VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:27:10 06/03/01 Sun
Author: Anonymous
Subject: Supreme Court On Navajo Tax

> Overturning an appeals court decision, the Supreme
> Court on Tuesday struck down a tax that has brought in
> $1.2
> million in annual revenues to the Navajo Nation.
>
> In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the
> tribe's hotel occupancy tax (HOT) is an unlawful
> exercise of its
> sovereignty over non-tribal members. The tribe cannot
> force non-Indian businesses located on non-Indian land
> to
> collect the tax from customers, said the Court.
>
> "Indian tribes are unique aggregations possessing
> attributes of sovereignty over both their members and
> their
> territory, but their dependent status generally
> precludes extension of tribal civil authority beyond
> these limits," wrote
> Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
>
> "The Navajo Nation's imposition of a tax upon
> non-members on non-Indian fee land within the
> reservation is,
> therefore, presumptively invalid."
>
> The Court's ruling brings an end to a eight-year
> debate over the legality of the tax. First instituted
> in 1992, the 5
> percent tax was raised to 8 percent in 1994.
>
> The New Mexico-based Atkinson Trading Co., which owns
> several businesses located within the borders of the
> three-state Navajo Nation, protested the tax as early
> as 1993. The company argued its Cameron Trading Post
> hotel in
> Cameron, Arizona -- which is billed as a way for
> visitors to experience Indian culture -- could
> possibly collect the tax
> from Indian customers, but not from non-Indians.
>
> The Navajo Nation court system and a federal court,
> however, sided with the tribe. In May 2000, the 10th
> Circuit Court
> of Appeals upheld the tax as a valid exercise of
> sovereignty over non-Indians.
>
> But the Court yesterday said that ruling was
> incorrect. In overturning the decision, the Court said
> the tribe failed to
> satisfy either one of two criteria that are required
> to establish authority over the actions of non-Indians
> on non-Indian
> land.
>
> First, the tribe failed to show the hotel or its
> guests entered into a consensual relationship to allow
> the tax. Even if
> the tribe provides police, fire, and other services to
> hotel guests, the Court said no relationship exists.
>
> Next, the tribe failed to show the hotel's operation
> directly affected its political integrity, economic
> security, or health
> and welfare. The hotel employs tribal members and
> happens to be surrounded by Indian land, but doesn't
> affect the
> tribe directly.
>
> One of the lawyers who has represented Atkinson
> welcomed yesterday's ruling. "We think that the Court
> struck the
> appropriate balance between the rights of private
> landowners and the sovereignty of the tribe," said
> Charles Cole of
> the Washington, DC-based Steptoe & Johnson.
>
> The tax imposed on the Cameron Trading Post brought in
> about $84,000 yearly for the Navajo Nation. A lawyer
> for
> Atkinson said the tribe should reimburse his clients
> the amount they've paid so far.
>
> A spokesperson for Navajo Nation President Kelsey
> Begaye referred all comments to the tribe's Department
> of Justice,
> who were unavailable yesterday.
>
> The Court's ruling is expected to have an effect on
> tribes throughout Indian Country. A federal judge in
> Montana struck
> down the Crow Tribe's 4 percent hotel resort tax last
> August.
>
> The 9th Circuit last year also struck down the Crow
> Tribe's tax on utility companies. The Crow Tribe
> declined to appeal
> the case to the Supreme Court.
>
> Get the Decision:
> Atkinson v. Shirley No. 00-454 (US Sup Ct May 29,
> 2001)
>
> In Depth:
> Atkinson v. Shirley: Legal briefs, oral arguments, and
> more (3/27)
>
> Relevant Links:
> The Supreme Court - http://www.supremecourtus.gov
> The Navajo Nation - http://www.navajo.org
> Cameron Trading Post - http://camerontradingpost.com

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.