Oklahoma SCT Punts (I Don’t Mean in a Bad Way) on State and Tribal Taxes on Nonmembers on Creek Nation Restricted Lands

Here is the opinion in Warehouse Market Inc. v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission.

Briefs:

Oklahoma Brief

Warehouse Market Brief

Reply

An excerpt:

The plaintiff/appellee, Warehouse Market subleased a commercial building from the defendant Pinnacle Management, Inc. The building is on federally restricted Indian land. Subsequently, the defendant/appellant, Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Office of Tax Commission (Tribe) both sought to collect sales tax from Warehouse Market. Warehouse Market filed an interpleader action in the District Court of Okmulgee County, in an attempt to have the court determine which entity to pay. However, the trial court dismissed the Tribe because it had no jurisdiction over it because of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity. The trial court then determined that the OTC could not be entitled to the sales tax unless and until the dispute between the OTC and the Tribe was resolved in another forum or tribunal. The OTC appealed and we retained the appeal. We hold that because the substance of Warehouse Market’s action/request for relief is a tax protest, exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking relief in the trial court.

South Dakota SCT Rejects Nonmember Challenge to County Taxing Authority on Indian Trust Lands

Here is the opinion in Pickerel Lake Outlet Association v. Day County:

Pickerel Lake Decision

Briefs here.

Arizona Tribes’ Amicus Brief in Arizona COA Tribal Taxation Case

Here is the brief in South Point Energy Center v. Arizona Department of Revenue (Ariz. Ct. App.):

Tribal Amicus Brief

Related case here.

New Scholarship on Taxing Indian Country Cannabis

Mark J. Cowan has posted “Taxing Cannabis on the Reservation,” forthcoming in the American Business Law Journal, on SSRN.

The abstract:

American Indian tribes that enter the cannabis industry confront a multi-sovereign tax system that lacks certainty and horizontal equity. The complex interaction of state legalization and taxation of cannabis, federal tax law, the status of tribes as both governments and business enterprises, and the legal and tax landscape in Indian country can give tribes tax advantages and disadvantages compared to off-reservation cannabis dispensaries. This article analyzes these tax issues, examines them in the context of prior challenges posed by Indian gaming, and suggests reforms that address the tax inequities that can result from cannabis sales on Indian reservations.

Connecticut SCT Briefs in Town of Ledyard v. WMS Gaming Inc.

Here:

Town of Ledyard Opening Brief

WMS Gaming Answer Brief

Reply

Second Circuit Affirms Cuyuga Nation Immunity from County Taxes even under Immovable Property Exception

Here are the materials in Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Seneca County, New York:

CA2 Opinion

Seneca County Brief

Cayuga Tribe Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Oklahoma Tax Case But Justice Thomas Offers a Few Fearmongering Words About McGirt

Here is the statement on the denial of cert in Rogers County Board of Tax Roll Corrections v. Video Gaming Technologies, Inc.:

Justice Thomas Statement on Denial of Cert

Here are the cert stage materials in Rogers.

Washington COA Holds Samish Trust Land is “Reservation” under State Tax Law

Here is the opinion in Samish Indian Nation v. Department of Licensing:

2020-08-31 Opinion of Court of Appeals

Briefs here.

Second Circuit Holds Treaties Do Not Provide Tax Immunity for Individual Indian-Owned Business on Fee Lands

Here is the opinion in Perkins v. Commissioner: Opinion

Briefs:

Perkins Brief

Commissioner Brief

Reply

Tax court opinion here.

Related case materials here.

Wisconsin COA Rejects Claims of Taxpayers Who Didn’t Like That Indians Had Tax Immunity and Therefore Didn’t Want To Pay Taxes, Either

Here are the materials in Klein v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue (Wis. Ct. App.):

Opinion

Wisconsin Brief

Klein Brief

Reply