cigarette taxes – Turtle Talk

City of New York Wins Injunction against Seneca-Based Tobacco Wholesalers

September 12, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in City of New York v. Wolfpack Tobacco (S.D. N.Y.):

From the court’s order:

Defendants WOLFPACK TOBACCO, CLOUD AND COMPANY, ALLEGANY SALES AND MARKETING, and PHILIP JIMERSON are enjoined from: i) Advertising or selling cigarettes to New York State residents at prices that do not include the cost of New York State taxes, and for sales to City residents, do not also include the cost of New York City taxes;ii) Selling or shipping any cigarettes without monthly reporting of the sales and/or shipments (including names, dates, addresses, quantities, prices and brands for each sale or shipment, organized by City, town or zip code) to: (a) the New York City Office of the Corporation Counsel, the New York City Department of Finance, and the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance for sales or shipments into New York State and (b) the respective state tobacco tax administrators for sales or shipments into other states; (iii) Selling or shipping any cigarettes unless the packages identify the contents as cigarettes and the packages are delivered pursuant to an age verification procedure that conforms with the procedure specified in the PACT Act; and iv) Selling or shipping more than ten pounds of cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco in a single sale or delivery.

Shinnecock Cigarette Trader’s Demand for Return of Confiscated Smokes Rejected

January 14, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Smith v. Fredrico (E.D. N.Y.):

DCT Order Adopting R&R

Smith Motion for PI

Suffolk County Opposition

Smith Reply

MJ R&R Recommending Denial of Motion

Smith Objection to R&R

Suffolk County Response to Objection

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. Ontario

June 16, 2011Peter Scott Vicaire1 Comment

In a civil procedure matter dealing with a case involving seized cigarettes, an Ontario judge adjourned the case sine die until another matter is adjudicated. Six Nations only wanted it adjourned until some time in July, while Ontario requested the sine die adjournment. The judge blamed Six Nations for the manner in which it “has chosen to conduct the litigation.”

Continue reading →

Wisconsin SCT Reviews Ho-Chunk Nation Tax Case

March 18, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The lower court opinion in Ho-Chunk Nation v. Wisc. Dept. of Revenue is here. Oral argument was last month.

Here are the questions presented:

Is the petitioner entitled to a refund of cigarette tax revenue for the sale of cigarettes on DeJope property pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 139.31 and 139.323 (3)?

What is the reasonable interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 139.323 (3)’s “designated . . .trust land” within the context of the sale of cigarettes on the DeJope property?

NYTs Article on Poospatuck Cigarette Sales

December 14, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the NYTs:

MASTIC, N.Y. — Down by the lapping waters of Great South Bay, the Indian chief stared up at the trees swaying in the wind. Then he squinted: Was that a surveillance camera on top of that utility pole?

Probably not, but Harry Wallace, chief of the Unkechaug Nation, says he has good reason to be watching his back — and his tribe’s — closely.

He and several other owners of shops that sell cigarettes on the tiny Poospatuck reservation on the South Shore of Long Island, where the Unkechaugs are based, have been sued by the City of New York. The city claims that this Indian enclave — the closest reservation to New York City — has become a “tax evasion haven” and a drain on the city’s coffers.

Continue reading →

Wisconsin Court of Appeals on Trust Land and Tax Question

May 2, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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.