Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States

Last updated
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 9, 1943
Decided June 14, 1943
Full case nameOklahoma Tax Commission v. United States
Citations319 U.S. 598 ( more )
63 S. Ct. 1284; 87 L. Ed. 1612
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Oklahoma Tax Commission,131F.2d635(10th Cir.1942).
Holding
Held that Indian land that Congress has exempted from direct taxation by a state is also exempt from state estate taxes.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Owen Roberts  · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson  · Wiley B. Rutledge
Case opinions
MajorityBlack, joined by Roberts, Jackson, Rutledge
ConcurrenceDouglas
DissentMurphy, joined by Stone, Reed and Frankfurter
Laws applied
35  Stat.   315, 44  Stat.   239, 47  Stat.   777

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States, 319 U.S. 598 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indian land that Congress has exempted from direct taxation by a state is also exempt from state estate taxes.

Contents

Background

In 1908 Congress passed 35  Stat.   315, [1] amended by 44  Stat.   239 (1926), which provided that lands allotted to members of the Five Civilized Tribes were restricted to members of that tribe unless the restrictions were lifted by the United States Secretary of the Interior. Three enrolled full-blood members of the tribes died in 1930, 1932, and 1938, leaving their estates to their heirs, all of whom were Indians. The estates included restricted lands and similarly restricted securities and funds held in trust by the Secretary of Interior. [2] [3]

The Oklahoma Tax Commission imposed an estate tax on the three estates, the Secretary of the Interior paid the taxes under protest and then filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma to recover the taxes. The District Court entered a judgment for Oklahoma and the United States appealed. [2] [3]

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court reversed. The United States contended that the right to transfer land in these cases flowed not from state law, but from federal law, and therefore the state did not have the power to impose taxes without the consent of the United States. The appellate court cited Childers v. Beaver , 270 U.S. 555 (1926), [4] a case that was fundamentally the same as the instant case, in support of their decision. [3] Oklahoma appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case. [2]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the court. Black stated that the estates of the Indians could be divided into four categories, a) restricted land exempt from direct taxation; b) land not exempt from direct taxation; c) restricted cash and securities held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior; and d) other property. Black held that the restricted land in the first category was exempt from state taxation, but the remainder of the estates were not exempt. The case was then remanded to the District Court. [2]

Concurrance

Justice William O. Douglas concurred in the result in a short opinion. [2]

Dissent

Justice Frank Murphy dissented, stating that the court was rejecting over a century of jurisprudence in their opinion. Murphy stated that while tax exemptions are typically viewed with skepticism by the court system, this was not an ordinary case involving ordinary citizens. Instead, it involved a people that are wards of the United States, "and towards whom Congress has fashioned a policy of protection due to obligations well known to all of us." Murphy believed that for a state to tax Indians, there must be an affirmative, unequivocal grant by Congress to the states. Since there was no such grant, he would have held that the estates were exempt from state taxation. [2]

Related Research Articles

Indian Reorganization Act United States Law

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of June 18, 1934, or the Wheeler–Howard Act, was U.S. federal legislation that dealt with the status of American Indians in the United States. It was the centerpiece of what has been often called the "Indian New Deal". The major goal was to reverse the traditional goal of cultural assimilation of Native Americans into American society and to strengthen, encourage and perpetuate the tribes and their historic Native American cultures in the United States.

Tribal sovereignty in the United States type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States. Originally, the U.S. federal government recognized American Indian tribes as independent nations, and came to policy agreements with them via treaties. As the U.S. accelerated its westward expansion, internal political pressure grew for "Indian removal", but the pace of treaty-making grew nevertheless. Then the Civil War forged the U.S. into a more centralized and nationalistic country, fueling a "full bore assault on tribal culture and institutions", and pressure for Native Americans to assimilate. In the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871, without any input from Native Americans, Congress prohibited any future treaties. This move was steadfastly opposed by Native Americans. Currently, the U.S. recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and uses its own legal system to define the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments.

Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act

The Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936 is a United States federal law that extended the 1934 Wheeler-Howard or Indian Reorganization Act to include those tribes within the boundaries of the state of Oklahoma. The purpose of these acts were to rebuild Indian tribal societies, return land to the tribes, enable tribes to rebuild their governments, and emphasize Native culture. These Acts were developed by John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs from 1933 to 1945, who wanted to change federal Indian policy from the "twin evils" of allotment and assimilation, and support Indian self-government.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Indian country jurisdiction in the United States, in which the court decided that opening up reservation lands for settlement by non-Indians does not constitute the intent to diminish reservation boundaries. Therefore, reservation boundaries would not be diminished unless specifically determined through acts of Congress.

Okla. Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the tribe was not subject to state sales taxes on sales made to tribal members, but that they were liable for taxes on sales to non-tribal members.

Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84 (2001), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indian tribes were liable for taxes on gambling operations under 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721.

Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of a Native American (Indian) living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so.

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state could tax tribal, off-reservation business activities but could not impose a tax on tribal land, which was exempt from all forms of property taxes.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that an Indian tribe has the authority to impose taxes on non-Indians that are conducting business on the reservation as an inherent power under their tribal sovereignty.

Director of Revenue of Mo. v. CoBank ACB, 531 U.S. 316 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned whether CoBank is exempt from state income tax requirements. A unanimous Court held that they are not exempt.

Aboriginal land title in New Mexico is unique among aboriginal title in the United States. Congressional legislation was passed to define such title after the United States acquired this territory following war with Mexico (1846-1848. But, the Supreme Court of the New Mexico Territory and the United States Supreme Court held that the Nonintercourse Act did not restrict the alienability of Pueblo lands.

Oklahoma Organic Act

An Organic Act is a generic name for a statute used by the United States Congress to describe a territory, in anticipation of being admitted to the Union as a state. Because of Oklahoma's unique history an explanation of the Oklahoma Organic Act needs a historic perspective. In general, the Oklahoma Organic Act may be viewed as one of a series of legislative acts, from the time of Reconstruction, enacted by Congress in preparation for the creation of a unified State of Oklahoma. The Organic Act created Oklahoma Territory, and Indian Territory that were Organized incorporated territories of the United States out of the old "unorganized" Indian Territory. The Oklahoma Organic Act was one of several acts whose intent was the assimilation of the tribes in Oklahoma and Indian Territories through the elimination of tribes' communal ownership of property.

Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Indians, 546 U.S. 95 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state's non-discriminatory fuel tax imposed on off-reservation distributors does not pose an affront to a tribe's sovereignty.

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that absent explicit congressional direction to the contrary, it must be presumed that a State does not have jurisdiction to tax tribal members who live and work in Indian country, whether the particular territory consists of a formal or informal reservation, allotted lands, or dependent Indian communities.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

Former Indian reservations in Oklahoma

Both Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory contained suzerain Indian nations that had legally established boundaries. The US Federal government broke up collective tribal landholdings through the allotment process before the establishment of Oklahoma as a state in 1907. Tribal jurisdictional areas replaced the tribal governments, with the exception of the Osage Nation. As confirmed by the Osage Nation Reaffirmation Act of 2004, the Osage Nation retains mineral rights to their reservation, the so-called "Underground Reservation".

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Native American country.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that, as pertaining to the Major Crimes Act, much of the eastern portion of the state of Oklahoma remains as Native American lands of the prior Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes, never disestablished by Congress as part of the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906. McGirt was related to Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), heard in the 2018–19 term on the same question but which was believed to be deadlocked due to Justice Neil Gorsuch's recusal; Gorsuch recused because he had prior judicial oversight of the case. Sharp was decided per curiam alongside McGirt.

References

  1. Kappler, Charles J. (ed.) (1929). "Public Acts of the Sixty-Ninth Congress, First Session, 1926, Chapter 115". Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Vol. IV, Laws. Washington: G.P.O. pp. 518–520. Retrieved June 7, 2010.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link) , courtesy of the Oklahoma State University Library.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States, 319 U.S. 598 (1943)
  3. 1 2 3 United States v. Oklahoma Tax Commission,131F.2d635(10th Cir.1942).
  4. Childers v. Beaver, 270 U.S. 555 (1926)