Gardner v. N.M. Tax'n and Revenue Dep't

• Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 5, 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-42090

WILLIAM GARDNER,

Protestant-Appellant,

v.

NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

Respondent-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM NEW MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE Dee Dee Hoxie, Administrative Hearing Officer

Sommer Udall Law Firm, PA Bradley M. Odegard Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

David E. Mittle Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1} Taxpayer appeals from the decision and order of the administrative hearings office, which denied Taxpayer’s protest. [RP 96] We entered a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. Taxpayer filed a memorandum in opposition to that notice, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

{2} In our notice, we suggested that the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department appropriately assessed unpaid taxes on Taxpayer based on a plea agreement in a separate criminal matter consistent with NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17(A) (2023). [CN 3] In his memorandum in opposition, Taxpayer maintains the same assertions he presented in his docketing statement, and does not directly address our proposed conclusion. [MIO PDF 4-5] See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Consequently, we remain unpersuaded that our calendar notice was in error.

{3} Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition, we affirm.

{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge