Did IFTA registration and weight-distance payments at New Mexico ports of entry protect a tour-bus company from the separate audit penalty for underreported miles?

Plain-English summary

A tour-bus operator owed New Mexico's special weight-distance audit penalty even though it registered under IFTA and paid some tax at ports of entry. Those steps did not replace New Mexico WDT registration, quarterly returns, or full reporting of miles traveled in the state.

The original assessment was $9,485.47: $2,703.28 of WDT, $540.65 of standard penalty, $441.54 of interest, and a separate $5,800 WDT penalty.

Jackson Rock Springs Stages' drivers stopped at New Mexico ports of entry, reported destinations and calculated mileage, and paid the amount charged there. The company was also registered under IFTA and reported its state-by-state commercial-carrier mileage. But it was not registered in New Mexico's WDT program and filed no WDT reports for 2012–2017.

The Department compared IFTA-reported New Mexico miles with the WDT account. The IFTA mileage exceeded the miles for which port payments had been made, leaving additional tax due. The company conceded the corrected WDT, ordinary penalty, and interest, but challenged the separate WDT penalty as unintentional and excessive.

The hearing officer first required the Department to correct the rate applied to buses. The Department then abated $2,168.59 of tax, penalty, and interest, including a reduction of the special WDT penalty from $5,800 to $5,000. The corrected amounts were:

• $1,685.08 of WDT;
• $337.01 of standard penalty;
• $294.79 of interest; and
• $5,000 of WDT audit penalty.

The buses were taxable

Vehicles over 26,000 pounds using New Mexico highways are subject to WDT. The exemptions for school buses, buses transporting only agricultural laborers, and buses owned by religious or nonprofit charitable organizations did not apply to these tour buses.

The company briefly raised reciprocity, but supplied no proof that its home jurisdiction granted equivalent treatment to New Mexico vehicles or what part of its tax would be exempt.

Nonfiling kept every year open

The ordinary assessment period is three years, but failure to file a required return gives the Department seven years. Because Jackson Rock Springs Stages filed no WDT reports, the August 2019 assessment was timely for every year beginning with 2012.

The additional audit penalty was mandatory

Section 7-15A-16 says a taxpayer found to have reported fewer than its actual New Mexico miles shall pay an additional penalty. The amount is computed quarterly and can range from $100 to $4,000 per quarter, depending on the WDT due.

The regulation applies this penalty when the Department finds the shortfall in an audit, but not when a taxpayer voluntarily reports additional miles through amended returns or a managed audit. Here, the Department found the mismatch through its audit.

The hearing officer acknowledged that the corrected $5,000 penalty exceeded the $2,316.88 combined tax, ordinary penalty, and interest and was nearly 300% of the tax itself. Nevertheless, neither hardship nor lack of intent allowed the tribunal to disregard the mandatory statutory amount.

Result: protest DENIED. Jackson Rock Springs Stages owed $7,316.88, with interest continuing until the tax principal was paid.

What this means for you

IFTA and WDT are separate compliance systems

State mileage reported for fuel-tax purposes does not automatically register a carrier for New Mexico WDT or satisfy the state's quarterly return requirement.

Port payments may not cover total mileage

Reconcile every port-of-entry payment against fleet mileage records and IFTA reports. A mismatch can generate additional tax and an audit-only penalty.

Voluntary correction matters

The special WDT penalty does not apply when additional miles are self-reported through amended returns or a managed audit, but it applies when an audit discovers underreporting.

Nonfiling extends the audit window

Failure to file WDT returns allowed New Mexico to assess seven years rather than the ordinary three.

The special penalty can exceed the tax

Because it is computed by quarter under a statutory schedule, the WDT audit penalty may be much larger than the underlying tax and ordinary 20% penalty.

Common questions

Q: Did the company owe tax despite paying at ports of entry?
A: Yes. The port payments covered fewer New Mexico miles than its IFTA reports showed.

Q: Was IFTA registration enough?
A: No. New Mexico required separate WDT registration, returns, and quarterly payment reporting.

Q: Why was the 2012 tax still assessable in 2019?
A: No WDT return had been filed, so the seven-year nonfiler period applied through December 31, 2019.

Q: Could good intent remove the $5,000 penalty?
A: No. The statute made the audit penalty mandatory when actual mileage exceeded reported mileage.

Q: What did the company gain before losing the protest?
A: A rate correction and $2,168.59 abatement, reducing total liability from $9,485.47 to $7,316.88.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-15A-3 and 7-15A-5 — WDT and bus exemptions
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-15A-7, 7-15A-8(B), and 7-15A-9(A) — bus rate, mileage reports, and quarterly payments
• NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-16 (2009) — additional audit penalty for understated mileage
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-17, 7-1-18, and 7-1-69 — assessment presumption, seven-year nonfiler period, and standard penalty
• NMSA 1978, § 65-1-32 (1989) — reciprocal treatment for vehicles registered in other jurisdictions
• Regulation 3.12.9.9 NMAC — WDT return filing
• Regulation 3.12.13.8 NMAC — audit penalty and voluntary amended-return or managed-audit exception

Cases:

• Marbob Energy Corp. v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission, 2009-NMSC-013 — mandatory effect of “shall”
• El Centro Villa Nursing Center v. Taxation and Revenue Department, 1989-NMCA-070 — assessment presumption
• Maso v. State, 2004-NMCA-025 — constitutional challenges beyond administrative hearing authority
• AA Oilfield Service v. New Mexico State Corporation Commission, 1994-NMSC-085 — limits on administrative quasi-judicial power

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Jackson Rock Springs Stages
• Decision PDF: D&O 20-09

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 JACKSON ROCK SPRINGS STAGES
6 TO THE ASSESSMENT ISSUED UNDER
7 LETTER ID NO. L1165810864

8 v. AHO Case No. 20.02-033A
9 D&O No. 20-09

10 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

11 DECISION AND ORDER

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

13 merits of the protest to the assessment of weight distance tax (WDT). The Taxation and Revenue

14 Department (Department) was represented by Kenneth Fladager, Staff Attorney. Nicolas Herrera,

15 Auditor, and Angelica Rodriguez, Auditor, also appeared on behalf of the Department. Jackson

16 Rock Springs Stages (Taxpayer) was represented by its vice president, Dennis Copyak. Mr.

17 Copyak appeared by telephone for the hearing. Mr. Copyak, Mr. Herrera, and Ms. Rodriguez

18 testified.

19 The Hearing Officer took notice of all documents in the administrative file. Mr. Copyak

20 was given until March 16, 2020 to submit the Taxpayer’s exhibits, and Mr. Fladager was given

21 until March 23, 2020 to respond. The Taxpayer’s exhibit #1 (notice of intent to assess), #2

22 (assessment), #4 (copy of statute), and #5 (summary of position) 1 were submitted timely. The

23 Department did not object to the Taxpayer’s exhibits, and they were admitted. The Department’s

24 exhibits A (IFTA mileage reports), and B (WDT account record) were admitted.

1
The Taxpayer did not identify or submit an Exhibit #3.
Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 1 of 12
1 On March 20, 2020, the Hearing Officer issued an order for clarification based on

2 Taxpayer’s Exhibit #1. The Department was given until April 10, 2020 to correct the tax rate

3 applied to the Taxpayer or to produce evidence that it had already applied the correct tax rate.

4 The Taxpayer was given until April 17, 2020 to respond to any submission by the Department.

5 On April 9, 2020, the Department filed an abatement letter (Letter ID No. L1979123376). The

6 Taxpayer did not file a response.

7 The Taxpayer conceded that it owed the tax, standard penalty, and interest. The main

8 issue to be decided is whether the Taxpayer owes the WDT penalty. The Taxpayer also raised

9 issues regarding the statute of limitations and the timeliness of the hearing. The Hearing Officer

10 considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Taxpayer failed to

11 establish that the WDT penalty did not apply. The assessment and hearing were timely under the

12 applicable statutes. Consequently, the Hearing Officer finds in favor of the Department. IT IS

13 DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

14 FINDINGS OF FACT

15 1. On August 13, 2019, under letter id. no. L1165810864, the Department issued an

16 assessment to the Taxpayer, indicating that Taxpayer owed WDT in the amount of $2,703.28,

17 penalty of $540.65, and interest of $441.54. The Taxpayer was also assessed WDT penalty in

18 the amount of $5,800.00. The Taxpayer’s total liability was $9,485.47. [Administrative file,

19 Exhibit #2]

20 2. On August 27, 2019, the Taxpayer protested the assessment. [Administrative file]

21 3. On August 30, 2019, the Department acknowledged its receipt of the Taxpayer’s

22 protest. [Administrative file]

Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 2 of 12
1 4. On February 26, 2020, the Administrative Hearings Office learned of the

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

3 5. On February 26, 20202, the Administrative Hearings Office sent notice of hearing

4 to the parties. [Administrative file]

5 6. On March 10, 2020, the Taxpayer filed a request to appear by telephone due to

6 the recent public health concerns regarding the coronavirus. The Department did not object to

7 the request. [Administrative file]

8 7. The request was granted, and amended notice was sent to the parties by email on

9 March 11, 2020 with the option to appear in-person or by telephone for the hearing.

10 [Administrative file]

11 8. The Taxpayer owns tour buses and provides transportation for its customers in

12 New Mexico. [Testimony of Mr. Copyak]

13 9. The Taxpayer’s drivers are required to stop at the ports of entry in New Mexico.

14 [Testimony of Mr. Copyak]

15 10. At the ports of entry during the tax periods at issue, the drivers gave information

16 about where they were going and calculated their mileage. [Testimony of Mr. Copyak]

17 11. The Taxpayer paid the WDT charged at the ports of entry based on the drivers’

18 calculated mileage. [Testimony of Mr. Copyak, Testimony of Mr. Herrera]

19 12. The Taxpayer was not registered with the WDT program in New Mexico.

20 [Testimony of Mr. Herrera, Testimony of Ms. Rodriguez]

21 13. The Taxpayer was registered with the federal International Fuel Tax Agreement

22 (IFTA) program. [Testimony of Mr. Copyak, Testimony of Mr. Herrera, Exhibit “A”]

2
The filing date is stamped February 25, 2020, which was an error.
Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 3 of 12
1 14. Under the federal IFTA program, the Taxpayer reports to the federal government

2 the miles that it traveled as a commercial carrier in various states. [Testimony of Mr. Herrera,

3 Exhibit #1, Exhibit “A”]

4 15. The Taxpayer believed that registration with the federal IFTA program was

5 sufficient and proper registration for paying all taxes owed to New Mexico. [Testimony of Mr.

6 Copyak]

7 16. The Department reviewed the Taxpayer’s IFTA reports for New Mexico-traveled

8 miles. [Testimony of Mr. Herrera]

9 17. The Taxpayer’s reported New Mexico-traveled miles did not match the WDT

10 program. [Testimony of Mr. Herrera, Exhibit #1, Exhibit “A”, Exhibit “B”]

11 18. The Department created a WDT account for the Taxpayer and applied its IFTA-

12 reported New Mexico-traveled miles. [Testimony of Mr. Herrera, Exhibit #1, Exhibit “B”]

13 19. The Department found some payments made by the Taxpayer at the ports of

14 entry, but the total payments were less than the total WDT owed. [Testimony of Mr. Herrera,

15 Exhibit #1, Exhibit “B”]

16 20. The Department sent a notice of intent to audit the Taxpayer and requested that

17 the Taxpayer respond within 60 days, including an opportunity to report its miles. [Testimony of

18 Mr. Herrera, Exhibit #1]

19 21. The Taxpayer did not respond, and the assessment was issued. [Testimony of Mr.

20 Herrera, Exhibit #2]

21 22. The Taxpayer concedes that its New Mexico-traveled miles that it reported to

22 IFTA did not match the miles for which tax was paid at the ports of entry but did not know why

23 there was a discrepancy. [Testimony of Mr. Copyak, Exhibit #1]

Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 4 of 12
1 23. The Taxpayer concedes that it owes additional WDT, the standard penalty, and

2 the interest. [Testimony of Mr. Copyak]

3 24. The Taxpayer believes its customers bring economic benefits to New Mexico, by

4 millions of dollars, in tourism. [Testimony of Mr. Copyak, Exhibit #4]

5 25. The Taxpayer did not intend to evade New Mexico tax and does not understand

6 New Mexico’s WDT system. [Testimony of Mr. Copyak]

7 26. The Taxpayer requests that the WDT penalty be waived as the Taxpayer’s failure

8 to pay was not intentional and the amount of WDT penalty is unduly burdensome. [Testimony

9 of Mr. Copyak]

10 27. The Department applied the WDT rate of $0.04378 to the Taxpayer’s New

11 Mexico-traveled miles. [Exhibit #1] See also NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-6 (2004).

12 28. The maximum WDT rate for buses is $0.02729. NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-7 (2004).

13 29. All of the Taxpayer’s vehicles are buses. [Testimony of Mr. Copyak,

14 Administrative file]

15 30. The Department responded to the order for clarification on the WDT rate by

16 issuing an abatement letter to the Taxpayer. [Letter ID No. L1979123376]

17 31. The abatement was for $1,018.20 of tax, $1,003.64 of penalty, and $146.75 of

18 interest. [Letter ID No. 1979123376]

19 32. Although the abatement of the standard penalty and the WDT penalty were not

20 shown separately on the abatement, it was apparent that some amounts of both were abated based

21 on the totals. [Letter ID No. L1979123376, Exhibit #2]

Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 5 of 12
1 33. The total amount of WDT, standard penalty, interest, and WDT penalty abated

2 was $2,168.59, leaving a total liability of $7,316.88 3. [Letter ID No. L1979123376].

3 DISCUSSION

4 Timeliness of the hearing.

5 The Taxpayer filed its protest on August 27, 2019. [Administrative file]. The

6 Department acknowledged the Taxpayer’s protest on August 30, 2019. [Administrative file].

7 The Department filed the request for hearing with the Administrative Hearings Office on

8 February 26, 2020, which was 180 days after the protest was acknowledged. [Administrative

9 file]. See 22.600.3.8 NMAC (2018) (indicating that deadlines begin to run from the date of

10 acknowledgement). Sixty days after the protest, either party may request a hearing with the

11 Administrative Hearings Office. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (B) (2019).

12 The Taxpayer argued that it requested a hearing with the Department more than 90 days

13 prior to hearing that was conducted by the Administrative Hearings Office. [Testimony of Mr.

14 Copyak]. The Taxpayer did not request a hearing with the Administrative Hearings Office.

15 [Administrative file, Testimony of Mr. Copyak]. When the Department files a request for

16 hearing with the Administrative Hearings Office, the hearing must be set within 90 days of that

17 request. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (F) (2019). When a taxpayer files a request for hearing with

18 the Administrative Hearings Office, the hearing must be set within 90 days of the Department’s

19 answer to the request, but no later than 120 days after the taxpayer’s request. See id. The only

20 request for hearing in this protest that was filed with the Administrative Hearings Office was

21 filed by the Department on February 26, 2020. [Administrative file]. The hearing occurred on

3
The total provided by the Department is $7315.90; however, this is not mathematically correct as $9485.47 minus
$2168.59 equals $7316.88, not $7315.90. The Department’s total is off by $0.98. Without evidence or explanation
to justify this discrepancy, the Hearing Officer will rely on the mathematical total.
Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 6 of 12
1 March 12, 2020, well within 90 days of the request. [Administrative file]. Consequently, the

2 hearing was conducted timely.

3 Burden of Proof.

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

5 (2007). Tax includes, by definition, the amount of tax principal imposed and, unless the context

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

7 7-1-3 (Z) (2019). See also El Centro Villa Nursing Ctr. v. Taxation and Revenue Department,

8 1989-NMCA-070, 108 N.M. 795. Therefore, the assessment issued to the Taxpayer is presumed

9 to be correct, and it is the Taxpayer’s burden to present evidence and legal argument to show that

10 it is entitled to an abatement.

11 Weight distance tax.

12 The owners of vehicles with a gross weight in excess of 26,000 pounds that drive on New

13 Mexico highways are required to pay the WDT. See NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-3 (1988). The

14 Taxpayer conceded that its tour buses are driven on New Mexico highways. [Testimony of Mr.

15 Copyak]. Some buses are exempt from the WDT. See NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-5 (2006)

16 (exempting school buses, buses that only transport agricultural laborers, and buses that belong to

17 religious or nonprofit charitable organizations). The Taxpayer’s buses do not fall within the

18 exemption. See id. Therefore, the Taxpayer’s buses are subject to WDT.

19 The Taxpayer also briefly argued that the WDT was inappropriate based on the reciprocity

20 policy. See NMSA 1978, § 65-1-32 (1989). Under the reciprocity policy, vehicles registered in

21 other jurisdictions may be exempt from all or part of the taxes required for unusual use of highways.

22 See id. However, the provision will only apply if vehicles registered in New Mexico are also

23 exempt in the other jurisdiction. See id. There was no evidence or argument presented as to what

Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 7 of 12
1 part of the taxes the Taxpayer might be exempt from, nor was there any evidence that the

2 Taxpayer’s home jurisdiction affords like exemptions to New Mexico-registered vehicles.

3 Consequently, the Taxpayer’s argument is unproven. Moreover, the Taxpayer conceded that it

4 owes WDT and already paid a portion of the WDT at the ports of entry. The Taxpayer also

5 conceded that it owes standard penalty and interest.

6 Statute of limitations.

7 The Taxpayer argued that part of the Department’s assessment was beyond the statute of

8 limitations for making an assessment. In general, the Department may assess within three years of

9 the end of the calendar year in which the tax was due. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-18 (2013).

10 However, when a taxpayer fails to complete and file any required return, the Department has seven

11 years to assess from the end of the calendar year in which the tax was due. See id. Under the WDT,

12 taxpayers are required to file reports with the Department that include the total number of miles

13 traveled in New Mexico and the total number of miles traveled in all states for the tax period. See

14 NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-8 (B) (1988). See also 3.12.9.9 NMAC (2001) (requiring WDT returns be

15 submitted on forms provided by or approved of by the Department). See also NMSA 1978, § 7-

16 15A-9 (A) (1999) (requiring tax payments be made every quarter of the year).

17 The Taxpayer did not file any reports on the WDT with the Department from 2012 through

18 2017. [Testimony of Mr. Herrera, Testimony of Ms. Rodriguez]. Therefore, the Department had

19 seven years from the end of each calendar year to assess. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-18. The earliest

20 tax year assessed was 2012. [Exhibit #2]. Seven years from the end of 2012 was December 31,

21 2019. The assessment was made on August 13, 2019. [Administrative file, Exhibit #2]. Therefore,

22 the assessment was timely as it occurred within seven years of the end of every year involved from

23 2012 through 2017. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-18.

Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 8 of 12
1 Weight distance penalty.

2 The Taxpayer argues that the weight distance penalty is overly burdensome and should not

3 apply to an unintentional failure to pay. Anyone required to report who is found to have reported

4 less than the actual miles traveled on New Mexico highways “shall, in addition to any other

5 applicable fees, penalties and interest, pay an additional penalty”. NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-16 (2009).

6 The word “shall” in a statute indicates that the provision is mandatory, not discretionary. See

7 Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm’n., 2009-NMSC-013, ¶ 22, 146 N.M. 24.

8 The WDT penalty is calculated by the tax payment period, which is every quarter for WDT.

9 See id. See also NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-9 (1999). The WDT penalty has the potential to be as low

10 as $100 or as high as $4,000 for one quarter, depending on the amount of WDT owed for that

11 quarter. See NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-16. The WDT penalty is only applied when the Department

12 conducts an audit. See 3.12.13.8 NMAC (2010). The WDT penalty is not applied when a taxpayer

13 reports additional miles on its own through amended returns or managed audits. See id. The

14 amount of WDT penalty will always be in excess of the amount of tax owed per quarter, until the

15 amount of tax owed is $4,000 or more. See NMSA 1978, 7-15A-16. The amount of standard

16 penalty is always less than the amount of tax owed, with a maximum standard penalty of 20% of the

17 tax owed. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-69 (2007).

18 As originally assessed, the Taxpayer’s liability for the WDT, standard penalty, and interest

19 was $3,685.47. [Exhibit #2]. The WDT penalty alone was $5,800.00, an amount more than the tax,

20 standard penalty, and interest combined. [Exhibit #2]. So, the Taxpayer’s total liability was

21 $9,485.47. [Exhibit #2]. After the abatement, the Taxpayer’s liability for the WDT, standard

22 penalty, and interest is $2,316.88. [Letter ID No. L1979123376, Exhibit #2]. The WDT penalty is

Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 9 of 12
1 $5,000.004, still an amount greater than the tax, standard penalty, and interest combined. [Letter

2 ID No. L1979123376, Exhibit #2]. The Taxpayer’s dismay and outrage at the amount of WDT

3 penalty, which is nearly 300% of the tax owed, is understandable 5. Nevertheless, the statute is

4 clear on the amount of WDT penalty that must be applied to each quarter based on the amount of

5 tax owed. See NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-16. The Department is bound by the statutory language

6 and must impose the amount of WDT penalty specified by the Legislature. See Marbob Energy

7 Corp., 2009-NMSC-013, ¶ 22 (indicating that statutes that say “shall” are mandatory, not

8 discretionary). To the extent that the Taxpayer’s argument might be construed as a challenge to

9 the statute, it is overruled as the Hearing Officer has no authority to overturn a statute. See Maso

10 v. State, 2004-NMCA-025, 135 N.M. 152 (holding that a constitutional challenge to the statute

11 would have been beyond the scope of the administrative hearing). See also AA Oilfield Serv. v.

12 N.M. State Corp. Comm’n, 1994-NMSC-085, ¶ 18, 118 N.M. 273 (holding that the quasi-judicial

13 powers of an administrative body are limited to making factual and legal determinations as

14 authorized by the statute). See Gzaskow v. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd., 2017-NMCA-064, ¶35

15 (recognizing AA Oilfield Serv. for the proposition that an agency with quasi-judicial powers did

16 not have authority to grant an equitable remedy). See also NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-1, et seq.

17 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

19 jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8

20 (2019).

4
After the abatement, the total penalty is $5337.01. Since $337.01 is 20% of the tax owed, that is the amount of the
standard penalty, with the remaining $5000.00 being the WDT penalty.
5
After the abatement, based on the amount of WDT owed without standard penalty and interest, the WDT penalty
amounts to 296.7% of the WDT.
Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 10 of 12
1 B. The hearing was set and held within 90 days of the request for hearing. See id.

2 C. The Taxpayer’s tour buses are subject to the WDT, and the Taxpayer underreported

3 its New Mexico-traveled miles. See NMSA 1978, § 7-15A-3 (1988) and § 7-15A-7 (2004).

4 D. The Department’s assessment was within the statute of limitations. See NMSA

5 1978, § 7-1-18 (2013).

6 E. Because the Taxpayer underreported its New Mexico-traveled miles, it is subject to

7 the WDT penalty, and the amount of penalty is defined by the statute. See NMSA 1978, 7-15A-16.

8 For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer’s protest is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that

9 Taxpayer is liable for WDT of $1,685.08, standard penalty of $337.01, interest of $294.79, and

10 WDT penalty of $5,000.00, for a total liability of $7,316.88. Interest continues to accrue until

11 the tax principal is paid.

12 DATED: May 11, 2020.

13 Dee Dee Hoxie
14 Dee Dee Hoxie
15 Hearing Officer
16 Administrative Hearings Office
17 P.O. Box 6400
18 Santa Fe, NM 87502

19 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

20 Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-25 (2015), the parties have the right to appeal this

21 decision by filing a notice of appeal with the New Mexico Court of Appeals within 30 days of the

22 date shown above. If an appeal is not timely filed with the Court of Appeals within 30 days, this

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

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

Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 11 of 12
1 Either party filing an appeal shall file a courtesy copy of the appeal with the Administrative

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

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

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

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

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

7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

8 On May 11, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Decision and Order was submitted to the parties

9 listed below in the following manner:

10 Email Email

11 INTENTIONALLY BLANK
12
13 John Griego
14 Legal Assistant
15 Administrative Hearings Office
16 P.O. Box 6400
17 Santa Fe, NM 87502

Jackson Rock Springs Stages
Case No. 20.02-033A
page 12 of 12