taxation – Page 33 – Turtle Talk

If you already have questions regarding the issues we plan to cover, please email to us at: tege.itg.askus@irs.gov. Please use the subject line: Indian Tribal Settlement Phone Forum. We will attempt to address your questions during the forum.

We look forward to the opportunity to serve you on June 26th.

Update Federal District Court Materials in Yakama/Washington Tax Dispute

June 6, 2013June 6, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are updated materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):

DCT Denying Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service

DCT Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration

Yakama Motion to Compel Arbitration

Yakama Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service

State Opposition to Yakama Motions

Yakama Reply on Arbitration

Yakama Reply on Ineffective Service Motion

Prior posts are here and here. The case is pending in the CA9 — materials here.

Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Petition — Challenge to Colville Tax Compact

June 5, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Tonasket v Sargent Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether Indian tribal immunity from suit allows the Indian tribe, a price fixing competitor, to be immune from federal anti-trust laws?

2. Whether the officials of an Indian tribe that include the tribe’s tobacco tax administrator, acting in violation of federal law, can be protected by tribal immunity when prospective relief is sought?

Lower court materials here.

Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida Tax Dispute

June 3, 2013May 31, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Seminole Tribe Opening Brief

Florida Appellee Brief

Reply Brief TK

Lower court materials here.

Uniband v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Opinion

May 28, 2013Kate Fort

Here.

P is a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by T, an Indian tribe. For the years at issue P attempted to file consolidated returns with C, another corporation wholly owned by T. P contends that T is the common parent corporation of P and C and that together they constitute an affiliated group eligible to file a consolidated return. On the returns filed, P did not claim Indian employment credits under I.R.C. sec. 45A even though P was entitled to them; instead P deducted the entirety of its employee expenses. R determined that the consolidated returns that P joined in filing were invalid and that P was required to claim a credit under I.R.C. sec. 45A and reduce its wage deduction by the entire credit amount (without regard to credit limitations for particular tax years). P now contends that it is not subject to corporate income tax because it is an integral part of T, which because it is an Indian tribe is exempt from income tax.

Held: P, as a State-chartered corporation, is a separate and distinct entity from T and is not exempt from the corporate income tax.
Held, further, the consolidated returns filed for the years in issue were invalid because T, as an Indian tribe, was not eligible to join in the filing of a consolidated return, and P and C alone did not constitute an affiliated group.
Held, further, the Indian employment credits under I.R.C. sec. 45A are not elective; and as a result, P’s employee expense deductions for the years at issue must be reduced by the amount of the credit as determined under I.R.C. sec. 45A without regard to limitations on the allowable amount of the credit.Uni

Federal Court Enjoins Seneca Member-Owned “All Of Our Butts” from Selling Smokes in New York City

May 23, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in City of New York v. Gordon (S.D. N.Y.):

DCT Order Granting Injunction

City Motion for PI

Gordon Motion to Dismiss

An excerpt:

Plaintiff, the City of New York (“the City”), brought this action seeking injunctive relief, penalties, and damages for violations of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (“PACT Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 375 et seq.; the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (“CCTA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq.; the Cigarette Marketing Standards Act (“CMSA”), N.Y. Tax L. § 483 et seq.; and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. The City has moved for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enjoining Defendants Robert and Marcia Gordon (together “the Gordon Defendants”) from violating the PACT Act and the CMSA; and Defendants Marcia Gordon and Regional Integrated Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Regional Parcel Services (“RPS”) from violating the CCTA. Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, the City’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED, and the Defendants’ motions to dismiss are DENIED.

No Federal Jurisdiction in California Smokeshop Case

May 17, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State ex rel. Harris v. Rose (E.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Granting Remand

Motion to Remand

Opposition

An excerpt:

Plaintiff State of California initially sued defendant Darren Rose in Shasta County Superior Court, alleging that Rose violated state law by selling certain unregistered cigarette brands and by failing to properly collect & remit tobacco excise taxes. Rose removed the matter to this court, alleging federal question jurisdiction. California now moves to remand, and seeks an accompanying award of attorney’s fees and costs if it prevails on this motion.

The motion came on for hearing on May 13, 2013. Having considered the matter, for the reasons set forth below, the court will grant California’s motion and remand this matter.