{
  "id": 2838696,
  "name": "AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE of the State of New Mexico, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "American Automobile Ass'n v. Bureau of Revenue",
  "decision_date": "1975-04-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 1293",
  "first_page": "148",
  "last_page": "150",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 N.M. 148"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "538 P.2d 420"
    }
  ],
  "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": "63 N.M. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2776087
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/63/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2763891
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 P. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.M. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841435
      ],
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/30/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N.M. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1560818
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/48/0544-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.M. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2806574
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2762210
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 753",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2771435
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0753-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "19 T.C. 1146",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "T.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        9051302
      ],
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tc/19/1146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 F.2d 551",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1242744
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/182/0551-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.M. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2832044
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0330-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.M. 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2822634
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0569-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 332,
    "char_count": 5301,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.803,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1020618862671935e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7619434569351341
    },
    "sha256": "d12070dc7965ea099cfca3cf505c08da7b28c5162c7d2b7ac20790da5d98347c",
    "simhash": "1:31cee803e435ac9a",
    "word_count": 815
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:46.516747+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE of the State of New Mexico, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nThe issue is whether taxpayer is entitled to the tax exemption appearing in \u00a7 72-16A-12.27, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 2, Supp.1973). We held taxpayer was not a \u201cnonprofit\u201d organization in American Automobile Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. Bureau of Rev., 86 N.M. 569, 525 P.2d 929 (Ct.App.1974). The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed and remanded \u201cfor a determination of whether [taxpayer] is a \u2018business organization,\u2019 and whether . . . the receipts involved are from \u2018dues and registration fees.\u2019 \u201d 87 N.M. 330, 533 P.2d 103, Supreme Court, decided March 21, 1975. The \u201cbusiness organization\u201d issue is dispositive. Taxpayer is not a business organization within the meaning of the statute.\nSection 72-16A-12.27, supra, states:\n\u201cExemption\u2014Gross receipts tax\u2014Fees from social organizations.\u2014Exempted from the gross receipts tax are the receipts from dues and registration fees of nonprofit social, fraternal, political, trade, business, labor or professional organizations.\u201d\n\u201cBusiness organization\u201d is not defined in the Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax Act. See \u00a7 72-16A-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, pt. 2, Supp.1973). The term could mean, as the taxpayer urges, any legal or commercial entity engaged in business. See \u00a7 50A-1-201(28), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 1). The term could mean, as the Bureau contends, an organization of business entities or persons engaged in business. Compare Chattanooga Auto. Club v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 182 F.2d 551 (6th Cir. 1950); American Automobile Ass\u2019n v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 19 T.C. 1146 (1953). Judicial construction is called for because the meaning of the term is ambiguous. Till v. Jones, 83 N.M. 743, 497 P.2d 745 (Ct.App.1972).\nJudicial construction is for the purpose of determining legislative intent. State v. McHorse, 85 N.M. 753, 517 P.2d 75 (Ct.App.1973). Legislative intent is to be determined primarily from the language used in the statute. Dona Ana Develop. Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 84 N.M. 641, 506 P.2d 798 (Ct.App.1973).\nOne approach to legislative intent involves the heading to the statute. The heading, capitalized in the quotation, was enacted by the Legislature. Laws 1969, ch. 144, \u00a7 32. That heading contributes nothing toward an effective legislative enactment. Besser Company v. Bureau of Revenue, 74 N.M. 377, 394 P.2d 141 (1964). What use is there for a legislatively enacted section heading? \u201cThe section heading performs the same function for the section as the title does for an act.\u201d 1A Sutherland, Statutory Construction \u00a7 21.04 (4th ed. 1972). Courts may look to the title of an act in determining legislative intent. State v. Richardson, 48 N.M. 544, 154 P.2d 224 (1944). Accordingly, we may look to the legislatively enacted section heading in determining legislative intent.\nThe legislatively enacted heading to \u00a7 72-16A-12.27, supra, refers only to exemptions of \u201cfees from social organizations.\u201d The heading is more limited than the statute. The heading indicates a legislative intent that the exemption is of limited application.\nA second approach to legislative intent is the presumption that having enumerated a list of things, the Legislature must have had no other kind in mind. See Grafe v. Delgado, Sheriff, 30 N.M. 150, 228 P. 601 (1924); Cardinal Fence Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, Bur. of Rev., 84 N.M. 314, 502 P.2d 1004 (Ct.App.1972). Section 72-16A-12.27, supra, lists social, fraternal, political, trade, business, labor and professional organizations. \u201cBusiness organization\u201d is to be given a meaning that is analogous to the meaning of other organizations listed. Compare State v. Morley, 63 N.M. 267, 317 P.2d 317 (1957).\nBoth approaches exclude the definition of \u201cbusiness organization\u201d urged by the taxpayer. To hold that \u201cbusiness organization\u201d means any legal or commercial entity engaged in business would give the statute an expansive reading contrary to the legislative intent shown by the limited section heading. To hold that \u201cbusiness organization\u201d has the meaning urged by the taxpayer would give that phrase a meaning not analogous to the other organizations listed in the statute. A trade organization consists only of persons engaged in that trade. A professional organization consists only of persons engaged in the particular profession. Similarly, a business organization consists only of business entities or persons engaged in business. Compare American Automobile Ass\u2019n v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra.\nWe hold the Bureau\u2019s definition of business organization is the definition intended by the Legislature. The taxpayer\u2019s membership is not limited to business entities or persons engaged in business. It is not a business organization as that term is used in \u00a7 72-16A-12.27, supra.\nThe Commissioner\u2019s decision and order are affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dean S. Zinn, Zinn & Donnell, Santa Fe, Tibo J. Chavez, Chavez & Cowper, Belen, for appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Joseph T. Sprague, Vernon O. Henning, Bureau of Revenue, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "538 P.2d 420\nAMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE of the State of New Mexico, Appellee.\nNo. 1293.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 23, 1975.\nRehearing Denied June 10, 1975.\nDean S. Zinn, Zinn & Donnell, Santa Fe, Tibo J. Chavez, Chavez & Cowper, Belen, for appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Joseph T. Sprague, Vernon O. Henning, Bureau of Revenue, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0148-01",
  "first_page_order": 178,
  "last_page_order": 180
}