IGRA

Cert Petition in Oklahoma Gaming Machines Tax Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Rogers County Board of Tax Roll Corrections v. Video Gaming Technologies, Inc.:

20200514142407520_Petition for Writ of Certiorari

20200514142428474_Appendix for Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Question presented:

Whether a generally applicable state ad valorem tax, as assessed against personal property owned by a non-Indian, out-of-state corporate entity and leased to a tribe for use in its casino operations, is preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Court’s “particularized inquiry” balancing test, see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), where the tax does not infringe on any federal regulatory purpose contained in the IGRA, the tax does not interfere with any tribal sovereignty interests, and the tax supports relevant and important government interests, such as law enforcement, schools and health services.

Lower court decision here.

UPDATE:

Tulsa County Assessor Amicus Brief

Cert Opp Brief

Oklahoma SCT Holds Tax on Video Game Machines Used at Cherokee Casinos is Preempted by Federal Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Video Game Technologies v. Rogers County Board of Tax Roll Corrections.

Here is a related opinion involving machines at the Creek casinos, Video Game Technologies v. Tulsa County Board of Tax Roll Corrections.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Four Indian Law Matters (Miccosukee + Jim, ICWA, and Comanche)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is Tuesday’s order list.

The materials in the Miccosukee petitions are here.

The page on the ICWA case is here.

The Comanche materials are here.

Miccosukee Per Cap Taxation Cert Petitions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States:

cert-petition-1-1.pdf

Question presented:

The 2014 Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act states that, for income tax purposes, “[g]ross income does not include the value of any Indian general welfare benefit.”

The question presented is whether contrary to that plain command, gross income includes “Indian general welfare benefits” when those benefits are derived from gaming revenue pursuant to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Here is the petition in Jim v. United States:

cert-petition-2-1.pdf

Questions presented:

Whether treaties with Indian tribes must be construed consistent with that tribe’s present-sense understanding of the treaty.

Whether the Miccosukee Tribe’s long-standing method of compensation for use of Tribal member lands and distributing revenue from land to its members can be considered a “mere formalism” to avoid inclusion and taxation as income to the members when the Tribe’s chosen method of compensation is soundly in line with federal law and policy.

Whether the Assistant Secretary of the Interior through its designated representative can interpret, waive, modify or exempt payments made to tribal members from inclusion as income.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

US BIO

McNeal v. Navajo Nation Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

cert-petition-2.pdf

Question presented:

Whether the Tenth Circuit panel violated the current jurisprudence of this Court and the Congressional policy underlying IGRA by precluding the Nation from exercising its sovereign authority to permit a patron’s tort claim against the Nation and its gaming facility to be brought in state court without express congressional permission.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (3/14/19):

Navajo BIO

Federal Court Bars South Dakota from Collecting Taxes on Non-Indian Contractors Working on Tribal Casino Construction Project

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Sattgast (D.S.D.):

32 State Motion for Summary J

75 Flandreau Motion for Summary J

78 State Opposition

81 Flandreau Opposition

87 State Reply

89 Flandreau Reply

102 DCT Order

Federal Court Issues Split Decision in Flandrea Santee Sioux — South Dakota Tax Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):

79 State Motion for Summary J

117 Flandreau Motion for Summary J

124 State Opposition

130 Flandreau Opposition

136 Flandreau Reply

154 DCT Order

An excerpt:

1. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is GRANTED to the extent that:

a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).

2. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is DENIED as to the following:

a. The State can impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store (claims one and three).

b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four)

3. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is GRANTED to the extent that:

a. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not preempted by IGRA (claim one).

b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four).

c. The collection and remittance of taxes on nonmember consumer purchases at the Store are not preempted by federal law and do not infringe on tribal sovereignty (claims two and five).

4. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is DENIED as to the following:

a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).

b. The State cannot condition renewal of the Tribe’s beverage license on the collection and remittance of a use tax on nonmember consumer purchases (claims six and eight).

5. The State does not have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop. However, the State does have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Store (claim seven).

6. Each party requested declaratory relief. Tribal sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature. This Court has no jurisdiction due to tribal sovereign immunity to order the ‘payment to the State from the escrow funds held pursuant to the Deposit Agreement. The Tribe, however, agreed in the Deposit Agreement that those funds would be held by the escrow agent pending the outcome of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the escrow agent may now, subject to any stay granted pursuant to an appeal, pay the funds held in escrow to the Tribe and to the State in their respective shares under the guidance provided by this declaratory judgment.