N.M. R. Evid. 11-502
N.M. R. Evid. 11-502
ANNOTATIONS The 2013 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 13-8300-025, effective December 31, 2013, provided that the privilege applies only if the law mandating the creation of a return or report provides for the confidentiality of the return or report; provided that the privilege does not extend to a return or report that does not comply with the law that mandates its creation; in Paragraph A, added the title, in the first sentence, deleted "A person, corporation, association or other organization or entity, either public or private, making a return or report required by law to be made" and added the new language beginning with "Should any law" and ending with "making the return or report", after "refuse to disclose", deleted "and" and added "or", after "prevent any other person from disclosing", deleted the language "the return or report, if the law requiring it to be made so provides. A public officer or agency to whom a return or report is required by law to be made has a privilege to refuse to disclose the return or report if the law requiring it to be made so provides" and added "the return or report"; and in Paragraph B, added the title of the paragraph, deleted "No privilege exists under this rule in" and added "The privilege does not cover a return or report that does not comply with the law that mandates its creation", after "false statements", added "or", and after "fraud in the return or report", deleted "or other failure to comply with the law in question". Rule not applicable to primary testimony leading to privileged report. - By its terms, this rule refers to written documents; it does not apply to proof of primary testimony which may have contributed to the content of a privileged report or return. Salazare v. St. Vincent Hosp., 1980-NMCA-095, 96 N.M. 409, 631 P.2d 315, aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 1980-NMSC-124, 95 N.M. 147, 619 P.2d 823. Gross receipts tax returns are confidential and privileged. - Where plaintiff sued defendants for employment discrimination; plaintiff's spouse, who was not a party to the action, maintained a private law practice; plaintiff alleged that upon filing the complaint, defendants retaliated against plaintiff by asserting irregularities with regard to the gross receipts tax records and returns of the spouse's private law practice; defendants asked the district court to issue subpoenas duces tecum to the spouse and to defendant taxation and revenue department for the spouse's gross receipts tax records and returns; and plaintiff's marital relationship to the spouse did not make plaintiff liable for payment of the gross receipts tax of the spouse's private law practice; the gross receipts tax information sought by the subpoenas issued to the spouse and to defendant taxation and revenue department were confidential under Sections 7-1-4.2 and 7-1-8 NMSA 1978 and privileged under Rule 11-502 NMRA. Breen v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2012-NMCA-101, 287 P.3d 379. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 81 Am. Jur. 2d Witnesses § 289. 97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 264.