taxation – Page 43 – Turtle Talk

In November 2001, South Point informed the Department of its legal position that based on the lease with the Tribe, the personal property at the facility “is not subject to Arizona’s property tax.” As to the Department’s request to visit the facility, South Point stated that the request “would have to be approved by the Tribe” and that “the Tribe does not want the Department of Revenue purporting to exercise its jurisdiction on the Tribe’s sovereign lands.”

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Cert Petition in Natural Resources Tax Case

December 13, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

Final UMUT Petition for Certiorari

Appendix – Final

The questions presented are:

1. Does a state have the power to tax minerals production within the territorial boundaries of an Indian nation when the state provides no services in that location whatsoever, and where the tribe’s members cannot even vote in that state’s elections, amounting to taxation without representation?

2. Does Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989), permit New Mexico to tax oil and gas operators’ activities on Indian trust land even where, as here, “the State has nothing to do with the on-reservation activity,
save tax it”?

Tenth Circuit materials are here.

Washington Supreme Court Finds State Has Jurisdiction in Washington v. Comenout

December 8, 2011Kate Fort1 Comment

Previous materials here.

Opinion here.

ALEXANDER, J.—The primary issue presented by this case is whether the State of Washington has jurisdiction over members of Indian tribes who sell unstamped cigarettes without a license at a store that is located on trust allotment land that is outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation. We conclude that the State does possess jurisdiction in such cases, and, thus, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion of the defendants herein to dismiss the charges against them.

No Axes To the Taxes – Marcinyshyn v. R.

December 7, 2011Peter Scott Vicaire

Marcinyshyn v. R was recently handed down by the Tax Court of Canada – and is really just more of the same. The aboriginal appellants were denied tax relief because of the failed “connecting factors” test, notwithstanding their argument that the test has become obsolete as a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bastien and Dubé.