Receipts from selling chemicals or reagents to any mining, milling or oil company for use in processing ores or oil in a mill, smelter or refinery or in acidizing oil wells, and receipts from selling chemicals or reagents in lots in excess of eighteen tons to any hard-rock mining or milling company for use in any combination of extracting, leaching, milling, smelting, refining or processing ore at a mine site, may be deducted from gross receipts. Receipts from selling explosives, blasting powder or dynamite may not be deducted from gross receipts.
History: 1953 Comp., § 72-16A-14.21, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 144, § 56; 2019, ch. 172, § 1.
ANNOTATIONSThe 2019 amendment, effective July 1, 2019, revised the criteria for a gross receipts tax deduction on certain receipts from selling chemicals or reagents; and after "eighteen tons", added "to any hard-rock mining or milling company for use in any combination of extracting, leaching, milling, smelting, refining or processing ore at a mine site".
Words used in this section are not ambiguous, and the issue of legislative intent does not arise. Runco Acidizing & Fracturing Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 1974-NMCA-145, 87 N.M. 146, 530 P.2d 410.
Aggregation of deliveries not authorized. — Since no single delivery or single day's delivery of chemicals or reagents to a well ever amounted to 18 tons or more, although the amount specified in a purchase order might aggregate that much, taxpayer was not entitled to a deduction under this section, since the wording of taxpayer's purchase orders and contract, supported inference that a purchase order was not a transfer for consideration and therefore not a sale. Runco Acidizing & Fracturing Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 1974-NMCA-145, 87 N.M. 146, 530 P.2d 410.
Statute is inapplicable to receipts from the sale and use of natural gas. — Where taxpayer, an electric power company, appealed from an administrative hearing officer's (AHO) decision and order denying its protest of New Mexico taxation and revenue department's denial of taxpayer's request for a tax refund based on its belief that its purchases of natural gas qualified for a deduction, the AHO did not err in denying taxpayer's protest because had the legislature intended to provide a deduction for receipts from the sale or use of natural gas, it could have specified the inclusion of natural gas within the statutory language establishing the deduction, as in the enactment of other legislation applicable to natural gas. Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. N.M. Taxation and Revenue Dep't, 2020-NMCA-011.