Here are the various Tax Court petitions:
tribal per capita payments
Tribal Gaming Per Cap Payments May Decrease Labor Productivity and Increase Fertility (?!?!)
Here is a study of the effects of gaming per capita payments on tribal members of three Michigan tribes (Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, and Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians). In line with the 1491s’ hilarious video in which a candidate for tribal office runs on the platform of “progression, procreation, per cap,” the study suggests that tribal members receiving per caps leads to “decreased work efforts,” while “weak” evidence exists that per cap payments increase fertility. Enjoy.
Here is the study:
The abstract:
The purpose of this research is to provide a preliminary examination of the effects of per capita tribal payments on the decision making of tribal members. Standard microeconomic theory suggests that unearned income changes the labor-leisure tradeoff in utility maximization models. While the results of per capita payments on hours of work can be easily anticipated, the effects of these payments on human capital accumulation and family size are more ambiguous. Using Census data from 1990 and 2000 we shed some light on the impact of these per capita tribal payments on the lives of the recipients. We concentrate on three tribes in the state of Michigan: the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians of Michigan. The results lend support to the basic labor theory conclusion that an increase in nonlabor income causes individuals to decrease their work efforts. There is also weak evidence that the payment of per capita payments from casino profits is increasing the fertility rate of Saginaw Chippewa tribal families.
In re Howley Part 2 — Tribal Per Cap Still Subject to Bankruptcy Award
Here: In re Howley Order after Motion to Amend
Earlier materials in the same proceeding are here.
Prisoner Challenge to Tribal Per Cap Garnishment Rejected by Eighth Circuit
Here are the materials in United States v. Whitetail:
Seminole/Hard Rock Credit Rating Affected by Distribution of Casino Revenues to Tribal Members
From St. Pete Times:
Two top credit rating agencies Wednesday downgraded their ratings on the Seminole Tribe of Florida, citing chronic problems with the tribe’s internal financial controls governing funds associated with their extensive casino gambling operations.
The downgrade reflects the inability to resolve the tribal government’s “long track record of weak internal controls with respect to financial and accounting practices,” said Fitch Ratings, which resulted in the June 3 notice of violation from the National Indian Gaming Commission.
Rating agency S&P said it put the tribe on “credit watch with negative implications” as well as its affiliates, Seminole Hard Rock Entertainment Inc. and Seminole Hard Rock International LLC. S&P also cited the gaming commission’s notice about the improper uses of gaming revenues by certain tribal members, including members of the tribal council. The Seminole Hard Rock Casino has locations in Tampa and Hollywood in South Florida.
Mohegan Sun Officials Assuage Financial Community
From the New London Day via Pechanga:
The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority reduces stipends to tribal members when changes like the current economic downturn warrant it, casino officials told the financial community today.
Mohegan Sun also has a stable management team that is continuing to work to improve the product it offers patrons, despite the effects of the recession.
Casino officials made the comments this morning during a Webcast presentation at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch 2009 credit conference in New York City. Participants in the Webcast included a broad range of members of the financial industry.
The tribe’s Mohegan Sun casino is one “you could put anywhere and it would be a category killer and a market leader,” said Mitchell Etess, the casino’s president and chief executive officer.
Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Claim for Tribal Per Cap
Here is the opinion ins Springer v. Griffin (D. Neb.), a claim against the Omaha Tribe — Springer v Griffin
An excerpt:
Liberally construed, Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulation Act (“IGRA”). 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721. The IRGA provides Indian tribes with the authority to distribute gaming proceeds to tribal members, per capita, if such distribution is in compliance with an approved allocation plan. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(3). It is unclear from Plaintiff’s Complaint if the Omaha Tribe has such an approved plan. However, even if it does, whether Plaintiff is entitled to the tribe’s casino proceeds turns on a determination of whether Plaintiff is a tribal member.
If Plaintiff is not a tribal member, the court lacks jurisdiction to over his claims. As discussed above, a tribe has the exclusive authority to determine its membership. There is no greater intrusion upon tribal sovereignty than for a federal court to interfere with this determination. See Smith, 100 F.3d at 559. Continue reading
California Court of Appeals Decides Calculation of Tribal Per Cap in Child Support Dispute
Here is the opinion in M.S. v. O.S. An excerpt:
In this paternity action, O.S. appeals an order requiring him to pay child support for his young twins. He contends the trial court abused its discretion by including in his income for purposes of guideline support twice-yearly bonuses he received from his Indian tribe, and attorney fees the tribe paid on his behalf. We agree with O.S. on the second issue, and reverse the order and remand the matter for further proceedings. Additionally, for the court’s guidance on remand, we hold it may properly include the bonuses in his gross income.
A Hidden Cost of Tribal Per Capita Payments?
Standards and Poor’s lowered the credit rating of the Mashantucket Pequot Nation (H/T Indianz), making this statement:
The ‘BB-‘ rating reflects the Tribe’s high debt leverage, limited geographic diversity, and significant historical and expected distributions to Tribal members. These factors are partially tempered by the favorable demographics of the Connecticut market and limited new competition expected over the next two to three years.
Here are the factors that contribute to the higher cost of tribal credit: (1) high debt; (2) limited geographic diversity; and (3) high per caps. The first two can’t really be helped, but the per caps can be limited. Indian tribes should seriously consider limited or eliminating per caps. At least until the economy comes back.
Seminole Tribe Per Caps Sufficient to Cover Child Support
The Florida Court of Appeals held that the Seminole tribe’s per capita payments are sufficient to relieve at least one father of child support obligations. Here is the opinion in Cypress v. Jumper.
H/T Falmouth
Turtle Talk 