In an ongoing case where the Mashantucket Pequot Nation is seeking relief from local taxation of slot machines leased by the tribe from non-Indians, the district court rejected the Town of Ledyard’s motion to compel discovery of the Nation’s entire financial records.
indian taxation
Yakama v. Gregoire TRO Against State Tax Law Enforcement
The Eastern District of Washington issued a TRO at the behest of the Yakama Indian Nation preventing the State of Washington from enforcing its tobacco tax laws against the Nation on Sept. 12. Here are the materials:
Collecting State Taxes in Indian Country
As usual, there is interest in New York in collecting taxes likely owed in accordance with the Milhelm Attea case (see article here). The St. Regis Mohawk leadership, however, suggests:
“This bill, like similar legislation proposed before it, will harm the Northern New York economy, not help it,” said Chief James W. Ransom, citing a 2003 study performed by Regional Economic Models Inc. “The economic impact could be greater than $2 million per year.”
“We already collect fees from tribal businesses that would be harmed by this legislation and that will hurt our ability to deliver essential governmental services,” said Chief Barbara A. Lazore. “It will also result in a loss of jobs that no one in the state is even considering.”
This is the problem that Supreme Court Indian tax cases have created. Indian tribes and Indian people try to develop their economies and tax base, and the state can — at any time it wishes — destroy that economy merely by imposing taxes.
False Advertising Claim against Tribal Smokeshop
In Gristede Foods v. Unkechauge Nation/Shinnecock Trading Post, the district court refused to dismiss a Lanham Act claim against a tribal retailer. The plaintiff alleges that the retailer promised tax-free sales, but didn’t deliver. This is the second motion to dismiss denied by the court.
Kemp v. Osage Nation Cert Opposition Brief
This case, which I suspect has a fairly good chance of being granted, involves the Osage Nation’s successful suit against the Oklahoma Tax Commission to declare its Indian Country boundaries. The cert petition post is here, which includes the lower court decision and the relevant briefs. Here is the opposition brief.
Senate Finance Committee Hearing — Witness Statements
Senate Finance Committee Hearing on Tribal Tax Policy
Go Del!
From Indianz:
The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday, July 22, to address tax policy in Indian Country.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana), the chairman of the committee, said the hearing will address three specific issues: the Indian Employment Tax Credit, the tax-exempt bonds for tribal governments and accelerated depreciation for tribes. Witnesses at the hearing include Dante Desiderio, an economic development specialist for the National Congress of American Indians; Del Laverdure, the chief counsel for the Crow Tribe of Montana; and Wayne A. Shammel, the general counsel of Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians in Oregon. The hearing takes place at 10am in Room 215 of the : Senate Dirksen Office Building.
Committee Notice:
Indian Governments and the Tax Code: Maximizing Tax Incentives for Economic Development (July 22, 2008 )
Matheson v. Gregoire Cert Petition
The questions presented are:
Whether the State of Washington Cigarette Tax laws are federally preempted and inapplicable to an American Indian motor carrier hauling cigarettes between Indian reservations in Interstate and Indian Commerce.
Whether the laws of the State of Washington can regulate an enrolled tribal Indian shipping goods between a federally recognized Indian Reservation in Idaho to his business on the reservation of his membership located in the State of Washington.
Kemp v. Osage Nation Cert Petition
Here, the Oklahoma Tax Commission is seeking review of a CA10 decision allowing a suit brought by the Osage Nation to proceed over sovereign immunity objections. Here is our post about the CA10 decision, with briefs and other materials. And here is the cert petition.
Here are the questions presented (from the petition):
1. May federal courts employ the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), to permit suits by Indian tribes, otherwise barred by state sovereign immunity, that seek to establish sovereignty and jurisdiction over historical reservations, without taking into consideration the substantial impact of the relief on the sovereignty and jurisdiction long-exercised over such lands by states?
2. In view of this Court’s ruling in Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), and other decisions, may a federal court allow an Indian tribe’s suit – otherwise barred by the Eleventh Amendment – to proceed against state officers under the so-called “straightforward inquiry” used to determine the application of the Ex parte Young exception, when the relief would divest a state of substantial and long-exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction over its largest county?
3. Does a suit by an Indian tribe seeking a judicial determination that its historical reservation “remains” a present-day reservation involve the type of retrospective relief that cannot be pursued against state officers under the Ex parte Young exception to state sovereign immunity?
City of New York v. Milhelm Attea — City Tobacco Tax on Indian Country Sales
From the opinion:
The City of New York has brought an Amended Complaint against the above-captioned defendants, a group of cigarette wholesalers who are state-licensed cigarette stamping agents. The principal [*2] contention of the City is that the wholesalers violate the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (“CCTA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq., by shipping in excess of 10,000 unstamped cigarettes to reservation retailers who re-sell the cigarettes to the public. According to the City, New York Tax Law § 471 requires that cigarettes sold to Native Americans for re-sale to the public must be taxed, and that the defendant agents are responsible for collecting the tax by purchasing tax stamps from the New York State Tax Commission and affixing them to cigarette packages. The City brings additional state law claims under New York Tax Law § 484, the Cigarette Marketing Standards Act, as well as a public nuisance claim. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7). For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motions to dismiss are denied.
Here are the materials:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.