indian taxation – Page 14

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.

Federal Court Holds Feds Cannot Tax Proceeds Derived Directly from Indian Lands

August 17, 2017August 18, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Perkins v. United States (W.D.N.Y.):

An excerpt:

This case presents what appears to be an issue of first impression: whether a treaty between the United States and Native Americans ensuring the free use and enjoyment of tribal land bars taxes on income derived directly from the land—here, the sale of gravel mined on the land. Although at least two circuit courts have suggested in dicta that “income derived directly from the land” might be exempt from taxation under such treaties, they did so to distinguish that scenario from cases where an exemption was sought for income earned in ways that do not relate to the land itself. See Lazore v. Comm’r, 11 F.3d 1180 (3d Cir. 1993); Hoptowit v. Comm’r, 709 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1983). This case presents the very issue about which those courts speculated. And for the reasons that follow, this Court agrees with their speculation and finds that the plaintiffs have plausibly stated a claim for relief under two treaties with the Native American Seneca Nation.

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tobacco Tax Claims against State to Proceed

July 5, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

69 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

73 KBIC Response

75 Reply

81 DCT Order

Cert Petition in Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.

June 22, 2017September 6, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

Whether the Yakama Treaty of 1855 creates a right for tribal members to avoid state taxes on off-reservation commercial activities that make use of public highways.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE (8/23/17):

Cougar Den Cert Opp

UPDATE (9/6/17):