as regards in relates to their decision their sovereign decision to identify the method manner and means by which they compensate their members for the use of tribal lands pursuant to the and ignored a long history of the because of the tribes business determination on how it use its lands ultimately deciding that it could ignore those unless there was a clear unequivocal or clear understanding or exception to the legal principle that was put out in the capital in case that all income including the income of native americans was  specific exception the testimony at the hearing clearly indicated it was in refuted that the chairman of the tribe billy cypress acted as a superintendent that taxation due united states versus jim case centered on general welfare act exemptions and this is a different application directly from land that can include rents paid for the use of land regardless of where the income comes from for that ran the mc as suki's by a constitution that was approved by the drooping affairs of my congress is required by law to let all the member share in and the revenue or resources of the tribe that includes the use of it slams the fact that they might put a drilling operation or a catalogue aeration or in this related but direct can also include revenue streams that require a building to put on the lands or otherwise use of the lands for any type of resource of revenue there are contain at least reference and support for hybridizing or splitting up camp grounds where you had some revenue that was derived from camping on the land and other revenue derived from programs structures in the land what's interesting here in this case and which is different from the jim analysis is that the any given regulatory act which centered on the per capita argument from the i r s does have a minimum requirement a manager requirement that prior to a distributions being made from revenue sources that there had to be a statute an ordinance something so that the us would have a way to deal with them on a level or another standing to the us recognized the fact that they said gross receipts fee doesn't d change what the intent behind it was because it has been uniformly applied  cross the reservation for anyone who comes in uses tribal lands whether it's a gas station or mineral rights or anything else is how the tribe was required was able to determine value for the use of its lands the tribe itself is located d in a very hard to appraise swamp area and under the provisions of part one hundred and sixty two dollars of the code of federal regulations that governs the tribe the tribe has the method or the the sovereign authority to determine how values its property and how it gains compensation that's fair you couldn't find a comparable means of determining rental value or sale of swamp land by looking at other areas of the swamp so the tribe said the best way we can do this is to charge a fee a gross receipts feed it was based on a revenue stream from any of the businesses and this case this came a gaming facility above the line as you were caught from the general accounting generously accounting principle above the line determination that was a pre net revenue determination that was paid to each member undivided interest for gaming facility on it and there was a gross receipts see that was required for anything that was really put on that land whether it was part of a settlement act or exempt by statute or otherwise and so because the i consistently said that the sale of leasing of tribal lands is a tax exempt act just did the tribes decision back in the eighty's or even before that in the late seventy's to charge this fee as a means for valuing property or valuing what the cost of using it would be would still be a political even in this scenario you know the real the reality is and i think the question of the court seem to get past without  source of the income but it's not what the income is the income was designed it is paid based on how the tribe comply with the b i a rules or regulations in establishing a value for each property how they're going to get compensated for and how they would distribute it that is required by statute and they've done that the i r s has just come in and said no we disagree assuming that's correct how did they get past unrefuted testimony of the chairman of the tribe on that that clearly indicates he had the authority to affirm and follow twenty five c f r one point two which is to waive apply or administer the laws in the best interest of the tribe and then apply in the best interest and or there was a determination of this was the best way to compensate all of them a numbers for their undivided individual interest in the use of their property the general council approved it as required by the constitution the i r s coming in to try and trump or overcome the b r s clear mandate authority i think is in a political bull in this scenario and and judge few  knowledge is it and i think several times in order states that you know there's just not an exception present but the exception is the statute the statutes that govern tribes and how they compensate for use of lands is the exception it's clearly set out statutory and clearly a clickable ringback to the way the tribe utilizes lance i often would say to them you know it's like it's like the us stole my car and now charges me to drive it once i get it back this is property that belonged to the mississippi tribe they got it back self determination was created to allow them to to decide and govern for themselves how they're going to use it they decide to do it and then the iris cars back it and says hey i know we took your property you got it back you've got to pay us for using it and that's not what the statue was intended and i think it applies to the us you wouldn't stand or if there is any disagreement the settlement act i think we've gone through that to show it for several reasons why it doesn't really address the very difficult different situation that was a lawsuit between t in florida about rode the settlement provide for an exchange of money and land united states had signed off on that land and approved some of germs and exempted from tax the to get to one other there's another reason why that by the act cannot exempt the casino revenue and this comes back to judge will suppose earlier point about how the money is derived whether it's derived from indian land not just because it's derive indirectly from use of land but all those cases that talk about a tax a good exemption for indians earning income directly from land are rooted in the old allotment system recall under the allotment system indians were considered to be incompetent to alienate their property that was held in trust by the united states for a period of years and by the time that indians were presumed to be ready to join the foggy politic at the end of twenty five years or some other term further questions i don't have anything else and controls not the settlement agreement control saw on lands but the issue is do the statutes permit the tried to better with its sovereign authority  stablish them at that manner and way to compensate for the use of those lines of the answer that is yes regardless of the settlement agreement or something else if the answer is yes the tribe has that right by statute then the question is are these of indian lands is not taxable the court seems to even agree with that in the court's order the judge to actually says that you know whether d the distributions are either net gaming revenue gross revenue or interior has regularly retroactively approved waive the modified statutes because this nd term interior unlike other administrative agencies acts not only has the person in charge of the statute bu can all of twenty five that's the statutes to govern all of indian country and there is no exception in there that says except for this statute we can apply this and often special in tribes come in later and recognition they retroactively apply statutes to the new tribe that just got created even though it wasn't specifically mentioned in the specific statute that's how the secretary's office works so in this case section four hundred and fifty nine section seven hundred and fifty the application a modification of them representative in this case the area superintendent which would have been chairman cyphers allows that person to approve regulations and do what is necessary to carry out the daily functions of the commissioner the commissioner obviously can't oversee every day five hundred and seventy two dollars for a recognized tribes so it's delegated to local area and regional superintendents and this case jim in cyprus to the senate side as a blanket matter that it would be best for the tried not to pay individual income taxes that's what would be best for those members i mean you could decide i don't know how binding that would be given vise on how binding that would be and that's not a statutory interpretation of  simply said this is how we're going to lease this property and the and that we decide that this is a lease of undeveloped lands for compensation that would be i think binding on everyone but is a land that is land that already has a