1. A. A property owner may protest the value or classification determined by the department for the property owner's property for property taxation purposes or the department's allocation of value of the property owner's property to a particular governmental unit or the denial of a claim for an exemption by filing a petition with the administrative hearings office. Filing a petition in accordance with this section entitles a property owner to a hearing on the property owner's protest.

2. B. Petitions shall:

   1. (1) be filed no later than thirty days after:

      1. (a) the mailing by the department of the notice of valuation; or
      2. (b) the mailing of a property tax bill on omitted property pursuant to Section 7-38-76 NMSA 1978;
   2. (2) state the property owner's name and address and the description of the property;
   3. (3) state why the property owner believes the value, classification, allocation of value or denial of an exemption is incorrect and what the property owner believes the correct value, classification, allocation of value or exemption to be;
   4. (4) state the value, classification, allocation of value or exemption that is not in controversy; and
   5. (5) contain such other information as the administrative hearings office may by rule require.
3. C. The administrative hearings office shall notify the secretary and the property owner by certified mail of the date, time and place that the parties may appear before the administrative hearings office to present evidence related to the petition; provided that the parties may request, consent or agree to an alternative service method for the notice of hearing. The notice shall be sent at least fifteen days prior to the hearing date.
4. D. The secretary may provide for an informal conference on the protest before the hearing.

History: 1953 Comp., § 72-31-22, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 258, § 62; 1974, ch. 92, § 11; 1978 Comp., § 7-38-22; 1981, ch. 37, § 72; 2015, ch. 73, § 20; 2023, ch. 36, § 7.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2023 amendment, effective July 1, 2023, revised the process for protesting the value or classification of property determined by the taxation and revenue department; substituted each occurrence of "division" with "department" and substituted each occurrence of "director" with "secretary" throughout the section; in Subsection B, added Subparagraph B(1)(b); and in Subsection C, after "related to the petition", added "provided that the parties may request, consent or agree to an alternative service method for the notice of hearing", and after "shall be", deleted "mailed" and added "sent".

The 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, provided for filing petitions with the administrative hearings office when a property owner chooses to protest property values; in Subsection A, after "division for", deleted "his" and added "the property owner’s", after "allocation of value of", deleted "his" and added "the property owner’s", after "petition with the", deleted "director" and added "administrative hearings office", and after "a hearing on", deleted "his" and added "the property owner’s"; in Subsection B, Paragraph (1), after "be filed", deleted "with the division"; in Subsection B, Paragraph (3), after "classification,", deleted "the", and after "incorrect and what", deleted "he" and added "the property owner"; in Subsection B, Paragraph (5), after "information as the", deleted "division" and added "administrative hearings office", and after "may by", deleted "regulation" and added "rule"; and in Subsection C, after "The", deleted "division" and added "administrative hearings office", after "time and place that", deleted "he" and added "the parties", after "appear before the", deleted "director" and added "administrative hearings office", and after "to", deleted "support his" and added "present evidence related to the".

Provision not applicable when refund sought for taxes erroneously paid on constitutionally exempt property, because such property is not subject to valuation for property tax purposes. Lovelace Ctr. for Health Sciences v. Beach, 1980-NMCA-004, 93 N.M. 793, 606 P.2d 203.

Denial of charitable property tax exemption upheld. — Where the Santa Fe county assessor appealed the district court’s decision that petitioner, a retirement and continuing care community, was improperly denied a charitable property tax exemption, the New Mexico supreme court held that the district court erred in concluding that petitioner fulfilled the charitable use requirements for tax exemption under art. VIII, § 3 of the New Mexico constitution, because petitioner, a self-sustaining community that accepts and benefits only financially and medically screened residents based on requirements calculated in the interests of financial security for itself, did not create any substantial public benefit and therefore cannot be entitled to exemption from taxation under 7-36-7(B)(1)(d) NMSA 1978 or N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 3. El Castillo Ret. Residences v. Martinez, 2017-NMSC-026, aff’g 2015-NMCA-041, and overruling La Vida Llena v. Montoya, 2013-NMCA-048, 299 P.3d 456.

Constitutional issues are outside the county protests board’s statutory authority. — It is the duty of the judiciary to interpret the constitution, the supreme law of the land, and to set forth the law; a county protests board does not have jurisdiction to hear constitutional issues which are outside the protests board’s statutory authority. El Castillo Retirement Residences v. Martinez, 2015-NMCA-041, overruling In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, rev’d on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142, and cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-004.

Where retirement community was denied a charitable property tax exemption by the county assessor and appealed the county assessor’s decision to the Santa Fe county protests board, claiming a charitable property tax exemption under N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 3, it was appropriate for the protests board to decline to hear the constitutional claim, citing a lack of jurisdiction. El Castillo Retirement Residences v. Martinez, 2015-NMCA-041, overruling In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, rev’d on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142, and cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-004.

Failure of officials to equalize assessments does not establish interpretation. — The fact that state officials have, for years, known that there are inequalities or lack of uniformity in tax assessments, and have done nothing about it, does not establish this as official "long-standing interpretation." It is, in essence, merely long-standing failure by respondents and their predecessors to require equalization as plainly required by the constitution and the legislative enactments. State ex rel. Castillo Corp. v. N.M. Tax Comm'n, 1968-NMSC-117, 79 N.M. 357, 443 P.2d 850.