1. A. Claims for refund shall be filed by the property owner as a civil action in the district court for the county in which the valuation was determined if the property was locally valued or in the district court for Santa Fe county if valued by the department. Claims shall:

   1. (1) be filed against the director as party defendant if the property was valued by the department or against the county assessor as party defendant if the property was valued by the assessor and shall be filed no later than the sixtieth day after the first installment of the property tax for which a claim for refund is made is due;
   2. (2) state the property owner's name and address and the name and address of any person other than the property owner to whom the tax bill was sent;
   3. (3) state the basis of the claim for refund;
   4. (4) state the amount of the refund to which the property owner believes he is entitled, the amount of property taxes admitted as legally due and the property taxes paid; and
   5. (5) demand the refund to him of the amount to which he claims entitlement.
2. B. The director shall notify the appropriate county treasurer immediately when a claim for refund is filed against the director.
3. C. The property owner, the county assessor or the director may appeal to the court of appeals from any final decision or order of the district court in a claim for refund case in which they are parties.
4. D. Upon the final determination of the property owner's claim filed against the director, the director shall send a copy of the final order to the county treasurer and shall order the county assessor to change the valuation records to clearly reflect the final determination of the property owner's claim. The department shall change its valuation records accordingly.
5. E. Upon the final determination of the property owner's claim filed against the county assessor, the assessor shall send a copy of the final order to the county treasurer and to the director. The county assessor and the department shall change their respective valuation records to clearly reflect the final determination of the property owner's claim.

History: 1953 Comp., § 72-31-40, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 258, § 80; 1974, ch. 92, § 14; 1982, ch. 28, § 17; 2003, ch. 292, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2003 amendment, effective June 20, 2003 substituted "department" for "division" throughout the section; inserted "assessor" following "the county" three times; in Subsection E, substituted "assessor" for "treasurer" following "the county assessor" near the middle of the first sentence, and substituted "treasurer" for "assessor" following "The county" near the beginning of the second sentence.

The sixty day period for bringing suit for a property tax refund does not violate due process. Chan v. Montoya, 2011-NMCA-072, 150 N.M. 44, 256 P.3d 987, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-005, 150 N.M. 666, 265 P.3d 717.

The time limit for filing a property tax refund complaint begins to run on the date the tax payment is due, not the date the payment becomes delinquent. Chan v. Montoya, 2011-NMCA-072, 150 N.M. 44, 256 P.3d 987, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-005, 150 N.M. 666, 265 P.3d 717.

Time limit for filing complaint for refund. — Where taxpayers received property tax bills which stated that the first of two installments of the annual tax payment was due on November 10, 2007, and that the first installment payment would become delinquent on December 10, 2007; taxpayers paid the installment; and taxpayers filed a complaint for a refund in February 2008, approximately ninety days after the November 10th due date, taxpayers’ claims for refund were untimely and barred by the sixty day limitation period. Chan v. Montoya, 2011-NMCA-072, 150 N.M. 44, 256 P.3d 987, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-005, 150 N.M. 666, 265 P.3d 717.

Refund claims asserted in supplemental complaint. — A claim for subsequent year's taxes, asserted in a supplemental complaint in a tax refund suit, was not timely where the supplemental complaint was filed six weeks after the deadline under Section 7-38-40(A)(1) NMSA 1978 for claiming a refund. Dale Bellamah Land Co. v. Bernalillo Cnty., 1978-NMSC-095, 92 N.M. 615, 592 P.2d 971.

Applicability. — This section applies to property that is subject to valuation. Property constitutionally exempt from property taxes is not to be valued for property tax purposes and therefore refund claims for exempt property are not viable under this section. Lovelace Ctr. for Health Sciences v. Beach, 1980-NMCA-004, 93 N.M. 793, 606 P.2d 203.

Because taxpayer's claim was for refund based on incorrect allocation of the value of its property for tax purposes, its remedy was pursuant to this section, not Section 7-38-78 NMSA 1978. Fed. Express Corp. v. Abeyta, 2004-NMCA-011, 135 N.M. 37, 84 P.3d 85, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-001, 135 N.M. 160, 85 P.3d 802.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 72 Am. Jur. 2d State and Local Taxation §§ 1077 to 1079.

Propriety of class action in state courts to recover taxes, 10 A.L.R.4th 655.

Recovery of tax paid on exempt property, 25 A.L.R.4th 186.

85 C.J.S. Taxation § 933 et seq.