NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being
done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.  The
syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared
by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.  See United
                                                                     ______
States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
______    ___________________

                       SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                    Syllabus

                  OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION v. SAC AND FOX NATION
                                         ____

     CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

           No. 92-259.   Argued March 23, 1993 - Decided May 17, 1993

Respondent Sac and Fox Nation (Tribe) is a federally recognized Indian tribe
 located in Oklahoma.  It brought this action seeking a permanent injunction
 barring petitioner Oklahoma Tax Commission (Commission) from, among other
 things, taxing the income of tribal members who work or reside within tribal
 jurisdiction, and imposing the State's motor vehicle excise tax and
 registration fees on tribal members who live and garage their cars principally
 on tribal land and register those cars with the Tribe.  In large part, the
 Tribe based its claims of immunity from those state taxes on McClanahan v.
                                                              __________
 Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U. S. 164, in which the Court held that a State
 _________________________
 could not subject a tribal member living on the reservation, and whose income
 derived from reservation sources, to a state income tax absent an express
 authorization from Congress.  The Commission responded that the State had
 complete taxing jurisdiction over the Tribe because McClanahan and the Court's
                                                     __________
 other immunity cases applied only to tribes on established reservations,
 whereas the Tribe's 1891 Treaty with the Government disestablished the Sac and
 Fox Reservation in favor of allotments of trust land for individual tribal
 members.  In affirming the District Court's rulings on cross-motions for
 summary judgment, the Court of Appeals held, among other things, that the
 income of tribal members who work for the Tribe was immune from state taxation
 under McClanahan and Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian
       __________     ___________________    ______________________________
 Tribe of Okla., 498 U. S. 505.  In so ruling, the court rejected the
 _______________
 Commission's contention that the tribal member's residence was relevant in
 addition to the status of the land on which the income was earned.  The court
 also concluded that the State's

















                                                                    I           

II                  OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. SAC AND FOX NATION
                                       ____

                                    Syllabus


 vehicle taxes were flatly prohibited under Moe v. Confederated Salish and
                                            ___    _______________________
 Kootenai Tribes, 425 U. S. 463, and Washington v. Confederated Tribes of
 ________________                    __________    ______________________
 Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U. S. 134.   
 ____________________________

Held:  Absent explicit congressional direction to the contrary, it must be
_____
 presumed that a State does not have jurisdiction to tax tribal members who
 live and work in Indian country, whether the particular territory consists of
 a formal or informal reservation, allotted lands, or dependent Indian
 communities.  Pp. 8-13.
   (a)  The Court of Appeals erred to the extent that it did not determine the
 residence of the tribal members working for the Tribe.  The residence of a
 tribal member is a significant component of the McClanahan presumption against
                                                 __________
 state taxing authority.  Contrary to the Commission's contention, that
 presumption applies not only to formal reservations, but also to all ``Indian
 country.''  Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., supra, at 511. 
             _____________________________________________________
 Title 18 U. S. C. S1151 broadly defines the quoted phrase to include formal
 and informal reservations, dependent Indian communities, and Indian
 allotments, whether restricted or held in trust by the United States.  If it
 is determined on remand that the relevant tribal members do live in Indian
 country, the Court of Appeals must analyze the relevant treaties and federal
 statutes against the backdrop of Indian sovereignty.  Unless Congress
 expressly authorized state tax jurisdiction in Indian country, the McClanahan
                                                                    __________
 presumption counsels against finding such jurisdiction.  Because all of the
 tribal members earning income from the Tribe may live within Indian country,
 this Court need not determine whether the Tribe's right to self-governance
 could operate independently of its territorial jurisdiction to pre-empt the
 State's ability to tax income earned from work performed for the Tribe itself
 when the employee does not reside in Indian country.  See, e.g., White
                                                            ___________
 Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, 142.  Pp. 8-11.
 _____________________    ________
   (b)  Oklahoma's vehicle excise tax and registration fees are no different
 than the state taxes the Court held pre-empted in Colville and Moe.  The
                                                   _________    ___
 Commission's argument that neither of those cases applies because the Sac and
 Fox live on scattered allotments, rather than a reservation, fails for the
 same reasons it fails with regard to income taxes.  Pp. 11-13.
   (c)  Because the Court of Appeals did not determine whether the tribal
 members on whom Oklahoma attempts to impose its income and motor vehicle taxes
 live in Indian country, its judgment must be vacated.  P. 13. 

967 F. 2d 1425, vacated and remanded.

 O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.