4 U.S.C. § 105

State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; sales or use tax

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 4 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No person shall be relieved from liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall be applicable only with respect to sales or purchases made, receipts from sales received, or storage or use occurring, after December 31, 1940.(July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 644.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTaxation With Respect to Essential Support Activities or Functions of Non-Governmental Persons in Congressionally-Controlled Locations in District of Columbia

Pub. L. 100–202, § 101(i) [title III, § 307], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–290, 1329–309, as amended by Pub. L. 104–186, title II, § 214, Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1745, provided that:“(a) Notwithstanding section 105 of title 4, United States Code, or any other provision of law, no person shall be required to pay, collect, or account for any sales, use, or similar excise tax, or any personal property tax, with respect to an essential support activity or function conducted by a nongovernmental person in the Capitol, the House Office Buildings, the Senate Office Buildings, the Capitol Grounds, or any other location under the control of the Congress in the District of Columbia.“(b) As used in this section—“(1) the term ‘essential support activity or function’ means a support activity or function so designated by the Committee on House Oversight [now Committee on House Administration] of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, acting jointly or separately, as appropriate;“(2) the term ‘personal property tax’ means a tax of a State, a subdivision of a State, or any other authority of a State, that is levied on, levied with respect to, or measured by, the value of personal property;“(3) the term ‘sales, use, or similar excise tax’ means a tax of a State, a subdivision of a State, or any other authority of a State, that is levied on, levied with respect to, or measured by, sales, receipts from sales, or purchases, or by storage, possession, or use of personal property; and“(4) the term ‘State’ means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States.“(c) This section shall apply to any sale, receipt, purchase, storage, possession, use, or valuation taking place after December 31, 1986.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1951–2022 · leading case: White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980). · cites it 2× “18, we squarely held that the Buck Act did not apply to Indian reservations, and respondents present no sufficient reason for us to depart from that holding.”

Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980). · cites it 2× “569 ; the Buck Act, 4 U. S. C. § 105 . The Court therefore declined to infer a congressional departure from the prior tradition of Indian immunity absent an express provision otherwise.”

United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Excise Tax Div., Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 713 P.2d 217 (Wyo. 1986). · cites it 8× “4 U.S.C. § 105 (a), supra note 7. The Act retains the immunity of the United States itself from liability for such taxes.”

United States v. State Tax Comm'n, 412 U.S. 363 (1973). · cites it 4× “" 4 U. S. C. § 105 (a). However, § 107 (a) of the Act spells out certain exceptions to the consent provision contained in § 105 (a).”

City of Riverside v. State, 944 N.E.2d 281 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “01(H)(11) “is contrary to 4 U.S.C. §§ 105 et seq. (commonly referred to as the Buck Act), the Equal Protection Clauses of both the United States and Ohio Constitutions, and the Ohio Constitution’s ‘one-subject rule.”

New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767 (1998). · cites it 2× “" 4 U. S. C. § 105 (a). The definition of "Federal area" under the Act includes "any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States.”

C. R. Fedrick, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 20 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,957 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 9× “Thereafter, in 1947, Congress passed Public Law 819 (Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. § 105 ) which ceded to the states power to levy and collect sales and use taxes “in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.”

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983). “In McClanahan we concluded that the Buck Act, 4 U. S. C. § 105 et seq., which contains a provision exempting Indians from a grant to the States of general authority to tax residents of federal areas, likewise provided evidence of Congress’ intent to exempt Indians from state…”

E. Navajo Indus., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 552 P.2d 805 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “" We believe that some comment concerning the Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. § 105 through § 109 is necessary in the consideration of this matter.”

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973). “15 Indeed, Congress’ intent to maintain the tax-exempt status of reservation Indians is especially clear in light of the Buck Act, 4 U. S. C. § 105 et seq., which provides comprehensive federal guidance for state taxation of those living within federal areas.”

G. M. Shupe, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 550 P.2d 277 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Because the tax is on a non-Indian, none have the dispositive effect for which the taxpayer contends, and their effect must be determined by the principles governing conflicts between Indian sovereignty and state law discussed above.”

Coso Energy Developers v. Cnty. of Inyo, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “( 4 U.S.C. §§ 105 & 106; see Bowers v. Oklahoma Tax Commission (S.”

Show all 46 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.