N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 7 / Article 1
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 7-1-22 (2026)

Exhaustion of administrative remedies.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
No court of this state has jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding by a taxpayer in
which the taxpayer calls into question the taxpayer's liability for any tax or the
application to the taxpayer of any provision of the Tax Administration Act, except as a
consequence of the appeal by the taxpayer to the court of appeals from the order of a
hearing officer, or except as a consequence of a claim for refund as specified in Section
7-1-26 NMSA 1978.

History: 1953 Comp., § 72-13-36, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 248, § 24; 1966, ch. 30, §
1; 1979, ch. 144, § 21; 1995, ch. 70, § 2; 2015, ch. 73, § 14.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, provided jurisdiction to the court of
appeals to review orders of hearing officers; after "court of appeals from the", deleted
"action and order of the secretary, all as specified in Section 7-1-24 NMSA 1978" and
added "order of a hearing officer".

The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, substituted "secretary" for "director" near
the end of the section, and made gender neutral changes throughout the section.
Exhaustion of remedies required. — Challenges to the validity of the Tax
Administration Act must be first presented either through the protest remedy or the
refund remedy. Neff v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 1993-NMCA-116, 116 N.M.
240, 861 P.2d 281.

Tax Administration Act requires exhaustion of remedies for each denial of a given
credit. — Where plaintiff taxpayers (taxpayers) twice challenged the New Mexico
taxation and revenue department's (department) denial of applications for high wage
jobs tax credits, once in 2015 and again in 2016, and where taxpayers elected to
dispute the denial of the 2015 credits by filing a written protest to be heard by the
department's administrative hearing officer (AHO), pursuant to § 7-1-24 NMSA 1978,
but elected to protest the denial of the 2016 credits by claiming a refund from the
department for the credit denied, pursuant to § 7-1-26 NMSA 1978, and where the
department filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that when a taxpayer
pursues successive denials of tax credits raising a common issue, the taxpayer must
have the issue resolved in the forum where it was initially raised or is otherwise bound
by their choice of remedy for the original denial, the district court erred in granting the
department's motion for summary judgment, because the Tax Administration Act, §§ 7-
1-1 to 7-1-83 NMSA 1978, requires only that a taxpayer denied a given credit exhaust
their remedy for that denied credit before seeking relief from the courts. Taxpayers were
not required to pursue the same remedy for the denial of the 2016 credits as they
pursued for the denial of the 2015 credits; the act requires only that a taxpayer exhaust
whatever remedy it has chosen to challenge the denial of a given credit. Weatherford
Artificial Lift Systems v. Clarke, 2021-NMCA-065.

Doctrine of vicarious or virtual exhaustion of remedies does not apply. — The Tax
Administration Act provides the exclusive remedies for tax refunds and requires
taxpayers to individually seek a refund. Each member of the class of taxpayers
challenging the constitutionality of a tax must individually exhaust their administrative
remedies and only after individual exhaustion by each class member can the district
court have jurisdiction over the class. The doctrine of vicarious or virtual exhaustion of
remedies that allows a class action for tax refunds to proceed when only a few
members of the proposed class have exhausted their administrative remedies does not
apply to proceedings under the Tax Administration Act. U.S. Xpress v. N.M. Taxation &
Revenue Dep't, 2006-NMSC-017, 139 N.M. 589, 136 P.3d 999, rev'g 2005-NMCA-091,
138 N.M. 55, 116 P.3d 846.

Federal claims. — Where taxpayers were seeking exemption from taxes under a
claimed federal right, the Federal Supremacy Clause did not preclude a state from
requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before its courts will decide state tax
matters, unless taxpayers would thereby be denied a plain, adequate and complete
remedy. Neff v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 1993-NMCA-116, 116 N.M. 240, 861
P.2d 281.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 71 Am. Jur. 2d State and Local
Taxation §§ 97, 605; 72 Am. Jur. 2d State and Local Taxation § 811.
85 C.J.S. Taxation § 1091.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: US Xpress v. Taxation & Revenue Dept., 136 P.3d 999 (N.M. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
US Xpress v. Taxation & Revenue Dept., 136 P.3d 999 (N.M. 2006). · cites it 33× “{14} While we appreciate the efforts of the Court of Appeals to avoid unnecessary burdens to the Department, the absent members of the class, and our courts, we cannot adopt the doctrine of “vicarious representation” in the context of a class action for tax refunds.”
Anderson v. State, 518 P.3d 503 (N.M. 2022). · cites it 7× “Xpress, this Court ruled that NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-22 (1995, amended 2015) of the Tax Administration Act is jurisdictional and requires exhaustion of administrative remedies.”
Weatherford Artificial Lift Sys. v. Clarke, 2021 NMCA 065 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 21× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-22 (2015), -24 (2015, amended 2019), -26(C) (2015, amended 2021).”
Schneider Nat'l Inc. v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 144 P.3d 120 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “It entered summary judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. SUMMARY JUDGMENT {7} The Department moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Neff v. State ex rel. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 861 P.2d 281 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “Section 7-1-22 provides: No court of this state has jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding by a taxpayer in which he calls into question his liability for any tax or the application to him of any provision of the Tax Administration Act [this article], except as a consequence…”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Revenue Div. of Dep't of Taxation, 702 P.2d 10 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “” Tax Collector in response argues that Taxpayer’s request for tax refund under Section 7-1-26 is not a “pending case” within the meaning of Article IV, Section 34 of the constitution.”
U.S. Xpress, Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2005 NMCA 091 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “Further, no New Mexico court “has jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding by a taxpayer in which the taxpayer calls into question the taxpayer’s liability for any tax” unless the taxpayer has exhausted one of his administrative remedies.”
Anderson v. State (N.M. 2022). · cites it 7× “Xpress, this Court ruled that NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-22 (1995, 4 amended 2015) of the Tax Administration Act is jurisdictional and requires 5 exhaustion of administrative remedies.”
Neff v. State, Through Tax & Rev. Dept., 861 P.2d 281 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “Section 7-1-22 provides: No court of this state has jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding by a taxpayer in which he calls into question his liability for any tax or the application to him of any provision of the Tax Administration Act [this article], except as a consequence…”
US Xpress v. Taxation & Rev. Dept., 116 P.3d 846 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “Further, no New Mexico court "has jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding by a taxpayer in which the taxpayer calls into question the taxpayer's liability for any tax" unless the taxpayer has exhausted one of his administrative remedies.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.