The questions presented are:
Whether the State of Washington Cigarette Tax laws are federally preempted and inapplicable to an American Indian motor carrier hauling cigarettes between Indian reservations in Interstate and Indian Commerce.
Whether the laws of the State of Washington can regulate an enrolled tribal Indian shipping goods between a federally recognized Indian Reservation in Idaho to his business on the reservation of his membership located in the State of Washington.
Indianz reports the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Barona Band v. Yee. Here are the briefs:
Here, the Oklahoma Tax Commission is seeking review of a CA10 decision allowing a suit brought by the Osage Nation to proceed over sovereign immunity objections. Here is our post about the CA10 decision, with briefs and other materials. And here is the cert petition.
Here are the questions presented (from the petition):
1. May federal courts employ the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), to permit suits by Indian tribes, otherwise barred by state sovereign immunity, that seek to establish sovereignty and jurisdiction over historical reservations, without taking into consideration the substantial impact of the relief on the sovereignty and jurisdiction long-exercised over such lands by states?
2. In view of this Court’s ruling in Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), and other decisions, may a federal court allow an Indian tribe’s suit – otherwise barred by the Eleventh Amendment – to proceed against state officers under the so-called “straightforward inquiry” used to determine the application of the Ex parte Young exception, when the relief would divest a state of substantial and long-exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction over its largest county?
3. Does a suit by an Indian tribe seeking a judicial determination that its historical reservation “remains” a present-day reservation involve the type of retrospective relief that cannot be pursued against state officers under the Ex parte Young exception to state sovereign immunity?
From the Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun:
Tribal Council for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe is offering Tribal employees a 10 cent per gallon discount.
More than 4,200 employees were notified Friday of the discount available at both Sagamok and Saganing Sagamok convenience store gas stations.
“I think (Tribal) council is aware of the tough economic times our employees are going through,” Tribal Chief Fred Cantu said. “And we know that there are people who work here that drive from as far away as Lansing and Saginaw.
“I think council felt their employees should share in the discount we offer to our (Tribal) members because we feel that our employees are like family to us.”
Better hope this isn’t taxable income….
Here is a recent decision from the U.S. Tax Court called Green v. Commissioner. From the opinion:
When income payable to a person is shunted away to pay a debt, it normally still counts as taxable income. This is just what happened to Green in the years at issue here-1997, 1999, and 2000. But Green never filed Forms 1040 for those years. Nor did he make estimated income tax payments. Instead, as he had done since at least 1991, he sent to the IRS documents called “Treaty-Based Return Position Disclosure Under Section 6114.” In these documents, he claimed that he was exempt from taxation under an 1815 treaty between the United States and the Potawatomi tribe. [footnote 6 is here — interesting reading] Treaty with the Potawatomies, Sept. 8, 1815, art. 2, 7 Stat. 131. A footnote in a much tinier font set out his income for each year. Accompanying the big-font, little-font assertion of his tax-exempt status was a cover letter, a summary of purported legal arguments for his treaty-based return position, a photocopy of the regulations applicable to section 6114, copies of computer screen printouts that Green claims show the Commissioner’s agreement with his decision not to file returns, a long article written by Green himself describing his belief that tribal Potawatomi are exempt from income tax, and copies of caselaw supposedly supporting his arguments.
Indianz coverage is here. Here are the materials. Once again, let it be known that Rule 19 is my favorite(!):
nisqually-v-gregoire-complaint
nisqually-motion-for-preliminary-injunction
squaxin-island-motion-to-dismiss
franks-landing-motion-to-dismiss
From the opinion:
The City of New York has brought an Amended Complaint against the above-captioned defendants, a group of cigarette wholesalers who are state-licensed cigarette stamping agents. The principal [*2] contention of the City is that the wholesalers violate the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (“CCTA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq., by shipping in excess of 10,000 unstamped cigarettes to reservation retailers who re-sell the cigarettes to the public. According to the City, New York Tax Law § 471 requires that cigarettes sold to Native Americans for re-sale to the public must be taxed, and that the defendant agents are responsible for collecting the tax by purchasing tax stamps from the New York State Tax Commission and affixing them to cigarette packages. The City brings additional state law claims under New York Tax Law § 484, the Cigarette Marketing Standards Act, as well as a public nuisance claim. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7). For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motions to dismiss are denied.
Here are the materials:
The case is Ho-Chunk Nation v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue (wisconsin-coa-opinion). An excerpt from the opinion:
This appeal concerns the Ho-Chunk Nation’s claim for a refund of cigarette taxes under Wis. Stat. § 139.323 (2005-06) in respect to sales on the DeJope property. The Tax Appeals Commission denied the claim because it concluded the DeJope property was not “designated … trust land on or before January 1, 1983” as required by the statute. See § 139.323(3). The circuit court affirmed and the Ho-Chunk Nation appeals.
We agree with the commission and the circuit court that the statutory phrase means that the United States government must hold the land in trust on or before January 1, 1983. We conclude that the United States government does not hold the land in trust until formal acceptance under 25 C.F.R. § 151.14 (2007) occurs. Because this did not occur with respect to the DeJope property until after January 1, 1983, the Ho-Chunk-Nation is not entitled to a refund. Accordingly, we affirm on this issue.
Turtle Talk 