taxation – Page 25 – Turtle Talk

Washington COA Affirms Revocation of Colville Resident’s State Tobacco Wholesaler Certification

February 11, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Matheson v. State Dept. of Revenue (Wash. App.):

D2 45485-8-II Unpublished Opinion

And the briefs:

454858-Appellant’s Brief

454858-Reply Brief

454858-Respondent’s Brief

Federal Forfeiture Action over $400,000 of NY Indian Tobacco Retailer

February 6, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in United States v. $400,000 (W.D. N.Y.):

1 Complaint for Forfeiture

Excerpts:

During the investigation, it was determined that the parties involved in the shipping of the contraband cigarettes in interstate commerce also filed false information to the appropriate taxation authorities as required under the Jenkins Act, Title 15, United States Code, Sections 375-378. All cigarette sales made by a stamping agent are required by New York State law to be recorded on a form known as Form CG which had to be sent on a monthly basis to the NYSDT in Albany, New York, with a certificate that the information contained therein was true and correct.

And:

During the time period of September 24, 2012 – January 14, 2013, AARON PIERCE through his corporation, AJ’s Wholesale LLC (“hereafter “AJ’s”) sold 403,413 cartons of cigarettes in a manner designed to make it look on paper as though the untaxed cigarettes were legitimately obtained through Ho-Chunk, Inc. (“HCID”) a tribal cigarette and tobacco distributor, a corporation operated by the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, as well as other Native American cigarette and tobacco suppliers.

Finally:

Ho-Chunk, Inc. is the parent company of HCI Logistics (HCIL) which is a commercial transportation company that HCID would use to transport product from the HCID warehouse in Winnebago, Nebraska. Neither HCID nor HCIL are licensed tobacco wholesalers or state stamping agents in Nebraska or New York State.

Anadarko Petroleum Wins Indian (sorta) Tax Case in Utah SCT

February 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Utah State Tax Commission:

Anadarko150130

An excerpt:

This is a tax case that comes before us on appeal from a formal decision of the Utah State Tax Commission (Commission). Utah law imposes a severance tax on owners of oil and gas interests. The tax rate an owner must pay depends on the fair market value of the owner‟s interest. The question presented in this case concerns how the value of such an interest is to be calculated. Petitioners Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore L.P. (collectively Anadarko) argue that the Commission improperly disallowed deductions they made for tax-exempt federal, state, and Indian tribe royalty interests. Based on the plain meaning and structure of the severance tax statute, we agree and reverse the Commission‟s determination.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Seminole Tribe v. Florida

January 12, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

The cert petition is here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama/King Mountain Tax Dispute

January 8, 2015August 31, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:

Oral argument video.

Lower court materials in King Mountain Tobacco Co. v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (E.D. Wash.) are here.

SCOTUSBlog Lists Seminole Tribe v. Florida as Petition to Watch for Friday’s Conference

January 7, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. And the cert stage briefs here.

I predict a decent chance for a CVSG but the Court ultimately will deny this one.

Lower court materials and my commentary here.

Opening Eleventh Circuit Brief in Seminole Tribe Rental and Gross Receipts Tax Challenge

January 7, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Florida Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

Student Scholarship on Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard

December 22, 2014December 19, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Connecticut Law Review has published “Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard: The Preemption of State Taxes Under Bracker, the Indian Trader Statutes, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.” It is here on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The Indian Tribes of the United States occupy an often ambiguous place in our legal system, and nowhere is that ambiguity more pronounced than in the realm of state taxation. States are, for the most part, preempted from taxing the Indian Tribes, but something unique happens when the state attempts to levy a tax on non-Indian vendors employed by a Tribe for work on a reservation. The state certainly has a significant justification for imposing its tax on non-Indians, but at what point does the non-Indian vendor’s relationship with the Tribe impede the state’s right to tax? What happens when the taxed activity is a sale to the Tribe? And what does it mean when the taxed activity has connections to Indian Gaming?

This Comment explores three preemption standards as they were interpreted by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case between the State of Connecticut and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. In deciding whether preemption was the legally required outcome, the Court looked to and applied the landmark preemption analysis case White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, the Indian Trader Statutes, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. While more than one legally correct outcome exists in this case, this Comment endorses and argues in favor of preemption based on the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the preemption analysis required by Bracker.