taxation – Page 13 – Turtle Talk

King Mountain Tobacco v. US Cert Petition

January 30, 2019May 5, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the Yakama Treaty must include express exemptive language” to create an exemption from a federal tax or fee.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the federal tobacco excise tax, 26 U.S.C. § 5701-5703, and the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act (“FETRA”), 7 U.S.C. § 518-519, apply to the Yakama Indians even though (1) the Yakama Treaty creates a right to travel in order to protect the Yakama Indians’ ability to trade and (2) these taxes and fees are triggered by the transport of goods – rather than by sale or manufacture.

Lower court materials here. Case tag here.

Update:

us-brief-in-opposition.pdf

Ninth Circuit Rejects Tribe’s Effort to Avoid Possessory Interest Tax (again)

January 29, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County. An excerpt:

In Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1971), we held that this very tax is permissible. Plaintiff argues that our cursory preemption analysis there is clearly irreconcilable with White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), and therefore not controlling. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (permitting a three-judge panel to depart from circuit precedent if, but only if, that precedent is clearly irreconcilable with a later Supreme Court or en banc decision). We disagree.

Materials are here.

Miccosukee Per Cap Taxation Cert Petitions

January 16, 2019April 24, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States:

cert-petition-1-1.pdf

Question presented:

The 2014 Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act states that, for income tax purposes, “[g]ross income does not include the value of any Indian general welfare benefit.”

The question presented is whether contrary to that plain command, gross income includes “Indian general welfare benefits” when those benefits are derived from gaming revenue pursuant to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Here is the petition in Jim v. United States:

cert-petition-2-1.pdf

Questions presented:

Whether treaties with Indian tribes must be construed consistent with that tribe’s present-sense understanding of the treaty.

Whether the Miccosukee Tribe’s long-standing method of compensation for use of Tribal member lands and distributing revenue from land to its members can be considered a “mere formalism” to avoid inclusion and taxation as income to the members when the Tribe’s chosen method of compensation is soundly in line with federal law and policy.

Whether the Assistant Secretary of the Interior through its designated representative can interpret, waive, modify or exempt payments made to tribal members from inclusion as income.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

US BIO

HCI Distribution Suit against Nebraska AG Survives Motion to Dismiss

December 20, 2018December 20, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in HCI Distribution Inc. v. Peterson (D. Neb.):

1 Complaint

16 US Motion to Stay

18 HCI Opposition to 16

26 DCT Order Denying Motion to Stay

28 State Motion to Dismiss

29 HCI Opposition to 28

32 Reply in Support of 28

35 DCT Order

Federal Court Approves Auctioning of HCI Smokes; Case Still Under Active Investigation

December 17, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in United States v. 2015 Dodge Ram 350 Truck (D. Neb.):

77 dct order

Prior post here.

Cayuga Indian Nation Prevails in Tax Immunity Dispute with Seneca County

December 13, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in the long-running Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County (W.D. N.Y.):

58 Cayuga Motion for Summary Judgment

60-5 Seneca County MSJ

62 Cayuga Reply

67 Seneca County Reply

76 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Seminole Tax Claims on Claim Preclusion Grounds

December 10, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion:

Opinion

Here is an excerpt:

The question in this appeal is whether the doctrine of claim preclusion bars the Seminole Tribe of Florida (the “Tribe”) from again challenging the imposition of a Florida state tax on utility services, which the Tribe uses to conduct on reservation activities that are regulated by federal law. Concluding that the requirements of claim preclusion have been met and that no exception to the doctrine applies, we affirm the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of the Tribe’s complaint.

Briefs here.