Michigan (“largely”) Prevails over Keweenaw Bay Indian Community on Sales and Use Taxes

Here are the updated materials in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Khouri (W.D. Mich.):

317 Michigan MSJ

328 KBIC MSJ

365 Michigan Response to 328

370 KBIC Response to 317

376 Michigan Reply

377 KBIC Reply

421 DCT Order re State Prosecutions

422 DCT Order re Protective Order

423 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Big Sandy’s Effort to Avoid State Cigarette Taxes

Here is the opinion in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta.

Briefs:

Big Sandy Opening Brief

California Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Pala Band’s Challenge to State Motor Fuel Tax Collection Requirement

Here are the materials in Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Maduros (S.D. Cal.):

15 Second Amended Complaint

16-1 Motion to Dismiss

18 Response

19 Reply

21 DCT Order

Wisconsin Federal Court Holds Tax Immunities Do Not Apply to Reacquired Reservation Land

Here are the relevant materials in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Evers (W.D. Wis.):

153 State Motion for Summary J

171 Towns and Assessors Motion for Summary J

172 Tribe Motion for Summary J

213 Tribe Response to 171

215 Tribe Response to 153

223 State Reply in Support of 153

228 Towns and Assessors Reply in Support of 171

232 Tribe Reply in Support of 172

245 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Cert Petition in Seneca Nation Citizen’s Treaty-Based Tax Immunity Claim

Here is the petition in Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:

Perkins v. Commissioner Cert Petition

Question presented:

This Court is presented with a question of first impression, as to the taxability of income derived from the sale of sand and gravel, mined from treatyprotected land by an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation of Indians (“Seneca Nation”). Upon the granting of certiorari, the Court will examine the language in two federal treaties, promising not to disturb the “free use and enjoyment” of lands by the Seneca Nation and “their Indian friends residing thereon and united with them,” and protecting these lands “from all taxes” for any purpose. Treaty with the Six Nations (“Canandaigua Treaty”), art. III, Nov. 11, 1794, 7 Stat. 45; Treaty with the Senecas (“1842 Treaty”), art. 9th, May 20, 1842, 7 Stat. 590. Congress has explicitly stated the Internal Revenue Code “shall be applied to any taxpayer with due regard to any treaty obligation of the United States which applies to such taxpayer.” 26 U.S.C.A. § 894 (a)(1)(West).

The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court have given “due regards” to the treaty obligations of the United States by finding these treaties had no textual support for an exemption from federal income tax applicable to an enrolled Seneca member whose income is derived from the
lands of the Seneca Nation. Perkins v. Comm’r, 970 F.3d 148, 162-67 (2d. Cir. 2020).

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (5/1/21):

Starna Amicus Brief

Materials in Buena Vista Rancheria Tax Suit against Amador County

Here are the materials so far in Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. Amador County (E.D. Cal.):

5 Amended Complaint

9 Motion to Dismiss 12b1

10 Motion to Dismiss Forum Non Convenienz

11 Motion to Dismiss 12b6

Prior post here.