indian taxation – Page 25

Mashantucket Pequot Slot Tax Decision Expected Soon

January 31, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are two news articles on the question. The first (here) details the Town of Ledyard’s crusade to collect taxes on the non-Indian owners of the slot machines used at Foxwoods. An excerpt:

Other grievances, not surprisingly, involve money – particularly the sovereign nation’s deal to pay the state a quarter of its slot machine revenues instead of local taxes on reservation property in the northeastern corner of Ledyard.

Though the town grudgingly concedes it can’t collect these revenues, it has for years been trying to levy taxes on personal property owned by non-Indians on reservation lands – specifically slot machines that a New Jersey company leases to the tribe.

Six years ago the tribe and Atlantic City Coin & Slot Service sued Ledyard to block these taxes, claiming such municipal action disregards well-established principles of federal Indian law and interferes with the tribe’s gaming operations, self-determination and sovereign immunity.

So far, the town has spent $900,000 fighting the litigation – a whopping sum that could have been used to hire teachers, repave miles of roads or buy thousands of new library books.

The second (here) includes a quote on the Indian law implications of the case:

Bethany Berger, a professor of Indian law at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said that taxation of non-Indians and their property on tribal lands is complicated. Berger, co-author and member of the editorial board of Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, the pre-eminent treatise in the field, does not think Ledyard’s case is a strong one.

“The machines are leased by the tribe as part of this federally regulated business that the tribe has a big interest in,” she said, adding that the interests of the state of Connecticut in the matter may not be as strong as Ledyard officials hope.

“With respect to state interest, it can’t just be revenue-raising interest,” Berger said. “Ledyard wants to make money by taxing the machines, and that’s not the kind of interest that’s really important. The federal interest is very strong because of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the tribal interest is also strong because this is the business that provides most of the tribe’s revenue.”

Amicus Briefs Supporting Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Supreme Court Petition

January 17, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

CERT Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

New Mexico Cert Opp in Ute Mountain Ute Case

January 17, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

NM Cert Opp

Oneida’s Tax Claims against New York Dismissed without Prejudice

January 10, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials on remand from the Second Circuit in Oneida Indian Nation v. Paterson (N.D. N.Y.):

DCT Order Dismissing without Prejudice

OIN Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice

NY Opposition to OIN Motion

NY Motion for Summary J

OIN Opposition to NY Motion

NY Reply

The Second Circuit’s remand and materials are here.

Update in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger (Suit to Oppose State Taxes)

January 4, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the appellee briefs (the appellant brief is here):

Fremont County Appellee Brief

Wyoming Appellee Brief

Eastern Shoshone Brief

US Brief

Rainbird Sentencing (Conviction for Selling Smokes in N.M. without a Tax Stamp)

January 2, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Paul Rainbird Sentencing

The sentencing memoranda are here.

Arizona Appellate Court Decides Non-Indian Tax Case arising on Indian Lands

December 15, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center LLC.

Here is the taxpayer’s position (which the court rejected):

In November 2001, South Point informed the Department of its legal position that based on the lease with the Tribe, the personal property at the facility “is not subject to Arizona’s property tax.” As to the Department’s request to visit the facility, South Point stated that the request “would have to be approved by the Tribe” and that “the Tribe does not want the Department of Revenue purporting to exercise its jurisdiction on the Tribe’s sovereign lands.”

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Cert Petition in Natural Resources Tax Case

December 13, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

Final UMUT Petition for Certiorari

Appendix – Final

The questions presented are:

1. Does a state have the power to tax minerals production within the territorial boundaries of an Indian nation when the state provides no services in that location whatsoever, and where the tribe’s members cannot even vote in that state’s elections, amounting to taxation without representation?

2. Does Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989), permit New Mexico to tax oil and gas operators’ activities on Indian trust land even where, as here, “the State has nothing to do with the on-reservation activity,
save tax it”?

Tenth Circuit materials are here.