{
  "id": 2833999,
  "name": "Edwin L. DUKE, Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Duke v. Bureau of Revenue",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 1500",
  "first_page": "360",
  "last_page": "361",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.M. 360"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "533 P.2d 593"
    }
  ],
  "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": "85 N.M. 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2773372
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0279-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2585,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.797,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1154948996168042e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5721099956020602
    },
    "sha256": "ada5552bf8163f3a9c19832d5e78c58017ddded72c59a1437af81c44fb5b770a",
    "simhash": "1:ba78384b81f18701",
    "word_count": 416
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.541053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SUTIN and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Edwin L. DUKE, Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nDuke protested his liability for an assessment of gross receipts tax, penalty and interest. The protest was denied; Duke appeals claiming that certain receipts were wages either of himself or wages of his employees, and exempt under \u00a7 72-16A-12.5, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 2, Supp.1973).\nDuke was involved in the business of hauling sand, gravel, asphalt and similar materials with his own trucks. He drove one truck himself and hired drivers for the other trucks. During the period covered by the assessment, he worked exclusively for contractors involved in road construction. This hauling was on a ton-mile or ton-delivery basis. Duke and his drivers received wages directly from the contractor.\nThere is evidence that the contractor paid the wages, carried workmen\u2019s compensation, and withheld for social security and other deductions. The contractor did the bookkeeping, but Duke paid for it. The contractor subtracted the wages paid and other deductions from Duke\u2019s gross and paid him the balance.\nWages Paid to Duke\nDuke contends the evidence shows he was paid wages by the contractor and that he was an employee of the contractor. The evidence is that the wages paid to Duke came from money grossed by Duke under the hauling arrangement. Specifically, Duke\u2019s wages were paid from Duke\u2019s gross. The tax assessment is on Duke\u2019s gross.\nWages Paid to Duke\u2019s Drivers\nDuke claims the wages paid to his drivers were not gross receipts because he never received these wages to distribute. The evidence shows that these wages were paid on Duke\u2019s behalf out of his gross receipts. The definition of gross receipts in \u00a7 72-16A-3(F), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 2, Supp.1973) includes the total value of consideration received from performing services. The fact that the drivers\u2019 wages were paid from Duke\u2019s gross is evidence that Duke had received this consideration.\nThe Commissioner found that no wages within the meaning of \u00a7 72-16A-12.5, supra, were included within the assessment. There being substantial evidence to support this finding, the Decision and Order of the Commissioner is affirmed. Sterling Title Co. of Taos v. Commissioner of Rev., 85 N.M. 279, 511 P.2d 765 (Ct.App.1973).\nIt is so ordered.\nSUTIN and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John William Pope, Chavez & Cowper, Belen, for appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Vernon O. Henning, Jan E. Unna, Bureau of Revenue Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "533 P.2d 593\nEdwin L. DUKE, Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE, Appellee.\nNo. 1500.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 5, 1975.\nJohn William Pope, Chavez & Cowper, Belen, for appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Vernon O. Henning, Jan E. Unna, Bureau of Revenue Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0360-01",
  "first_page_order": 386,
  "last_page_order": 387
}