Kuriyan v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 35,282

Background

Jacob and Jeanne Kuriyan filed a 2009 New Mexico PIT-1 claiming a refund; Department received it Oct. 14, 2010.
The Department took no action within 120 days; Kuriyans did not file a protest or district-court action within 210 days after filing the claim.
In April–December 2013 the Kuriyans resubmitted a missing 2008 return, completed refund applications (including for 2009) and received refunds for other years; the 2009 refund was not paid.
The Department denied the 2009 refund in Jan. 2015 as time-barred by the 3‑year statute of limitations; Kuriyans protested in April 2015 and administratively appealed.
The hearing officer found Kuriyans timely as to the statute-of-limitations for filing a refund claim, but that the 210‑day rule for pursuing a protest or civil action after Department inaction had expired; the Kuriyans argued equitable estoppel and due process.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting estoppel (agency oral statements and letter insufficient; statute bars relief after 210 days) and rejecting a due-process violation (taxpayer responsibility and Department lacked authority to allow claim after 210 days).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Department is equitably estopped from asserting the 210‑day deadline	Kuriyans: Department’s statements and letter led them to believe denial was due to a different basis; they reasonably relied and were ignorant of the 210‑day rule	Department: Statements were at most oral or correct statements of law; statute does not permit allowance after 210 days	Denied: estoppel against the state requires extreme misconduct; oral statements and post‑denial letters insufficient; statute forbids relief after 210 days
Whether Department’s late introduction of the 210‑day defense violated due process / Taxpayer Bill of Rights	Kuriyans: lack of timely notice of the 210‑day issue deprived them of opportunity to retain counsel and present a defense	Department: Section 7‑1‑26 places burden on taxpayer; Department lacked statutory authority to permit claim after 210 days, so late notice was immaterial	Denied: no due‑process violation—taxpayer had statutory notice and responsibility; additional procedures would have been of negligible value
Whether Department exceeded its authority by denying refund after 210 days	Kuriyans: sought relief based on estoppel and alleged unfair agency inaction	Department: statute prohibits approving claims after 210 days when taxpayer fails to pursue remedies	Held: Department had no authority to allow claims after 210 days; that statutory limit governs and precludes equitable relief
Whether admission of taxpayers’ prior returns as exhibits was prejudicial	Kuriyans: exhibits were not provided pre‑hearing and admission was unfair	Department: exhibits were taxpayers’ own returns and merely supported why Department didn’t act	Held: Admission not prejudicial; taxpayers presumably possessed copies and exhibits only supported Department’s explanation

Key Cases Cited

State v. Johnson, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 (procedural abandonment where party fails to respond on summary calendar)
State v. Moore, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (standards for amending docketing statement/good‑cause requirements)
State v. Rael, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309 (amendment standards cited)
Kilmer v. Goodwin (In re Protest of Kilmer), 136 N.M. 440, 99 P.3d 690 (estoppel against state disfavored; oral representations insufficient; agency cannot allow claims beyond statutory time limits)
Unisys Corp. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 117 N.M. 609, 874 P.2d 1273 (Section 7‑1‑26 provides method to force agency action and final resolution)
In re Pamela R.D.G., 139 N.M. 459, 134 P.3d 746 (due‑process review standard and required procedural protections)
State v. Tower, 133 N.M. 32, 59 P.3d 1264 (ignorance of law not an excuse; persons presumed to know law)