trust land – Turtle Talk

Is the petitioner entitled to a refund of cigarette tax revenue for the sale of cigarettes on DeJope property pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 139.31 and 139.323 (3)?

What is the reasonable interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 139.323 (3)’s “designated . . .trust land” within the context of the sale of cigarettes on the DeJope property?

American General Finance v. Kent — Attempted Foreclosure of Trust Land

October 1, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Still cannot foreclose on Indian trust land, according to the Western District of Oklahoma. Nor can banks use the doctrine of equitable subrogation to get at trust land.

american-general-finance-v-kent-dct-opinion

us-motion-partial-summary-judgment-exhibits

agf-response-brief

us-reply-brief-agf

Wisconsin Court of Appeals on Trust Land and Tax Question

May 2, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The case is Ho-Chunk Nation v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue (wisconsin-coa-opinion). An excerpt from the opinion:

This appeal concerns the Ho-Chunk Nation’s claim for a refund of cigarette taxes under Wis. Stat. § 139.323 (2005-06) in respect to sales on the DeJope property. The Tax Appeals Commission denied the claim because it concluded the DeJope property was not “designated … trust land on or before January 1, 1983” as required by the statute. See § 139.323(3). The circuit court affirmed and the Ho-Chunk Nation appeals.

We agree with the commission and the circuit court that the statutory phrase means that the United States government must hold the land in trust on or before January 1, 1983. We conclude that the United States government does not hold the land in trust until formal acceptance under 25 C.F.R. § 151.14 (2007) occurs. Because this did not occur with respect to the DeJope property until after January 1, 1983, the Ho-Chunk-Nation is not entitled to a refund. Accordingly, we affirm on this issue.