Here:
News coverage here.
Here is the motion in Confederated Chehalis Tribes v. Thurston County Board of Equalization:
Chehalis Motion to Take Judicial Notice
The federal regs are here. 25 CFR 162.017 reads:
Subject only to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on the leased land, without regard to ownership of those improvements, are not subject to any fee, tax, assessment, levy or other charge imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State. Improvements may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
Interesting case, this Begay v. Commissioner.
The court rejects Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Equal Protection claims, holding that a Navajo elder’s care of a nephew is insufficient to confer the required status for deductions under the Internal Revenue Code.
Here is the argument:
Although petitioner concedes that TD is not her qualifying child under section 152(c)(2), she argues that the exclusion from the section 152(c)(2) relationships of certain obligatory clan-based relationships in Navajo culture violates her constitutional rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. According to petitioner, in Navajo culture and tradition children are not only children of the parents; they are also children of the clan. Petitioner submits that a Navajo clan consists of the first clans of the child’s mother, father, maternal grandfather, and paternal grandfather and that the clan relationship may extend beyond the foregoing if, for example, the child is adopted.
Here is the order:
DCT Order Granting Washington’s Motion for PI
Briefs and materials here (federal) and here (tribal).
Here are the materials in Smith v. Fredrico (E.D. N.Y.):
Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida Dept. of Revenue (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Granting Florida Motion
Florida Dept. of Revenue Motion to Dismiss
Florida Dept. of Revenue Reply
An excerpt:
The Court will dismiss the Complaint for two reasons. First, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over any claims that essentially seek review of the previous state-court action. Second, because the fuel tax applies only to off-reservation activity, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Tax Injunction Act.
The Florida courts previously ruled in a similar claim a few years back; hence, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Here.
TOC:
Here:
Yakama v Haight Tribal Court Complaint (USDC)
Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO (USDC)
Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO Motion (USDC)
Related federal court materials are here.
Here are the materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):
News coverage here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.