taxation – Page 37 – Turtle Talk

Notice 2012-60, 2012-41 I.R.B. 455, provides guidance on federal tax treatment of certain per capita payments made to members of Indian tribes. Since publication of Notice 2012-60, six additional tribes – Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska, Tlingit & Haida Tribes of Alaska, Northwestern Band of Shoshone Indians, Hoopa Valley Tribe, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe – have reached tribal trust case settlements with the United States and have been included in the Appendix.

Prior notice here.

IRS Notice on General Welfare Exclusion for Tribal Governments

December 6, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is IRS Notice 2012-75: Application of the General Welfare Exclusion to Indian Tribal Government Programs That Provide Benefits to Tribal Members.

Reply Briefs in Mashantucket Pequot Second Circuit Tax Case

December 5, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Connecticut Reply Brief

Town of Ledyard Reply Brief

Opening briefs are here.

Washington County v. Passamaquoddy Tribe — Tax Claim

November 30, 2012Kate Fort

Notice for Removal and Complaint here.

Press coverage here.

Opening Second Circuit Briefs in Mashantucket Pequot Nation v. Town of Ledyard Tax Case

November 26, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Town of Ledyard Opening Brief

Intervenor Connecticut Brief

MPN Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity from Antitrust Claims relating to Tribal Tax Agreement

November 13, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is the opinion and materials in Miller v. Wright.

The court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s dismissal of an antitrust action brought by cigarette vendors challenging taxes imposed by virtue of the authority vested in an Indian tribe, the panel held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in light of the tribe’s sovereign immunity. The panel held that the tribe did not implicitly waive its sovereign immunity by agreeing to dispute resolution procedures nor by ceding its authority to Washington State when entering into a cigarette tax contract. The panel also held that federal antitrust law did not explicitly abrogate tribal immunity, and the Sherman Antitrust Act was not a law of general applicability vis-a-vis the tribe. The panel held that tribal officials were protected by the tribe’s sovereign immunity because they acted pursuant to the tribe’s authority. The panel also affirmed the district court’s alternative ruling that the action was barred by res judicata in light of prior litigation in state and tribal courts.

Here are the briefs:

Miller Opening Brief

Puyallup Answer Brief

Miller Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.