{
  "id": 2768245,
  "name": "NEW MEXICO SHERIFFS AND POLICE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE and Commissioner of Revenue State of New Mexico, Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "New Mexico Sheriffs & Police Ass'n v. Bureau of Revenue",
  "decision_date": "1973-09-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 1136",
  "first_page": "565",
  "last_page": "567",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 N.M. 565"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "514 P.2d 616"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 N.M. 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5326963
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 747",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2764338
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0747-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 N.M. 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1562262
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/47/0299-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 F.Supp. 487",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        5586695
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/328/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 P. 1177",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.M. 211",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4695668
      ],
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/18/0211-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.M. 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5316919
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/61/0287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 743",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5337469
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0743-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 N.M. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2848021
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/66/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8502593
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2802464
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0445-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8500321
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2808555
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.E.2d 305",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ohio App.2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1461133
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-app-2d/7/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "452 P.2d 930",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Cal.Rptr. 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Cal.2d 851",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2308191
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-2d/70/0851-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 S.Ct. 282",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "case_ids": [
        6170869,
        6169189
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/368/0346-01",
        "/us/368/0146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 U.S. 146",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6169189
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/368/0146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.M. 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5365414
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0481-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.M. 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5329944
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0232-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 429,
    "char_count": 6096,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.728,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.360092440234306e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6353094330982231
    },
    "sha256": "71145d276d6d08fbe7419b0360d4a12d69554d0a4a89fe541f379fc87d355ec0",
    "simhash": "1:d2cbb064f3fded32",
    "word_count": 975
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:38:26.265107+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NEW MEXICO SHERIFFS AND POLICE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE and Commissioner of Revenue State of New Mexico, Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nAfter a formal hearing, the Commissioner of Revenue denied the protest of taxpayer (New Mexico Sheriffs and Police Association) as to its liability for gross receipts and municipal tax, penalty and interest from July 1, 1969, to January 31, 1972. Taxpayer\u2019s appeal raises questions concerning: (1) license or franchise; (2) the deduction provided by \u00a7 72-16A-14.18, N. M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 2, Supp. 1971); and (3) double taxation.\nLicense or franchise.\nSection 72-16A-3(I), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 2, Supp.1971) defines property to include \u201clicenses\u201d and \u201cfranchises.\u201d Section 72-16A-3(F), supra, defines gross receipts to include the total amount of money received from selling property in New Mexico. The tax assessment involved concerns a contract between taxpayer and Gene Shaffer. The issue is whether that contract amounts to a license or franchise.\nUnder the contract, taxpayer granted to Shaffer \u201c . . . the sole and exclusive right to publish the official magazine of the New Mexico Sheriff [sic] and Police Association. \u2019. . .\u201d The contracting parties agreed that the magazine was taxpayer\u2019s \u201cofficial publication,\u201d that the name to be used was \u201c \u2018NEW MEXICO LAW MAN\u2019 \u201d and that this name was the property of taxpayer. The contract contains details as to publication dates, contents, distribution and controls in taxpayer concerning the solicitation and sale of advertising.\nUnder the contract, Shaffer bears the cost of publication. Taxpayer received from Shaffer \u201c . . .a royalty of sixteen per cent (16) of the gross sales of advertising.\u201d The tax assessment involved is based on receipts to taxpayer under this provision.\nTaxpayer contends the contract does not amount to either a license or franchise. We do not consider the meaning of \u201cfranchise.\u201d The contract is a license.\n\u201cLicense\u201d is not defined in the statutes. Accordingly, \u201clicense\u201d is to be given its ordinary meaning unless a different intent is clearly indicated. Albuquerque Nat. Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue, 82 N.M. 232, 478 P.2d 560 (Ct.App.1970); Reed v. Jones, 81 N.M. 481, 468 P.2d 882 (Ct.App.1970).\nWebster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1966) defines \u201clicense\u201d in terms of \u201cto accord permission or consent;\u201d \u201callow;\u201d \u201cauthorize;\u201d \u201cpermission to act.\u201d Under the heading \u201cConstitutional Law and Law of Contracts,\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary (1951) defines \u201clicense\u201d as: \u201cA permission, by a competent authority to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort. . . .\u201d See Fed. Land Bank v. Kiowa County, 368 U.S. 146, 82 S.Ct. 282, 7 L.Ed.2d 199 (1961), n. 23; Galvan v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.2d 851, 76 Cal.Rptr. 642, 452 P.2d 930 (1969); compare Beckett v. Tax Commr., 7 Ohio App.2d 181, 219 N.E.2d 305 (1965). Adams v. Heisen, 77 N.M. 374, 423 P.2d 414 (1967) states: \u201cThe essential element in the creation of a license is the permission or consent of the licensor. . . .\u201d Compare State v. Mauney, 76 N.M. 36, 411 P.2d 1009 (1966).\nThe ordinary meaning of license being \u201cpermission to act,\u201d the contract in question was a license from taxpayer to Shaffer to publish the magazine. Taxpayer\u2019s argument that this permission cannot be a license unless the permission comes from some government authority is without merit. The following cases demonstrate that the concept of license is not so limited. Adams v. Heisen, supra; Jellison v. Gleason, 77 N.M. 445, 423 P.2d 876 (1967); Mozert v. Noeding, 76 N.M. 396, 415 P.2d 364 (1966); Bogart v. Hester, 66 N.M. 311, 347 P.2d 327 (1959).\nDeduction provided by \u00a7 72-16A-14.18, supra.\nThis section states that receipts from publishing magazines, except from selling advertising space, may be deducted from gross receipts. Taxpayer claims he is entitled to this deduction. We disagree.\nNo such claim was raised at the hearing before the Commissioner. Section 72 \u2014 13\u2014 39, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 2, Supp.1971) provides the appeal to this Court is \u201c . . . only to the same extent and upon the same theory as was asserted in the hearing before the commissioner ..\u201d The claim is not before us for review. Till v. Jones, 83 N.M. 743, 497 P.2d 745 (Ct.App.1972). In addition, the record is undisputed that taxpayer\u2019s receipts are a royalty paid to it from Shaffer\u2019s advertising revenues and are not receipts from publishing the magazine.\nDouble taxation.\nTaxpayer claims the Commissioner\u2019s decision is arbitrary and capricious, see \u00a7 72-13-39(C), supra, because taxation of its receipts \u201csmacks of double taxation.\u201d This contention is that Shaffer has paid the tax on his gross receipts (which is not established in this record) and, therefore, the taxation of receipts to taxpayer is double taxation.\nThere are two answers. First, if there were double taxation, such would not necessarily be arbitrary or capricious. See New Mexico State Board of Public Account. v. Grant, 61 N.M. 287, 299 P.2d 464 (1956). Second, there is no double taxation, as that concept is defined in State v. Ingalls, 18 N.M. 211, 135 P. 1177 (1913). The tax is on the taxpayer\u2019s receipts. The only other tax involved is the tax asserted to have been paid by Shaffer on his receipts. There is no factual basis for the double taxation claim. Czarnikow-Rionda Company v. United States, 328 F.Supp. 487 (Customs Ct.1971); Aragon v. Empire Gold Mining & Milling Co., 47 N.M. 299, 142 P.2d 539 (1943); see House of Carpets, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 84 N.M. 747, 507 P.2d 1078 (Ct.App.1973); Rust Tractor Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 82 N.M. 82, 475 P.2d 779 (Ct.App.1970).\nThe Commissioner\u2019s decision and order is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gene E. Franchini, Matteucci, Franchini, Calkins & Michael, Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Susan P. Graber, Keith A. Maxwell, Bureau of Revenue Asst. Attys, Gen., for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "514 P.2d 616\nNEW MEXICO SHERIFFS AND POLICE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE and Commissioner of Revenue State of New Mexico, Appellees.\nNo. 1136.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 12, 1973.\nGene E. Franchini, Matteucci, Franchini, Calkins & Michael, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Susan P. Graber, Keith A. Maxwell, Bureau of Revenue Asst. Attys, Gen., for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0565-01",
  "first_page_order": 627,
  "last_page_order": 629
}