Amoco Production Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department

878 P.2d 1021, 118 N.M. 72
CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 28, 1994
Docket15132
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 878 P.2d 1021 (Amoco Production Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amoco Production Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department, 878 P.2d 1021, 118 N.M. 72 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

OPINION

APODACA Judge.

Amoco Production Company (Taxpayer) appeals the decision and order of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (Department), through the Department’s hearing officer, denying Taxpayer’s protests challenging the Department’s method of calculating the interest period for late payments of oil and gas production taxes under NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-67(A) (Repl.Pamp.1998). We hold that the applicable statutes do not authorize the Department to calculate the interest period in the manner proposed by Taxpayer. We thus affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.

BACKGROUND

Taxpayer produces natural gas from wells that it either owns or operates in New Mexico. It pays to the Department four different taxes on its natural gas production in New Mexico: the Oil and Gas Severance Tax, NMSA 1978, §§ 7-29-1 to -23 (Repl. Pamp.1993); the Oil and Gas Conservation Tax, NMSA 1978, §§ 7-30-1 to -27 (Repl. Pamp.1993); the Oil and Gas Emergency School Tax, NMSA 1978, §§ 7-31-1 to -26 (Repl.Pamp.1993); and the Oil and Gas Ad Valorem Production Tax, NMSA 1978, §§ 7-32-1 to -28 (Repl.Pamp.1993) (collectively referred to as “gas production taxes”). Payment and reporting for these taxes is due on or before the twenty-fifth day of the second month following the month in which the natural gas is severed and sold from the production unit. See, e.g., § 7-29-7.

Gas production taxes are assessed based on the actual price received for the natural gas at the wellhead. Because of recent changes in the production, marketing, and sale of the natural gas, Taxpayer often cannot determine the correct wellhead price at the time the taxes are due. Department regulations thus allow Taxpayer to pay and report the gas production taxes based on an estimated wellhead price when the actual price is not known. Reg. TA 13:8. Taxpayer then files amended tax returns when the actual wellhead price is determined. Determination of the actual wellhead price and filing of the amended returns may occur more than one year after the taxes were due.

To comply with the reporting requirements, Taxpayer files two types of forms with the Department each month — an Operator’s Remittance Report (an “0-1”) and multiple Operator’s Unit Reports (“0-2s”). One 0-2 form is submitted for the production month in which the gas production taxes are due and shows the estimated taxes owed for that particular month’s production, known as a “reporting period.” Additional 0-2 forms are submitted for any month that was previously reported and for which the taxes paid must be adjusted. These are called “prior period adjustments.” The 0-1 form summarizes the prior period adjustments and taxes owed for the current reporting period contained in the 0-2 forms, as well as any advance payment required by statute. The net.amount calculated in the 0-1 form is paid to the Department immediately under the special payment provisions of NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-13.1 (Repl.Pamp.1993), while the 0-1 and 0-2 forms are sent separately by mail, see NMSA 1978, § 7-l-13(B) (Repl. Pamp.1993).

The Department calculates and assesses interest owed for late payment of taxes, see § 7-1-67, based on the 0-2 forms. If the actual wellhead price for the reporting period is less than that originally estimated by Taxpayer, Taxpayer can apply for a refund of the excess tax paid. If the actual price is greater than that originally estimated, Taxpayer is assessed the additional tax plus interest. When Taxpayer files amended reports to report prior period adjustments, about 10% to 20% of the adjustments result in Taxpayer having overpaid gas production taxes for the period being adjusted and approximately 80% to 90% of the time in Taxpayer having underpaid such taxes. When Taxpayer reports an overpayment of taxes, Taxpayer is allowed to apply the refund due for prior reporting periods to Taxpayer’s liability for current and future tax liabilities. When Taxpayer reports an underpayment of taxes, the Department assesses interest from the date the tax was originally due in addition to the additional tax.

In February, March, and April 1993, Taxpayer protested the Department’s assessment of interest and penalties for late payments of natural gas production taxes. Taxpayer specifically objected to the Department’s method of calculating the period of time for which interest was due. After a hearing, the hearing officer held that the Department had calculated the period of time correctly, thus upholding the Department’s assessment of interest on the overdue tax. Taxpayer appealed this decision. The hearing officer denied the Department’s assessment of penalties. The Department did not appeal this ruling.

DISCUSSION

Taxpayer contends that the Department incorrectly calculated the interest owed on late payments because it calculated the interest period as running continuously from the date the Department received the revised 0-2 forms back to the date the taxes were originally due. In so doing, Taxpayer argues the Department disregarded any overpayments it received for other reporting periods reflected in the 0-2 forms. Arguing that this practice is contrary to Section 7-1-67(A), Taxpayer contends the appropriate method of calculating the interest would be to take into account the overpayments and to treat them as having paid the additional taxes due on reporting periods for which the taxes were underpaid. Such a construction of the applicable statutes would result in Taxpayer paying less interest on the tax deficiencies by shortening the period during which the overdue taxes are deemed not to have been paid. Disagreeing with Taxpayer’s interpretation, the Department allowed overpayments to be credited only against current and future tax liabilities, instead of crediting them as taxes paid on previous reporting periods. We disagree with Taxpayer’s construction of the applicable statutory provisions.

Statutes are to be interpreted in accordance with the legislative intent and in a manner that will not render the statutes’ application absurd, unreasonable, or unjust. City of Las Cruces v. Garcia, 102 N.M. 25, 26-27, 690 P.2d 1019, 1020-21 (1984). To do so, we read the statutes in their entirety and “construe each part in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole.” State ex rel Klineline v. Blackhurst, 106 N.M. 732, 735, 749 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1988). We will not read into a statute language that is not there. Id.

Section 7-l-67(A) sets out the method by which interest on underpaid taxes is to be calculated. The statute states in part that:

If any tax imposed is not paid on or before the day on which it becomes due, interest shall be paid to the state on such amount from the first day following the day on which the tax becomes due, without regard to any extension of time or installment agreement, until it is paid____

Focusing on the phrase “until it is paid,” Taxpayer argues that phrase should be interpreted as meaning the point in time when the Department receives money that can be allocated to the Taxpayer’s liability.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Eunice v. State of New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department
2014 NMCA 085 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2014)
City of Eunice v. NM Taxation & Revenue Dept.
New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2014
Hess Corp. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department
2011 NMCA 043 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2011)
New Mexico Department of Health v. Compton
2001 NMSC 032 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2001)
Teco Investments, Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Department
1998 NMCA 055 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
878 P.2d 1021, 118 N.M. 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amoco-production-co-v-new-mexico-taxation-revenue-department-nmctapp-1994.