Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Law: The Infringement-Preemption Test, 21 Ariz.L.Rev. 85 (1979). However, this infringement test cannot have the same scope in states, like Idaho, with Public Law 280 jurisdiction as it does in states without it; otherwise the legislation was a meaningless act, something we will not presume Congress intended. Cf. Duluth Lumber, supra (distinguishing cases arising in nonPublic Law 280 jurisdictions). Until the Supreme Court clarifies the confusion it has created, we and all other courts are left to grope our way in the darkness. Hence we must examine the law of both Public Law 280 jurisdictions and that of non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions for whatev with Public Law 280 jurisdiction may not tax personal property located on trust lands); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, supra (<HOLDING>); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that net farm income when applied to a producer in the fishing industry means net income from all fishing activity not just that income from a particular commodity and further providing that the regulations make it reasonably clear that the determination of   net fishing income is not to be made solely on the basis of tax return information if other information is relevant to determining the producers net income from all   fishing sources (B) holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge (C) holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources (D) holding state may not impose tax on nonindian trader operating on the reservation (E) holding that arizona could not impose an income tax on reservation indians
Output (English): holding that arizona could not impose an income tax on reservation indians