I overpaid New Mexico gross receipts tax but only asked for the refund a few years later — is there a deadline that can bar my claim?

Plain-English summary

EthosEnergy Light Turbines paid New Mexico gross receipts tax (GRT) in December 2018 for the November 2018 period. Years later — on December 2, 2022 — it asked the Department for a refund of that payment (plus later periods). The Department granted the refund for January 2019 through October 2020 ($102.91) but denied $844.92 for the November 2018 payment because that claim came too late.

New Mexico law gives you three years to claim a refund, measured from the end of the year the tax was originally due (Section 7-1-26(F)). The tax here was due and paid in 2018, so the deadline was December 31, 2021. EthosEnergy's December 2022 claim missed it by nearly a year.

The company explained that the position responsible for its taxes had been vacant, so the refund request was overlooked. Hearing Officer Dee Dee Hoxie found that did not matter: the statute of limitations exists precisely to bar stale claims, and it puts the burden on the taxpayer — who is best placed to track its own refunds — to file on time. The protest was denied.

What this means for you

Any business that overpays New Mexico tax

Watch the three-year clock. You must file a refund claim within three years of the end of the calendar year the tax was originally due — not three years from when you notice the overpayment. For a 2018 tax, the deadline was December 31, 2021; miss it and the refund is gone, even if the overpayment is real.

Companies with turnover or gaps in their tax function

An unfilled tax role, staff turnover, or an internal oversight will not extend the deadline. If your tax position is vacant, make catching up on refund claims and filings an early priority, because the limitations period keeps running regardless of who is (or isn't) in the seat.

Anyone filing a multi-period refund

Each period has its own clock. Here, the newer periods (2019–2020) were still within three years and were refunded, while the oldest period (November 2018) was barred. File as early as possible so your oldest, most at-risk periods don't age out.

Common questions

Q: How long do I have to claim a New Mexico tax refund?
A: Three years from the end of the calendar year in which the tax was originally due (Section 7-1-26(F)). After that, the claim is barred no matter how valid it is.

Q: The tax was due in 2018. When exactly did my refund window close?
A: December 31, 2021 — three years from the end of 2018. A claim filed in December 2022 was almost a year too late.

Q: My company had no one handling taxes for a while. Doesn't that excuse a late claim?
A: No. The Administrative Hearings Office held that an internal vacancy or oversight does not stop the limitations period. The burden is on the taxpayer to file on time.

Q: Can I rely on this decision for my own situation?
A: Not directly. A Decision and Order resolves one taxpayer's protest on its specific facts and is not a general ruling or advisory opinion of the Department. It does reliably illustrate the strict three-year refund deadline.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26(F) (2021) — a refund claim must be filed within three years of the end of the year the tax was originally due
• NMSA 1978, § 7-9-11 (1969); § 7-1-13(B) (2021) — GRT (and the return) is due on the 25th of the month after the taxable event
• NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (2019); 22.600.3.8 NMAC — protest jurisdiction and the 90-day hearing requirement
• 22.600.3.24(B) NMAC (2020) — the taxpayer bears the burden of proof
• 3.2.2.10 NMAC (2001) — a due date on a weekend or holiday moves to the next business day

Cases:

• Kilmer v. Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122, 136 N.M. 440 (the limitations period bars stale claims and puts the onus on the taxpayer to pursue a refund timely)
• Sisters of Charity v. County of Bernalillo, 1979-NMSC-044, 93 N.M. 42 (an untimely refund claim is barred by the statute of limitations)

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Ethosenergy Light Turbines
• Decision PDF: D&O 23-14

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 ETHOSENERGY LIGHT TURBINES, LLC
6 TO THE DENIAL OF REFUND
7 ISSUED UNDER LETTER ID NO. L1728993392

8 v. AHO No. 23.08-034R, D&O No. 23-14

9 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

10 DECISION AND ORDER
11 On September 29, 2023, Hearing Officer Dee Dee Hoxie, Esq. conducted a

12 videoconference hearing on the merits of the protest to the denial of refund. The Taxation and

13 Revenue Department (Department) was represented by Timothy Williams, Staff Attorney. Lizette

14 Rivera and Arturo Archuleta, Auditors, also appeared for the Department. EthosEnergy Light

15 Turbines, LLC (Taxpayer) was represented by its employee, Arla Vickery. Ms. Vickery and Ms.

16 Rivera testified. The Hearing Officer took notice of all documents in the administrative file.

17 The Department’s exhibit D (amended return), and exhibit F (original return) were admitted.

18 The main issue to be decided is whether the Taxpayer is entitled to a refund for the tax

19 period of November 2018 that was paid in December 2018. The Hearing Officer considered all

20 of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. Because the Taxpayer’s claim for

21 refund was filed beyond the three-year statute of limitations, the Hearing Officer finds in favor of

22 the Department. IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

23 FINDINGS OF FACT

24 1. On December 8, 2022, the Department issued a partial denial of refund to the

25 Taxpayer on gross receipts taxes (GRT). The Taxpayer’s refund claim was denied for $844.92

26 for the tax period of November 2018, that was paid in December 2018. The Taxpayer’s refund

EthosEnergy Light Turbines, LLC
Case No. 23.08-034R
page 1 of 5
1 claim was granted for $102.91 for the tax periods from January 2019 to October 2020. [Admin.

2 file L1728993392; Testimony of Ms. Vickery; Testimony of Ms. Rivera].

3 2. On January 12, 2023, the Taxpayer filed a timely written protest to the denial of

4 refund. [Admin. file protest].

5 3. On March 31, 2023, the Department acknowledged its receipt of the protest.

6 [Admin. file L0572951664].

7 4. On August 28, 2023, the Department filed a request for hearing and its answer to

8 the protest with the Administrative Hearings Office. [Admin. file request].

9 5. The Taxpayer requested a remote hearing, which was granted. [Admin. file].

10 6. The hearing on the merits was conducted by videoconference on September 29,

11 2023, which was within 90 days of the request for hearing as required by statute. [Admin. file].

12 7. On December 2, 2022, the Taxpayer filed its request for refund on the GRT paid

13 from December 2018 to October 2020. [Admin. file; Testimony of Ms. Vickery; Testimony of

14 Ms. Rivera].

15 8. The GRT paid in December 2018 were for the tax period of November 2018, and

16 the taxes and return were due on December 25, 20181. [Testimony of Ms. Vickery; Testimony

17 of Ms. Rivera]. See also NMSA 1978, § 7-9-11 (1969) (indicating that GRT is due on the 25th of

18 the month following the taxable event). See also NMSA 1978, § 7-1-13 (B) (2021) (indicating

19 that returns are due the same date as the tax is due).

20 9. The Department denied the Taxpayer’s request for refund with respect to the GRT

21 paid in December 2018 because the request was made more than three years from end of the year

1
December 25th is a recognized holiday, and when the 25th day of the month falls on a weekend or a holiday, the
deadline is extended to the following business day. See 3.2.2.10 NMAC (2001).
EthosEnergy Light Turbines, LLC
Case No. 23.08-034R
page 2 of 5
1 that the taxes were due and paid. [Testimony of Ms. Rivera]. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26 (F)

2 (2021).

3 10. The Taxpayer admitted that its request for refund was made more than three years

4 from the end of the year 2018. [Testimony of Ms. Vickery].

5 11. The Taxpayer explained that the position in their organization responsible for

6 handling the taxes was vacant for a period of time and that the need to file the request for refund

7 was overlooked until it was done in December 2022. [Testimony of Ms. Vickery].

8 DISCUSSION
9 Burden of proof.

10 “The taxpayer shall have the burden of proof, except as otherwise provided by law.”

11 22.600.3.24 (B) NMAC (2020).

12 Statute of limitations for claiming a refund.

13 Generally, a claim for refund must be made within three years of the end of the year in

14 which the tax was originally due. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26 (F). The Taxpayer admitted that the

15 tax was due and paid in December 2018. [Testimony of Ms. Vickery]. Three years from the end of

16 2018 was December 31, 2021. The Taxpayer’s claim for refund was made on December 2, 2022,

17 nearly a year past the three-year deadline for taxes paid in 2018. [Admin. file; Testimony of Ms.

18 Vickery; Testimony of Ms. Rivera]. The statute of limitations prevents stale claims and

19 effectively places the onus on the taxpayer to pursue their claim in a timely manner because the

20 taxpayer is the one who can more easily keep track of their claims for refund. See Kilmer v.

21 Goodwin, 2004-NMCA-122, ¶ 16, 136 N.M. 440. If the claim is not filed within the three-year

22 statute of limitations, the claim is barred by the statute. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26. See also -

23 Kilmer, 2004-NMCA-122. See also Sisters of Charity v. County of Bernalillo, 1979-NMSC-044,

EthosEnergy Light Turbines, LLC
Case No. 23.08-034R
page 3 of 5
1 ¶ 24-28, 93 N.M. 42 (holding that an untimely filed claim for refund was barred by the statute of

2 limitations).

3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4 A. The Taxpayer filed a timely written protest of the denial of refund, and jurisdiction

5 lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest. See NMSA 1978, § 7-1B-8 (2019).

6 B. The hearing was timely set and held within 90 days of the request for hearing. See

7 id. See also 22.600.3.8 NMAC (2020).

8 C. The Taxpayer’s claim for refund on the tax due and paid in December 2018 was

9 barred by the statute of limitations as it was not made within three years of the end of 2018. See

10 NMSA 1978, § 7-1-26. See also Kilmer, 2004-NMCA-122. See also Sisters of Charity, 1979-

11 NMSC-044.

12 For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer’s protest IS DENIED.

13 DATED: October 19, 2023.

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

20 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

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

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

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

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

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

EthosEnergy Light Turbines, LLC
Case No. 23.08-034R
page 4 of 5
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 October 19, 2023, a copy of the foregoing Decision and Order was submitted to the

9 parties listed below in the following manner:

10 First Class Mail and Email First Class Mail and Email
11
12
13 INTENTIONALLY BLANK

EthosEnergy Light Turbines, LLC
Case No. 23.08-034R
page 5 of 5