Tax Court of Canada dismisses Aboriginal appeals to taxation of employment income

The Tax Court of Canada recently released Hester v. The Queen, which addressed the issue of tax exemptions for Aboriginals working off the reserve for an employer located on a reserve.  The two Aboriginal appellants (Joseph Hester and Mildred Bondy) argued that:

(1) in interpreting the phrase “situated on a reserve” in subsection 87(1) of the Indian Act, employment income is situate where the employer is located.

(2) the “connecting factor” analysis (as laid out in Williams v. The Queen, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877) was intended to have limited analysis and does not apply to employment income.

Continue reading

Anishnawbe Kwe Woman Denies Canadian Citizenship in Court – Still Has to Pay Canadian Taxes

Julie Pigeon, from Batchewana First Nation in Ontario was not successful in her attempt to avoid paying taxes to the Canadian government.

The case is here.

The Minister of National Revenue reassessed Pigeon’s tax liability for her income on the basis that her salary for the years in question was not the personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve (she lived off the reserve) within the meaning of section 87 of the Indian Act and — therefore — she was not exempt from income tax by any other enactment of Parliament within the meaning of paragraph 81(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Deputy Judge Rowe of the Tax Court of Canada noted that she hadn’t served the required notice on the Attorney General of Canada and on each Attorney General of the Provinces prior to her attack on the constitutional validity of the particular provision of the Act.

Interestingly, other than reading a written statement in court, Ms. Pigeon did not call any evidence.

Her statement is provided below, in its entirety.

Continue reading

Galanda/Broadman: “Taxing Times in Native America”

Galanda and Broadman have published a short paper on Indian taxation issues in the Washington Bar News (article here).

Muscogee Challenges to Oklahoma’s Enforcement of Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement Rejected

Here is the opinion in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Henry (E.D. Okla.):

Muscogee v Henry

Opening Brief in Chehalis Tribes v. Thurston County

Here: Appellants Opening Brief.

Lower court materials here.

Santa Ynez Indians Sue IRS Over Tax Refund re: Gaming Per Cap Withholding

Here is the complaint, filed in Central District of California: Santa Ynez v US Complaint.

An excerpt:

11. During 2003 and 2004, Santa Ynez made “per capita” payments to its members from revenues derived from gaming activities. Federal law, at 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(3)(D), makes such payments subject to federal income taxation and 26 U.S.C. § 3402(r) make such payments subject to federal withholding requirements.

12. During 2003 and 2004, Santa Ynez failed to withhold, or underwithheld, federal taxes on payments made to some tribal members.

13. The IRS later conducted an audit of Santa Ynez for those years and assessed taxes, interest and penalties against the Tribe for 2003 and 2004.

14. On or about May 5, 2006, Santa Ynez paid the IRS $1,041,745.11 for tax year 2003 and $2,891,865.76 for tax year 2004 in full satisfaction of all amounts ostensibly owed under the audit.

15. Upon information and belief, the IRS received and credited the Tribe’s tax payments on or about May 10, 2006.

16. Subsequent to making its May, 2006 tax payments to the IRS, the Tribe determined that all, or virtually all, of the tribal members whose taxes had not been withheld, or had been underwithheld, had reported and fully paid their federal income taxes for years 2003 and 2004. As a result, the Tribe overpaid its withholding tax obligation for years 2003 and 2004.

 

Second Circuit Declines to Vacate Stay Issued in Paterson v. Seneca Nation

Denying New York’s motion…

Certified Consolidation Order Denying Mtn to Vacate Stay in 4265

Native Wholesale Supply v. Oklahoma Cert Petition

Here: Native Wholesale Supply Cert Petition.

Here are the questions presented:

1. Whether a contract entered into by an Indian Tribe and fully performed outside the exterior boundaries of the state in which the Tribe’s reservation is located can constitutionally subject the out of state vendor to the personal jurisdiction of the state in which the Tribe’s reservation is located.

2. Whether a state can prohibit an Indian Tribe located within its boundaries from purchasing goods from Indians on a reservation outside the state.

Lower court materials here.

 

NCAI Amicus Brief in Support of Osage Cert Petition

Here: NCAI Amicus in Support of Cert Petition

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief in Red Earth v. Holder Appeal

Here: Alabama-Coushatta Amicus Brief