A. Property subject to valuation for property taxation purposes under this article of the Property Tax Code shall be valued by the methods required by this article of the Property Tax Code whether the determination of value is made by the department or the county assessor. The same or similar methods of valuation shall be used for valuation of the same or similar kinds of property for property taxation purposes.

B. Unless a method or methods of valuation are authorized in Sections 7-36-20 through 7-36-33 NMSA 1978, the value of property for property taxation purposes shall be its market value as determined by application of the sales of comparable property, income or cost methods of valuation or any combination of these methods. In using any of the methods of valuation authorized by this subsection, the valuation authority:

(1) shall apply generally accepted appraisal techniques; and

(2) in determining the market value of residential housing, shall consider any decrease in the value that would be realized by the owner in a sale of the property because of the effects of any affordable housing subsidy, covenant or encumbrance imposed pursuant to a federal, state or local affordable housing program that restricts the future use of the property or the resale price of the property or would otherwise prohibit the owner from fully benefitting from any enhanced value of the property. As used in this paragraph:

(a) "subsidy, covenant or encumbrance imposed pursuant to a federal, state or local affordable housing program" includes those imposed by a nonprofit entity approved by a governmental entity as a qualifying grantee pursuant to the Affordable Housing Act [6-27-1 to 6-27-8 NMSA 1978]; and

(b) "residential housing" means any building, structure or portion thereof that is primarily occupied, or designed or intended primarily for occupancy, as a residence by one or more households and any real property that is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of such a building, structure or portion thereof. "Residential housing" includes congregate housing, manufactured homes, housing intended to provide or providing transitional or temporary housing for homeless persons and common health care, kitchen, dining, recreational and other facilities primarily for use by residents of a residential housing project.

C. Dams, reservoirs, tanks, canals, irrigation wells, installed irrigation pumps, stock-watering wells and pumps, similar structures and equipment used for irrigation or stock-watering purposes, water rights and private roads shall not be valued separately from the land they serve. The foregoing improvements and rights shall be considered as appurtenances to the land they serve, and their value shall be included in the determination of value of the land.

D. The department shall adopt regulations to implement the methods of valuation authorized in this article of the Property Tax Code.

History: Laws 1973, ch. 258, § 17; 1953 Comp., § 72-29-5; reenacted by Laws 1975, ch. 165, § 2; 1995, ch. 12, § 11; 2008, ch. 77, § 1.

Cross references. — For constitutional provision as to equality in ad valorem taxation, see N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 1.

For constitutional provision as to assessment of lands, see N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 6.

The 2008 amendment, effective February 29, 2008, added Paragraph (2) of Subsection B.

Applicability. — Laws 2008, ch. 77, § 2 provided that the provisions of Laws 2008, ch. 77, § 1 apply to the 2008 and subsequent property tax years.

The 1995 amendment, effective June 16, 1995, in Subsection B, substituted "Sections 7-36-20 through 7-36-33 NMSA 1978" for "Sections 72-29-9 through 72-29-22 NMSA 1953", and substituted the language beginning "by application of the" for "by sales of comparable property, or, if that method cannot be used due to the lack of comparable sales data for the property being valued, then its value shall be determined using an income method or cost methods of valuation" at the end of the first sentence; and substituted "Section 7-38-90 NMSA 1978" for "72-31-88 NMSA 1953" in Subsection D.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Exclusive reliance on evidence of prior year comparable sales was reasonable. — With respect to comparable sales, the legislature intended assessors and protests boards to consider only data available on January 1 of the tax year of the valuation notice. AMREP Sw., Inc. v. Sandoval Cnty. Assessor, 2012-NMCA-082, 284 P.3d 1118.

Where the county valuation protests board refused to consider the taxpayer's comparable 2009 sales evidence and relied exclusively on comparable 2008 sales for the valuation of the taxpayer's property for the 2009 tax year based on the board's interpretation of statutory and administrative code provisions that required property to be valued using only data available on January 1, 2009, the board's interpretation of the statutory and administrative code provisions was reasonable. AMREP Sw., Inc. v. Sandoval Cnty. Assessor, 2012-NMCA-082, 284 P.3d 1118.

Assessor's valuation sufficient evidence. — Since the assessor's valuation is presumed to be correct it is sufficient evidence, where uncontradicted, to support the board's decision. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

How presumption of assessor's valuation may be overcome. — The statutory presumption of correctness of the value of property by the county assessor for tax purposes can be overcome by a taxpayer showing that the assessor did not follow the applicable statutory provisions, or by presenting evidence tending to dispute the factual correctness of the valuation. La Jara Land Developers, Inc. v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 1982-NMCA-006, 97 N.M. 318, 639 P.2d 605.

Admission of taxpayer's evidence when market value indeterminable. — The protests board could not rely exclusively on the county assessor's valuation of property even though, according to 72-2-3, 1953 Comp., the assessment must be at "full actual value," and neither could it rely on comparable sales or sales of comparable lands where none have occurred; accordingly, the board should have allowed the admission of the only available relevant evidence which the taxpayer had. In situations where cash market value could not be determined, earning capacity, cost of reproduction and original cost less depreciation furnished relevant considerations for determining "value." In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142 (1976) (decided under prior law).

Presumption of assessor's valuation not overcome. — Since taxpayer failed to present any evidence of sales of comparable property or evidence of value based on generally accepted appraisal techniques, and its only evidence, the purchase price of its land in question, did not establish a market value under Subsection B, the presumption of the correctness of the assessor's valuation was not overcome. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Presumption of assessor's valuation not overcome. — The presumption of the correctness of the assessor's valuation was not overcome by the taxpayers' offer, as evidence of market value, the price for which they purchased the property, where the sales price was not the result of an arms'-length transaction because of the taxpayers' mailing campaign to convince landowners to sell their property to the taxpayers at below market prices. In re Cobb, 1991-NMCA-122, 113 N.M. 251, 824 P.2d 1053, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 44, 822 P.2d 1127 (1992).

Taxpayer rebutted presumption of assessor's valuation. — Since taxpayers presented uncontradicted evidence that access to their property was physically blocked and also offered the only substantial evidence of the fair market value of the property in the form of testimony by a real estate appraiser that because of the lack of access the highest and best use that the property could be put to was as grazing land by one of the adjoining landowners, and that as such it had a fair market value of $18.00 per acre, or $2034 and $5022 respectively for the two tracts, they effectively rebutted the presumption of 7-38-6 NMSA 1978 that the county assessor's valuations of $313,875 and $169,500 were correct. Petition of Kinscherff, 1976-NMCA-097, 89 N.M. 669, 556 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620.

When county assessor did not follow any statutory method of valuation in 1976, but simply set the valuation of a shopping center back up to the 1972 figure, the decisions of the board were arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole, and otherwise not in accordance with law, and its orders were vacated. San Pedro S. Group v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1976-NMCA-116, 89 N.M. 784, 558 P.2d 53.

Scope of "structures and equipment" in Subsection C. — The inclusion of Subsection C indicated that the exemption from separate valuation for the structures and equipment listed in Subsection C is not limited to structures and equipment used for the purposes of irrigation or stock-watering, but applies to all such structures and equipment. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp. v. Property Tax Div., 1980-NMCA-063, 95 N.M. 685, 625 P.2d 1202.

No denial of due process in failure to adopt regulations. — Taxpayer was not denied due process because the property tax department did not adopt regulations that listed the procedures to be followed, and identified the methods of valuation in general use by the department and the applicable factors to be included in determining the value of property, since the amended statute did not require regulations, and taxpayer had the right of discovery by deposition of all the facts necessary to defend the assessed valuation of its property. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Failure to require equalization does not establish official 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.

Honest judgment most important. — What is most important is that the appraisers, the assessor and the protest board exercise an honest judgment based upon the information they possess or are able to acquire. First Nat'l Bank v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1977-NMCA-005, 90 N.M. 110, 560 P.2d 174.

Sovereign immunity not applicable in mandamus of assessment ratio. — In a mandamus proceeding to require the performance of a duty plainly required under the constitution, i.e., to prescribe an assessment ratio so that property shall be uniformly assessed in proportion to its value, the sovereign immunity doctrine is not applicable. State ex rel. Castillo Corp. v. N.M. Tax Comm'n, 1968-NMSC-117, 79 N.M. 357, 443 P.2d 850.

II. MARKET VALUE.

A. IN GENERAL.

"Market value" means a price which a purchaser, willing but not obliged to buy, would pay an owner, willing but not obliged to sell, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Usual factors which are considered in ascertaining fair market value of any given tract of land are its size, shape, location, topography, accessibility to roads, availability of public utilities and comparable sales, and, in a given instance, one factor may far outweigh all the rest in importance. Petition of Kinscherff, 1976-NMCA-097, 89 N.M. 669, 556 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620.

Legislature gave priority to first method of valuation, a valuation determined by sales of comparable property. It did not do so with reference to the succeeding methods. If the legislature intended to give priority to the second method, the "income method," over the third method, the "cost method," for any reason, it would have phrased the section in language similar to the priority established in the first method of valuation. First Nat'l Bank v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1977-NMCA-005, 90 N.M. 110, 560 P.2d 174.

Proof of purchase price alone is not sufficient to fix market value without evidence of the details of the sale. Cobb v. Otero Cnty. Assessor, 1983-NMCA-090, 100 N.M. 207, 668 P.2d 323.

Market value not an absolute. — Subsection B makes it clear that market value is not a given or an absolute, it is only a method of determining value. National Potash Co. v. Property Tax Div., 1984-NMCA-055, 101 N.M. 404, 683 P.2d 521.

Explanation necessary when market value not used for valuation. — If market value is not used as the basis for calculating assessed valuation, the assessor must explain why that approach is not appropriate, or that there is a lack of adequate market data. Protest of Plaza Del Sol Ltd. P'ship v. Assessor for Cnty. of Bernalillo, 1986-NMCA-022, 104 N.M. 154, 717 P.2d 1123.

Past or future value not to serve as basis. — What the fair market value of a tract may have been in the past or speculation as to what it might be in the future cannot serve as the basis for valuation. Petition of Kinscherff, 1976-NMCA-097, 89 N.M. 669, 556 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620; Bakel v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 1980-NMCA-173, 95 N.M. 723, 625 P.2d 1240.

Past market value. — Evidence of what the fair market value of a tract may have been in the past cannot properly be utilized as the sole basis for valuation of the property for tax purposes. La Jara Land Developers, Inc. v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 1982-NMCA-006, 97 N.M. 318, 639 P.2d 605.

Use of mass appraisal method upheld. — The use by the county assessor of the mass appraisal methodology to value plaintiffs' undeveloped property for tax assessment purposes was permissible under this statute when the method was based on standard appraisal procedure, such as comparable sales, and the resulting valuation bore a reasonable relationship to the market value. In re Cobb, 1991-NMCA-122, 113 N.M. 251, 824 P.2d 1053, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 44, 822 P.2d 1127.

Using one uniform percentage depreciation factor for property valuation improper. — Any property valuation method which uses one uniform percentage depreciation factor, regardless of the age of the property, is an improper method of determining property value; such a method would not, except by mere coincidence, yield a value consistent with the fair market value of the property. Anaconda Co. v. Prop. Tax Dep't, 1979-NMCA-158, 94 N.M. 202, 608 P.2d 514, cert. denied, 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545.

Insufficient evidence to support county assessor's method of valuation. — Where appellant sought review of the Bernalillo county valuation protests board's valuation of appellant's commercial property, and where the county assessor testified that the assessor applies a forty-five percent limitation on operating expenses rather than applying the taxpayer's actual reported expenses, but absent data that forty-five percent is an appropriate limitation on operating expenses in this market, for this property type, and during this time period, there was insufficient evidence such that a reasonable person could conclude that the county assessor's application of the income valuation method utilized generally accepted appraisal techniques. 2727 San Pedro LLC v. Bernalillo Cty. Assessor, 2017-NMCA-008.

B. COMPARABLE SALES METHOD.

"Comparable property" is property similar to the property being appraised, which has been recently sold or is currently being offered for sale in the same or competing areas. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074; New Mexico Baptist Found. v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 1979-NMCA-102, 93 N.M. 363, 600 P.2d 309.

"Comparable" is defined as capable of being compared with, worthy of comparison, and thus must necessarily include dissimilarities as well as similarities. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

"To compare". — In reviewing sales of other properties, "to compare" means to examine the characteristics or qualities of one or more properties for the purpose of discovering their resemblances or differences; the aim is to show relative values by bringing out characteristic qualities, whether similar or divergent, and thus, comparisons based on sales may be made according to location, age and condition of improvements, income and expense, use, size, type of construction and in numerous other ways. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Best method is use of comparable sales. — The best method of ascertaining what a willing and informed buyer would pay a willing and informed seller in usual circumstances in light of the highest and best use to which the property may be put in the not too distant future is through the use of comparable sales. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Reasonable cash market value, reflected by comparable property sales, is relevant for determining the correct valuation of a piece of property, if there have been such sales. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

When comparable sales evidence not presented. — Since the documents relied upon by a taxpayer as evidence of comparable sales are documents dealing with the sale of that very improvement whose valuation is the subject of the present dispute and the only evidence submitted by the taxpayer is the purchase price of the land in question, the taxpayer failed to present any evidence of sales of comparable property and the evidence submitted does not establish a market value under Subsection B and the statutory presumption of correctness of valuation for tax purposes still stands. N.M. Baptist Found. v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 1979-NMCA-102, 93 N.M. 363, 600 P.2d 309.

Test of comparable sales relevancy left to court's discretion. — The rule regarding comparable sales is one of relevancy and, not unlike the general evidentiary rule applied in all proceedings, requiring similarity of conditions. The test is usually left to the discretion of the court in light of the circumstances of each case. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

C. INCOME OR COST METHOD.

When income or cost method of valuation utilized. — Since, if reliable comparable sales data can be reasonably obtained, the comparable sales method must be used, the taxpayer has the burden to demonstrate either that comparable sales data is not reasonably obtainable or that it would be unreliable. To demonstrate a lack of reliability, the taxpayer might show that the location, access, utilities or other such factors distinguish his property from other such properties. If the taxpayer is able to show that the comparable sales method should not be utilized, then the income method or cost method must be used. Bakel v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 1980-NMCA-173, 95 N.M. 723, 625 P.2d 1240.

Methods of valuation. — If the "cost method" or "income method" is employed as the primary mode of ascertaining the value of property for tax purposes, the appraiser must determine that there is a lack of comparable sales data precluding utilization of the first method of valuation and support this determination by substantial evidence. La Jara Land Developers, Inc. v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 1982-NMCA-006, 97 N.M. 318, 639 P.2d 605.

Income method inapplicable to agricultural land. — By its plain terms, the income method set forth in this section does not apply to land classified as agricultural. Agricultural land is to be valued based on its capacity to produce, not on its actual production. Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rio Arriba Cnty. Assessor, 2004-NMCA-055, 135 N.M. 630, 92 P.3d 642, rev'd, 2004-NMSC-035, 136 N.M. 630, 103 P.3d 554.

III. EVIDENCE.

Taxing authority may rely on any relevant evidence. — In assessing property for taxation the taxing authority may rely on any evidence that is relevant. Assessor's evidence of a sale of a smaller tract of land in the same vicinity was substantial and supported the board's decision. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Relevant evidence includes that of ratios of assessed value to market value. — To arrive at uniformity in the assessment of property for taxation, as provided in N.M. Const., art. VIII, §§ 1 and 2, the taxing authority and the taxpayer can introduce evidence regarding the ratios of assessed values to market values as the latter are reflected in actual sales of any other real estate in the taxing district for a reasonable period prior to the assessment date. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

No denial of due process in exclusion of irrelevant evidence. — Since former Subsection B of this section fixed two methods of determining market value, namely sales of comparable property and the application of generally accepted appraisal techniques, taxpayer's offer of evidence of a valuation of comparable property was not relevant and exclusion of such evidence did not deny taxpayer of due process. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Appraiser's acceptance of hearsay destroys weight of his opinions. — An expert appraiser's blanket acceptance of hearsay information and his failure to consider influencing facts in so-called "comparable sales" all but destroys any weight that might be given to his opinions. Four Hills Country Club v. Bernalillo Cnty. Property Tax Protest Bd., 1979-NMCA-141, 94 N.M. 709, 616 P.2d 422.

Section does not give taxpayers right to determine method of valuation, but gives the county assessor the right to use either the "income method or cost methods of valuation." First Nat'l Bank v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1977-NMCA-005, 90 N.M. 110, 560 P.2d 174.

Taxpayer has right to discover method of valuation used and has a right to discovery similar in scope to that granted by Rules 26 to 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. First Nat'l Bank v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1977-NMCA-005, 90 N.M. 110, 560 P.2d 174.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Requirement of full-value real property taxation assessments, 42 A.L.R.4th 676.