indian taxation

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Tribal Leasing Regs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Desert Water Agency v. Dept. of the Interior.

An excerpt from the court’s summary:

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing and ripeness of a complaint brought by the Desert Water Agency (“DWA”), a political subdivision of the State of California, against the United States Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Indian Affairs, challenging a federal regulation that DWA believed might preempt certain taxes and fees DWA assessed against non-Indians who leased lands within an Indian reservation.

New federal regulation 25 C.F.R. § 162.017 concerns taxes applied to leases approved on Indian lands to third parties. DWA provides water supplies and water services to businesses and residences in Riverside County, California, and charges fees and taxes to non-Indians who lease land from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.

The panel held that § 162.017 did not purport to change existing law, and therefore, did not itself operate to preempt DWA’s charges, and did not command DWA to modify its behavior by doing or refraining from doing anything. The panel concluded that DWA lacked standing because it had not suffered a cognizable injury at the hands of the Department of the Interior.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Federal Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Denies State and Tribal Motions for Summary Judgment in Quil Ceda Tax Disputes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

131 Order

Briefs are here.

Ninth Circuit Rules against Yakama/King Mountain in Tax Dispute with Federals

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Court Permanently Enjoins County from Taxing Poarch Band’s Trust Lands

Sarah M Donnelly

Download(PDF): Doc. 90 Order for Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Judgment

Link: Counterclaims against US and Poarch Band Dismissed in Tax Dispute

Briefs in Tulalip Tribes Quil Ceda Village Taxation Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in the case now captioned Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

72-washington-motion-for-summary-j

74-tulalip-motion-for-partial-summary-j-govt-services-outside-boundaries

77-us-motion-re-govt-services

79-washington-response-re-74

82-us-response-to-72

84-tulalip-response-to-72

115-tulalip-reply-in-support-of-74

117-washington-reply-in-support-of-72

121-us-reply-re-77

Complaints etc. here.

Pueblo of Acoma Sues to Prevent Tax Sale of Indian Lands

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Pueblo of Acoma v. Padilla (D. N.M.):

1 Complaint

5 Motion for TRO

News coverage here.

Federal Court Won’t Allow Seminole to Try to Fight Tax on Remand from Eleventh Circuit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida Dept. of Revenue (S.D. Fla.):

106-seminole-brief

107-florida-brief

110-dct-order

Federal Court Dismisses Comenout Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Comenout v. Pierce County Superior Court (W.D. Wash.):

11-motion-to-dismiss

13-response

15-reply

18-dct-order

New York Prevails over UPS in Indian Country Smokes Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in State of New York v. United Parcel Service (S.D. N.Y.):

287-ny-motion

345-opposition

384-reply

406-dct-order

An excerpt:

The fundamental reason why plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment and defendant is not is that when UPS was transporting unstamped cigarettes (how many is “TBD”), it was transporting contraband. Pre-amendment § 471 confirms that stamps were required, that taxability was presumed, and that the burden of proving otherwise was on UPS. UPS has not carried this burden. UPS is not entitled to rely on the judicially imposed injunctions or stays of enforcement obtained by Indian tribes, nor is it entitled to rely upon forbearance. It is also of no moment that there were difficulties in determining when tax was required to be paid or not, and it is also of no moment that the State had stood down on collection from reservation retailers altogether. At the end of the day, the situation — which may have advantaged reservation retailers — placed UPS in a precarious position; without its own statutory exemption or legal assurance, and in the absence of information as to ultimately taxability of the cigarettes they were shipping, transporting shipments was a risky business indeed. But this was a business risk. UPS could choose to undertake such risk or not. One thing has [38]  always been clear: UPS has never had exemption from the CCTA.

Counterclaims against US and Poarch Band Dismissed in Tax Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

This is a continuation of Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Hildreth, recently decided by the Eleventh Circuit.

Here are the materials in Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Moore (S.D. Ala.):

77-magistrate-rr

79-poarch-band-objections

80-dct-order

An excerpt:

After due and proper consideration of all issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 10, 2016 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court with the following exceptions. The Court does not adopt the recommendation to deny the Plaintiff’s Motion to strike Defendant Moore’s affirmative defenses numbered 4 and 5, but rather grants the motion to strike defenses 4 and 5 for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 79). The report and recommendation is adopted in all other respects.