A. A property owner may protest the value or classification determined by the county assessor for his property for property taxation purposes, the assessor's allocation of value of his property to a particular governmental unit or denial of a claim for an exemption or for a limitation on increase in value by filing a petition with the assessor. Filing a petition in accordance with this section entitles the property owner to a hearing on his protest.

B. Petitions shall:

(1) be filed with the county assessor on or before:

(a) the later of April 1 of the property tax year to which the notice applies or thirty days after the mailing by the assessor of the notice of valuation if the notice was mailed with the preceding year's tax bill in accordance with Section 7-38-20 NMSA 1978;

(b) thirty days after the mailing of a property tax bill on omitted property pursuant to Section 7-38-76 NMSA 1978; or

(c) in all other cases, thirty days after the mailing by the assessor of the notice of valuation;

(2) state the property owner's name and address and the description of the property;

(3) state why the property owner believes the value, classification, allocation of value or denial of a claim of an exemption or of a limitation on increase in value is incorrect and what he believes the correct value, classification, allocation of value or exemption to be; and

(4) state the value, classification, allocation of value or exemption that is not in controversy.

C. Upon receipt of the petition, the county assessor shall schedule a hearing before the county valuation protests board and notify the property owner by certified mail of the date, time and place that he may appear to support his petition. The notice shall be mailed at least fifteen days prior to the hearing date.

D. The county assessor may provide for an informal conference on the protest before the hearing.

History: 1953 Comp., § 72-31-24, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 258, § 64; 1974, ch. 92, § 12; 1981, ch. 37, § 73; 1997, ch. 130, § 1; 2001, ch. 24, § 2; 2003, ch. 95, § 1.

The 2003 amendment, effective June 20, 2003, inserted present Subparagraph B(1)(b) and redesignated former Subparagraph (B)(1)(b) as present Subparagraph (B)(1)(c).

The 2001 amendment, effective June 15, 2001, inserted "or limitation on increase in value" in the section heading; inserted "or for a limitation on increase in value" in Subsection A and in Paragraph B(3); and inserted "county" preceding "assessor" in Subsection D.

The 1997 amendment, effective June 20, 1997, in Subsection B, rewrote Paragraph (1) and deleted "the" preceding "allocation" in Paragraph (3).

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.

Protests board to hear any grounds for protest. — When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be given its literal meaning. The language of this section and Section 7-38-25 NMSA 1978 (formerly 72-2-37 and 72-2-38, 1953 Comp.) clearly and unambiguously gives to the county valuation protests boards the duty to hear a protest of the valuation of a taxpayer's property on any grounds whatsoever, including the grounds of allegedly unconstitutional discrimination in comparison with assessments of other properties. 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, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Board's duty to protect taxpayers from delinquent appraisers and assessors. — The board was not created for the purpose of burdening the people; its duty is to protect taxpayers from appraisers and county assessors who are delinquent in the performance of their work. Black v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1980-NMCA-152, 95 N.M. 136, 619 P.2d 581, overruled on other grounds, Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rodarte, 2004-NMSC-035, 136 N.M. 630, 103 P.3d 554.

Protest hearing should not be viewed as adversary proceeding with the board arrayed against the taxpayer. Black v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1980-NMCA-152, 95 N.M. 136, 619 P.2d 581, overruled on other grounds, Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rodarte, 2004-NMSC-035, 136 N.M. 630, 103 P.3d 554.

Court intervention required upon board's lack of reasoned decision-making. — A court's supervisory function calls on it to intervene with the protest board not merely in case of procedural inadequacies, or a bypassing of the mandate in the legislative charter, but more broadly if the court becomes aware, especially from a combination of danger signals, that the board has not really taken a hard look at the salient problems and has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making. Black v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1980-NMCA-152, 95 N.M. 136, 619 P.2d 581, overruled on other grounds, Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rodarte, 2004-NMSC-035, 136 N.M. 630, 103 P.3d 554.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Standing of one taxpayer to complain of underassessment or nonassessment of property of another for state and local taxation, 9 A.L.R.4th 428.