Federal Court Rejects Yakama Treaty Defense to Federal Taxes on King Mountain Tobacco Products

Here are the materials in King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (E.D. Wash.):

DCT Order Denying Yakama Motion

Yakama Motion for Partial Summary J

Federal Opposition Memorandum

Yakama Reply

An excerpt:

This Court already has held that King Mountain does not enjoy an exemption from the federal excise tax on tobacco products under Capoeman because the tax is not imposed on products directly derived from the land. Therefore, to the degree that Article II contains express exemptive language, the exemption to taxation created by Article II would not apply to the facts of this case. Id. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to establish an exemption to the excise tax under the Treaty.

The court also rejected claims that the General Allotment Act forbid the federal taxes as well:

In this case, Mr. Wheeler is the allottee, but King Mountain is the tax payer. The tax lien statute applies to the property of the “person liable to pay” the unpaid tax. 26 U.S.C. § 6321. Although the Court is aware that Mr. Wheeler’s assets could be subject to lien if King Mountain were found to be Mr. Wheeler’s alter ego, see G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 350–51, 97 S.Ct. 619, 50 L.Ed.2d 530 (1977), the record is devoid of any evidence that King Mountain is Mr. Wheeler’s alter ego. Accordingly, any lien would be imposed on King Mountain’s property. As the trust property is held for the benefit of Mr. Wheeler, it is not an asset of King Mountain. Therefore, under the reasoning of Anderson, the Capoeman exception to taxation would not apply to income earned by King Mountain.

Materials in a related case are here.

Federal Court Denies Yakama Motion for Injunction in State-Tribal Fuel Tax Dispute

Here are the updated materials in State of Washington v. Tribal Court for the Yakama Indian Nation (E.D. Wash.):

Yakama Cross Motion

Washington Opposition to Yakama Motion

Yakama Reply

DCT Order Denying Yakama Motion for PI

The materials from the tribal court portion of this case are here. And the earlier federal court materials on tribal court jurisdiction are here.

Federal Court Order Memorializing Grant of Injunction against Yakama Tribal Court in Washington-Yakama Tax Dispute

Here is the order:

DCT Order Granting Washington’s Motion for PI

Briefs and materials here (federal) and here (tribal).

Tribal Court Materials in Yakama v. State of Washington — Fuel Tax Dispute

Here:

Yakama v Haight Tribal Court Complaint (USDC)

Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO (USDC)

Yakama v Haight Tribal Court TRO Motion (USDC)

Related federal court materials are here.

Washington v. Yakama Tribal Court — Dispute over Tribal-State Fuel Tax Agreement

Here are the materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):

Washington Complaint

Washington Motion for PI

Yakama Cross Motion

News coverage here.

Federal Court Holds Teck Cominco Metals Liable under CERCLA for Lake Roosevelt Pollution Clean-Up Costs

Here is the order in Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals (E.D. Wash.):

DCT Judgment Favoring Pakootas — Phase I

 

Spokane Tribe Member Breach of Trust Case re: Mining on Indian Allotment Partially Dismissed

Here are materials from Villegas v. United States (E.D. Wash.):

DCT Order Partially Dismissing Villegas Complaint

Villegas Complaint

Dawn Mining Motion to Dismiss

Newmont USA Motion to Dismiss

 

Briefs in Yakama v. Holder

Here are the briefs relating to last week’s opinion posted here:

237 FILED – Memorandum in support of motion for TRO and PI

244 FILED – federal opposition to motion for tro

248 FILED – County Opposition to TRO

255 FILED – Reply in support of TRO (county)

256 FILED – Reply in support of TRO (fed)

Federal Court Dismisses Colville Tribe from Non-Indian Claims to Indian Allotments (Sorta)

Here are the materials in this update to Grondal v. United States (E.D. Wash.):

021612 Order

Colville Motion

Plaintiffs’ Opposition

Wapato Heritage Opposition

Colville Reply

An excerpt from the court’s order:

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 21, 2009. Plaintiffs have acquired memberships in and are tenants/occupants of the Mill Bay Resort, a campground located on Lake Chelan in Chelan County, Washington. The Mill Bay Resort exists on real property known as Moses Allotment No.8, also known as Indian Allotment 151-MA-8 (“MA_8”), which consists of approximately 174.26 acres on the shores of Lake Chelan. MA-8 is part of an original allotment authorized under the Moses Agreement of July 7, 1883 as ratified by 23 Stat. 79-80, July 4, 1884 and conveyed to Wapato John through two trust patents. The history of the creation ofMA-8 and other Moses Agreement allotments has been discussed elsewhere, including in this court’s decision on summary judgment (ECF No. 144), in Wapato Heritage, LLC v. U.S., 637 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2011), and in U.S. v. La Chappelle, 81 F. 152 (C.C. 12 Wash. 1897), United States v. Moore, 161 F. 513 (9th Cir. 1908), and Starr v. Long Jim, 227 13 U.S. 613 (1913).

Brutal, Tragic Case Out of Yakama: Government Limits Liability for Negligent Death of Teenage JobsCorps Worker

Here are the materials in Challinor v. United States (E.D. Wash.), where the court concludes:

In summary, because the Estate’s FTCA negligence claims colorably fall within FECA’s scope, the Court must dismiss this lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Moe, 326 F.3d at 1068 (requiring dismissal of a claim that is “colorably within” FECA’s scope). Although the United States may face liability under the FTCA if an injury occurs to a non-Job-Corps participant at YFP because that individual may not be a federal employee, the Court recognizes this question is not before it at this time. The Court is hopeful that the BIA and YFP take the appropriate necessary steps to ensure that all workers, especially those young Job Corps students with so much life ahead, are not subjected to such serious safety violations. See Marly’s Bear Med. v. United States, 241 F.3d 1208, 1216-17 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that fatal injuries to anon-federal employee during a logging operation conducted pursuant to a BIA contract were recoverable under the FTCA because the BIA’s responsibility to ensure that safety precautions were implemented was not a discretionary function). The Court is also hopeful that Congress will soon address the shameful inadequacy of FECA’s $10,000.00 death gratuity payment. While the law required this decision, the Court sympathizes with Mr. Challinor’s parents for the loss of their son.

DCT Order Granting Government’s Motion

Government Motion to Dismiss

Challinor Opposition

Government Reply Brief