{ "id": 15521, "name": "James A. HOLT and Terri L. Holt, Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION & REVENUE, Defendant-Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Holt v. New Mexico Department of Taxation & Revenue", "decision_date": "2002-11-13", "docket_number": "No. 27,445", "first_page": "11", "last_page": "20", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "133 N.M. 11" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "59 P.3d 491" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "2002-NMSC-034" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "123 N.M. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 142211 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/123/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 N.M. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 106506 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/128/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 N.M. 793", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 727643 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "796" }, { "page": "1178" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/116/0793-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2871426 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526" }, { "page": "1043" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N.M. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1566485 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" }, { "page": "229" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/121/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 N.M. 751", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1580013 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "753" }, { "page": "656" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/102/0751-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 N.M. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 716906 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "373" }, { "page": "266" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/110/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 N.M. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 827423 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/126/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 N.M. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1552724 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" }, { "page": "259" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/117/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 U.S. 252", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3507165 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1884, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/111/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 U.S. 175", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3930437 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1936, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/297/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "753 F.2d 1208", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 292500 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/753/1208-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2762648 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "612" }, { "page": "356" }, { "page": "613" }, { "page": "357", "parenthetical": "\"The taxpayers' position would have the effect of foreclosing any investigation of potential tax liability once a taxpayer asserts the records presented by him [or her] were accurate.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "332 Or. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or.", "case_ids": [ 9452579 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "en banc" }, { "page": "822", "parenthetical": "en banc" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or/332/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 L.Ed. 731", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "case_ids": [ 3914322, 3912599 ], "year": 1930, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "concluding that, based on an earlier version of the federal tax code, \"[t]here is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/281/0111-01", "/us/281/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "281 U.S. 111", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3914322 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1930, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "114", "parenthetical": "concluding that, based on an earlier version of the federal tax code, \"[t]here is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them\"" }, { "parenthetical": "concluding that, based on an earlier version of the federal tax code, \"[t]here is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/281/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "670 F.2d 923", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1156510 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "925" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/670/0923-01" ] }, { "cite": "633 F.2d 1356", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1298266 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1361" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/633/1356-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 U.S. 399", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3671121 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1913, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "415" }, { "page": "415" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/231/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 U.S. 509", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 341562 ], "weight": 12, "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "519" }, { "page": "514-15" }, { "page": "516" }, { "page": "517" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/255/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 U.S. 179", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1484702 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1918, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "185", "parenthetical": "\"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, ... the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.\"" }, { "parenthetical": "\"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, ... the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.\"" }, { "parenthetical": "\"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, ... the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/247/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 L.Ed. 483", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 U.S. 426", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6931705 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430-31" }, { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/348/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 U.S. 189", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 551495 ], "weight": 9, "year": 1920, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206" }, { "page": "199" }, { "page": "207" }, { "page": "207" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/252/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "535 F.2d 400", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1062205 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "403" }, { "page": "404", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/535/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 Wis.2d 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8675200 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "rejecting the argument that wages are not taxable income and holding that \"today's tax laws empower the State of Wisconsin to tax 'all income,' no matter from what source it may be derived\"" }, { "page": "759", "parenthetical": "rejecting the argument that wages are not taxable income and holding that \"today's tax laws empower the State of Wisconsin to tax 'all income,' no matter from what source it may be derived\"" }, { "page": "758", "parenthetical": "alterations in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis-2d/133/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "2002 WL 1732987", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "*3" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "539 N.E.2d 768", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "777", "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 Ill.Dec. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. Dec.", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ill.App.3d 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2629580 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/183/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 Idaho 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Idaho", "case_ids": [ 4428919 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"The fact that wages constitute income is settled law.\"" }, { "page": "1164", "parenthetical": "\"The fact that wages constitute income is settled law.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/idaho/107/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 Hawai'i 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Haw.", "case_ids": [ 12264162 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"Taxpayers here had no reasonable basis to believe that wages were not properly subject to income taxes given the universal and longstanding rejection of this argument.\"" }, { "page": "381", "parenthetical": "\"Taxpayers here had no reasonable basis to believe that wages were not properly subject to income taxes given the universal and longstanding rejection of this argument.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/haw/98/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "351 F.2d 580", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 807864 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "582" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/351/0580-01" ] }, { "cite": "724 F.2d 469", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1920030 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "471-72" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/724/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "731 F.2d 743", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 6126980, 1943845 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "744" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/br/38/0743-01", "/f2d/731/0743-01" ] }, { "cite": "746 F.2d 1187", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 648849 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1188" }, { "page": "1188" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/746/1187-01" ] }, { "cite": "770 F.2d 17", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 332903 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/770/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "788 F.2d 33", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 3607064, 1569454 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "35" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us-app-dc/252/0131-01", "/f2d/788/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "788 F.2d 813", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1569524 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "815" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/788/0813-01" ] }, { "cite": "791 F.2d 68", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10544475 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70" }, { "page": "69", "parenthetical": "\"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest____ The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/791/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "805 F.2d 902", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1111775 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "904-05" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/805/0902-01" ] }, { "cite": "806 F.2d 1451", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1655859 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1453" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/806/1451-01" ] }, { "cite": "999 F.2d 1255", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 11961882 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1256" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/999/1255-01" ] }, { "cite": "498 U.S. 192", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6221945 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "202" }, { "parenthetical": "recognizing the \"duty to file a return and to treat wages as income \" and holding that a good faith misconception is a defense to federal criminal charges of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return and willfully attempting to evade income taxes" }, { "parenthetical": "recognizing the \"duty to file a return and to treat wages as income \" and holding that a good faith misconception is a defense to federal criminal charges of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return and willfully attempting to evade income taxes" }, { "page": "209-10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/498/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "599 F.Supp. 118", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3720047 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "121" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/599/0118-01" ] }, { "cite": "898 F.2d 942", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10537953 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "943" }, { "page": "943-44", "parenthetical": "same" }, { "page": "943", "parenthetical": "rejecting a similar argument and stating that Eisner is \"a case patently inapposite because it held merely that a stock dividend made to shareholders in their proportionate interests against profits accumulated by the corporation was not income\"" }, { "page": "943" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/898/0942-01" ] }, { "cite": "735 N.E.2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "723 N.E.2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 11480908 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "490" }, { "page": "490-91", "parenthetical": "same" }, { "page": "490" }, { "page": "490" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ne2d/723/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "7404 R, 2002", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "R,", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quotation marks and quoted authority omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.M. 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 725392 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311", "parenthetical": "\"[T]he plain language of the statute [is] the primary indicator of legislative intent.\"" }, { "page": "1014", "parenthetical": "\"[T]he plain language of the statute [is] the primary indicator of legislative intent.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/115/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Stat. 1", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 P.3d 584", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "case_ids": [ 1254107, 1254119 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "586", "parenthetical": "en banc" }, { "page": "586", "parenthetical": "holding that wages are taxable income and stating that the court \"discovered no federal administrative or judicial authority to the contrary\"" }, { "page": "586", "parenthetical": "\"Federal courts repeatedly have rejected, as frivolous and without basis in the Code, the argument made here by taxpayer that wages are not taxable income.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or/331/0249-01", "/or/331/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 Or. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or.", "case_ids": [ 1254119 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "en banc" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or/331/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "687 F.2d 264", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1461267 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "265" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/687/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "661 F.2d 71", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1181910 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "72" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/661/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "765 F.2d 1083", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 383770 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1084" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/765/1083-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 U.S. 331", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6140709 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "334" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/309/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 U.S. 77", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6179534 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "82", "parenthetical": "quoting Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788 (1940) and holding that payments for a meal-allowance are income within the definition of gross income" }, { "parenthetical": "quoting Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788 (1940) and holding that payments for a meal-allowance are income within the definition of gross income" }, { "parenthetical": "quoting Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788 (1940) and holding that payments for a meal-allowance are income within the definition of gross income" }, { "page": "83" }, { "page": "83" }, { "page": "n. 13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/434/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 N.M. 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2840991 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "416" }, { "page": "1305" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/88/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "489 N.W.2d 525", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10631664, 10631778, 10632005 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529" }, { "page": "528", "parenthetical": "\"Appellant's return is not correct____By claiming a refund of all with-holdings, appellant directly contradicts that part of his return showing that he owed taxes.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/489/0525-01", "/nw2d/489/0525-02", "/nw2d/489/0525-03" ] }, { "cite": "26 S.Ct. 459", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 344894 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1906, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/201/0245-02" ] }, { "cite": "201 U.S. 245", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 344946, 344894 ], "year": 1906, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "292-93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/201/0245-01", "/us/201/0245-02" ] }, { "cite": "153 Ariz. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 1496604 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "100" }, { "page": "100", "parenthetical": "holding \"[tjhat wages are income for tax purposes\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/153/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N.M. 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1573127 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "481" }, { "page": "711" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/94/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N.M. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1561323 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "317-18" }, { "page": "1239-40" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/119/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 P.3d 100", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.M. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1565, "char_count": 38222, "ocr_confidence": 0.701, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.093369468633569e-08, "percentile": 0.38032854425103546 }, "sha256": "0e30e40752814fc132e5e0d49ffccf279269249164f7c28ff14381a54dc56f0a", "simhash": "1:2d197c70deaa97e3", "word_count": 6255 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:37:22.762722+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "WE CONCUR: GENE E. FRANCHINI, PAMELA B. MINZNER, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, and PAUL J. KENNEDY, Justices." ], "parties": [ "James A. HOLT and Terri L. Holt, Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION & REVENUE, Defendant-Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSERNA, Chief Justice.\n{1} This Court granted the petition of James A. Holt and Terri L. Holt (taxpayers) for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals following its affirmance of the New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue (Department) hearing officer\u2019s denial of their protest and request for a refund. Holt v. N.M. Dep\u2019t of Taxation & Revenue, NMCA 22,622, slip op. at 1 (Mar. 5, 2002), cert. granted, 132 N.M. 193, 46 P.3d 100 (2002). The taxpayers argue that they are not liable for state income tax on wages earned by their employment within New Mexico. We hold that employment wages are income for purposes of taxation. We also hold that the Department has the authority to examine information or evidence in order to determine or establish an individual\u2019s tax liability. Thus, we affirm.\nI. Facts and Background\n{2} The taxpayers reported zero as the amount for their federal adjusted gross income on their federal tax return. They reported zero as their New Mexico taxable income. The taxpayers reported that $2009 had been withheld by the State, and they requested a refund. The taxpayers\u2019 W-2 forms for the tax year at issue showed that James Holt earned $47,561.03 in wages from his employment with the Public Service Company of New Mexico and that Terri Holt earned $15,281.28 in wages from her employment with BGK Asset Management Corporation. The Department established that their taxes were $2449 based on these W-2 forms and thus determined that they owed $440 in state income tax. The hearing officer denied the taxpayers\u2019 protest and request for a refund.\n{3} The hearing officer issued a complete decision that thoroughly addressed the taxpayers\u2019 arguments. The Court of Appeals decided this appeal on the summary calendar, see Rule 12-210(D) NMRA 2002, and affirmed by memorandum opinion, see Rule 12-405(B) NMRA 2002, perhaps on the basis that the issues raised were \u201cmanifestly without merit.\u201d Rule 12-405(B)(5). While we agree that these issues are manifestly without merit, we granted certiorari and now resolve the issues by opinion because the appeal appears to present an issue of first impression and arguments that are likely to arise again, causing unnecessary expenditure of public resources. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 34-5-14(B)(4) (1972) (providing that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of the Court of Appeals by writ of certiorari for issues of substantial public interest).\nII. Discussion\nA. Standard of Review\n{4} An appellate court may set aside a decision by the Taxation and Revenue Department hearing officer only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, if it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, or if it is otherwise not in accordance with the law. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 7-1-25(C) (1989); Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep\u2019t, 119 N.M. 316, 317-18, 889 P.2d 1238, 1239-40 (Ct.App.1994). It is the taxpayers\u2019 burden to demonstrate the existence of one of these bases for vacating the hearing officer\u2019s decision. \u201cAny assessment of taxes or demand for payment made by the department is presumed to be correct.\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 7-1-17(C) (1992). \u201cThe burden is on the taxpayer protesting an assessment by the [Department] to overcome the presumption that the [Department\u2019s] assessment is correct.\u201d Hawthorne v. Dir. of Revenue Div. Taxation & Revenue Dep\u2019t, 94 N.M. 480, 481, 612 P.2d 710, 711 (Ct.App.1980). The taxpayers fail to carry their burden; to the contrary, the decision of the hearing officer is particularly thorough and comprehensively addresses the arguments made by the taxpayers and the authority relied upon by them. On the other hand, the taxpayers do not address the overwhelming authority discussed in the hearing officer\u2019s decision that answers their claim.\nB. Employment Wages are Taxable Income\n{5} The taxpayers argue that the wages they earned from their employment in New Mexico are not subject to either state or federal income tax, based on their reading of the federal tax statutes, cases, and regulations. They claim, based on their view of federal law, that they correctly completed a federal return, reporting zero as the amount of their adjusted gross income. The taxpayers assert that they must use this amount, zero, as their adjusted gross income for purposes of our state income tax, in accordance with state statutes, NMSA 1978, \u00a7 7-2-21.1 (1981) (\u201cA taxpayer shall use the same accounting methods for reporting income for New Mexico income tax purposes as are used in reporting income for federal income tax purposes.\u201d), and the rules and instructions in their state tax booklet. As discussed below, we reject these arguments.\n{6} As a general matter, the State of New Mexico has the authority to assess and collect taxes without federal supervision. See Dep\u2019t of Revenue v. Arthur, 153 Ariz. 1, 734 P.2d 98, 100 (Ariz.Ct.App.1986) (\u201cThe State of Arizona\u2019s power to tax is independent of the Constitution of the United States.\u201d). As noted by both the hearing officer and the Court of Appeals, the United States Supreme Court expressed:\nWe have had frequent occasion to consider questions of state taxation in the light of the Federal Constitution, and the scope and limits of National interference are well settled. There is no general supervision on the part of the Nation over state taxation, and in respect to the latter the state has, speaking generally, the freedom of a sovereign both as to objects and methods.\nMich. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U.S. 245, 292-93, 26 S.Ct. 459, 50 L.Ed. 744 (1906); accord Weed v. Comm\u2019r of Revenue, 489 N.W.2d 525, 529 (Minn.Ct.App.1992) (relying on Powers, and holding, \u201cThe state need not rely on a constitutional amendment for the power to tax. The states possess the powers of a sovereign.\u201d).\n{7} Under NMSA 1978, \u00a7 7-2-3 (1981), \u201c[a] tax is imposed at the rates specified in the Income Tax Act upon the net income of every resident individual and upon the net income of every nonresident employed or engaged in the transaction of business in, into or from this state, or deriving any income from any property or employment within this state.\u201d As discussed below, we conclude that the taxpayers\u2019 employment wages clearly falls within the term \u201cnet income.\u201d\n{8} The Legislature has set out the method for determining an individual\u2019s taxable income. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 7-2-2(N) (1993) states that \u201c \u2018net income\u2019 \u201d is \u201cbase income\u201d adjusted to exclude specific amounts which are not taxed, such as the standard deduction allowed by the federal government. See \u00a7 7-2-2(N)(1). In relation to the taxpayers, \u201c \u2018base income\u2019 \u201d is defined by Section 7-2-2(B) as their \u201cadjusted gross income,\u201d adding or subtracting particular types of interest and deductions. Section 7-2-2(A) states that \u201c \u2018adjusted gross income\u2019 means adjusted gross income as defined in Section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code.\u201d\n{9} Thus, Section 7-2-2(A) incorporates by reference the definition from the Internal Revenue Code. \u201c[A] state has the power to gauge its income tax by reference to the income on which the taxpayer is required to pay a tax to the United States.\u201d Champion Int\u2019l Corp. v. Bureau of Revenue, 88 N.M. 411, 416, 540 P.2d 1300, 1305 (Ct.App.1975). Section 62 defines adjusted gross income as gross income minus specific deductions. Pursuant to I.R.C. \u00a7 61(a), \u201cgross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) ... [compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.... \u201d\n{10} The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that \u201c[t]he Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.\u201d \u201cThe starting point in the determination of the scope of \u2018gross income\u2019 is the cardinal principle that Congress in creating the income tax intended \u2018to use the full measure of its taxing power.\u2019 \u201d Comm\u2019r v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77, 82, 98 S.Ct. 315, 54 L.Ed.2d 252 (1977) (quoting Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788 (1940) and holding that payments for a meal-allowance are income within the definition of gross income). \u201c \u2018Exercising this power, Congress has defined income as including compensation for services. [Section] 61(a)(1).\u2019 \u201d Hyslep v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting Lonsdale v. Comm\u2019r, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. Nov.1981)). \u201cIn sum, the sixteenth amendment authorizes the imposition of a tax upon income without apportionment among the states, and under the statute, the term \u2018income\u2019 includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered.\u201d Funk v. Comm\u2019r, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir.1982). We conclude that the wages the taxpayers earned from their New Mexico employers is compensation for services under Section 61 and is thus part of the taxpayers\u2019 gross income for purposes of New Mexico income tax. See, e.g., Combs v. Dep\u2019t of Revenue, 331 Or. 245, 14 P.3d 584, 586 (2000) (en banc) (\u201cSection 61(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code defines \u2018gross income\u2019 to include \u2018[compensation for services.\u2019 \u201d).\n{11} The taxpayers argued to the hearing officer that the fact that the definition of \u201cgross income\u201d in the 1939 version of the statute included the terms \u201csalaries\u201d and \u201cwages\u201d but these terms were not included in the 1954 version supports their claim that Congress did not intend to include wages within the meaning of \u201cgross income.\u201d See Internal Revenue Code of 1939, ch. 1, \u00a7 21, 53 Stat. 1, 9 (repealed 1954). The hearing officer correctly rejected this argument. \u201cAlthough Congress simplified the definition of gross income in \u00a7 61 of the 1954 Code, it did not intend thereby to narrow the scope of that concept.\u201d Kowalski, 434 U.S. at 83, 98 S.Ct. 315. The Supreme Court observed that \u201c \u2018[Section 61] corresponds to section 22(a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22(a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61(a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a).\u2019 \u201d Id. at 83, 98 S.Ct. 315, n. 13 (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 83-1337 (1954), reprinted in 1954 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4017, 4155). The broad nature of the term \u201cgross income\u201d thus includes wages or salaries.\n{12} The taxpayers argue that Section 61 \u201conly attempts to define \u2018gross [i]ncome\u2019 but fails to do so because it defines \u2018gross income\u2019 by stating \u2018[g]ross [i]ncome means all income ...\u2019. A word cannot be defined by using the same word in the definition.\u201d This argument is without merit for several reasons. First, the taxpayers fail to include the operative portion of the definition in their petition. Through its plain language, Section 61(a) includes \u201ccompensation for services\u201d in its definition of gross income. Our conclusion that compensation for services equals wages earned from employment is confirmed by state statute. Section 7-2-2(C) states that \u201c \u2018compensation\u2019 means wages, salaries, commissions and any other form of remuneration paid to employees for personal services.\u201d The plain language of Section 7-2-2(C) and Section 7-2-3 specifically indicates that employment wages and salaries are taxable income. See Whitely v. N.M. State Pers. Bd., 115 N.M. 308, 311, 850 P.2d 1011, 1014 (1993) (\u201c[T]he plain language of the statute [is] the primary indicator of legislative intent.\u201d). Second, if our Legislature, or Congress, chooses to use one of the same words being defined in its definition, that is its prerogative. \u201cUnless a word or phrase is defined in the statute or rule being construed, its meaning is determined by its context, the rules of grammar and common usage. A word or phrase that has acquired a technical or particular meaning in a particular context has that meaning if it is used in that context.\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 12-2A-2 (1997). Some courts have turned to dictionary definitions of the word \u201cincome\u201d in order to address similar arguments, defining income as \u201ca gain or recurrent benefit usu[ally] measured in money that derives from capital or labor.\u201d Lucero v. Comm\u2019r of Revenue, No. 7404 R, 2002 WL 1732987, at *3 (Minn. T.C. July 24, 2002) (quotation marks and quoted authority omitted) (alteration in original). \u201cWages, by common definition, constitute payment for employment services____ See, e.g., Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 766, 1573 (7th ed.1999) (defining \u2018income\u2019 as \u2018payment that one receives ... from employment\u2019 and \u2018wage\u2019 as \u2018Payment for labor or services\u2019).\u201d Snyder v. Ind. Dep\u2019t of State Revenue, 723 N.E.2d 487, 490 (Ind. T.C.2000) (citation omitted) (second omission in original), cert. denied, 735 N.E.2d 233 (Ind.2000). Finally, as discussed below, \u201cincome\u201d is an extremely broad term defined by context. Income, in the context of taxes, includes within its definition employment wages and salaries, as well as \u201cgains derived from dealings in property,\u201d interest, rents, and royalties, among many other categories. Section 61.\n{13} The taxpayers do not cite any on point cases for their claim that an individual\u2019s employment wages are not subject to income tax. We do not find such authority. See, e.g., United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943 (3rd Cir.1990) (\u201cEvery court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.\u201d); Hill v. United States, 599 F.Supp. 118, 121 (M.D.Tenn.1984) (\u201c[N]o Court of the land has ever held or suggested that the Congress could not tax constitutionally wages as income.\u201d); Combs, 14 P.3d at 586 (holding that wages are taxable income and stating that the court \u201cdiscovered no federal administrative or judicial authority to the contrary\u201d).\n{14} In their petition to this Court, the taxpayers make no attempt to refute the overwhelming on point authority holding that employment wages are taxable income, including the numerous eases to which the hearing officer directed them. The United States Supreme Court, as well as every circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, has recognized that employment wages are taxable income. E.g., Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) (recognizing the \u201cduty to file a return and to treat wages as income \u201d and holding that a good faith misconception is a defense to federal criminal charges of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return and willfully attempting to evade income taxes) (emphasis added); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (holding that \u201cwages are within the definition of income under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to taxation\u201d); Connor, 898 F.2d at 943-44 (same); Grimes v. Comm\u2019r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (concluding that \u201cSections 1 and 61 of the Internal Revenue Code impose a tax on income, and wages are income\u201d); Casper v. Comm\u2019r, 805 F.2d 902, 904-05 (10th Cir.1986) (\u201cAppellant\u2019s contention that the amounts he received from his employers constituted an equal, nontaxable exchange of property rather than taxable income is clearly without merit____ Value received in exchange for services constitutes taxable income pursuant to I.R.C. \u00a7 61(a)(1).\u201d); Coleman v. Comm\u2019r, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir.1986) (\u201cWages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional.\u201d); Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir.1986) (per curiam) (stating that \u201c[cjourts uniformly have rejected as frivolous the arguments that money received in compensation for labor is not taxable income\u201d); Mathes v. Comm\u2019r, 788 F.2d 33, 35 (D.C.Cir.1986) (same); Connor v. Comm\u2019r, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir.1985) (per curiam) (\u201cThe taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a nontaxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.\u201d) (citation omitted); Perkins v. Comm\u2019r, 746 F.2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (holding that \u201cgross income means all income from whatever source derived including compensation for services\u201d); Simanonok v. Comm\u2019r, 731 F.2d 743, 744 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (rejecting a taxpayer\u2019s argument that \u201che had not received income because his paychecks were received in exchange for his costs and disbursements of labor\u201d); Parker v. Comm\u2019r, 724 F.2d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir.1984) (addressing income tax on wages, pensions, and capital gains, and noting \u201cit seems incredible that we would again be required to hold that the Constitution, as amended, empowers the Congress to levy an income tax against any source of income, without the need to apportion the tax equally among the states, or to classify it as an excise tax applicable to specific categories of activities\u201d); Comm\u2019r v. Mendel, 351 F.2d 580, 582 (4th Cir.1965) (discussing permissible deductions and noting \u201cthat any economic or financial benefit conferred on an employee as compensation is gross income\u201d). Many state courts, including Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin, have also concluded that wages are taxable income. E.g., Arthur, 734 P.2d at 100 (holding \u201c[tjhat wages are income for tax purposes\u201d); Rhoads v. Okamura, 98 Hawai'i 407, 49 P.3d 373, 381 (2002) (\u201cTaxpayers here had no reasonable basis to believe that wages were not properly subject to income taxes given the universal and longstanding rejection of this argument.\u201d) (quoted authority omitted) (emphasis added in original); Idaho State Tax Comm\u2019n v. Payton, 107 Idaho 258, 688 P.2d 1163, 1164 (1984) (\u201cThe fact that wages constitute income is settled law.\u201d); People v. Wendt, 183 Ill.App.3d 389, 132 Ill.Dec. 205, 539 N.E.2d 768, 777 (1989) (same); Snyder, 723 N.E.2d at 490-91 (same); Lucero, 2002 WL 1732987, at *3 (same); Combs, 14 P.3d at 586 (\u201cFederal courts repeatedly have rejected, as frivolous and without basis in the Code, the argument made here by taxpayer that wages are not taxable income.\u201d); Tracy v. Wis. Dep\u2019t of Revenue, 133 Wis.2d 151, 394 N.W.2d 756, 759 (1986) (rejecting the argument that wages are not taxable income and holding that \u201ctoday\u2019s tax laws empower the State of Wisconsin to tax \u2018all income,\u2019 no matter from what source it may be derived\u201d).\n{15} Rather than address on point authority that the hearing officer directed to taxpayers, they instead reiterate to this Court arguments soundly rejected by the hearing officer as well as the Court of Appeals. The taxpayers assert that \u201cincome\u201d is not defined by the federal tax code, relying on United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir.1976). First, Ballard addressed business losses and does not support taxpayers\u2019 argument that employment wages are not taxable. 535 F.2d at 403. Second, while Ballard does state that \u201c[t]he general term \u2018income\u2019 is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code,\u201d Ballard next observes that \u201cSection 61 of the Code defines \u2018gross income\u2019 to mean all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; ... (5) Rents[.]\u201d Id. at 404 (citation omitted) (alteration and omission in original).\n{16} The taxpayers argue that \u201cCongress can not [sic] define \u2018income,\u2019\u201d relying on Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206, 40 S.Ct. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521 (1920). They appear to argue that Congress cannot give the term income a broader meaning than that used in the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Eisner, however, does not support the taxpayer\u2019s argument that Section 61(a) violates the Sixteenth Amendment. Connor, 898 F.2d at 943 (rejecting a similar argument and stating that Eisner is \u201ca case patently inapposite because it held merely that a stock dividend made to shareholders in their proportionate interests against profits accumulated by the corporation was not income\u201d). Eisner addressed \u201cthe question whether, by virtue of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to tax, as income of the stockholder and without apportionment, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith against profits accumulated by the corporation.\u201d 252 U.S. at 199, 40 S.Ct. 189. Eisner relied on the meaning of income \u201cas used in common speech\u201d and defined income, for the purposes of stock dividends, as \u201cthe gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.\u201d Id. at 207, 40 S.Ct. 189 (quotation marks and quoted authority omitted). As discussed below, this broad definition includes as income a gain derived from labor; nothing in Eisner suggests that employment wages are excluded from any definition of income. See Snyder, 723 N.E.2d at 490 (\u201cThe Court in Eisner did not discuss what constituted a \u2018gain derived from labor.\u2019 However, by analogy to the Court\u2019s treatment of \u2018gain derived from capital,\u2019 one could reasonably surmise that the Court in Eisner would have viewed wages as representing the \u2018gain\u2019 or \u2018profit\u2019 independent and separate from the labor an individual provided in exchange for his or her wages.\u201d). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in rejecting this type of argument, articulated:\nAs the Supreme Court later explained in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430-31, 75 S.Ct. 473, 99 L.Ed. 483 (1955), the Eisner Court held that the distribution of a corporate stock dividend changed only the form of the taxpayer\u2019s capital investment, and that because the taxpayer received nothing out of the company\u2019s assets for his separate use and benefit, the distribution was not a taxable event. Glenshaw reiterated that Congress intended to use the full measure of its taxing power in creating the income tax.\nConnor, 898 F.2d at 943. The Supreme Court stated that the definition of income in Eisner \u201cwas not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions.\u201d Glenshaw, 348 U.S. at 431, 75 S.Ct. 473. In sum, \u201c[njeither Eisner nor Glenshaw Glass stands for the proposition that wages are not income.\u201d Snyder, 723 N.E.2d at 490. \u201c[Section 61(a)] is in full accordance with Congressional authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to impose taxes on income without apportionment among the states.\u201d Perkins, 746 F.2d at 1188.\n{17} The taxpayers argue that income \u201ccan only mean a corporate profit,\u201d relying on several cases from the United States Supreme Court, and that Sections 61 and 62 do not distinguish between individuals and corporations. See Doyle v. Mitchell Bros., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054 (1918) (\u201cWhatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of \u2018income,\u2019 it imports, as used here, ... the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.\u201d). As the hearing officer decided, Doyle refers solely to the issue before it: whether the company\u2019s gain from the sale of capital assets was subject to the corporation income tax. Doyle therefore does not aid the taxpayers.\n{18} The taxpayers argue that Merchants\u2019 Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 41 S.Ct. 386, 65 L.Ed. 751 (1921) supports their claim that, because the Supreme Court equated income under the Income Tax Act with income under the Corporation Excise Tax Act, only corporate profits are taxable. See id. at 519, 41 S.Ct. 386 (\u201c[T]here would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.\u201d). Again, the hearing officer responded to this argument. The definitively settled definition to which the Court referred was that income means \u201c \u2018the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting Stratton\u2019s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913)). Eisner also relied on this definition of income and noted that it includes \u201cprofit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.\u201d 252 U.S. at 207, 40 S.Ct. 189. The Supreme Court did not hold, in Smietanka, that \u201cincome\u201d is limited to corporate profits. Indeed, the tax in that case was assessed against a trust fund established in a will by an individual. Smietanka, 255 U.S. at 514-15, 41 S.Ct. 386. The Supreme Court noted that the trustee was a \u201ctaxable person\u201d within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and was \u201csubject to all the provisions of [the Act] which apply to individuals.\u201d Id. at 516, 41 S.Ct. 386 (quotation marks and quoted authority omitted). The Court further noted that the income of the trust would be treated \u201cas if the beneficiaries[, being a widow and her four children,] had received it in person.\u201d Id. at 517, 41 S.Ct. 386. Clearly, the Court contemplated the application of its definition of the word \u201cincome\u201d to individuals.\n{19} The taxpayers claim that the wages they earned from their employment are not a profit or gain which can be taxed; instead it is an \u201cequal exchange of funds for services.\u201d As recognized by the hearing officer, this argument has been rejected by numerous courts. See, e.g., United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir.1980) (rejecting the argument by a taxpayer that because \u201cthe wage earner exchanges his [or her] labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he [or she] derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed\u201d); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir.1982) (\u201cThe defendant\u2019s wages for personal services are income under the Internal Revenue Code.... Notwithstanding [his] belief that his wages are not gains or profits but merely what he has received in an equal exchange for his services, the Internal Revenue Code clearly includes compensation of this nature within reportable gross income.\u201d). We join these courts in rejecting this proposition. See Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114, 50 S.Ct. 241, 74 L.Ed. 731 (1930) (concluding that, based on an earlier version of the federal tax code, \u201c[t]here is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them\u201d); Howbert, 231 U.S. at 415, 34 S.Ct. 136 (noting that \u201cthe earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital\u201d are treated as income).\n{20} The New Mexico Legislature has imposed a tax \u201cupon the net income of every resident individual and upon the net income of every nonresident individual employed or engaged in the transaction of business in, into or from this state, or deriving any income from any property or employment within this state.\u201d Section 7-2-3. We conclude, along with apparently every court which has addressed the issue, that employment wages are taxable income. Thus, the employment wages earned by the taxpayers are subject to our state income tax. As the hearing officer decided, \u201c[t]here really is no question that the Taxpayers\u2019 compensation for personal services performed in New Mexico come within the definition of \u2018gross income\u2019 in IRC Section 61 and are subject to both federal and state income tax.\u201d The hearing officer noted that \u201c[t]he [taxpayers appear to be intelligent people who are sincere in their beliefs. Nonetheless, those beliefs are clearly wrong.\u201d With this opinion, this Court makes plain our holding that employment wages are income subject to tax and that, considering the universal rejection of similar arguments, these arguments are frivolous. E.g., Cheek, 498 U.S. at 209-10, 111 S.Ct. 604 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (\u201c[I]t is incomprehensible ... how, in this day, more than [seventy] years after the institution of our present federal income tax system, ... any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his [or her] defense to charges of statutory wilfulness the proposition that the wage he [or she] receives for his [or her] labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections.\u201d); Clark v. Dep\u2019t of Revenue, 332 Or. 236, 26 P.3d 821, 822 (2001) (en banc) (per curiam) (\u201cTaxpayer\u2019s views concerning the voluntary nature of the income tax system and the nontaxability of wages paid by private employers for an individual\u2019s labor, however honestly held, are so incorrect as to render legal arguments based on them frivolous.\u201d); Coleman, 791 F.2d at 69 (\u201cSome people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest____ The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.\u201d).\nC. The Department\u2019s Authority to Determine Tax Liability\n{21} The taxpayers argue that the Department had no authority to recalculate their taxable income. The taxpayers claim that they \u201ccorrectly and legally filled out their federal return\u201d and that they used the taxable amount, zero, on their state return, thus correctly completing the state return. The hearing officer described the position of the taxpayers as follows: \u201c[U]ntil the Internal Revenue Service makes an adjustment to the Taxpayers\u2019 1999 federal income tax return, the Department is bound to accept the zero federal adjusted gross reported on the Taxpayers\u2019 return.\u201d The taxpayers cite no authority for their position.\n{22} The taxpayers assert that the Department \u201cis only \u2018authorized to examine\u2019 records [NMSA 1978, \u00a7 7-1-4(A) (1986)] not to \u2018judge the correctness\u2019 ... of Plaintiffs\u2019 federal adjusted gross income.\u201d We reject these arguments. Again, the taxpayers fail to read the statutory provision in full.\nFor the purpose of establishing or determining the extent of the liability of any person for any tax, for the purpose of collecting any tax or for the purpose of enforcing any statute administered under the provisions of the Tax Administration Act, the secretary or the secretary\u2019s delegate is authorized to examine ... and require the production of any pertinent records, books, information or evidence, to require the presence of any person and to require that person to testify under oath concerning the subject matter of the inquiry and to make a permanent record of the proceedings.\nNMSA 1978, \u00a7 7-1-4(A) (1986) (emphasis added); cf. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 7-1-11(D) (2001) (\u201cIf the taxpayer\u2019s records and books of account do not exist or are insufficient to determine the taxpayer\u2019s tax liability, if any, the department may use any reasonable method of estimating the tax liability, including but not limited to using information about similar persons, businesses or industries to estimate the taxpayer\u2019s liability.\u201d). Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals\u2019 holding that, by statute, the Department has the authority to examine records in order to determine the extent of the taxpayers\u2019 liability to pay state income tax. Holt, NMCA 22,622, at 5; cf Torridge Corp. v. Comm\u2019r of Revenue, 84 N.M. 610, 612, 506 P.2d 354, 356 (Ct.App.1972) (\u201cWe deem [an earlier version of Section 7-1 \u2014 1(A) ] not only as authority to examine pertinent books and records for the purpose of verification but also as authority to reconstruct records when they are destroyed.\u201d).\n{23} As the hearing officer determined, calculation of the taxpayers\u2019 state income tax is based upon their adjusted gross income as defined in Section 7-2-2(A), and this amount is not limited to the figure the taxpayers chose to report as their adjusted gross income on their federal return. The taxpayers maintain that they did not make any errors on the federal tax form. We disagree. \u201c[T]ax statutes normally are such that the taxpayer has the obligation of self-declaration of any incident which has a tax consequence.\u201d Martin, 90 N.M. at 526, 565 P.2d at 1043. The taxpayers\u2019 federal form, viewed in light of their W-2 forms, was incorrect on its face. \u201c[T]he system of self-assessment is the basis of our American scheme of income taxation and the duty of the taxpayer to self-assess is not met unless the return is properly filled out in its entirety.\u201d Kahn v. United States, 753 F.2d 1208, 1213 (3rd Cir.1985) (\u201cAlthough the return in this instance contained sufficient information for the IRS to judge the correctness of the self-assessment and to recalculate and assess the tax properly owed after it disallowed the war tax credit, the return filled out by the taxpayer was also plainly incorrect in its statement of allowable credits, the total tax and amount to be refunded.\u201d); Weed, 489 N.W.2d at 528 (\u201cAppellant\u2019s return is not correct____By claiming a refund of all with-holdings, appellant directly contradicts that part of his return showing that he owed taxes.\u201d). The taxpayers also assert, without authority, that \u201c[o]nly the Federal Government can \u2018judge\u2019 federal statutes and judge the correctness of [their] federal adjusted gross income.\u201d We do not purport to enforce the collection of federal taxes or adjudge the taxpayers\u2019 liability to the federal government. Instead, we must apply New Mexico law as articulated by the Legislature. The incorporation of federal law by reference to Section 62 requires an analysis of federal law in order to effectuate the intent of our Legislature for purposes of state taxation. In other words, our statutes require, for purposes of determining state tax liability, the taxpayers\u2019 correct federal adjusted gross income. In rejecting a taxpayer\u2019s argument that only the United States Supreme Court could adjudicate their claim, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals recognized that\nthe court\u2019s original jurisdiction under art. Ill, sec. 2, is not exclusive. United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 187, 56 S.Ct. 421, 80 L.Ed. 567 (1936); Bors v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252, 261, 4 S.Ct. 407, 28 L.Ed. 419 (1884). We note, too, that the tenth amendment reserves to the states \u2018[t]he powers not delegated to the United States ... nor prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States.\u2019 The adoption of tax laws, and the creation of quasi-judicial agencies to administer them, is neither delegated to congress nor prohibited to the states by the constitution.\nTracy, 394 N.W.2d at 758 (alterations in original).\n{24} The Court of Appeals concluded, \u201cIf Taxpayers were permitted to repeat on state tax forms an error committed on their federal forms, then those taxpayers who evade their federal income taxes would be free, without considering criminal sanctions, to evade state tax obligations as well. We will not attribute such an illogical intent to the New Mexico Legislature when it drafted Section 7-2-2.\u201d Holt, NMCA 22,622, at 5-6 (citation omitted). We agree. It would be untenable for this Court to hold that the Department is bound by a taxpayer\u2019s obvious miscalculation on a federal tax form that is directly contradicted by required documentary evidence, specifically, the W 2 forms. Cf. Torridge, 84 N.M. at 613, 506 P.2d at 357 (\u201cThe taxpayers\u2019 position would have the effect of foreclosing any investigation of potential tax liability once a taxpayer asserts the records presented by him [or her] were accurate.\u201d).\nIII. Conclusion\n{25} We hold that employment wages are taxable income for purposes of New Mexico state income tax. We also conclude that the Department has the authority to examine information or evidence in order to determine or establish an individual\u2019s tax liability.\n{26} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nWE CONCUR: GENE E. FRANCHINI, PAMELA B. MINZNER, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, and PAUL J. KENNEDY, Justices.\n. Throughout their petition, the taxpayers frequently present their claims without authority. As petitioners, the taxpayers \"should properly present this court with the issues, arguments, and proper authority. Mere reference in a conclusory statement will not suffice and is in violation of our rules of appellate procedure.\" State v. Clifford, 117 N.M. 508, 513, 873 P.2d 254, 259 (1994). The fact that the taxpayers have opted to appear pro se is not relevant; a party appearing pro se is to be treated as any other party. Udall v. Townsend, 1998 NMCA 162, \u00b6 9, 126 N.M. 251, 968 P.2d 341 (\"We note that Father is representing himself on appeal. This fact, however, does not excuse any failure to comply with our rules of procedure.\u201d); accord Clayton v. Trotter, 110 N.M. 369, 373, 796 P.2d 262, 266 (Ct.App.1990) (\"We realize that mother is proceeding pro se, but a pro se litigant is bound by all of the rules applicable to litigants represented by attorneys.\u201d); Gutierrez v. N.M. Dep\u2019t of Human Servs., 102 N.M. 751, 753, 700 P.2d 654, 656 (Ct.App.1985) (\"Although appearing pro se, Wife is bound by all the applicable procedural rules.\u201d).\n. The taxpayers, without authority, argue that our Legislature cannot adopt laws by reference as is the case with Section 7-2-2(A). Although the taxpayers quote Article IV, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution, this provision does not address adopting laws by reference.\n. By referring to this case, we do not necessarily imply an acceptance of its holding regarding good faith belief as a defense in New Mexico. See State v. Long, 121 N.M. 333, 335, 911 P.2d 227, 229 (Ct.App.1995) (\"New Mexico courts follow federal law only to the extent they find that law persuasive.\u201d); see also State v. Martin, 90 N.M. 524, 526, 565 P.2d 1041, 1043 (Ct.App.1977) (rejecting the defendant\u2019s argument, based on federal law, \u201cto require a higher standard of proof in terms of criminal intent in tax fraud cases\u201d), overruled on other grounds by State v. Wilson, 116 N.M. 793, 796, 867 P.2d 1175, 1178 (1994). See generally State v. Varela, 1999 NMSC 045, \u00b6 42, 128 N.M. 454, 993 P.2d 1280 (\"Under New Mexico law, willful conduct is conscious or intentional conduct.\u201d); State v. Rosaire, 1997 NMSC 034, \u00b6 7, 123 N.M. 701, 945 P.2d 66 (\"Willfully denotes the doing of an act without just cause or lawful excuse.\u201d) (quotation marks and quoted authority omitted).", "type": "majority", "author": "SERNA, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Monica Ontiveros, Santa Fe, NM, for Defendant-Respondent.", "James A. Holt, Terri L. Holt, Flora Vista, NM, Pro Se." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "2002-NMSC-034\n59 P.3d 491\nJames A. HOLT and Terri L. Holt, Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION & REVENUE, Defendant-Respondent.\nNo. 27,445.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nNov. 13, 2002.\nMonica Ontiveros, Santa Fe, NM, for Defendant-Respondent.\nJames A. Holt, Terri L. Holt, Flora Vista, NM, Pro Se." }, "file_name": "0011-01", "first_page_order": 43, "last_page_order": 52 }