New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2016

Saiz Trucking & Earthmoving v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't

Saiz Trucking & Earthmoving v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided June 22, 2016

Saiz Trucking & Earthmoving v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't

Opinion

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF SAIZ TRUCKING AND EARTHMOVING, TO ASSESSMENT ISSUED UNDER LETTER ID. NO. L0680042816, SAIZ TRUCKING AND EARTHMOVING, 8 Protestant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 35,026 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 12 Respondent-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

13 APPEAL FROM THE TAXATION & REVENUE DEPARTMENT Dee Dee Hoxie, Hearing Officer Wayne G. Chew, P.C.

16 Wayne G. Chew Albuquerque, NM for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Hector Balderas, Attorney General Elena Morgan, Special Assistant Attorney General New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department Legal Services Bureau Santa Fe, NM for Appellee/Cross-Appellant 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION KENNEDY, Judge.

5 {1} The disposition in this memorandum opinion relates only to the cross-appeal filed by New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (the Department). The Department filed a cross-appeal from the hearing officer’s administrative decision denying the Department’s motion to reconsider. Unpersuaded that the Department’s docketing statement demonstrated error, our notice proposed summary affirmance relative to the Department’s cross-appeal. The Department has not filed a memorandum opposing summary affirmance, and the time for doing so has expired.

12 For the reasons in our notice, we affirm. Saiz Trucking and Earthmoving’s direct appeal, alone, will proceed to be decided on the general calendar.

14 {2} The Department’s cross-appeal is HEREBY AFFIRMED.

15 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 _______________________________ 17 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge WE CONCUR:

19 _________________________________ JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

1 _________________________________ J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.