N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 7 / Article 38
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 7-38-21 (2026)

Protests; county-assessed property; election of remedies.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. A property owner may protest:

      (1)   the value or classification determined by the county assessor for the
property owner's property for property taxation purposes;

        (2)    the allocation of value of the property to a particular governmental unit;

        (3)    a denial of a claim for an exemption or a pending claim for an exemption;
or

        (4)    a limitation on increase in value.

     B. A property owner may protest pursuant to Subsection A of this section, either by:

      (1)      filing a petition with the county assessor as provided in the Property Tax
Code; or

       (2)    filing a claim for refund after paying the property owner's taxes as provided
in the Property Tax Code.

    C. The initiation of a protest under Paragraph (1) of Subsection B of this section is
an election to pursue that remedy and is an unconditional and irrevocable waiver of the
right to pursue the remedy provided in Paragraph (2) of Subsection B of this section.

   D. A property owner may also protest the application to the property owner's
property of any administrative fee adopted pursuant to Section 7-38-36.1 NMSA 1978
by filing a claim for refund after paying the property owner's taxes as provided in the
Property Tax Code.

History: 1953 Comp., § 72-31-21, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 258, § 61; 1978 Comp., §
7-38-21; 1981, ch. 37, § 71; 1983, ch. 215, § 1; 2001, ch. 24, § 1; 2015, ch. 73, § 19;
2023, ch. 36, § 5; 2026, ch. 9, § 3.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For definition of "director," see 7-35-2 NMSA 1978.

The 2026 amendment, effective February 25, 2026, provided that a property owner
may protest a pending claim for an exemption, and made certain technical
amendments; in Subsection A, added new paragraph designations "(1)" through "(4)"; in
Paragraph A(3), after "exemption or" deleted "for" and added "a pending claim for an
exemption; or"; added new subsection designation "B," and redesignated former
Subsections B and C as Subsections C and D, respectively, and in Subsection B, after
the subsection designation, added "A property owner may protest pursuant to
Subsection A of this section"; and in Subsection C, after each occurrence of
"Subsection" changed "A" to "B".

The 2023 amendment, effective July 1, 2023, clarified the process for protesting the
value or classification of property determined by a county assessor; in the section
heading, added "county-assessed property"; in Subsection A, after "classification
determined", added "by the county assessor", in Paragraph A(1), after "filing", added "a
petition with the county assessor", and after "Property Tax Code", deleted "a petition of
protest with", and deleted Subparagraphs A(1)(a) and A(1)(b).

The 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, provided for protests of property
valuation to be filed with the administrative hearings office; in Subsection A, after
"determined for", deleted "his" and added "the property owner’s" and after “allocation of
value of”, deleted “his” and added “the”; in Subsection A, Paragraph (1), after "filing",
added "as provided in the Property Tax Code"; in Subsection A, Paragraph (1)(a), after
"the", deleted "director" and added "administrative hearings office"; in Subsection A,
Paragraph (1)(b), after "county assessor", deleted "as provided in the Property Tax
Code"; in Subsection A, Paragraph (2), after "paying", deleted "his" and added "the
property owner’s"; in Subsection B, after "provided", deleted "under" and added “in”; and
in Subsection C, after "application to", deleted "his" and added "the property owner’s",
and after "paying", deleted "his" and added "the property owner’s".

The 2001 amendment, effective June 15, 2001, inserted "or for a limitation on increase
in value" in Subsection A.

Protest or refund. — The alternate methods of protesting the rejection of a tax
exemption set out in Subsections A(1) and A(2) are separate and distinct. Where a
museum files a protest with the county assessor under Subsection A(1) and then pays
the disputed tax, in order to avoid interest and penalty assessments, the museum
cannot later apply for a refund under Subsection A(2). Georgia O'Keeffe Museum v.
County of Santa Fe, 2003-NMCA-003, 133 N.M. 297, 62 P.3d 754.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 72 Am. Jur. 2d State and Local
Taxation §§ 795 to 816.

84 C.J.S. Taxation §§ 512 to 559.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: Georgia O'Keeffe Museum v. Cnty. of Santa Fe, 62 P.3d 754 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Georgia O'Keeffe Museum v. Cnty. of Santa Fe, 62 P.3d 754 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 19× “O’Keeffe asserted below that the Property Tax Code election of remedy provision in Section 7-38-21 creates a “procedural conundrum,” and placed O’Keeffe in “an insoluble Catch-22.”
Chan v. Montoya, 256 P.3d 987 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 7-38-21(A) (2001). As such, taxpayers have notice almost nine months in advance of the district court filing deadline and, therefore, almost nine months in which to pursue an alternate remedy or wait to file a tax refund complaint after payment.”
Grand Lodge of Ancient & Accepted Masons v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 740 P.2d 1163 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 7-38-21 (Repl. 1986). The department contends that there is no provision for protesting the denial of an exemption by ruling.”
NW Villages v. Martinez (N.M. 2011). · cites it 4× “10 See NMSA 1978, § 7-38-21 (2001). Section 7-38-21 allows the property owner 11 to protest the property’s value or classification determined for property taxation 12 purposes.”
Harding Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. N.M. Tax'n & Revenue Dep't, 2021 NMSC 007 (N.M. 2021). · cites it 3× “See § 7-38-21 (concerning a property owner’s right to protest the valuation); § 7-38-23(C) (concerning the parties’ option to waive the deadline for resolution of a protest).”
N.M. Stat. § 7-38-21(A): 3 cases
Georgia O'Keeffe Museum v. Cnty. of Santa Fe, 62 P.3d 754 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “O’Keeffe asserted below that the Property Tax Code election of remedy provision in Section 7-38-21 creates a “procedural conundrum,” and placed O’Keeffe in “an insoluble Catch-22.”
Chan v. Montoya, 256 P.3d 987 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “See NMSA 1978, § 7-38-21(A) (2001). As such, taxpayers have notice almost nine months in advance of the district court filing deadline and, therefore, almost nine months in which to pursue an alternate remedy or wait to file a tax refund complaint after payment.”
Harding Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. N.M. Tax'n & Revenue Dep't, 2021 NMSC 007 (N.M. 2021). “See § 7-38-21 (concerning a property owner’s right to protest the valuation); § 7-38-23(C) (concerning the parties’ option to waive the deadline for resolution of a protest).”
N.M. Stat. § 7-38-21(A)(2): 1 case
Georgia O'Keeffe Museum v. Cnty. of Santa Fe, 62 P.3d 754 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “O’Keeffe asserted below that the Property Tax Code election of remedy provision in Section 7-38-21 creates a “procedural conundrum,” and placed O’Keeffe in “an insoluble Catch-22.”
N.M. Stat. § 7-38-21(B): 1 case
Georgia O'Keeffe Museum v. Cnty. of Santa Fe, 62 P.3d 754 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “O’Keeffe asserted below that the Property Tax Code election of remedy provision in Section 7-38-21 creates a “procedural conundrum,” and placed O’Keeffe in “an insoluble Catch-22.”
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.