Court Opinion

ID: 9546908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:37:40.070153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:01.030589
License: Public Domain

SPIESS, Chief Judge (dissenting) : I cannot agree with the interpretation placed upon the Compensating or Use Tax Act (72-17-1 through 72-17-30, now repealed) by the majority. I do not think it was the legislative intent to impose this tax upon a purely isolated and occasional transaction of the kind involved here. The stated purpose of the Act, to my mind, precludes such interpretation. The legislative statement of purpose (72-17-1, N.M.S.A. 1953) follows: “The primary purpose of this act is declared to be to protect, so far as is practicable, the merchants, dealers and manufacturers of New Mexico who operate under the excise tax laws of this state, and who meet the requirements of such laws, against the unfair competitions of importations into New Mexico, without the payment of a sales tax, of goods, wares and merchandise.” The Compensating or Use Tax Act was intended, as I view it, to complement the sales tax. Its purpose was clearly to avoid unfair competition from a tax standpoint as between merchants, dealers and manufacturers of New Mexico who operate under the excise tax laws, and those who do not so operate. An isolated sale or single transaction of the ■ type-involved would not have been taxable under the Sales Tax Act as it existed at the time this transaction occurred. See 72-16-2, subd. G., N.M.S.A.1953. The imposition of a tax upon a sale under the Compensating or Use Tax Act, which would be exempt under the Sales Tax Act, would not tend to avoid unfair competition from a tax standpoint. I cannot agree that the term “retailer'’ was intended by the legislature to include one not engaged in business as a retailer as that term is generally understood but who has participated only in a single, isolated sale. I, therefore, respectfully dissent,