Here:
Reply Brief TK
Lower court materials 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
Here are the materials in City of New York v. Gordon (S.D. N.Y.):
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.
Here are the materials in State ex rel. Harris v. Rose (E.D. Cal.):
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.
Here.
An excerpt:
III. TRIBAL FINANCING
Indian tribes and wholly-owned tribal corporations chartered under Federal law are not subject to Federal income taxes. In contrast, a corporation owned by a tribe or tribal members and organized under State law is subject to Federal income tax on income earned from commercial activities conducted on or off the tribe’s reservation. Generally, tribal members are subject to Federal income taxes except for certain income. For example, income earned from the exercise of certain fishing rights is excluded from income.
Tribes are often depressed economic communities with high unemployment. From 2007 to 2010, the American Indian unemployment rate increased from 7.5% to 15.2%. The unemployment rate for Alaska Natives was even higher—21.3% in 2010. The tax code contains several provisions to boost economic activity within and on tribal lands. Tribes are also allowed to issue tax-exempt bonds; however, such bonds are limited to “essential government functions”, a requirement that does not apply to states.
1. Modify tribal tax-exempt bonds
a. Modify tax-exempt bonds for tribal governments (FY14 Administration Budget Proposal; estimated in 2013 to cost less than $1 billion over 10 years; Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-19-05R, 2005)
i. Repeal the essential governmental function requirement so that eligibility standards are the same for tribal governments and state and local governments (Testimony of Dr. Lindsay Robertson before the Finance Committee, May 15, 2012; Department of the Treasury, “Report and Recommendations to Congress Regarding Tribal Economic Development Bond Provision under Section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code,” 2011)
ii. Conform private activity bond standard to those of state and local governments
1. Could restrict project location to reservations
2. Could prohibit issue or use of bonds for gambling facilities
2. Exempt certain tribal activities from taxation
a. Create a ten-year, tax-free zone for selected areas of Indian country in which economic activity would not be subject to any federal, state, or local income, sales, or excise taxes (Testimony of President Robert Odawi Porter before the Finance Committee, May 15, 2012; Lummi Indian Business Council comments to Committee on Ways and Means working group on Charitable/Exempt organizations, submitted April 15, 2013)
3. Clarify the general welfare exclusion doctrine for certain benefits provided by tribes to members (Various Tribal comments to Committee on Ways and Means working group on Charitable/Exempt organizations, submitted April 15, 2013)
a. Codify the income exclusion for government benefits provided by Indian tribes under the general welfare exclusion doctrine
b. Adopt a moratorium on audits relating to the general welfare exclusion doctrine while implementing Notice 2012-75
4. Make permanent or expand temporary provisions
a. Make permanent the Indian employment credit and accelerated depreciation on Indian reservations (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma comments to Committee on Ways and Means working group on Charitable/Exempt organizations, submitted April 15, 2013)
b. Expand the Indian employment tax credit to more closely resemble the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (Testimony of Donald Laverdure before the Finance Committee, July 22, 2008)
5. Conform the definition of Indian and reservation for tax purposes (Testimony of Director D’Shane Barnett before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, March 19, 2013)
6. Modify the adoption tax credit to allow Tribal Governments to determine whether a child has special needs (FY14 Administration Budget Proposal; estimated in 2013 to cost less than $1 billion over 10 years)
Here.
Here:
The petition is here. No chance for a grant. I wouldn’t have even filed an opposition….
NCAI & Partner Organizations Host Webinar on Comments to IRS General Welfare Guidance
this Thursday, May 9th
During the 2012 White House Tribal Nations Summit, the IRS released Proposed Guidance in Notice 2012-75 for how its Office of Indian Tribal Governments will examine certain programs administered by tribal governments, including programs for housing, education, elder and travel assistance, as well as cultural programs. In that notice, the IRS designated a June 3 comment deadline for tribes to submit suggestions and comments on the proposed guidelines.
NCAI, in partnership with the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI), the California Association of Tribal Governments (CATG), the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas (UINOKT), the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes (MAST) and the Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA), has developed Draft Joint Comments on behalf of tribal nations.
Please join us as we discuss the Draft comments and seek additional views from tribal nations on the content of these collective draft comments.
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
Here is the opinion in Quantum Entertainment Limited v. Department of the Interior:
Quantum Entertainment v Dept of Interior
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials are here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.