its 2015 film production tax credit because the application was late, but won its 2016 credit by proving payment without invoice-matching canceled checks. The Administrative Hearings Office denied the protest in part and granted it in part.

Working Boy incurred direct production and postproduction expenditures for New Mexico film or commercial audiovisual projects in 2015 and 2016. It filed both applications with the New Mexico Film Office on October 9, 2017, and the Film Office sent them to the Taxation and Revenue Department after determining Working Boy was eligible to claim the credits.

The 2015 application missed a mandatory deadline

The last paid-stamped 2015 invoice was dated December 7, 2015. The statute required submission within one year of the last qualifying New Mexico production or postproduction expenditure, so the deadline was December 7, 2016.

Working Boy asserted that it had filed earlier, but could not identify the date or produce a copy. The established October 9, 2017 filing was therefore untimely.

Film Office representatives had told Working Boy in fall 2017 that they would accept both applications if submitted before year-end. That assurance could not extend the statutory deadline because neither the Film Office nor the Department had authority to alter it. Mandatory tax-credit deadlines controlled.

The 2016 payment evidence was sufficient

The 2016 application was filed within one year of its April 19, 2017 paid expenditures. The Department denied it because Working Boy did not submit canceled checks matching the amount of each invoice.

Working Boy explained that it often used one check to pay several invoices or parts of several invoices, so individual checks did not equal individual invoice totals. Other evidence filled the gap:

• the invoices were stamped paid;
• two paid invoices accompanied the application and a third accompanied the protest;
• the vendor wrote that Working Boy always paid its invoices fully and on time; and
• the owner's explanation had remained consistent and was found credible.

The invoices also distinguished taxable purchases from NTTC transactions. When an NTTC was used, the invoice showed no “sales tax” and $0 in that field. Working Boy claimed the credit only where no NTTC was used and gross receipts tax—labeled “sales tax” on the invoices—was charged.

Together, the testimony, invoices, and vendor letter proved the 2016 expenditures were paid and met the Department's stated concerns.

The Department's late hearing request did not decide the credit

The Department did not request a hearing until more than a year after the August 2018 protest, violating both the then-applicable and later timing rules. But the law provided no administrative remedy for this type of credit protest. The later statutory interest remedy applied to protested liabilities, not a film-credit denial.

Result: protest DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. The 2015 denial remained; the 2016 film production tax credit application was granted.

What this means for you

Calendar the one-year deadline from the last expenditure

Eligibility review by the Film Office does not replace timely filing, and agency personnel cannot extend a mandatory statutory deadline.

Keep proof of the actual submission date

Retain a complete filed application, delivery confirmation, portal receipt, or other contemporaneous evidence. An unsupported recollection of an earlier filing was insufficient.

Payment can be proven through combined evidence

A canceled check that exactly matches each invoice is strong evidence but was not treated as the only possible proof. Credible testimony, paid stamps, and direct vendor confirmation worked together here.

Explain combined-payment practices

If one check pays multiple invoices, preserve a reconciliation showing how the check was allocated, along with vendor account statements and paid-in-full confirmations.

Document NTTC and tax treatment invoice by invoice

The successful application showed which transactions used an NTTC and which were charged gross receipts tax, avoiding a credit claim on nontaxable purchases.

Common questions

Q: What was the 2015 deadline?
A: December 7, 2016, one year after the last paid qualifying invoice dated December 7, 2015.

Q: Could the Film Office promise to accept the late application?
A: It could receive the paperwork, but it had no authority to extend the statutory credit deadline.

Q: Why did the 2016 application succeed without matching canceled checks?
A: Paid-stamped invoices, a vendor's payment letter, and consistent credible testimony proved the invoices were paid despite combined checks.

Q: How did Working Boy show gross receipts tax was paid?
A: Its invoices showed “sales tax” on the claimed expenditures and showed $0 where an NTTC had been used.

Q: Did the Department's delayed hearing request grant the credit automatically?
A: No. The delay violated the timing statute, but no administrative remedy applied to this film-credit protest.

Citations and references

Statutes and rule:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-1 — film projects commencing before January 1, 2016 and the one-year application deadline
• NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-6 (2016) — film projects commencing on or after January 1, 2016
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (2015/2019) — hearing-request and setting deadlines; limited interest remedy for protested liabilities
• Regulation 22.600.3.8 NMAC (2018) — no dismissal remedy for delayed hearing requests

Cases:

• Team Specialty Products v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department, 2005-NMCA-020 — tax credits narrowly construed and mandatory deadlines
• Vivigen, Inc. v. Minzner, 1994-NMCA-027 — credit unavailable after the statutory deadline
• Kilmer v. Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122 — Department cannot allow claims beyond a statutory limitation
• Ranchers-Tufco Limestone Project Joint Venture v. Revenue Division, 1983-NMCA-126 — public-officer tardiness does not defeat state action without a statutory consequence
• Kmart Properties, Inc. v. Taxation and Revenue Department, 2006-NMCA-026 — administrative timing deadline not jurisdictional

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Working Boy Productions
• Decision PDF: D&O 20-08

Original ruling text

1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE
3 TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT

4 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
5 WORKING BOY PRODUCTIONS
6 TO THE DENIALS OF FILM PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT ISSUED UNDER
7 LETTER ID NOS. L2067232560 and L0542681976

8 v. Case No. 19.12-168R
9 D&O No. 20-08

10 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

11 DECISION AND ORDER

12 On March 13, 2020, Hearing Officer Dee Dee Hoxie, Esq. conducted a hearing on the

13 merits of the protest to the denials of the applications for film production tax credit (FPT credit).

14 The Taxation and Revenue Department (Department) was represented by Cordelia Friedman, Staff

15 Attorney. Priscilla Castro, Protest Manager, also appeared on behalf of the Department.

16 Working Boy Productions (Taxpayer) was represented by its owner, Charlie O’Dowd. Mr.

17 O’Dowd and Ms. Castro testified. The Hearing Officer took notice of all documents in the

18 administrative file. The Department’s exhibits A (application for 2015), B (application for

19 2016), and C (email) were admitted. A more detailed description of exhibits submitted at the

20 hearing is included on the Administrative Exhibit Coversheet.

21 The main issue to be decided is whether the Taxpayer may claim the FPT credit for 2015

22 and for 2016. The Hearing Officer considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by

23 both parties. The Taxpayer’s application for the FPT credit for 2015 was properly denied

24 because it was not filed timely. The Taxpayer’s application for the FPT credit for 2016 was

25 denied because the auditor did not find the proof of payments provided by the Taxpayer to be

26 sufficient. The Hearing Officer found Mr. O’Dowd’s testimony regarding the payments to be

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 1 of 12
1 credible. His testimony in conjunction with the other evidence provided was sufficient to

2 establish that the Taxpayer made the payments and was entitled to claim the FPT credit for 2016.

3 The Hearing Officer finds in favor of the Department in part and in favor of the Taxpayer in part.

4 IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

5 FINDINGS OF FACT

6 1. On May 4, 2018, under letter i.d. no. L2067232560, the Department issued a

7 denial of the application for FPT credit for 2015 to the Taxpayer, indicating that the application

8 was not submitted within one year of the last expenditure. [Administrative file, Testimony of

9 Mr. O’Dowd, Testimony of Ms. Castro].

10 2. On May 4, 2018, under letter i.d. no. L0542684976, the Department issued a

11 denial of the application for FPT credit for 2016 to the Taxpayer, indicating that there was no

12 proof of payment on the invoices. [Administrative file, Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd, Testimony

13 of Ms. Castro].

14 3. On August 1, 2018, the Taxpayer filed a protest to the denials of its applications

15 for the FPT credit. [Administrative file].

16 4. On August 16, 2018, the Department acknowledged its receipt of the Taxpayer’s

17 protest. [Administrative file].

18 5. On December 5, 2019, the Administrative Hearings Office learned of the

19 Taxpayer’s protest when the Department filed a request for hearing. 1 [Administrative file].

1
At the time that the protest was filed, the statute required that the Department request a hearing within 45 days of
the protest and that a hearing be held within 90 days of the protest. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (2015). The statute
currently requires that the Department request a hearing within 180 days of the protest and that a hearing be set
within 90 days of the request for hearing. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (2019). Under both versions of the statute, the
Department’s request was delinquent.
Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 2 of 12
1 6. On December 5, 2019, the Administrative Hearings Office sent notice of hearing

2 to the parties and set the hearing for December 20, 2019. [Administrative file].

3 7. On December 10, 2019, the Taxpayer filed a request to continue the hearing and

4 did not waive the 90-day requirement because the protest was filed more than a year earlier.

5 [Administrative file].

6 8. On December 10, 2019, the Department opposed the request to continue. On

7 December 17, 2019, the Department withdrew its opposition and consented to the request to

8 continue. [Administrative file].

9 9. On December 18, 2019, the request was granted and amended notice was sent to

10 the parties, and the hearing was set for January 17, 2020. [Administrative file].

11 10. The hearing was continued on January 17, 2020 due to inclement weather.

12 [Administrative file].

13 11. On January 22, 2020, the parties were sent amended notice of hearing, and the

14 hearing was set for March 13, 2020. [Administrative file].

15 12. The Taxpayer is a film production company that had direct production

16 expenditures and postproduction expenditures directly attributable to the production of a film or

17 commercial audiovisual project in New Mexico in 2015 and 2016. [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd,

18 Exhibit A, Exhibit B].

19 13. Applications for the FPT credit are submitted first to the Film Office of the New

20 Mexico Economic Development Department (Film Office). [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd,

21 Testimony of Ms. Castro].

22 14. The Film Office makes a determination if the film production company is eligible

23 to claim the FPT credit. [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd, Testimony of Ms. Castro].

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 3 of 12
1 15. If the Film Office determines that the film production company is not eligible to

2 claim the FPT credit, it will notify the film production company that its application was rejected.

3 [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd, Testimony of Ms. Castro].

4 16. If the Film Office determines that the film production company is eligible to

5 claim the FPT credit, it sends the application to the Department to be processed. [Testimony of

6 Mr. O’Dowd, Testimony of Ms. Castro]. See also NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-1 (M) and (N) (2019).

7 See also NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-6 (F) and (G) (2016).

8 17. The Taxpayer filed an application for the FPT credit for 2015 (the 2015

9 application) with the Film Office on October 9, 2017, and it was sent to the Department after the

10 Film Office determined that the Taxpayer was eligible to claim the FPT credit. [Testimony of

11 Mr. O’Dowd, Testimony of Ms. Castro, Exhibit A].

12 18. The paid invoices for the 2015 application indicate that they were paid on

13 November 3, 2015 and December 7, 2015. [Exhibit A].

14 19. The Taxpayer filed an application for the FPT credit for 2016 (the 2016

15 application) with the Film Office on October 9, 2017, and it was sent to the Department after the

16 Film Office determined that the Taxpayer was eligible to claim the FPT credit. [Testimony of

17 Mr. O’Dowd, Testimony of Ms. Castro, Exhibit B].

18 20. The paid invoices for the 2016 application indicate that they were paid on April

19 19, 2017. [Exhibit B, Administrative file].

20 21. Two of the invoices provided with the 2016 application, invoice #101866 and

21 invoice #101859, indicate that they were paid. [Exhibit B]. The Taxpayer provided a third

22 invoice for 2016 with the protest, invoice #101874, which is also paid-stamped. [Administrative

23 file].

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 4 of 12
1 22. The Taxpayer only applied for the FPT credit on expenditures that were not

2 subject to a non-taxable transaction certificate (NTTC) and to which the gross receipts tax had

3 been applied. [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd, Exhibit A, Exhibit B]. See also NMSA 1978, § 7-

4 2F-1 and § 7-2F-6.

5 23. The Department rejected the 2016 application because the Taxpayer did not

6 produce canceled checks that reflected the amounts paid for each invoice. [Testimony of Ms.

7 Castro].

8 24. The Taxpayer frequently made payments using one check that included combined

9 expenditures from more than one invoice, so the Taxpayer did not have canceled checks to match

10 the amount of each invoice. [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd, Exhibit C].

11 25. The Taxpayer produced a letter from the vendor that thanked it for always paying

12 its invoices in full and on time. The Taxpayer also produced copies of invoices that were

13 stamped as paid. [Administrative file, Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd, Exhibit A, Exhibit B].

14 26. The Taxpayer met with representatives of the Film Office in the fall of 2017 to

15 discuss its 2015 and 2016 applications for the FPT credit. [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd].

16 27. The representatives from the Film Office had been communicating with the

17 Taxpayer for several months about their initial rejection of the 2015 and 2016 applications.

18 [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd].

19 28. The representatives from the Film Office advised that they were not able to find

20 any evidence at their office that the Taxpayer had filed the 2015 and 2016 applications.

21 [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd].

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 5 of 12
1 29. The representatives from the Film Office indicated that they would accept and

2 approve of the Taxpayer’s 2015 and 2016 applications as long as they were submitted before the

3 end of the year. [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd].

4 30. The Taxpayer subsequently filed the 2015 and 2016 applications on October 9,

5 2017. [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd, Exhibit A, Exhibit B].

6 31. The Taxpayer did not keep and could not produce copies of the 2015 and 2016

7 applications that it alleged to have filed with the Film Office prior to October 9, 2017.

8 [Testimony of Mr. O’Dowd].

9 DISCUSSION

10 Burden of proof.

11 Credits are similar to deductions and are considered legislative graces that should be

12 construed narrowly. See Team Specialty Prods. v. N.M. Taxation and Revenue Dep’t, 2005-

13 NMCA-020, ¶ 9, 137 N.M. 50. See also Murphy v. Taxation and Revenue Dep’t, 1979-NMCA-

14 065, 94 N.M. 90, judgment affirmed by Murphy v. Taxation and Revenue Dep’t, 1980-NMSC-

15 012, 94 N.M. 54. Therefore, the burden is on the Taxpayer to show that it was entitled to claim

16 the credit.

17 Untimely request for hearing.

18 The Taxpayer argued that the hearing was not fair because it was taking place

19 approximately five years after the expenditures claimed as the FPT credits and because the hearing

20 occurred more than a year after it filed its protest. The Taxpayer filed its protest on August 1, 2018.

21 The Department acknowledged the protest on August 16, 2018. The Administrative Hearings

22 Office first learned of the Taxpayer’s protest when the Department filed a request for hearing on

23 December 5, 2019, more than a year after the protest was filed and acknowledged.

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 6 of 12
1 At the time that the protest was filed, the Department was required to file a request for

2 hearing within 45 days of the receipt of the protest. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (A) (2015). A

3 hearing was required to be set within 90 days of the protest. See id. However, there was no

4 statutory or regulatory authority for the Hearing Officer to dismiss a previously filed protest for

5 unreasonable and unjustified delays. See id. See also 22.600.3.8 NMAC (2018). Under the

6 current statute, the Department is required to file a request for hearing within 180 days of the

7 protest. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (B) (2019). If the Department fails to comply with the

8 statutory deadlines, the Hearing Officer may order that no further interest will accrue on a

9 protested liability. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (E) (2019). The statutory remedy does not

10 encompass all types of protests; it is only for protests to a liability. See id. The current statute

11 requires that the Administrative Hearings Office set a hearing within 90 days of the

12 Department’s request for hearing. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (F) (2019). The Administrative

13 Hearings Office set a hearing to take place on December 20, 2019, well within 90 days of the

14 receipt of the request for hearing. That hearing was continued at the Taxpayer’s request. The

15 hearing was then set for January 17, 2020, also within 90 days of the receipt of the request for

16 hearing. That hearing was continued due to inclement weather. The hearing was then set for

17 March 13, 2020, when it was ultimately heard, which was 99 days after the receipt of the request

18 for hearing.

19 Another taxpayer previously argued that the Department denied it the statutory right to a

20 prompt hearing on its protest. See Ranchers-Tufco Limestone Project Joint Venture v. Revenue

21 Div., 1983-NMCA-126, ¶ 12, 100 N.M. 632. That argument ultimately failed. See id. at ¶ 13.

22 The court found that the general rule is that the tardiness of public officers is not a defense to an

23 action by the state. See id. The court noted that the statute did not provide a consequence for

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 7 of 12
1 failure to comply with the requirements of a prompt hearing. See id. Therefore, “[t]he general

2 rule is applicable in these cases unless [the statute] makes it inapplicable.” Id. Another taxpayer

3 argued that the failure of the hearing officer to render a decision in 30 days, as required by

4 statute, divested the hearing officer of jurisdiction. See also Kmart Properties, Inc. v. Taxation

5 and Revenue Dep’t., 2006-NMCA-026, ¶ 53, 139 N.M. 177. The court found that the tax

6 statutory deadline was not jurisdictional because of the general tardiness rule and the heavy

7 statutory presumption of correctness that favors the Department. See id. at ¶ 54. The court

8 found that the statutory deadline did not affect the essential power to decide complex and time-

9 consuming protests. See id. at ¶ 55. Although the Department’s failure to file a request for

10 hearing within 45 days or within 180 days of its receipt of the Taxpayer’s protest was a violation of

11 the statute, there is no administrative remedy that can be granted. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8

12 (2015) and (2019).

13 Untimely application for credit.

14 To receive the FPT credit, a taxpayer must apply, and its “application shall be submitted

15 within one year of the date of the last direct production expenditure in New Mexico or the last

16 postproduction expenditure in New Mexico.” NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-1 (P) (2019) (emphasis

17 added). The word “shall” in a statute indicates that the provision is mandatory, not discretionary.

18 See Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm’n., 2009-NMSC-013, ¶ 22, 146 N.M.

19 24. The Taxpayer’s last qualified expenditures for the 2015 application were made on December

20 7, 2015, which is the last paid-stamped date on the invoices. [Exhibit A]. Therefore, the

21 deadline to apply for FPT credit on those expenditures was December 7, 2016. See NMSA 1978,

22 § 7-2F-1. The Taxpayer’s application was filed on October 9, 2017. Consequently, the

23 Taxpayer’s 2015 application for FPT credit was not timely.

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 8 of 12
1 The Taxpayer argued that it initially submitted the 2015 application in a timely manner.

2 Mr. O’Dowd explained that he is dealing with ongoing cognitive problems caused by a traumatic

3 brain injury. His medical issues sometimes cause him to neglect certain aspects of the

4 Taxpayer’s business and record-keeping. The Taxpayer could not recall exactly when it initially

5 filed the 2015 application with the Film Office, did not have copies of what was filed, and

6 admitted that its meeting with the Film Office regarding the 2015 application occurred in the fall

7 of 2017. Therefore, the Taxpayer failed to provide sufficient proof to show that its 2015

8 application was submitted timely.

9 The Taxpayer argued that it relied on the promises made by the Film Office that its

10 application would be accepted as long as it was filed before the end of 2017. The statute does

11 not give the Film Office or the Department the authority to extend the application deadline. See

12 NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-1. See also In Re Kilmer v. Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122, ¶ 24, 136 N.M.

13 440 (holding that the Department did not have the authority to allow claims made beyond the

14 statute of limitations). Statutory deadlines for applying for a tax credit are mandatory. See Team

15 Specialty Prods., 2005-NMCA-020, ¶ 1. See also Vivigen, Inc. v. Minzner, 1994-NMCA-027, ¶

16 23, 117 N.M. 224 (holding that a taxpayer was not entitled to seek a tax credit after the statute of

17 limitations had passed). Because the Taxpayer’s 2015 application was not filed timely as

18 required by the statute, it was properly denied.

19 Sufficient proof of payment.

20 The Taxpayer’s 2016 application was filed within one year of the last direct production or

21 postproduction expenditures. The Department did not dispute that the 2016 application was filed

22 timely. The Department argued that the Taxpayer failed to show that the expenditures were not

23 subject to a NTTC and that the gross receipts tax had been applied. See NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-1

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 9 of 12
1 and § 7-2F-6. The Taxpayer pointed out that the invoices for the 2016 application show that

2 “sales tax” was applied. See Exhibit B. See Protest in Administrative File. The Taxpayer

3 explained that it used a NTTC on some projects and not on others. The Taxpayer provided

4 invoices that showed when a NTTC was used, and they showed no “sales tax” on the invoice

5 with $0.00 noted in that box. See Exhibit A. The Taxpayer only applied for the FPT credit on

6 projects when it did not use a NTTC and the transactions were charged the gross receipts tax.

7 See NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-1 and § 7-2F-6. See also Exhibit B. The testimony is consistent with

8 the invoices, and together they are sufficient to show that the projects were charged the gross

9 receipts tax, noted as “sales tax” on the invoices, and that a NTTC was not used.

10 The Taxpayer did not provide canceled checks that matched the amounts of the invoices

11 on the qualified expenditures. For that reason, the Department concluded that the Taxpayer

12 failed to prove that it paid the qualified expenditures and denied the 2016 application. The

13 Taxpayer explained that it did not have canceled checks that matched the invoice amounts

14 because it regularly paid several invoices or parts of several invoices on one check. The

15 Taxpayer provided invoices that were paid-stamped and provided a letter from its vendor that

16 thanked it for paying all of their invoices in full and on time. The Taxpayer’s position and

17 explanations of its payment practices have been consistent for the duration of the protest, and

18 even since before the protest was filed. See Exhibit C. See also Protest in Administrative File.

19 Therefore, I found the Taxpayer’s testimony to be credible. Based upon the totality of the

20 evidence, including the testimony, the paid-stamped invoices, and the vendor’s letter, the

21 Taxpayer presented sufficient evidence to show that it paid the invoices. Therefore, the

22 Department’s reason for denying the application was successfully rebutted. Consequently, the

23 Taxpayer is entitled to claim the FPT credit for the 2016 application.

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 10 of 12
1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2 A. The Taxpayer filed a timely, written protest of the Department’s denials of its

3 applications for the film production tax credit and jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject

4 matter of this protest. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-24 (2017). See also NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8.

5 B. Hearings were set within 90 days of the receipt of the request for hearing, as

6 required by statute, but they were continued at the Taxpayer’s request and due to inclement weather.

7 See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (2019).

8 C. The Taxpayer’s 2015 application for the film production tax credit was not filed

9 timely. Therefore, it was properly denied. See NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-1.

10 D. The Taxpayer presented sufficient evidence to rebut the Department’s reason for

11 denying the 2016 application for the film production tax credit. Therefore, it is granted. See NMSA

12 1978, § 7-2F-6 (2016). 2

13 For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer’s protest IS DENIED IN PART AND

14 GRANTED IN PART. IT IS ORDERED that Taxpayer’s application for the 2016 film

15 production tax credit is HEREBY GRANTED.

16 DATED: April 24, 2020.

17 Dee Dee Hoxie
18 Dee Dee Hoxie
19 Hearing Officer
20 Administrative Hearings Office
21 P.O. Box 6400
22 Santa Fe, NM 87502

2
Section 7-2F-1 covers film projects that commenced prior to January 1, 2016, and Section 7-2F-6 covers film
projects that commenced on or after January 1, 2016. See NMSA 1978, § 7-2F-1 and § 7-2F-6.
Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 11 of 12
1 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

2 Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-25 (2015), the parties have the right to appeal this
3 decision by filing a notice of appeal with the New Mexico Court of Appeals within 30 days of the
4 date shown above. If an appeal is not timely filed with the Court of Appeals within 30 days, this
5 Decision and Order will become final. Rule of Appellate Procedure 12-601 NMRA articulates
6 the requirements of perfecting an appeal of an administrative decision with the Court of Appeals.
7 Either party filing an appeal shall file a courtesy copy of the appeal with the Administrative
8 Hearings Office contemporaneous with the Court of Appeals filing so that the Administrative
9 Hearings Office may begin preparing the record proper. The parties will each be provided with a
10 copy of the record proper at the time of the filing of the record proper with the Court of Appeals,
11 which occurs within 14 days of the Administrative Hearings Office receipt of the docketing
12 statement from the appealing party. See Rule 12-209 NMRA.

13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

14 On April 24, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Decision and Order was submitted to the parties

15 listed below in the following manner:

16 Email Email

17 INTENTIONALLY BLANK
18
19 John Griego
20 Legal Assistant
21 Administrative Hearings Office
22 P.O. Box 6400
23 Santa Fe, NM 87502

Working Boy Productions
Case #19.12-168R
page 12 of 12