NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website. The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR:	Silva		DATE TYPED:	2/20/03		HB	689
SHORT TITLE:		Postmarking of Mail To Be Considered Timely				SB
					ANALYST:		Wilson

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained		Estimated Additional Impact		Recurring or Non-Rec	Fund Affected
FY03	FY04	FY03	FY04
			Insignificant

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Responses Received From

Attorney General’s Office (AGO)

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 689 amends Section 7-38-83 NMSA, under the Tax Administration Act, to provide that acts required or permitted to be done by mail are timely if postmarked or canceled by the U.S. postal service or other legally authorized third-party carrier on the required date.

Significant Issues

The title of HB 689 refers to the requirement that mail be postmarked by the United States postal service, but this provision is already in the statute. HB 689 permits the mail to be “canceled”.

Definitions should be added to HB 689 for “canceled”, “postmarked” and “legally authorized third party carrier”.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

There will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution, and documentation of statutory changes.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

Why is the word “canceled” included in the bill? Isn’t every letter “postmarked?” When would it be “canceled” but not “postmarked?”

DW/yr