150 T.C. 6
Tax Ct.2018Background
- Alice and Fredrick Perkins, Seneca Nation residents, mined and sold gravel from Seneca reservation land in 2008–2009 with tribal permission; gross receipts near $1.5M (2008) and $1.7M (2009).
- Perkinses filed late 2008–2009 returns in 2011, claiming gravel income exempt from federal tax under the General Allotment Act and two treaties (Canandaigua Treaty 1794; Treaty with the Seneca 1842).
- IRS issued a notice of deficiency for 2008–2010, including tax on the gravel income and penalties under I.R.C. §§ 6651(a)(1) (late filing) and 6662(a) (accuracy-related).
- The Tax Court found no genuine issue of material fact and proceeded on summary judgment; the Perkinses’ General Allotment Act claim failed because the Act expressly exempted Seneca reservations from allotment.
- The core legal questions: whether either treaty exempts income from sale of gravel mined from tribal (common) land, and whether penalties apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Canandaigua Treaty exempts income from sale of gravel mined from Seneca land | Treaty’s promise not to “disturb the free use and enjoyment” of Seneca lands protects individual members’ income from land-based activities | Treaty protects Nation’s land and rights, not a personal federal income-tax exemption for individual members | Held: No exemption; treaty protects land/alienation rights, not federal income taxation of individuals |
| Whether 1842 Treaty exempts income from sale of gravel mined from Seneca land | Treaty’s Article 9 (“protect…lands…from all taxes”) shields income derived from tribal land | Treaty protects real property from taxation (historically aimed at NY state taxes); severed gravel is personal property and not covered; treaty protects Nation’s land, not individual income | Held: No exemption; Article 9 covers taxation of land (not severed gravel) and does not exempt petitioners’ gravel sales from federal income tax |
| Whether income from common tribal (non-allotted) land is Capoeman-type exempt income | Perkinses assert a Capoeman-like rule applies to income derived from Indian land generally | Commissioner: Capoeman exemption applies only to income from allotted land held in trust; income from common tribal land is taxable | Held: Capoeman does not create a general exemption; exemption limited to allotted land, so gravel sales from common tribal land are taxable |
| Whether penalties under I.R.C. §§ 6651(a)(1) and 6662(a) apply | Perkinses offered no substantive defense to penalties in briefing | Commissioner sought late-filing penalty and accuracy-related penalty; but must satisfy administrative prerequisites for penalties | Held: §6651(a)(1) late-filing penalty applied (returns were filed late). §6662(a) accuracy-related penalty not decided in Commissioner’s favor because Commissioner did not meet burden of production under §6751(b) for initial penalty approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1 (1956) (Capoeman limited tax exemption to income derived from allotted trust lands)
- Superintendent of Five Civilized Tribes v. Commissioner, 295 U.S. 418 (1935) (Indians subject to tax unless specific exemption exists)
- Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U.S. 423 (1943) (treaties construed liberally in favor of Indians, considering historical context)
- Lazore v. Commissioner, 11 F.3d 1180 (3d Cir. 1993) (Canandaigua Treaty does not exempt wages; discussion whether treaty might exempt land-derived income)
- Seneca Nation of Indians v. New York, 382 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2004) (treaty interpretation principles and construing treaties as the Indians likely understood them)
- Chai v. Commissioner, 851 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2017) (§6751(b) requires written approval of initial penalty determination; Commissioner bears production burden for penalties)
- Jourdain v. Commissioner, 617 F.2d 507 (8th Cir. 1980) (Capoeman exemption applies only to allotted land; income from tribal licenses taxable)
- Stevens v. Commissioner, 452 F.2d 741 (9th Cir. 1971) (interpretations of Capoeman and limits of exemptions to allotted land)
