taxation – Page 30 – Turtle Talk

Native Wholesale Supply v. Wasden (Idaho) Cert Petition

January 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Native Wholesale Supply v Wasden Cert Petition

1. Whether under circumstances in which a State is admittedly precluded from regulating an Indian it is also precluded from regulating a corporation wholly owned by an Indian and organized under the laws of a federally recognized tribe.

2. Whether, under a State law that purports to give the Attorney General power to “approve” all cigarettes before they may be imported into Idaho, the State of Idaho can prohibit an Indian-owned business on the Coeur d’Alene reservation from importing into that reservation cigarettes that are sold “FOB Seneca Nation” by a company wholly owned by a member of the Seneca Nation and licensed by the Seneca Nation to carry on such trade.

3. Whether the State of Idaho’s cigarette-sale statutes are preempted to the extent that they are enforced in a manner that prohibits Native Wholesale Supply Company (“NWS”) from trading with Warpath Inc. (“Warpath”).

4. Whether the State of Idaho can constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over NWS, an Indian-chartered entity located on Seneca Nation of Indians Land, situated within the geographic boundaries of the State of New York, where NWS sells the tobacco products “FOB Seneca Nation” to Warpath, and the products are then transported to Warpath’s place of business on the Coeur d’Alene reservation.

Lower court materials here.

Village of Hobart v. Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin Cert Petition

January 17, 2014January 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Hobart Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1) Whether Congress’ waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity, under § 313(a) of the CWA, for enforcement of local stormwater management ordinances, for “any property” over which it has “jurisdiction,” applies to land taken into trust pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465.

2) Whether lands acquired by an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465, within its former reservation boundaries are, removed from state jurisdiction because, as the Seventh Circuit ruled, they are reclassified as “Indian Country.”

Lower court materials here.

N.M. Taxation and Revenue Dept. Decision on Taxation of Indian Domiciled Off-Reservation

January 14, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the decision in the Matter of the Protest of Tutt:

2013-12-02 Decision and Order

This is a case involving state income taxation of an Indian who was domiciled off-reservation, worked on-reservation and had a second place of abode on-reservation. The hearing officer found that the state could not tax the petitioner.

Materials in New York v. Grand River Enterprises Six Nations & Native Wholesale Supply

January 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

45 GRE Six Nations Motion to Dismiss

48 NWS Motion to Dismiss

49 New York Opposition

Agua Caliente Band v. Riverside County Complaint over Taxes on On-Rez Lessees

January 8, 2014January 7, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County (C.D. Cal.):

Complaint

News coverage here.

New Study: “Indian Tribal Government Access to Tax-Exempt Bond Financing”

January 6, 2014January 4, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Edith Brashares and Siobhan O’Keefe have posted “Indian Tribal Government Access to Tax-Exempt Bond Financing” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

While prior research focuses on Federal assistance to Native American tribal governments through spending programs, we examine tax incentive use by tribes. Tribal governments can issue tax-exempt bonds where the interest rates are lower because the Federal government does not tax bondholder on the interest they receive. To provide context, we briefly summarize the tax rules for tax-exempt bonds and describe tribal tax-exempt borrowing between 1987 and 2010. These data have not been published previously. Unlike most studies of tax-exempt bonds that examine how much is borrowed, we start by modeling the decision of a tribal government to borrow using tax-exempt bonds. We find tribes with resources, either gaming income or royalties, but that have members in need are more likely to borrow using tax-exempt bonds. Of those tribes that do borrow, the amount increases with the interest rate spread relative to Treasuries, gaming income and per capita income.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Another Matheson Objection to Tribal-State Tax Compact

December 27, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Matheson v. Smith:

CA9 Unpublished Memorandum

Matheson Opening Brief

Washington Brief

Matheson Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Thurston County Attempt to Widen Chehalis Tribes’ Great Wolf Lodge Tax Dispute Fails

December 17, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County Board of Equalization (W.D. Wash.):

210 County Motion for Declaratory Judgment

217 Chehalis Response

218 DCT Order Denying County Motion

An excerpt:

On November 21, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for declaratory judgment requesting that the Court “enter a declaratory judgment that the property taxes on the non-permanent, removable business personal property are not preempted as a matter of law . . . .” Dkt. 210 at 8–9. On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff opposed the motion on the grounds that it is procedurally improper and seeks relief outside of the pleadings. Dkt. 217 at 4–8. The Court agrees with Plaintiff on both points because (1) the amended complaint for declaratory judgment seeks relief for improvements that are not removable (Dkt. 46, ¶ 19) and (2) “a party may not make a motion for declaratory relief, but rather, the party must bring an action for a declaratory judgment.”