An oilfield services owner in Hobbs opens a notice of deficiency for 2024 and pulls up the Tax Court’s petition form. Two items look like paperwork. One is a box asking whether the case should run as a small tax case. The other is a separate sheet, Form 5, asking where the trial should be held, and New Mexico’s row has exactly one city.
In September the Tax Court changed that list and how it may manage cases before trial. For someone in Lea County, the practical questions are which courtroom will actually sit and what the small-case box gives up. Then there is whether a trial across the Texas line changes the law.
Where are the Tax Court trial locations for New Mexico after the 2026 changes?
Still Albuquerque, and only Albuquerque. The Tax Court’s September 8, 2026 announcement added Austin, Charlotte, Newark, Orlando and Sacramento for 79 in all, and dropped none. The Court’s current list of trial cities shows Albuquerque as the lone New Mexico entry, with no permanent courtroom. The announcement rests on 26 U.S.C. § 7446, which asks for sessions “with as little inconvenience and expense to taxpayers as is practicable.”
Opening every city to regular cases adds nothing for Albuquerque. Some cities used to be reserved for small cases, and the Court’s 2008 version of Form 5 flagged them with an asterisk (Cheyenne and Wichita among them). Albuquerque had none, and the Spring 2026 schedule set a hybrid session there, small and regular cases together, for the week of May 4, 2026.
Can a New Mexico taxpayer request a Tax Court trial in El Paso, Lubbock or Denver?
Yes. Tax Court Rule 140(a) requires a place-of-trial request with each Tax Court petition, and the Court makes “reasonable efforts” to try the case at the location “most convenient to that requested.” Nothing ties it to your home state; the current Form 5 says you “may choose any location that is convenient to you.” Switching later takes a motion under Rule 140(b).
How often a city sits matters too. I went through the five posted schedules from Fall 2025 through Winter 2027, which the Court labels forecasts. Albuquerque appears once, that May 2026 session; Spring 2027 is not posted yet. El Paso and Lubbock share a swing session, one judge covering both, held the week of March 16, 2026 and set again for January 25, 2027. Denver sat in four of the five terms, five sessions in all. So did Phoenix, though none of its five falls in 2027.
In a straight line, Lubbock is about 100 miles from Hobbs or Clovis, and Las Cruces about 40 from El Paso. Raton, though, is nearer Albuquerque than Denver, and Gallup is half as far from Albuquerque as from Phoenix, so the pull of those cities is frequency and a permanent courtroom. Tucson is not a place of trial.
Should a New Mexico petitioner make the small tax case election (S case)?
Under 26 U.S.C. § 7463(a), a deficiency case qualifies if no more than $50,000 is contested for any one taxable year, and § 7463(e) counts penalties toward that figure. Rule 174(b) calls for trials “as informally as possible consistent with orderly procedure.”
The cost is § 7463(b): an S decision “shall not be reviewed in any other court and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.” Neither side can appeal. For a self-represented owner arguing about receipts, that trade often makes sense. Where the issue is legal and will come back next year, I usually think it does not.
The box is not locked on filing day. Rule 171(c) allows an S request any time before trial, the IRS may oppose one by motion, and Rule 171(d) lets the Court remove the designation on its own or on a motion made before trial starts. Afterward, § 7463(d) permits discontinuance only if the amount appears to exceed the limit by enough to justify it. Leave both boxes blank and, per the Court’s petition kit, the case is filed as regular.
Filing a Tax Court Petition? Contact Us Now
Does a Tax Court trial in El Paso put a New Mexico case in the Fifth Circuit?
No. The appeal follows the taxpayer. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1)(A), an individual’s appeal goes to the circuit of legal residence on the day the petition was filed, so a Las Cruces resident tried in Texas still has a Tenth Circuit case, with 90 days to appeal under § 7483. The exception, in § 7482(b)(2), is a written stipulation with the IRS naming another circuit.
That shapes the trial itself because of Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), aff’d, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), where the Tax Court agreed to follow a circuit decision “squarely in point” when appeal lies to that circuit alone. The El Paso judge applies Tenth Circuit law to the New Mexico petitioner and Fifth Circuit law to the local resident called next.
Equitable tolling shows why. The reviewed opinion in Sanders v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. 112 (2023), kept the § 6213(a) deadline jurisdictional and said the Third Circuit’s contrary Culp v. Commissioner, 75 F.4th 196 (3d Cir. 2023), did not trigger Golsen for a Fourth Circuit case. The Sixth Circuit joined Culp in Oquendo v. Commissioner, No. 24-1205 (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025). The Tenth Circuit still has Foster v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d 799 (10th Cir. 1971), treating a late petition as a jurisdictional defect. A late filer from Ohio can argue tolling; one from Hobbs cannot, whatever city hears it. The firm’s post on the 90-day deadline and tolling covers the rest.
What is the Tax Court’s reporting calendar pilot, and what would it change in New Mexico?
Little is published. “Beginning no earlier than for the Fall 2027 term,” the announcement says, some cases may go on a reporting calendar instead of a trial calendar. Rather than a trial date, the case gets a judge and “a standing scheduling order governing pretrial proceedings.” More detail is promised first, and the Court’s May 2026 proposed rule amendments, on practitioner admission and discipline, do not touch it.
Today a case waits for a trial notice and a standing pretrial order whose deadlines count back from trial. The pilot reverses that. For a self-represented petitioner in Artesia or Portales, I would expect the informal exchange to start sooner. Rule 70(a)(1) expects informal consultation before formal discovery, which Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974), said “means exactly what it says,” and Rule 91(a)(1) requires stipulation “to the fullest extent” the parties can fairly agree.
That is my inference. The Court has not said which cases or cities are in, or whether S cases qualify, and the order’s dates are unknown.
Can a New Mexico Tax Court trial be held remotely on Zoomgov?
Yes, if the judge agrees. Administrative Order 2021-01 keeps in-person trial as the default but lets “either party” file a Motion to Proceed Remotely up to 31 days before the session, granted at the judge’s discretion. The January 2026 sample standing pretrial order repeats that deadline; Rule 140 is not the vehicle. Stand-alone remote sessions are set for the weeks of November 16 and December 14, 2026.
From Clovis, a laptop beats any drive. It works less well when credibility is the whole case. I decide after the stipulation is drafted.
How would a Hobbs oilfield services owner weigh an S case in Albuquerque or Lubbock?
Illustration only. The IRS determines a $38,000 deficiency for 2024 after disallowing equipment rental and subcontract labor, plus the 20 percent accuracy penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a), $7,600. With the penalty counted, $45,600 is in dispute, under the $50,000 line.
If the fight is over whether crews were paid, with records in Lea County and crew leads who would lose a workday to testify, I would lean toward an S case in Lubbock, about 100 miles away against roughly 260 to Albuquerque. If it turns on a legal reading, say whether the rent was really an installment purchase of equipment, a regular case keeps the Tenth Circuit open, and the city matters less because the appeal goes to Denver either way.
| Option for the Hobbs owner | Sessions, Fall 2025 to Winter 2027 | Appeal | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|
| S case, Lubbock | El Paso/Lubbock swing, March 2026 and January 2027 | None, § 7463(b) | Fact disputes with local witnesses |
| S case, Albuquerque | One hybrid session, May 2026 | None | Advisors or records near the Rio Grande |
| Regular case, Lubbock | Same swing session | Tenth Circuit, § 7482(b)(1)(A) | Legal issues that will recur |
| Regular case, Denver | Five sessions in four terms | Tenth Circuit | Most frequent regional calendar, long trip |
| Remote (Zoomgov) | Remote calendars each term | Depends on S status | Motion to Proceed Remotely, 31 days out |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Albuquerque the only Tax Court trial city in New Mexico?
Yes. It is the only New Mexico location among the Court’s 79 places of trial, and it has no permanent courtroom. El Paso, Lubbock, Denver and Phoenix are the nearest alternatives.
Can I change my place of trial after filing?
Yes, by a motion under Rule 140(b) stating the reasons. A motion filed after the trial notice may be denied as dilatory unless the reason arose later or there was good cause for waiting.
Can I appeal a small tax case decision to the Tenth Circuit?
No. Section 7463(b) bars review in any other court, for you and the IRS alike. To keep that option, file as regular or move before trial to remove the S designation.
Does the $50,000 small tax case limit include penalties?
Yes, in a deficiency case. The limit applies year by year, so a three-year dispute can qualify if no single year goes over $50,000.
When does the reporting calendar pilot start?
No earlier than the Fall 2027 term. The Court has not said which cases will be included and has promised more information first.
How North Star Law Firm Can Help
North Star Law Firm handles Tax Court litigation for New Mexico taxpayers, from the place-of-trial request through trial, and represents them in IRS Appeals and collection due process hearings. Its tax defense work starts earlier, with which forum to use at all.
Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, represents taxpayers before the IRS and the U.S. Tax Court and is admitted to the U.S. District Court and Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico. The firm works alongside New Mexico-licensed counsel on state-law questions. If a notice of deficiency has you choosing between Albuquerque, Lubbock and the small-case box, contact North Star Law Firm.