Joseph B. Campbell - Page 5

                                        - 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,              
               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