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.

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.

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.