commissioner part to take alice park and then roll member of the seneca nation for income she derives from the mining and sounding of sanding grandma from the tree to protect protected land so the seneca nation now of course summary judgment was granted to the government in this case so the standard review is one of the noble but this court must supply the liberal candidate construction which  and interpreting treaties that liberal can and construction had been reinforced by the united states supreme court last year or a reversal wyoming in which it said that treaty must be interpreted in my the words of an indian treaty must be reg not in accordance to how they would be understood by a learned heckler but as they've been understood by an indian with that to look russians to be reviewed in favor of the indian in that regard the court is to review the historic context the negotiation the practical construction ducted by the parties in the two hundred and thirty six years that the united states government has entered into treaty with the seneca nation so series of treaties must be read in part to a material together and in harmony with one another candidate go treaty stated that the land from which this sand and gravel was mine was the property of the seneca nation and that they agreed the united states not to disturb the seneca nation or their friends united there on residing there on or united with them in the free use and enjoyment of those lands one hundred and forty two dollars the united states government promised again that those lands with not be subject to taxation or cessna for any purpose and they they did in the one hundred and forty two dollars treaty that the occupation and enjoyment of the allegheny reservation would continue with the same rights that the constitution which capel enery power to the federal government over indian affairs the declared supreme that declared federal treaties to be the supreme learnt of the land and which limit the power and that in eighteen and eighty seven dollars to cut to the federal government raising taxes based upon a direct tax a proportion among the several states based on a cent which would exclude indians not right under the candidate treaty that when he fought the removal by joseph fellow a member of the ogden land company who tried to force him from his land in a sawmill there the united states exemptions for taxes on land read together your client didn't own the possessory interest to use the surface of the land from which gravel with taken and what difference does that make to the result here your honor it makes no difference  united with them united because she follows the custom laws and tradition the seneca nation gave her permission to extract that gravel from that land to have the free use and enjoyment of the subterranean rights and port exchange royalties that were paid to the seneca nation the fact is no matter how does how does the seneca nations right to do that they're there for use and enjoyment of their land and their ability to transfer a certain interest in the land to miss perkins or to others who then transfer to her cans late into the extension of this person's removal of something from the land and then her transporting it to others and deriving income therefrom ok well st of all your honor the transportation that off the territory is certainly not established in the doesn't no i agree with you well i agree with you a while and there's no tax liens any tax liens that might arise with regard to the taxability of ms perkins income don't attach to any length of the  this court could rule that the language is limited to enroll members of the seneca nation who resides on the land and who adhere to the custom laws and tradition of the nation as determined by the nation itself or could narrowly make that ruling and whether of cork in the future would expand it that would be up to their interpretation but here it is scary looking to that indian friends she is in  isn't role member a member of the nation and nation's rights are rights that are enjoyed by their people how does the nation enjoy right if it's not enjoyed by their people this notion that her rights are limited because her rights belong to the nation to me is one that ignores what governments are to begin with our own constitution begins with the phrase we the people the united states  and sixty three when president lincoln delivered the get hiebert gettysburg direct he described our own government is a government he described in the gettysburg address that we are a government of the people by the people and for the people how is it that these treaties are not being interpreted that the rights in the protection the rights and enjoyment to use the land belong to the seneca people in the  treaty that made specific references to the right to use those lands to staying and remain on those lands until they are removed and and that refer to seneca the seneca nation to s would talk about people who were maybe herons or there are members of the erie who became part of the seneca nation to the process of adoption would have greater rights in those whose bloodline originated with the seneca nation  unfriend include in a role member like alice perkins she's the person who has the pre use and enjoyment of land based on what her sovereign government the seneca nation has given to her under their law she has the right to use not only the service but the sub service plan and and and her right of possession can come from whether she owes him a lot meant that started with the seneca passed through quickly indeed or by a lease given to her choose to use some of your rebuttal time at this point and we're not no you your honor our reserve my time for rebuttal thank you thank you very much we'll hear from the commissioner yes may i please the court  christianson for the commissioner of the tax court correctly held that neither the canandaigua treaty nor the eight hundred and forty two treaty created an exemption for alice perkins so that she would not have to pay tax on the gravel income that she earned from mining on seneca nation land under a tribal mining permit i'd like to focus on the questions by the court  distinguish between a tax on the land on one hand and tax on income derived from the land that's an important distinction that the supreme court has stablish supreme court has recognized in the mess we're ok that we cited that absent clear statutory guidance courts ordinarily will not imply tacked inventions for income simply because the land from which it is derived is it so exempt from tax so here we have the eighteen for forty two dollars treaty that under ambiguously precludes only a tax on the seneca nations of land but does not extend to income derived from the land and that's important because this notion that the perkins are relying on that income derived from the land is exempt really is tied to the general allotment act and the supreme court's decision in squire vs capable and in that case where the supreme court held that that not only was a tax would a tax on land be prohibited but also income derived therefrom and and the court determined that a contrary holding would have frustrated congress's purposes in the general allotment act course the general allotment act does not apply here and there is no precedent for extending it you know the standard under the general men act for income derived from land there is no precedent for extending that to other contexts that don't involve the general allotment act or an act with similar language which or advocating here you have one more minute of your initial time and the other reason that this reliance on income derived from the land which is a standard under the general allotment act is a poor analogy for the perkins's here is because even in general allotment cases where the indian does not own the a lot of land or where the land has been allotted it's either common tribal land or land allotted to another indian the courts of consistently rejected claims for tax exemption and in that situation which is what we have here so that's another reason that the perkins reliance on you know by an ogy on these general allotment cases and specifically on this idea that income derived from the land is exempt is is misplaced  lab last argument you made then is an argument that janice crow might be situated differently then mr perkins if i'm understanding it correctly i think that's absolutely true your hon holt versus commissioner we had the same situation the indian in that case held the grazing permit on tribal land and the court held that the income from the indians cattle operation was subject to federal income tax rejecting the tax payers argument that simply because the income was derived from tribal land that it was exempt and also rejecting the indians argument in that case that he was somehow a coal miner of the land simply because he was a member of the tribe similar argument to what the perkins has are making here and again that's a circuit's decision and hope versus commissioner and as the court questioned earlier it's also important to recognise what's not an issue we're not what's not in the issue is whether the royalty income that the perkins it's paid to the tri mining gravel is subject to tax that would be a separate issue tribes generally are exempt from federal income tax but in the in the supreme court's decision shots over says burnett make clear that you know even income that a tribe generate one it's distributed to the individual tribe members then it actable to the tribe members  individuals so that that's the case october says burnette one hundred and thirty one case when the supreme court that we that we've decided so even income received by the tribe but then distributed t any way and the tax court correctly held but d personal income was subject to federal income tax i think it would be a different case if you here were where the royalties paid to the you know whether the senate the private taxable on those royalties very different case so it does it does make a difference that you can have any ownership interest in the land issue here let me ask go back to my colleagues question about the eight hundred and forty two treaty and i mean i understand one of your arguments is it doesn't confer any in any individual rights and that this  exemption would not only to the nation as a whole have other arguments and say there is no exemption but just on the individual rights question the treaty does begin by it note that the rights belong to the nation but also allows for the allocation of income from the sales of land to be allocated based on the proportion of individual indians remaining in new york as compared to those who were moved last if i understand so money so it contemplated payments to up the purchase price into two categories the st category was one hundred thousand dollars or so that was paid for the land itself and that that was to be paid to the to the tribe and then the nd category of the purchase price was paid to indians who had improvements on the land and so so the money that went to individual indians was not for the land itself but it was for improvements that had been constructed on the land but when we come to article nine here there's no dispute that only the seneca tribe owns the land and so because only the seneca tribe own the land no individual senate can member had any d ownership interest in the land itself was no income tax in the united states illegally form of taxation that was occurring with regard to roads or or excise taxes for goods and brought in the day and ited states at the ports of entry but   of the seneca nation it clearly doesn't you know it doesn't refer to the same you have one more minute of your total time and i actually your honor i'm not sure that i think there would have been state income tax extend this to income tax rather than the tax on land that's something that the parties could have included in the treaty but only refers to the land and nothing to do with income derived from the land united with the senate canadian gave the right to the senate can nations determine who would be part being a part of their society and those who are made part of their society would have the free  called that here when we talk about the general law and act which was an eight hundred and eighty seven i think it's important to remember that the senate condition was it explicitly excluded from that general a  the camp which was the candidate between so the reason why and we don't rely upon the general allotment is to the right but we look to the general allotment at to show how congress how congress i'm general allotment act that was couched in terms of texas military but what they could fine is that the government and and just what this goes to what you said the land under the general lot meant by the federal government so there was no possibility when the court decided the case in one thousand and fifty six that anybody could put a tax assessment on land that was held by the federal government but congress but but the united states supreme court and squire went further they said the ownership by the nation to individual ownership but and i mean to your degree with it which is that the opinion reflects that congress had this attitude that the danger would be that if you allowed taxes to attach to it treaties that those promises made to those treaties that the federal government has a special relationship to safeguard them and wards of the nation and that the same detergent your point is that  to about not tax non tax ability reflects our congressional choices or treaty choices ratified by the congress the senate the nation power of privilege with regard to or control sovereign control over its land and or those that extends to those that are members of the nation correct the rights of the of the of the set of are no different united with them i think in the eight hundred and forty two treaty if you look at each of the revisions there were certain rights that were given to individual family because and this notion that the eight hundred and forty two dollars treaty only dealt with land is once again trying to separate these two treaty isolate the language and not treat the two treaties together and the series of treaties that have been over two hundred and thirty six years and which are still being forced by the federal government  since the new york you mean case eight hundred and sixty six the state has had no part to impose any state or local taxes on the land so when we look at that we're looking at two hundred and thirty six years that not a single case come before any court where income which was derived from the plan have ever been subject to federal income tax additionally i want to point out to the court  one more i had one question and conclusion in looking at the reference to indian friends can you just explain because when i look at this provision united states will never claim the same nor disturbed  nation or any of the six nations or of their indian friends it's just as a and i realize that we need to look at it in context i want to make sure i understand the context i would think if that was supposed to refer to individual members of the cynic a nation it would say were members of the cynic and nation and the fact that there is the reference to indian friends would suggest that it must be referring to members of another nation so what am i missing and  reading it that way because it's the sun it can nation and the six nations and their indian friends remember the hauteur shoni confederacy comprising of all six nations and the clans had a shared relationship each of the clans of each of those tribes had a relationship to the same clan in those other tried they had the right to come on to their land they had the right to do whatever use and enjoyment of those lands as those gave so the reason why they say and their indian friends they were referring to anyone who the senecas would fight on to their torte to character or a to be part of their society for was their purpose whether it was and agas those will be in the nation those would be and when they came on to the territory of the seneca nation as well is when seneca's went to the territories of those nations those nations had the right to give them the pre use and enjoyment of those land is they saw that so long as they were united with them meaning they follow the custom blogs and traditions of that indian nation that is a seneca thank you miss murphy that was