Warbelow's Air Ventures - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          18 U.S.C. sec. 1151.  The land on which the Galena airport is               
          located does not fit the definition as provided in (a) or (c)               
          because the land is not within the limits of an Indian                      
          reservation, and is not an Indian allotment to which the Indian             
          titles have not been extinguished.                                          
               The land is also not a “dependent Indian community” as                 
          provided for in (b) of the above section.  The U.S. Supreme Court           
          held that a “dependent Indian community” exists when Indian lands           
          have been set aside by the Federal Government for the use of the            
          Indians as Indian land, and the lands must be under Federal                 
          superintendence.  Alaska v. Native Vill., supra at 527.  The land           
          has not been set aside by the Federal Government for the use as             
          Indian land because the land was conveyed to the Federal                    
          Government for airport purposes.  Additionally, the land is not             
          under the Federal superintendence that existed previously; i.e.,            
          the Federal Government does not act as a guardian over it.  Id.             
          at 533.                                                                     
               We conclude that the land on which the Galena airport is               
          located is not an “Indian reservation” within the meaning of                
          section 45A.  Additionally, we conclude that the Galena airport             
          is not located “within an Indian reservation” within the meaning            
          of section 45A because the Galena airport is not located on an              
          Indian reservation.  Thus, we hold that petitioner is not                   
          entitled to the IEC with respect to wages paid to employees who             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011