Court reasoned that the application of the new regulation to prior tax years would be impermissibly retroactive because at the time the taxpayers’ liabilities arose, the taxpayer was not included in the group of taxpayers on whom the Department could impose the penalty. Id. Accordingly, the Court applied the standard for negligence in effect during the tax years at issue, rather than the definition in place at the time of assessment, holding that to do otherwise would be to expand the universe of taxpayers subject to the imposition of the penalty after their conduct occurred, and thus give the new regulation retroactive effect. Id. at 790, 845 P.2d at 1244; see also Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Revenue Div. of the Dep't of Taxation & Revenue, 103 N.M. 20, 24, 702 P.2d 10, 14 (Ct. App. 1985) (<HOLDING>). {25} In this case, the imposition of the new
holding that although exemption from use tax granted to religious publications violated first amendment exemption was severable from statute and thus taxpayer was still responsible for use tax on real estate advertising publication holding that where a legislative amendment changed the exemption provisions of a tax statute defining those eligible for certain exemptions and refunds the amendment could only be applied to tax years after its effective date even where the legislature expressly stated the amendment should have retroactive effect and looked to the law in place during the taxable events to determine if the taxpayer was eligible for a refund holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case holding a county taxpayer has standing to bring a declaratory decree and injunctive action against public officials of the county when the action seeks to enjoin the grant of certain tax exemptions given to other taxpayers in the county on the ground that such exemptions violate specific limitations on the countys authority to grant tax exemptions imposed by the florida constitution holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety