*1 151 purposes.” one-year By of I.C. 63-3068. for Idaho tax the de- extension One providing under the MLTA is “taxes an extended statute limita- ductions allowed year.” tions, taxable paid legislature or accrued must have intended within court held and adjustments years I.C. 47-1202. The district to relate back to respondent federal tax Accordingly, contends that we hold examination. under as ac- adjustments should be considered purposes, license tax final for mine crued, paid the taxable refunded within adjustments years federal relate to un- made, year adjustments were Therefore, der examination. year
instead of under examina- within of the district court is reversed tion. The Tax Commission insists fed- entry judgment cause remanded year adjustments eral relate to the favor of Commission. the Tax examination. appellant. Costs to agree with Commission We the Tax appeal. attorney fees First, statutory for the reasons. strictly exemptions tax should be construed BAKES, SHEPARD, BISTLINE and against taxpayer. County Ada Asses HUNTLEY, JJ., concur. 103, Partnership, sor v. 102 Idaho Office (1981). 104, 625 P.2d 1107 Under statutes, reading gets Hecla Hecla’s initially overpays
a double benefit. Hecla
federal income taxes and therefore benefits
from incorrectly high for fed deduction paid.
eral income taxes reduces Hec This Later,
la’s mine license tax. the federal adjustments gets are made Hecla 1165 P.2d refund for those federal taxes it had earlier BURNS, Claimant-Appellant, Anthony paid. However, claimed it Hecla never has to account for the refund under the mine license tax. This is because mine li NYBERG, Employer, Herbert cense tax is based solely on the value of Defendant-Respondent.
the ore extracted. The refund Hecla even No. 15456. tually receives for the overpaid federal in part come taxes of the value of the Court Supreme of Idaho. reading ore extracted. strict of the stat ute, i.e., one would close such a loop 26, 1985. March hole, provide that if the would amount of paid subsequently decreases, federal taxes mine license tax
the earlier deductions for correspondingly should taxes de
federal
crease.
Second, it is incumbent court interpretation that will give a statute nullity. Magnuson v. Idaho ait
not render 917, 920, 97 Idaho Tax
State Here, (1976). the dis tax ad that federal concluded court
trict mine apply to the license
justments a refund or and thus basis “cash” tax on year the ad reportable due debt If that were made.
justment need be no would
however, there *2 Gunn, Caldwell, claimant-ap- W.
John pellant. Gigray,
William F. Jr. and R. Scott Pas- Caldwell, ley, defendant-respondent. HUNTLEY, Justice.
Nyberg, California, who resides in hired manage apartment Burns unit Caldwell, months, After Idaho. several injury moving Burns suffered a back while apartment parking railroad ties in the lot. termi- Two months after that Burns was apartment, manager nated as Nyberg’s stated in dismissal letter reasons prudent being that Burns failed follow practices; receipts that rent maintenance late; forwarded and that maintenance were receipts were not forwarded with monthly reports. then Burns filed a Work- application. er’s claim, contending Nyberg resisted that Burns was injury oc- employee, and not an course of his outside the curred ment. hired, Nyberg had em-
Before Burns was manager Frank ployed Woomer Woom- The contract with contract. written that Woomer er recited quit he recom- When Woomer him, Nyberg that Burns succeed mended Burns had done some work for since manager. Woomer Woomer agree- had no written ment, contends that Burns un- agreed derstood terms agreement under Woomer apply had worked would also renting property Burns’ duties involved occurred, collect- to tenants when vacancies maintenance, rent, ing performing minor apartments and cleaning maintain- Commission therefore concluded was de- grounds. He was to submit a Burns had failed establish he monthly showing report fendant’s the time of acci- collected, dent, expended while amounts funds was therefore not entitled that he performing his total amount and the bene- recover Worker’s *3 Nyberg. operating remitted ac- fits. $200 We affirm. purchase supplies count was established an The determination of whether expenses. pay and minor The account was injured party independent contractor by money rent collec-
funded retained from employee or an is a factual determination opened checking tions. Burns account which must be made from all the facts and “Canyon Management the name circumstances established the evidence. Properties” deposited the rent 555, Bergeson, Ledesma v. 99 Idaho 585 deposits cleaning and he collected from ten- (1978). The Commis 965 Industrial deposits ants. After rent and were collect- findings sion’s factual will be over not ed, kept him, due Burns amount and when appeal they supported turned on are forwarded the balance to competent substantial and evidence. paid a management Burns was fee of Pumnea, 48, Nelson v. 106 Idaho 675 P.2d collected, per of the rent $5.00 10% and (1983); Foods, 27 Green Columbia 104 repair hour for minor and maintenance 204, (1983). Idaho P.2d 1072 657 Later, parties amended their argues appeal on Burns provide oral that Burns re- facts before the Commission were undis- management ceive free rent instead of a misap- puted, Industrial Commission fee. facts, plied the law to and order Nyberg Burns made recommendations should be set do therefore aside. We improvements apartments. He agree. The had Industrial Commission be- did authority major not have to make im- fore it substantial and provements property, have did independent to conclude that Burns was an authority decide whether a tenant’s cle- example, contractor. For the manner aning deposit could be He refunded. also which ac- operating Burns established the purchase inexpensive supplies could used count under an name is assumed business repair apartments. clean or Burns indicative of status. could and hire other did individuals to Further, Burns could and did others to hire apartment complex. form work at hire, work apartments. right at the The provisions were withholding made for furnish, control, discharge pay and assist- taxes, payments from to Burns for social ants, conclusive, in- indicates security, withholding. or other dependent contractor status. Merrill v. Duffy 82 Company, Reed Construction stipulated parties scope The (1960). The Idaho P.2d 657 fact 353 hearing Commis- before Industrial provision withholding no was made sion would limited to or not be whether taxes, security withholding social or other Nyberg employer covered under the independent contrac- points further toward Compensation If Worker’s Law. it were status. evidence also tor The substantiat- employer, decided he further testi- finding Nyberg did ed Referee’s mony depositions given be and/or would as or con- any specific not issue directions to injuries to the extent of claimant. The regard with to the man- trols Commission concluded that Burns failed to ner, performing the means and method of had, assumed, establish actually details of his work. respect to control claimant with only in the time, interested ultimate result —that executing manner and method timely work; activities, rent be collected and forwarded in his to direct or to manner, necessary control and that maintenance the details the work deter- repairs performed. performed. mine how it The flagrant had little disregard poli- absentee owner who contact with cy behind Idaho’s Worker’s Law, I.C. seq. 72-101 et in Idaho is today ignores premise fundamental gives, employer whether a contract or the our Act: the Worker’s law assumes, time, to control the man given must be construction in fa- a liberal executing ner and method relationship vor of the distinguished right merely from the to re Top Dairy, Fitzen v. Cream quire conformity certain definite results in (1952). If any Idaho P.2d 806 v. Bergeson, the contract. Ledesma su doubt exists an individual is an whether pra. Under this test the Commission’s or an that claimant was requires in favor of Fitzer resolution supported by contractor was evidence. *4 Fitzer, supra, at found, Finally, the Referee and the Unfortunately, majority today 806. showed, evidence that terminated flipped construction on has this rule of his relationship with Burns he was accept because way head going out of its dissatisfied with the results of Burns’ ef Mr. Burns was an case forts. In the Ledesma this Court employee and not an of Mr. only party where either had the
stated that injustice Compen- done to Idaho’s Worker’s relationship a will and to terminate at surpassed only by injus- law sation is reflecting liability would evidence without tice to Mr. Burns. relationship such be indicative of an em a Appellant challenge the Commis- did not relationship.
ployer-employee
Id. 99 Idaho
by questioning
sion’s
whether that
decision
not exer
at
factors.
It is
assumed that
right
that Mr.
had
equal
these tests work with
force in both
require
by
supported
a result is
directions;
substantial
is,
instance,
that
that
each
But,
and
evidence.
I maintain
evidence of
employment-type arrange-
ambiguous
are
regarding
facts
persuasive
ment is
of the
sta-
right
tus,
Nyberg actually
which
Mr.
had.
contrary
while
evidence is
importantly,
Most
and this
suasive of
contractorship.
Court,
required
rights
are
example,
For
it
focus
pay-
is often said of
by
employer,
not how or whether he
employ-
ment
the hour is indicative of
ment,
Larson,
rights.
payment by
piece
job
while
exercised those
Work-
or
Law,
et
seq.
is indicative
men’s
43.10
of
contractor-
ship;
Hence,
right
furnishing
employer
and
if an
equipment
had
by
work,
is evidence of
control the details of the
it matters
ment,
furnishing
by
equipment
right
he
exercised that
and
never
details;
better, believe,
actually
never
controlled the
what
Far
majority go
that the
important
right
beyond
is that
had the
judicial platitudes
so frequently
time,
control the
and
manner
method
announced
this Court and examine the
executing the work.
Larson,
analysis
excellent
set
forth in
Law,
43.50,
Workmen’s
us,
In the record before
is conflict-
there
that,
suggests
wherein Larson
because the
Ny-
Mr.
compensation
of worker’s
laws
berg had. The
he limit-
record shows that
compensatory, the
“control
details”
power
ed Mr.
purchasing
Burns’
to $200
replaced
should be
a “relative-na-
cleaning equipment
repairs
for small
ture-of-the-work”
Larson
test.
describes
Moreover,
apartment complex.
language:
test with the
required
Burns was
contact
test, then,
brevity
This
which for
approval
major repairs
building
will
(electrical,
work).
plumbing,
be called the “relative nature of the
or construction
And,
test,
required
monthly
ingredients:
work”
to send a
these
contains
report
Nyberg listing
ex-
income and
character of the claimant’s work or
circumstances,
penses.
Ny-
is,
Under these
skilled
much of
business—how
it
how
berg
exercising
certainly
enterprise
is,
control over
separate calling
it
time, manner,
executing
method
may
carry
what extent it
its own accident
and so on—and
burden
business,
employer’s
relation to the
majority correctly notes
that Burns
is,
regular part
much it is a
how
could,
did,
hire others and that
employer’s regular
whether it
hire, furnish, control,
discharge
intermittent,
and wheth-
continuous
pay
suggests independent
assistants
er
sufficient to amount to
the duration is
status,
not conclu-
hiring
continuing
services
dis-
However,
sive.
the record demonstrates
contracting
from
for the com-
tinguished
hiring
by Bums
done
best
*6
pletion
particular job.
of a
nephews
his
casual—he “hired”
two
Larson,
Law,
each,
Workmen’s
paid
rake the lawn and
them $2.00
§ 43.52.
he paid
and hired another individual who
pull
apartment.
weeds around
$10.00
analysis
In
of the trend toward use of
hiring
hardly
type
This is
which
away
test
the “nature of the. work”
to mind in
with an inde-
comes
association
test,
a New
from the “control”
Larson cites
pendent contractor.
on insur-
Appeals
York Court of
salesmen,
ance
Gordon v. New York
persuaded by
majority’s
Nor am I
Life
Co.,
N.Y.
out management ser- business,
vice or but rather worked capacity; in that he was not in
the kind of might business where he provide protection his own against and, injury; employment rela- 697 P.2d tionship Ny- of a continuous nature. Idaho, Through STATE of its IDAHO berg manage wanted someone main- ACCOUNTANCY, STATE OF BOARD apartment complex tain the did—he Agency, Plaintiff-Appellant, State result, hire a specific Burns for rather Cross-Respondent, continuously him to hired oversee the daily operation Nyberg’s business. Un- fortunately, the majority heedlessly has SERVICES, INC., LEAGUE passed insightful over analysis of Lar- *7 Defendant-Respondent, son, supra, the “nature of Cross-Appellant. work” test versus “control” test. In sum, inescapable that Burns was No. 15476.
naught agent but a hired who also was Supreme Idaho. Court of physical to do some March 1985.
Finally, contends that agreement between Woomer, predecessor, Burns’ was neither prejudicial
irrelevant nor to Burns. The
majority suggests
showed that Burns understood his status majori-
as an contractor. The
ty no authority proposi- cites for this novel i.e., law,
tion of that one can be held to
know the contents be- predecessor
tween one’s boss and one’s
accordingly collaterally bound
agreement contained therein. Even the