Here:
Question presented:
Whether federal courts called upon to enforce Indian treaty protections in tribal challenges to State regulation may enter judgment against the Indian Tribe without considering evidence and entering findings of fact on the Indians’ understanding of the United States’ treaty promises.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Matheson v. State Dept. of Revenue (Wash. App.):
D2 45485-8-II Unpublished Opinion
And the briefs:
Here is the complaint in United States v. $400,000 (W.D. N.Y.):
Excerpts:
During the investigation, it was determined that the parties involved in the shipping of the contraband cigarettes in interstate commerce also filed false information to the appropriate taxation authorities as required under the Jenkins Act, Title 15, United States Code, Sections 375-378. All cigarette sales made by a stamping agent are required by New York State law to be recorded on a form known as Form CG which had to be sent on a monthly basis to the NYSDT in Albany, New York, with a certificate that the information contained therein was true and correct.
And:
During the time period of September 24, 2012 – January 14, 2013, AARON PIERCE through his corporation, AJ’s Wholesale LLC (“hereafter “AJ’s”) sold 403,413 cartons of cigarettes in a manner designed to make it look on paper as though the untaxed cigarettes were legitimately obtained through Ho-Chunk, Inc. (“HCID”) a tribal cigarette and tobacco distributor, a corporation operated by the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, as well as other Native American cigarette and tobacco suppliers.
Finally:
Ho-Chunk, Inc. is the parent company of HCI Logistics (HCIL) which is a commercial transportation company that HCID would use to transport product from the HCID warehouse in Winnebago, Nebraska. Neither HCID nor HCIL are licensed tobacco wholesalers or state stamping agents in Nebraska or New York State.
Here is the opinion in Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Utah State Tax Commission:
An excerpt:
This is a tax case that comes before us on appeal from a formal decision of the Utah State Tax Commission (Commission). Utah law imposes a severance tax on owners of oil and gas interests. The tax rate an owner must pay depends on the fair market value of the owner‟s interest. The question presented in this case concerns how the value of such an interest is to be calculated. Petitioners Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore L.P. (collectively Anadarko) argue that the Commission improperly disallowed deductions they made for tax-exempt federal, state, and Indian tribe royalty interests. Based on the plain meaning and structure of the severance tax statute, we agree and reverse the Commission‟s determination.
Here.
Here is the order:
An excerpt:
The pivotal question before the board at hearing was whether CTGW, LLC is an arm of the tribe such that it might be per se exempt from assessment and taxation on “un-attached business personal property located at Great Wolf Lodge.” See Galanda Decl. Exhibit H -01 (Quotation from February 11, 2014 letter from Thurston County Treasurer Shawn· Myers to David Burnett, President, CTGW, LLC). As explained below, the Board finds that CTGW, LLC is exempt from all assessments and taxes on the un-attached business personal property used exclusively on tribal trust land and that the taxable assessment for each year subject to a petition must be reduced to zero.
From NITA:
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County, et al, 5:14-cv-00007-DMG-DBT (United States District Court, Central District of California). The Aqua Caliente Tribe filed this civil action against Riverside County to stop the collection of taxes on Indian land leaseholders. The Desert Water Agency intervened in this action. Riverside County collects possessory interest taxes from Indian land leaseholders and then redistributes much of the money to cities, schools and other local governments. The Tribe has long viewed as this tax as illegal and views these possessory interest taxes as an unlawful infringement on Tribal sovereignty rights. The action was filed January 2, 2014 and is set for trial on June 16, 2015.
Here are the materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County (C.D. Cal.):
NITA_Request_to_File_Amicus_and_Brief
Opposition_to_File_Amicus_Desert_Water
The court’s syllabus:
Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Yakama Treaty of 1855 did not preclude enforcement of the State of Washington’s escrow statute, which requires tobacco companies to place money from cigarette sales into escrow to reimburse the State for health care costs related to the use of tobacco products.
The panel held that Washington’s escrow statute was a nondiscriminatory law and that the activities of King Mountain Tobacco Co., a company owned and operated by an enrolled member of the Yakama Indian Nation, were largely off-reservation. Accordingly, absent express federal law to the contrary, King Mountain was subject to the escrow statute. The panel held that the plain text of the Yakama Treaty did not create a federal exemption from the escrow statute. Specifically, Article II of the Treaty, which established the boundaries of the Yakama reservation and reserved it for Yakama use and benefit, was not an express federal law that exempted King Mountain from the escrow statute. Nor was Article III, which reserved to the tribe the right to travel on public highways and the right to hunt and fish. The panel held that the district court did not err by declining to make findings regarding the Treaty’s meaning to the Yakama people at the time of its signing because the meaning to the Yakama people could not overcome the clear words of the Treaty.
Briefs here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.