restricted access Chapter 11 Taxation in Indian Country
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

86 2011 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition Chapter 11 Taxation in Indian Country 86 P.465, n.7. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; see generally Alex Tallchief Skibine, Tribal Sovereign Interests Beyond the Reservation Borders, 12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1003, 1006, 1042 (2008) (reasons that “because the concept of territorial sovereignty, both in the United States and abroad, has been significantly eroded or modified, there are no valid reasons why tribal sovereign interests should be strictly limited to the reservation setting[;]” identifies tribal taxation of income earned by members residing off reservation as a possible application of this concept, with “the tribal income tax . . . treated the same as state income taxes relative to the federal income tax and . . . deducted from the amount of tax owed to the federal government”) P.469, n.38. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; see generally Scott A. Taylor, Taxation in Indian Country After Carcieri v. Salazar , 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 590 (2010) (discussing importance of Indian country status for purposes of determining permissible scope of federal, state and tribal taxation; and identifying possible ramifications on the several sovereigns’ taxing authority from Carcieri v. Salazar, 129 S. Ct. 1058 (2009), where the Supreme Court construed the definition of “Indian” in 25 U.S.C. § 469 to exclude members of Indian tribes not federally recognized as of June 18, 1934 and, therefore, removed them from “Indian” status under 25 U.S.C.§ 465 for land-into-trust purposes) P.470, n.44. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; cf. Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 759 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (holding that, despite IGRA’s allowance of revenue sharing under conditions specified in Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019, 1033 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2011), California’s insistence on a 15% revenue share in exchange for geographic exclusivity, 87 Taxation in Indian Country amounted to a demand for impermissible direct taxation of the tribe and constituted bad faith negotiations) P.470, n.45. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; see generally Scott A. Taylor, The Unending Onslaught of Tribal Sovereignty: State Taxation of Non-Member Indians, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 917, 976 (2008) (analyzing decisional authority relevant to the principle that nonmember Indians and non-Indians are similarly situated for civil regulatory purposes and that the rule “ignores [nonmember Indians’] important place in the history of Indian Country and . . . their current roles as mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, members of extended families, federal employees, tribal employees , teachers, lawyers, doctors, accountants, and entrepreneurs[;]” instead, nonmember Indians “were and are a critical part of the social, cultural, and political fabric of those communities that we call reservation Indians”) P.472, n.56. Add the following to line 8 of the footnote after “see generally”: Scott A. Taylor, Taxation in Indian Country After Carcieri v. Salazar, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 590, 602 (2010) (“the ‘where’ question is often critical when deciding whether a state or tribal tax is valid[,]” but, as a result of Carcieri v. Salazar, 129 S. Ct. 1058 (2009), “many tens of thousands of acres of land are not so clearly Indian Country anymore. . . [which] means that state taxation is less restricted and that tribal taxation is barred on these ‘Carcieri’ lands”); P.472. Delete “415” in the sixth-to-last line in the text, and replace the deletion with “465”. P.474, n.73. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; but see generally Scott A. Taylor, The Importance of Being Interest: Why a State Cannot Impose Its Income Tax on Tribal Bonds, 25 Akron Tax J. 123, 167 (2010) (arguing that the “infringement” prong of preemption has relevance in the context of states’ taxing tribal bond proceeds received by nonmember bond holders: “Given the federal and state context in which governmental borrowing is a core function and the federal law restricting spending of tribal bond proceeds to essential governmental functions, it becomes clear that state income taxation of tribal bond interest infringes a tribe’s right to self-­ government[,]” and, therefore, “direct state taxation of a tribe, which the Supreme Court has found to be categorically improper, is really no different, as a matter of substance, from direct state taxation of tribal borrowing”) P.477...


pdf