- 5 -
others were not, see Dillon v. United States, 792 F.2d 849 (9th
Cir. 1986), affg. Cross v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 561 (1984), the
phrase does not create a general tax exemption for Indians. See
Jourdain v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 980, 988 (1979), affd. per
curiam 617 F.2d 507, 509 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Brown,
824 F. Supp. 124 (S.D. Ohio 1993). Therefore, the Constitutional
phrase "Indians not taxed" provides no tax exemption for
petitioner.
2. Petitioner's Tax Status Under Statute or Treaty
It is also well settled that general acts of Congress,
including the Internal Revenue Code, apply to Indians unless a
statute or a treaty expressly exempts them. See FPC v. Tuscarora
Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 115-117 (1960); Superintendent of
Five Civilized Tribes v. Commissioner, 295 U.S. 418, 420-21
(1935).
As the Supreme Court said in Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1,
6 (1956):
We agree with the Government that Indians are
citizens and that in ordinary affairs of life, not
governed by treaties or remedial legislation, they are
subject to the payment of income taxes as are other
citizens. * * *
The prevailing rule is that all statutes of general
application apply to American Indians absent an express exemption
found in a statute or a treaty. See Lazore v. Commissioner, 11
F.3d 1180 (3d Cir. 1993), affg. in part and revg. in part on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011