Court Opinion

ID: 9791533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:13:21.348258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:36.779908
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING WOOD, Chief Judge.  Our opinion states : “We reverse the Commissioner’s decision refusing to give effect to the NTTCs. The cause is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Leaco’s motion for rehearing alleges the Commissioner now proposes to conduct a new hearing in this case. This allegation is supported by a copy of a letter in which the Commissioner schedules “a formal hearing to determine the issue of good faith acceptance of nontaxable transaction certificates.” Leaco’s motion asserts that this Court did not authorize further hearings. We agree. Section 72-13-41, N.M.S.A.19S3 (ReplVol. 10, pt. 2, Supp.1973) states that when the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is invoked, “a final decision of that court or of any higher court which reviews the matter and from which decision no appeal or review is successfully taken, is conclusive as regards the liability or nonliability of any person for payment of any tax.”  The language of § 72-13-41, supra, does not contemplate that having imposed tax liability under a theory held to be erroneous the Commissioner can then proceed anew against a taxpayer under another theory. Until our decision is set aside by a higher court, our decision is conclusive as to Lea-co’s tax liability. Our decision did not authorize further hearings. The “further proceedings” contemplated was for the Commissioner to set aside his decision imposing tax liability upon Leaco. The motion for rehearing is granted. The Commissioner is directed to vacate his previous decision, to enter a new decision upholding Leaco’s protest of nonliability for the taxes involved and to comply with § 72-13-41, supra, by giving conclusive effect to our decision. This means that the new hearing scheduled by the Commissioner has no legal effect on Leaco’s tax liability. Leaco is awarded its costs in the appeal and its costs, if any, incurred in connection with the motion for rehearing. HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.