Huddleston v. Daniels, 35,397

David L. Huddleston (pro se) appealed the administrative hearing officer’s denial of his tax protest to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico.
The hearing officer denied the protest after Huddleston failed to appear at his scheduled administrative tax protest hearing.
Huddleston challenged the sufficiency and origin of the Department’s exhibit showing tax deficiencies and questioned the Department’s authority to assess taxes against him.
The Court issued a calendar notice proposing summary affirmance and asked Huddleston to respond; he filed a memorandum in opposition elaborating his arguments.
The Court reviewed the record under the statutory standard that limits reversal to decisions that are arbitrary, unsupported by substantial evidence, or not in accordance with law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether hearing officer’s decision is supported by substantial evidence	Huddleston argued the tax-deficiency exhibit was invalid and the Department lacked authority to tax him	Department relied on its assessment and presumption that its tax determinations are correct	Affirmed: decision supported by substantial evidence because Huddleston failed to present countervailing evidence (and did not appear at hearing)
Whether presumption of correctness of tax assessment was overcome	Huddleston contended exhibit was unreliable and challenged assessment’s provenance	Department relied on statutory presumption of correctness for its assessments	Held: Presumption applies; unsubstantiated assertions do not overcome it; taxpayer bears burden to present contrary evidence
Whether pro se filings required special leniency given their form	Huddleston raised multiple arguments, some unclear; sought court’s consideration	Court noted it reviews pro se arguments but will not entertain unintelligible or unsupported claims	Held: Court gave Huddleston opportunity to respond but was not persuaded by nonsensical or inapplicable arguments
Whether failure to appear at hearing justified denial of protest	Huddleston did not attend hearing and presented no evidence	Department moved to proceed based on record and assessment	Held: Denial of protest was proper because Huddleston failed to meet burden and present evidence at hearing

Clayton v. Trotter, 110 N.M. 369, 796 P.2d 262 (Court will attempt to review pro se arguments but cannot address unintelligible claims)
Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 320 P.3d 482 (Where a party cites no authority, court may assume none exists)
Torridge Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 84 N.M. 610, 506 P.2d 354 (Notice of assessment based on audit is presumed correct)
MPC Ltd. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 133 N.M. 217, 62 P.3d 308 (Taxpayer bears burden to present countervailing evidence; unsubstantiated assertions insufficient)