The income support division of the human services department:

A. is authorized to establish a food stamp program to carry out the federal Food Stamp Act, as may be amended from time to time, and regulations issued pursuant to that act, subject to the continuation of the federal food stamp program and the availability of federal funds; and

B. shall by January 30 of each calendar year notify the taxation and revenue department of the location of food stamp offices in New Mexico for inclusion in a notice sent with an income tax refund or other notice to a taxpayer whose income is within one hundred thirty percent of federal poverty guidelines.

History: 1953 Comp., § 13-17-13, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 376, § 14; 2005, ch. 138, § 2.

Cross references. — For the federal Food Stamp Act, see 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.

The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, added Subsection B to require the income support division of the human services department to notify the taxation and revenue department of the location of food stamp offices in New Mexico.

Equitable estoppel can be asserted as a defense to bar enforcement of a food stamp overpayment claim. Waters-Haskins v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't, 2009-NMSC-031, 146 N.M. 391, 210 P.3d 817, rev'g 2008-NMCA-127, 144 N.M. 853, 192 P.3d 1230.

Departmental error alone does not warrant barring a food stamp overpayment claim. Waters-Haskins v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't, 2009-NMSC-031, 146 N.M. 391, 210 P.3d 817, rev'g 2008-NMCA-127, 144 N.M. 853, 192 P.3d 1230.

Equitable estoppel to enforce a food stamp overpayment claim. — Where the appellant adopted a foster child, the appellant received a foster parent subsidy before the adoption and an adoptive parent subsidy after the adoption; both before and after the adoption, the appellant received food stamp assistance; the appellant correctly reported the subsidies and the change in the status of the subsidies following the adoption; prior to the adoption, HSD properly excluded the foster parent subsidy from the appellant's income to determine eligibility for food stamp benefits; for a period of eight years after the adoption, HSD erroneously excluded the adoptive parent subsidy from the appellant's income to determine the adoptive parent's eligibility for food stamp benefits; the payment of the adoptive parent subsidy to the appellant made the appellant ineligible to receive food stamp benefits; and the appellant had neither actual nor constructive knowledge that the appellant was ineligible for food stamp benefits; the appellant detrimentally relied on HSD's representation that the appellant was eligible for food stamps, the doctrine of equitable estoppel barred HSD's food stamp overpayment claim against the appellant. Waters-Haskins v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't, 2009-NMSC-031, 146 N.M. 391, 210 P.3d 817, rev'g 2008-NMCA-127, 144 N.M. 853, 192 P.3d 1230.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Eligibility for food stamps under Food Stamp Act of 1964 (7 USC § 2011 et seq.), 118 A.L.R. Fed. 473.

Violations and enforcement of Food Stamp Act of 1964 (7 USC § 2011 et seq.), 120 A.L.R. Fed. 331.

Selection and suspension or disqualification of participating stores under Food Stamp Act of 1964 (7 USC § 2011 et seq.), 121 A.L.R. Fed. 653.