Here are the materials in La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior (C.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing La Cuna Complaint
Our previous post in this case is here.
Here are the materials in La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior (C.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing La Cuna Complaint
Our previous post in this case is here.
Here is the opinion in La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Prot. Circle Advisory Comm. v. United States DOI (C.D. Cal.):
Here is the order:
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.
Looks like an interesting case — whether a tribe is liable for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act in allegedly failing to properly pay overtime wages in a TANF program run by the tribal government (the answer is no).
Here are the materials in Noriega v. Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe (C.D. Cal.):
DCT Order to Dismiss Noriega Complaint
As this article reports, the 29 Palms Band sued the State of California over gaming-related income on behalf of its off-reservation members. The court granted an earlier motion to dismiss, but allowed the Band leave to file an amended complaint on whether IGRA preempts state taxation.
Here are the materials so far:
Sept DCT Order Granting California Motion to Dismiss
Here is the minute order in United States v. Duro (C.D. Cal.) (much longer than a minute, believe me), holding that Harvey Duro violated 25 U.S.C. sec. 415 by not obtaining a lease from the Secretary of Interior for his park on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.