{
  "id": 2868639,
  "name": "TIFFANY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tiffany Construction Co. v. Bureau of Revenue",
  "decision_date": "1976-12-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 2683",
  "first_page": "16",
  "last_page": "17",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 N.M. 16"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "558 P.2d 1155"
    }
  ],
  "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": "87 N.M. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2833762
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2862492
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0265-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.M. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2830275
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0118-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 3282,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.804,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1995435678014922e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5933052467537683
    },
    "sha256": "c7a26fa4fb9f3e88a7da8692682c157b1eceaee4b4ad06f2be0344f948691f2a",
    "simhash": "1:b3e66f0ab4b48830",
    "word_count": 552
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:48.706767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TIFFANY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nTaxpayer is an Arizona Corporation, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, involved in road building activities. The work performed, which involves the instant penalty assessment, was done on the Navajo Reservation within the boundaries of New Mexico. For all practical purposes this was the first road job taxpayer had done in New Mexico.\nOn appeal taxpayer\u2019s sole issue is whether it is subject to a penalty assessment. Section 72-13-82(A), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 10, pt. 2, 1961, Supp.1975). That section states in part:\n\u201cA. In the case of failure, due to negligence or disregard of rules and regulations, but without intent to defraud, to pay when due any amount of tax required to be paid or to file a return regardless of whether or not any tax is due, there shall be added to the amount two per cent [2%] per month or a fraction thereof from the date the tax was due or from the date the return was required to be filed . . .\nThe presumption of correctness section (\u00a7 72-13-32(0), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 10, pt. 2, 1961, Supp.1975)) also applies to the penalty section. See Co-Con, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 87 N.M. 118, 529 P.2d 1239 (Ct.App.1974).\nThe Bureau by its decision and order held that the instant case was controlled by G. M. Shupe, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 89 N.M. 265, 550 P.2d 277 (Ct.App.1976) because:\n\u201c. . The only evidence presented by the taxpayer here is that the taxpayer was not aware of its obligation to the State of New Mexico. Here there is no evidence that the taxpayer sought advice from legal-or accounting sources, neither did the taxpayer seek information from the Bureau or the attorney general.\nThe basic essence of the taxpayer argument is that it was operating upon the \u201c. . belief that there were no such taxes due and that there were no taxes that they had to file for or register for in the State of New Mexico.\u201d Does this belief without further investigation constitute negligence so as to justify the penalty imposed? We hold the taxpayer must do more. See Gathings v. Bureau of Revenue, 87 N.M. 334, 533 P.2d 107 (Ct.App.1975).\nEvery person is charged with the reasonable duty to ascertain the possible tax consequences of his action. This can be done by consultation with one\u2019s legal advis- or. Depending on the facts, failure to do so may constitute negligence.' Section 72-13-82(A), supra. To hold otherwise would be to negate the meaning of the term negligence which is defined as the act of being negligent. Negligent is defined as: \u201c2. indifferent, careless or offhand\u201d (The Random House Dictionary, Unabridged Edition, 1969) or as a \u201clack of reasonable cause.\u201d Gathings v. Bureau of Revenue, supra.\nOral argument is unnecessary. Taxpayer\u2019s action or lack of action was negligence within the meaning of the act. The decision and order is in accordance with the law and supported by the record.\nAffirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nWOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas L. Grisham, McCulloch, Grisham & Lawless, Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Vernon O. Henning, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "558 P.2d 1155\nTIFFANY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant, v. BUREAU OF REVENUE, Appellee.\nNo. 2683.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nDec. 14, 1976.\nCertiorari Denied Jan. 14, 1977.\nThomas L. Grisham, McCulloch, Grisham & Lawless, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Vernon O. Henning, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0016-01",
  "first_page_order": 52,
  "last_page_order": 53
}