taxation – Page 13 – Turtle Talk

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Here is the unpublished opinion in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County.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