590 (1913). We apply this rule of construction here as well. Because Section 7-1-69 does not contain an express statement declaring the Legislature’s intent for it to apply retroactively, we must interpret the statute to apply prospectively and ensure that there is no retroactive effect. NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 (1997) (“A statute . . . operates prospectively only unless the statute . . . expressly provides otherwise or its context requires that it operate retrospectively.”). For the reasons that follow, however, we hold that the application of the new statutory penalty in place at the time of the assessment to tax liabilities that arose for tax periods occurring prior to the effective date of the amendment gives the amendment proper prospecti 97, 702, 625 P.2d 1214, 1219 (Ct. App. 1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511
holding that the taxpayer has the burden to prove the governments tax assessment is incorrect recognizing certificates of assessment as adequate evidence of tax liability holding that a certificate of assessment and payment is presumptive proof of a valid assessment by the irs holding that the debtors belated filing was not a reasonable effort to satisfy the requirements of the tax law relying significantly on the debtors delinquency in failing to file his tax returns until after the irs assessment thus defeating the main purpose of the selfreporting requirement of our tax system holding that a new tax assessment formula enacted after the beginning of the period of assessment but applied to the entire tax year was a clear instance of a statute acting prospectively on facts or conditions in existence prior to its enactment