Here are the briefs in Automotive United Trades Organization v. State of Washington:
State Response to Policy Amicus
This case reached the Washington Supreme Court previously on a procedural issue, here.
Here are the briefs in Automotive United Trades Organization v. State of Washington:
State Response to Policy Amicus
This case reached the Washington Supreme Court previously on a procedural issue, here.
David Y. Kwok has posted “Taxation Without Compensation as a Challenge for Tribal Sovereignty” on SSRN. The paper is forthcoming in the Mississippi Law Journal.
Here is the abstract:
For over 150 years federal courts have held that Indian tribes have immunity from state taxes based upon the sovereignty of tribal lands. The principle of land-based tax immunity, however, has proven difficult to apply in the context of commodity goods like gasoline and cigarettes, which can freely move across state and tribal borders. Should state residents be able to avoid state cigarette taxes by driving onto tribal lands to make purchases? The result has been decades of questionable yet high-stakes litigation between states and tribes over a tax’s “legal incidence,” a judicial fiction that ignores economic reality. I propose a two-part solution to the problem of commodity taxation that will reduce such litigation while also doing justice to both state and tribal interests. First, courts should employ a broad reading of the legal incidence test described in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005), so as to clearly establish a state’s right to apply nondiscriminatory commodity taxes to sales occurring on tribal lands. To offset the state’s broad taxation power, courts should expand tribal sovereignty beyond tax immunity to also include a tribe’s right to an equitable portion of those commodity tax revenues. The combination of these judicial choices will discourage ongoing litigation and promote equitable negotiated results between states and tribes regarding commodity taxes.
Here is the motion in In Re 365,380 Ea 640 Boxes of Cigarettes worth 568,000.00 (Big Sandy Tobacco Redistribution) (C.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Quinault Indian Nation v. Comenout (W.D. Wash.):
Here is “Tossed out: Superior Court deems tribal tax-break bill unconstitutional.”
And State Superior Court Strikes Down HB 1287, and PILTs as “Taxes”
Here is the court’s order in City of Snoqualmie v. King County Executive (King County Super.):
An excerpt:
3. The payment labeled “payment in lieu of tax” (“PILT”) in Section 8 of Engrossed Substitute House Bill (“ESHB”) 1287 is a property tax under Washington Law;
4. The PILT is subject to uniformity requirements in Article VII of the Washington Constitution;
5. The PILT violates the uniformity requirements in Article VII of the Washington Constitution because it is not imposed at an equal tax rate and does not produce equality in valuing the property taxed; and
6. Section 8 of ESHB 1287 violates Article VII Section 1’s command that “the power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended or contracted away.
Background materials here.
Here is today’s order list.
The cert petition is here.
Here are the materials in United States v. Parry (E.D. Mo.):
| This webinar explore the effect of the new Interior regulations excluding state taxes on business leases in Indian Country. The panel will describe recent changes to the regulations and chart the course of the litigation ongoing in several states over the new regulations. The panel will also discuss strategies being considered to resolve this longstanding state-tribal conflict outside of the ongoing litigation.
Featured Speakers Wendy S. Pearson, Pearson Law Offices PS, Seattle, WA Bruce Zimmerman, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Pendleton, OR Joseph C. Lennihan, Attorney At Law, Santa Fe, NM Shana Barehand, Tribal Liaison, Washington Department of Revenue, Olympia, WA For more information and to register click here. PLEASE NOTE: To receive CLE credit you must be logged into the webinar interface for the ENTIRE program (including the Q&A). Partial credit is not available for this program. Please see the CLE Informaton page for more details |
Here:
Question presented:
Whether federal courts called upon to enforce Indian treaty protections in tribal challenges to State regulation may enter judgment against the Indian Tribe without considering evidence and entering findings of fact on the Indians’ understanding of the United States’ treaty promises.
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.