N.M. Stat. » Chapter 7 — Taxation
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 7-9-8 (2026)

Presumption of taxability and value

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. To prevent evasion of the compensating tax and the duty to collect it, it is presumed that property bought or sold by any person for delivery into this state is bought or sold for a taxable use in this state.

B. In determining the amount of compensating tax due on the use of property, it is presumed, in the absence of preponderant evidence of another value, that the value means the total amount of money or the reasonable value of other consideration paid for property exclusive of any type of time-price differential. However, in an exchange in which the amount of money paid does not represent the value of the property or property and service purchased, the compensating tax shall be imposed on the reasonable value of the property or property and service purchased.

C. In determining the amount of compensating tax due on the use of a service, it is presumed, in the absence of preponderant evidence of another value, that the value means the total amount of money or the reasonable value of other consideration paid for the service exclusive of any type of time-price differential. However, in an exchange in which the amount paid does not represent the value of the service purchased, the compensating tax shall be imposed on the reasonable value of the service purchased. History: 1953 Comp., § 72-16A-8, enacted by Laws 1966, ch. 47, § 8; 1969, ch. 144, § 4; 1972, ch. 85, § 2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1994–2019 · leading case: Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2020-NMCA-011, 456 P.3d 1085.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2020-NMCA-011, 456 P.3d 1085. · cites it 2× “for any reason, so long as the circumstances do not make it unfair to the appellant to affirm.”). {7} In reviewing the AHO’s decision, we presume that the “assessment of taxes or demand for payment made by the [D]epartment is .”
Vivigen, Inc. v. Minzner, 870 P.2d 1382 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “1990), the failure of Vivigen to put on any evidence of expenditures for products that became an ingredient or component part of Vivigen's reports or laminated karyotypes forecloses it from any recovery pursuant to the deduction for sales to manufacturers.”
Dell Catalog Sales L.P. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2009-NMCA-001, 199 P.3d 863. “See § 7-9-8(A) (“To prevent evasion of the compensating tax .”
N.M. Stat. § 7-9-8(A): 2 cases
Vivigen, Inc. v. Minzner, 870 P.2d 1382 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). “1990), the failure of Vivigen to put on any evidence of expenditures for products that became an ingredient or component part of Vivigen's reports or laminated karyotypes forecloses it from any recovery pursuant to the deduction for sales to manufacturers.”
Dell Catalog Sales L.P. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2009-NMCA-001, 199 P.3d 863. “See § 7-9-8(A) (“To prevent evasion of the compensating tax .”
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.