- 5 -
or about November 15, 1989, the tribe signed a compact5 with the
State of Minnesota for control of class III gaming.6
As an enrolled member of the tribe, petitioner is entitled
to receive per capita distributions attributable to income
derived from the tribe’s casino. During the years 1991, 1993,
and 1994, petitioner received per capita distributions of
$19,070, $40,933, and $50,222, respectively. No Federal income
taxes were withheld from petitioner’s per capita distributions.
Prior Litigation
Petitioner in this case was also the petitioner in Campbell
v. Commissioner, docket No. 9244-95 (Campbell I). At issue in
Campbell I was the proper Federal income tax treatment of a 1992
per capita distribution from the tribe to petitioner arising out
5Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-
497, secs. 1-22, 102 Stat. 2467 (1988), current version at 25
U.S.C. secs. 2701-2721 (Supp. 2000), a tribal-State compact
governing gaming activities on the Indian lands of the tribe
shall take effect only when notice of the approval of the compact
by the Secretary of the Interior is published in the Federal
Register. See 25 U.S.C. sec. 2710(d)(3)(B). The tribal-State
compact between the tribe and the State of Minnesota was approved
by the Secretary, and notice of the approval was published in the
Federal Register as required. See 55 Fed. Reg. 12292 (Apr. 2,
1990).
6At trial, respondent objected to the admission of Exhibits
36-J through 39-J on grounds of relevance, and we reserved final
ruling on the admission of the exhibits. The exhibits included
the constitution and bylaws of the tribe, the tribe’s corporate
charter, the tribal-State compact, and the Gaming Revenue
Allocation Ordinance discussed infra. We overrule respondent’s
objection and admit the exhibits because we conclude that the
exhibits are relevant to our discussion of the collateral
estoppel issue, infra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011