4 U.S.C. § 109
Same; exception of Indians
Nothing in sections 105 and 106 of this title shall be deemed to authorize the levy or collection of any tax on or from any Indian not otherwise taxed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1965–2006 · leading case: Bercier v. Kiga, 103 P.3d 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Bercier v. Kiga, 103 P.3d 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “4 U.S.C. § 109 specifically exempts Indians from state taxation: "Nothing in sections 105 and 106 of this title shall be deemed to authorize the levy or collection of any tax on or from any Indian not otherwise taxed.”
Bercier v. Kiga, 127 Wash. App. 809 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “” Accordingly, Washington State’s cigarette and OTP taxes do not apply to Indians purchasing cigarettes or selling tobacco products on the reservation of a tribe of which they are enrolled members.”
G. M. Shupe, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 550 P.2d 277 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). “(1970)) provides for imposition of taxes in certain federal areas. Included among these taxes are gross receipts taxes.”
Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 380 U.S. 685 (1965). “4 U. S. C. § 109 (1964 ed.), excepting taxes on Indians from the scope of the Act.”
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Mont. v. Moe, 392 F. Supp. 1297 (D. Mont. 1975). “at 1264, has said that the language of the Buck Act (4 U. S.C. § 109, 54 Stat. 1059 (1971)): "`[n]othing in sections 105 and 106 of this title shall be deemed to authorize the levy or collection of any tax on or from any Indian not otherwise taxed .”
Mahoney v. State Tax Comm'n, 524 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1974). “" 4 U.S.C.A. § 109 . The Buck Act was approved by the Senate on September 30, 1940, and by the House on October 1, 1940.”
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States of Am., State of New Mexico, Ex Rel. S. E. Reynolds, State Eng'r, Amicus Curiae, 601 F.2d 1116 (10th Cir. 1979). “…applicable to those living within federal areas. The Act specifically exempts reservation Indians from its coverage. 4 U.S.C. § 109 .”
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty. v. State of Arizona Paul Waddell, Dir. of the Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 50 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 1995). “See 4 U.S.C. § 109 . 3 . The Community has abandoned its claim of discriminatory allocation of tax revenues on appeal.”
S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 855 F. Supp. 1194 (D. Colo. 1994). “The maintenance of the tax-exempt status of the Indian reservations is clear in light of the Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. § 109 , which states that “nothing in § 105 and § 106 (sections that comprehensively set out federal guidance for state taxation of those living in federal areas) of…”
Baraga Prods., Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 971 F. Supp. 294 (W.D. Mich. 1997). “April 30, 1979 Sydney Goodman LR 79-17 Commissioner of Revenue 5 . In his reply brief, plaintiff proposed the Court employ exactly such a formula to assess the amount of SBT defendant has legally levied on plaintiff since 1984.”
Comm'r of Taxation v. Brun, 174 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 1970). “4 U. S. C. § 109 (1964 ed.), excepting taxes on Indians from the scope of the Act.”
Dillon v. State of Mont., 451 F. Supp. 168 (D. Mont. 1978). “” 4 U.S.C. § 109 . Finally, the Court observed that Arizona had not assumed civil or criminal jurisdiction over the Navajo Reservation under 25 U.”
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.