Here are the materials so far in Alturas Indian Rancheria v. California Gambling Control Commission (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Granting Alturas TRO
H/T Pechanga.
taxation
Ninth Circuit Holds in Favor of Blue Lake Rancheria in FUTA Case
Here is the opinion in Blue Lake Rancheria v. United States.
And the briefs:
And a link to the lower court decision, now reversed.
Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Aboriginal Status Rights in Two Tax Cases
On July 22nd, (I know it’s late, but I just moved!) the Supreme Court of Canada upheld appeals in favor of aboriginal interests in two important cases, Bastien Estate v. Canada and Dubé v. R. Here’s an interesting and informative (pre-decision) commentary by Katherine MacLellan on Indian Act s. 87 taxation.
In Bastien Estate, the Supreme Court ruled that Roland Bastien, (now deceased for six years) a Huron man who took out term deposits at a credit union did not have to pay tax on the interest he earned on his investment. For 27 years, Bastien ran a small handbeaded moccasin business on the Wendake Reserve (near Quebec City), where he also invested some of the income from the operation and sale of his business in term deposits with a caisse populaire (a credit union), also on his reserve. Bastien believed the income was exempt from taxation under s. 87 of the Indian Act.
However, the Canada Revenue Agency disagreed, and added the term deposit investment income to his income for 2001. His estate representatives appealed the decision but lost at both the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal. Both lower courts ruled that the caisse populaire generated its revenues outside the reserve, not on it, and therefore the interest paid to Mr. Bastien was not exempt from taxation.
But the Supreme Court rejected that opinion and found that the lower courts gave too much weight to the fact that the credit union produced its revenues in the “commercial mainstream” off the reserve.
The companion case to Bastien, Dubé v. The Queen, involved Alexandre Dubé, an Attikamek aboriginal, who was also found to be exempt from tax on interest he earned on term deposits with an on-reserve credit union.
Tenth Circuit En Banc Petition in Ute Mountain Ute Case
Miccosukee Effort to Quash IRS Subpoenas Fails
As reported by Pechanga. Here are the materials in Miccosukee Tribe v. United States (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Denying Miccosukee Petition to Quash
Briefing in City of New York v. King Mountain Tobacco (Poospatuck Reservation)
Here are the materials in this Indian taxation case:
Tenth Circuit Rules against Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in State Tax Preemption Case
Here are the materials in Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Rodriguez:
CA10 Dissenting Opinion [the only opinion now available on the Tenth Circuit webpage]
Ute Mountain Ute Response Brief + Appendices
Tribal Member Effort to Remove Cigarette Tax Case to Federal Court Remanded to State Court
Here are the materials in People v. Huber (N.D. Cal.):
Huber Opposition to Remand Motion
Should’ve read this, first: Kaighn Smith, Jr., Federal Courts, State Power, and Indian Tribes: Confronting the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule, 35 N.M. L. Rev. 1 (2005) (email me if you want a copy).
California Court of Appeals Affirms Injunction against Indian Tobacco Retailer on Agua Caliente Reservation
Here is the unpublished opinion in People ex rel. Brown v. Black Hawk Tobacco, Inc.
An excerpt:
The superior court granted a preliminary injunction, prohibiting defendants and appellants Black Hawk Tobacco, Inc. (Black Hawk) and Frederick Allen McAllister (McAllister) from selling cigarettes to non-Indians in violation of state and federal laws. Black Hawk and McAllister appeal from the order granting the injunction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6).) On appeal, defendants argue that the State of California cannot regulate defendants’ sale of cigarettes to non-Indians because defendants are operating stores located on trust lands held by the United States for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (the Band), a federally-recognized tribe. We reject this argument and hold the superior court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction against defendants.
Prophet River First Nation v. Rath & Co.: Attorney Fees & Taxes
In Prophet River First Nation v. Rath & Co., a judge from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has exercised his discretion and extended the time allotted for taxation of lawyer’s fees ($10 million) in connection with a larger settlement ($130 million) between Prophet River First Nation and the Government of Canada.
This settlement was in the news in 2008 when members of that first nation took over their band office in a peaceful sit-in. They were upset that Chief Liza Wolf and Councillors Lorraine Wolf and Loretta McAllister gave themselves each a $800,000 lump sum payments as part of the “administration costs” of the lawsuit.
When those three were ousted in an election, the new Chief and Councillors commenced this action, seeking to tax the funds received by the law firm, Rath & Co., even though the deadline had passed.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.