REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

1
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

2

Submitted this 9th day of December 

by the Subcommittee Chairpersons 

and its Members:

Chief Lynn Malerba (Mohegan)

Co-Chair and TTAC member

Rebecca Benally (Navajo)

Co-Chair and TTAC member

Henry Cagey (Lummi)

Lummi Nation Council Member

Robert Odawi Porter, Esq. (Seneca)

Former Seneca Nation President

Michael Connolly

M.A. Economist, Campo Kumeyaay Nation

Jean M. Swift (Mashantucket Tribal Citizen)

CPA

F. Michael Willis

Partner; Hobbs, Dean, Strauss, and Walker

Technical Support provided by:

Fatima Abbas (Haliwa Saponi)

National Congress of American Indians

Liz Malerba (Mohegan Tribal Citizen)

USET Sovereignty Protection Fund

Emery Realbird, (member, White Mountain Apache)

Native American Financial Officers’ Association

Derrick Watchman (Navajo)
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

1

TREASURY TRIBAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DUAL TAXATION 

REPORT 

DECEMBER 9, 2020

Desired Policy Objective

That Tribal nations as sovereign governments shall be the only taxing authority for all business and 

economic activity occurring on and within their reservations.

Discussion

Until dual taxation, where state and local governments tax on-reservation business activity is addressed, 

Tribal governments will struggle to enhance/diversify their reservation economies, be unable to 

stabilize the Tribal tax and regulatory environment, and be unable to meet the needs of their citizens 

that must be served. Tribal governments must have equal standing with all governments within the 

United States regarding taxing and regulatory authority.

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that

“The power to tax is an essential attribute of Indian sovereignty because it is a necessary 

instrument of self-government and territorial management. This power enables a tribal 

government to raise revenues for its essential services....[It derives] from the tribe’s general 

authority, as sovereign, to control economic activities within its jurisdiction, and to defray 

the cost of providing governmental services by requiring contributions from persons or 

enterprises engaged in in such activities within that jurisdiction.” 

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982). 

This statement underscores two important concepts. First, taxation is an important instrument of being 

a sovereign; and second, taxation finances government. An infringement upon the right to tax infringes 

upon both core attributes of sovereign governance.

American Indian nations and tribes pre-date the formation of the United States and possess inherent 

and treaty-recognized sovereignty. As a fundamental aspect of that sovereignty, Tribal nations possess 

immunity from being taxed by the United States federal and state governments. Moreover, Tribal 

lands subject to the jurisdiction of Tribal governments are not subject to direct taxation by outside 

governments. 

This fundamental legal and political reality is reflected in the United States Constitution in three 

primary ways. First, the Constitution identifies Native peoples as “Indians not taxed”, a reference 
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

2

recognizing the separate and independent political status of Tribal nations and the fact that Native 

people were originally recognized as politically separate (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 3). Secondly, the 

Constitution recognizes treaties as the “supreme law of the land” which serve as the primary legal 

mechanism for the recognition of Tribal sovereignty and inherent tax immunity (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2). 

And lastly, various Acts of Congress recognizing and regulating the United States’ relationship with 

Tribal nations, including those without a treaty relationship, affirm inherent Tribal sovereignty and the 

independent political status of Native peoples (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3). 

None of the 370 treaties between Tribal nations and the United States authorize the taxation of 

Native peoples, Tribal lands, or business activities occurring on those lands. Nor has Congress ever 

expressly authorized such taxation (except in limited circumstances). Indeed, when Congress has acted 

regarding Indian taxation matters, it has done so to protect Tribal tax immunities, such as the case in 

1983 when Indian treaty fishing income was declared federal tax-exempt. 

And yet, today Indian citizens must pay federal income tax on income earned on their Tribal lands 

while American state and local governments also assess taxation on non-tribally owned business 

activity occurring on Tribal lands. The reason for this divergence in the Constitutional and Treaty 

relationships is two-fold. First, the United States through its Internal Revenue Service following the 

establishment of the Federal income tax in 1913 and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 has sought to 

apply Federal tax law to Indian nations and individual Indians. And second, Federal court decisions, 

including U.S. Supreme Court cases, have often sided with the IRS and the states in matters relating 

to the taxation of Indians creating a body of precedent that has departed from the terms set forth in 

the Constitution and Indian treaties.

In recent years, this problem has become a critical threat to the growth of Tribal economies as the 

Supreme Court precedent has permitted state and local governments to tax certain economic activity 

occurring on Tribal lands involving non-Indians. As recently as 1980, the Supreme Court recognized 

the pre-emptive effect of Federal law against state taxation (Central Machinery v. Ariz. Tax Comm’n). 

However, since that time the Court has ignored Federal laws regulating Indian traders and inherent 

tax immunity of Tribal lands to authorize state and local government taxation on Tribal lands (e.g. 

Cotton Petroleum v. New Mexico (1989); N.Y. Dep’t of Tax & Finance v. Milhelm Attea Bros. (1994)). 

Unfortunately, this is in direct conflict with the Indian Commerce clause in the Constitution (Art. I, 

Sec. 8, Cl. 3), which provides that solely the Congress may regulate commerce with the Indian nations. 

The consequence of this recent change in Federal law is crippling to the growth of Tribal economies. 

Since Tribal governments retain inherent authority to impose taxation, the specter of “dual taxation” 

by both Tribal and state governments undermines current and future Tribal economic growth. Only 

in certain industries, where margins are significant, can the dual taxation burden be overcome, but that 

is not the point. With the outside state and local government taxes setting the tax rate floor, Tribal 

governments are deprived of the ability to use tax policy to attract businesses to their lands in the 

manner available to all other governments seeking to grow their economies to support their citizens.
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

3

The issue of dual taxation in Indian Country is even more relevant after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

decision in July 2020 in the McGirt v. Oklahoma case affirming the continued existence of the 

reservation boundaries for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in eastern Oklahoma. By affirming the 

boundaries of the Creek Reservation, the Court also confirmed that the Reservation constitutes 

“Indian country” under 18 U.S.C. § 1151, which has positive implications, not only for the Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation, but for everyone within the Nation’s boundaries who wish to work collaboratively 

toward a brighter future for all who work and reside in the Reservation, consisting of eleven counties 

with an area of approximately 3.6 million acres of land, including much of Tulsa and occupied by 

hundreds of thousands of people. 

The Supreme Court’s affirmance of the Creek Reservation creates an opportunity for the Nation to 

work with private and public partners to develop new economic development opportunities for the 

Nation, businesses within the boundaries, and with neighboring government partners. But, like any 

other Indian tribe seeking to develop the proper business infrastructure to support the needs of all 

critical Tribal governmental programs and services, the Nation must look towards revenue raising 

options that may exist within its reservation, including taxation options.

Ever since the McGirt ruling, the Nation has been making critical decisions, legal and policy-wise, 

on how the affirmance of its governmental jurisdiction and responsibilities will change how it does 

business in its Indian Country. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief David Hill has established 

the Mvskoke Reservation Protection Commission consisting of various subject matter experts in a 

wide range of issues, including law enforcement, business and commerce, taxation and regulatory 

matters, and Indian Child Welfare, to chart the opportunities arising from the decision. A good part 

of the discussions with the Commission deals with the multiple questions of taxation authority to be 

exercised by the Nation within the Reservation boundaries and how that will be achieved when the 

Oklahoma Tax Commission seeks to impose State taxes within the Reservation as well.

Historically, the State of Oklahoma has continued to impose its taxation authority in Indian Country 

over the objections of Oklahoma Tribal Nations, including Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and sometimes 

these cases end up before the U.S. Supreme Court resulting in pro-Tribal rulings. However, the 

Nation believes it is in the best interests of the Nation to take a proactive approach to work with 

neighboring Tribes, State, County, Municipal, and Federal partners, as well as the business community 

in the area of taxation. In McGirt, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “Oklahoma and its Tribes have proven they 

can work successfully together as partners . . . . the State has negotiated hundreds of intergovernmental 

agreements with tribes, including many with the Creek.”

Impact of Dual Taxation on Tribal Economies

Dual taxation fundamentally is state taxation on Indian lands. This situation creates additional costs on 

tribal land based business and economic activity. Not only does business and economic activity have 

to pay tribal taxes, it is also burdened with state/local taxes which in most cases makes the business/

economic activity non-feasible for development.
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

4

 Dual taxation also has an impact on the ability of a tribal nation to secure funding for needed 

projects. A classic approach to economic development is for a jurisdiction to identify a location of 

economic potential and then develop the infrastructure paid with borrowed money, typically taxexempt debt. Taxes, including property and sales, defray the cost of governmental services, and debt 

service, and help finance discretionary programs that enhance the quality of life for the community. As 

the development grows, the economies of scale further enhance the discretionary side of the revenue 

stream. The taxation revenue stream eventually retires the financing, giving another boost to the 

revenue generation.

This approach, and its variations, have been used by many jurisdictions to bootstrap economic 

development in their localities. Unfortunately, for tribal communities, this process is hamstrung by 

dual taxation issues as identified in previous sections. Unfortunately, for a tribal community, economic 

development of this type often ends up diverting resources from critical public services due to the lack 

of borrowing capacity. When borrowing occurs, the costs are often higher than other communities 

due to the risk of uncertainty regarding tax policy. The tribal community is short-changed on the 

revenue side by the diversion of taxes from the tribes, while the responsibilities of government toward 

businesses operating in the tribal jurisdiction remain.

In a leading economic analysis of the impact of dual taxation on Tribal economies, the authors state a 

fundamental premise that: 

“Every government relies on tax revenues to fund essential services and public goods, 

including building and maintaining infrastructure (such as roads, broadband, water and 

waste water systems); permitting and licensing businesses and professions; enforcing 

contracts and resolving disputes; ensuring public safety, educating children and workers; 

enforcing building codes and other safety measures; insuring against unemployment and 

worker injury; and more.

(Croman, Kelly and Taylor, Jonathan B. 2016). 

In the context of Tribal government operations and its uniqueness, the United South and Eastern 

Tribes note that tribal governments have responsibilities that are distinct from other sovereigns;

“They have the added responsibility to ensure that they have the revenue needed to maintain 

Tribal language, culture and ceremonies. The preservation and restoration of Tribal culture 

remains a significant policy objective that seeks to reverse damage caused by the former 

federal policy of Indian assimilation which forbade the practice of Native ceremonies and 

Native language.” (USET, 2017) 

If tribes are to be successful in creating self-sustaining economies, diversification of their economic 

base is essential. Tribes operate businesses on their lands to provide services to their citizens as any 

other local, state and federal government provide. Indeed, “attracting private sector capital investment 

in an economy can bring many layers of benefits. These range from the direct benefits of jobs and 
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

5

profit to the benefits of turnover in the local economy through suppliers and other commerce.” 

(Miskwish 2015). Tax policy is key to achieving the goal of economic self-sufficiency. Non-tribal 

governments and policy makers regularly fail to adequately understand or incorporate tribal fiscal 

prerogatives in striking fair tax apportionments. At times a non-tribal government may view 

Indian country as a potential source of revenue rather than as a polity with inherent public finance 

requirements (Kaufmann, 2009). 

Dual taxation has the unfortunate consequences of (1) inhibiting private sector capital investment 

due to taxes levied by nontribal governments which would not happen in another jurisdiction, (2) 

siphoning tax revenue from the reservation to the state and (3) precluding the tribe’s ability to offer tax 

policy to incent businesses to locate and operate on tribal lands. Taxes imposed by the state on tribal 

lands do not return to the reservation as governmental services which further disadvantages tribal 

government in providing services, regulation and programs for its citizens and the businesses located 

within its jurisdiction. 

The clearest example of this is the Campo Kumeyaay Wind Project in California. This project was 

created through a significant investment of $75,000,000 on the Kumeyaay reservation. Annually, over 

$400,000 in property tax is collected by the State and by the local San Diego County from the wind 

power project and $4,000,000 in sales tax was collected by the State of California on the installation. 

Unfortunately, none of the tax revenue was shared with the Campo Tribal Government (Miskwish 

2015). It is important to note that within San Diego County over $13 billion of fee lands is exempt 

from property tax. These lands include colleges, cemeteries, and churches, which do not produce 

taxable revenue but still require county services. These tax exemptions are markedly different from 

the tax exemption associated with Tribal lands in trust, as Tribal trust land status corresponds with a 

reduction in the availability and use of County services (Miskwish, 2015). 

A more promising model has been offered by the Reno Sparks Indian Colony in Nevada, which has 

been able to diversify its economy based on Tribal tax policies through agreements with the State of 

Nevada that address dual taxation. The Reno Sparks Indian Colony has developed commercial sites 

which are leased to various business enterprises, with taxes paid by the operators remaining wholly 

within the Tribal territory for use by the Tribal government. This tax base has benefited both the tribal 

citizens and non-Indian citizens residing there through the provision of infrastructure, environment 

cleanup and health services. (Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, 2015). While the Reno-Sparks Indian 

Colony agreement with the state of Nevada is promising in that it demonstrates the benefits of a 

separate and unencumbered tax base, it may not go far enough in fully supporting sovereignty. The 

agreement limits the tribe by requiring the tribe to collect at least the same amount as the surrounding 

county removing autonomy and any competitive advantage the tribe may have in recruiting entities on 

to tribal lands. A practice that state and county governments commonly utilize. 
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

6

An Important Policy Consideration: Tax Parity

In addition to the foregoing economic considerations, it is important to also consider the question of 

parity and relationships between neighboring sovereign governments. No reasonable person would 

every consider that the State of Arizona be allowed to levy taxes on a New Mexico business providing 

goods and services to an Arizona citizen in New Mexico. So why then should the State of Arizona be 

able to impose a tax on a tribal business providing goods and services to their customers simply because 

the business is operated by a sovereign government located on a reservation within the State borders? 

Mashantucket Pequot Chairman Rodney Butler in his testimony to the U. S House of Representative’s 

Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures shared this request for parity stating: 

“Quite simply, we are asking for parity in the federal tax code and to be treated as other sovereigns 

in this country as reflected in the U.S. constitution, and numerous federal laws, treaties and federal 

court decisions. Without question, tax parity for Tribal governments will allow for greater selfdetermination, economic growth and self-sufficiency for Indian Country.” (Butler 2020). He further 

noted that the diverted tax revenues from on–reservation businesses are used by state and local 

government to serve non-Indian populations, rather than citizens of his Tribal nation. (Butler, 2020)

Tribes as Economic Partners with States

States also are burdened when dual taxation occurs on Tribal lands. Indian economic development 

enhances state economies (Maruca, 2019). “....Indian economic development helps state growth. 

Tribal lands are often small and embedded in larger states, so state economies benefit when Indians 

participate more in the state economy and are better educated, healthier and more secure.” (Croman 

and Taylor, 2016)

Multiple studies demonstrate the positive impact of tribal economic development to the economies 

outside reservation boundaries. All tribes operate within states and contribute greatly to the state 

economy when there is positive economic development on tribal reservations. The impacts go far 

beyond those created through tribal-state gaming compacts, although the experience with gaming fully 

demonstrates this point.

Nationally, Indian Gaming is a $32 billion industry (Meister, 2018) and is an economic driver not 

only for the Tribal government that owns the facility but for the surrounding state(s) given the 

number of non-Indian employees, state employment taxes, revenue sharing agreements, goods and 

services purchases from businesses within the state with those businesses paying taxes to the state, 

and the economic activity of employees spending their discretionary funds within the state economy. 

Indian casinos employ many non-tribal members from the local community. For example, in 2008, an 

economic analysis of the Chumash Casino in Santa Barbara County demonstrated that for every $10 

in output from the casino, there was another $4 in output for the local economy (California Economic 

Forecast, 2008)
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

7

Two studies completed recently share the positive economic impacts of Tribal gaming, but it is 

important to note that many tribes operate diverse businesses which will have the same positive impact 

within their tribal, local and state communities. The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation reports that 

in 2017, it employed 9,702 employees through its many enterprises. 77% of the Tribes payroll is paid 

in Connecticut with more than 80% of the Connecticut payroll paid in the state’s poorest zip codes. 

The following economic impact from the report was noted (exclusive of the tenant stores and restaurants):

• $8.8 million in state income taxes

• $31 million in federal income taxes

• $40 million in Social Security and Medicare Taxes

• Estimated direct, indirect and induced impacts of the economic activity on the Mashantucket 

Pequot Reservation totaled $1.1 billion for the Connecticut Economy

• Purchased goods and services from 879 Connecticut vendors. It is important to note that these 

Connecticut vendors will also then purchase goods and service within Connecticut (indirect impact), 

pay payroll taxes and in turn their employees buy household goods and services (induced impact)

• $120 million to the state of Connecticut in revenue sharing agreements

• Economic activity on the Mashantucket Pequot reservation supported 12,500 jobs in 

Connecticut (direct, indirect or induced)

Importantly, these benefits to Connecticut never required any tax abatement, relocation incentive, tax 

exemption of other Connecticut tax expenditure. Given that more than 75% of Foxwoods gaming 

dollars in 2017 came from out-of-state patrons, the Tribe’s economic impact is overwhelmingly a net 

contribution (Taylor, 2019).

A similar study of Tribal businesses in Oklahoma (with 17 participating Tribes) demonstrated similar 

positive impacts (Dean PhD, 2017):

• Employment 96,177 (direct and multiplier)

• Payroll $4,649,911,522 (direct and multiplier)

• Value added $8,156,310,352 (direct and multiplier)

• Output $12,932330,170 (direct and multiplier)

• $1.5 billion in exclusivity fees to the State of Oklahoma since 2006 with $133,940,428 paid in 2017

• $96,050,971 household income, property and other taxes and fees

• Worker Social Insurance Employer and Employee $15,284, 162

• Corporate income, dividends and production taxes (including sales tax) $720,013,134

• Additionally, further dollars are brought into the state through various federal funding sources 

such as the Indian Reservation Roads program which has contributed significantly to roads and 

infrastructure projects that all Oklahomans use.
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

8

Once again it is important to note that these benefits did not require any tax expenditure, abatement, 

etc. from the state or local governments. 

Clearly, successful Tribal government-owned businesses create a positive economic environment, both 

locally and statewide. But taxes paid to the state and local governments do not come back to the 

reservations in the form of services, infrastructure and programs, thereby weakening Tribal economies 

and Tribal societies. 

PHOTOS COURTESY OF CODY HARJO, 

NATIVE AMERICAN FINANCIAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

9

Relevant Legislation, Regulation and Administrative 

Opportunities to Address Tax Parity

(See addendum)

Recommendations for Action by the U.S. Treasury Department 

and Department of Interior

In accordance with treaties entered into between the United States and Indian tribes, various Acts 

of Congress, and the fiduciary trust responsibility, the Treasury and Interior Departments have 

an obligation to assist in addressing the problem of dual taxation on Tribal lands. The following 

recommendations should be considered for action:

 1. Create a position in the Department of Treasury of “Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Country and Alaska Native Development in the Office of Economic Policy” for the purpose of 

managing Treasury-related policy that honors the trust relationship the federal government has 

to tribes as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, ensuring that pending and new legislation and 

guidance have beneficial impacts for tribes, for the purpose of conducting ongoing, effective tribal 

consultations and other such matters as may be necessary.

 Rationale: In recent years Congress has assigned important responsibilities to the Treasury 

Department for addressing issues affecting Indian Country. A primary responsibility is to engage 

in Tribal Consultation on matters that affect American Indians and Alaska Natives. Under the 

Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act of 2014, Congress created the Treasury Tribal Advisory 

Committee (TTAC) to “advise the Secretary on matters relating to the taxation of Indians.” 

And through the IRS, the Department has addressed the issuance of tax-exempt debt by Tribal 

governments and the collection of payroll and other taxes in Indian Country. Most recently the 

Congress has assigned responsibility to the Department for the distribution of the $8 billion 

Coronavirus Relief Fund. While the Department has assigned a member of its professional staff 

as the “Tribal Liaison”, these assignments have not been permanent. This instability has led to 

inconsistency with respect to outreach to Tribal governments and failure to develop and achieve 

clear policy objectives. Despite the efforts of professional staff recently assigned to work with 

the TTAC and fulfill Congressional directives, more must be done to bolster the professional 

staff assigned to work on American Indian and Alaska Native tax and economic development 

initiatives. This proposal would institutionalize a position in the Treasury department to focus 

on (i) promoting Indian Country economic development, (ii) integrating Tribal economies in the 

fabric of U.S. economic policy and (iii) provide an opportunity for economic research and analysis 

affecting governments.

 2. Broaden the Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee to include tribal leadership that is reflective 

of the diversity of Indian Country and to encompass the broader issues within the realm of the 

economic policy Tribes engage with Treasury on. 
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

10

 3. The Department of Treasury should ensure tribal participation by ensuring adequate time for 

public comments during TTAC meetings and by engaging tribal leadership on a consultative 

basis regarding the recommendations made by the TTAC to ensure tribal economic interests are 

broadly represented in all policy, regulation and guidance. 

 4. The Department of Treasury should, in consultation with tribes, commit resources to reviewing 

all tax regulations and economic policy impacting Tribal nations and develop guidance that 

recognizes the sovereign authority of tribes to be the sole taxing authority on their lands.

 5. The Department of Treasury should, in consultation with tribes conduct an economic impact 

study for the purpose of quantifying all taxes generated by Indian country economic development 

to ascertain the impact of eliminating dual taxation barriers.

 6. The Department of Interior should continue the Indian Trader Regulations (25.C.F.R §140) 

comprehensive update with proper government to government consultation in the compilation 

of the draft and final regulation. These updates should explicitly pre-empt state taxation for 

commerce on Indian lands; prohibit Indian country business activity from state regulation and 

taxation, and; preserve and not interfere in tribal taxation authority over Indian Commerce.

(NCAI, 2015).

 7. Tribal tax codes, agreements and Tribal tax compacts with states and local governments, free from 

interest-balancing tests or dual taxation schemes, should serve as the legal basis relationships 

between tribes and federal, state and local governments. 

 8. Intertribal commerce is and should not be subject to State or local government taxation.

 9. Any federal legislation governing the ability of States to impose sales taxes on internet and other 

remote sales should clearly affirm that Tribal Nations have the right to collect these taxes on their 

tribal lands and that where a Tribal tax applies, the state sales tax does not. 

 10. Statutory amendments to the HEARTH Act as noted in 25 CFR 162.017 should include the 

following language:

(a) permanent improvements on the leased land, without regard to ownership of those 

improvements are not subject to any fee, tax, assessment levy or other charge imposed by any 

State or political subdivision of a State. Improvements shall be subject to taxation only as 

determined by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.

(b) activities under a lease conducted on the leased premises are not subject to any fee, tax, 

assessment, levy or other charge (e.g. business use, privilege, public utility, excise, gross revenue 

taxes) imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State. Activities shall be subjected to 

taxation only as determined by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

11

(c ) the leasehold or possessory interest is not subject to any fee, tax, assessment, levy or other 

charge imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State. Leasehold or possessory 

interests shall be subject to taxation only as determined by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.

 11. Treasury Department will hold government to government consultations with all tribal nations 

and incorporate recommendations from consultations into the 

Department’s policy and regulatory guidance.

 Submitted this 9th day of December by the Subcommittee Chairpersons and its Members:

Addendum

Testimony

U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means 

Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures

Hearing on Examining the Impact of the Tax Code on Native American Tribes

March 4, 2020

Written Testimony of President Fawn Sharp, NCAI President

Testimony of Rodney Butler, Chairman Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation

Testimony of Matthew Wesaw, Chairman, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians 

 Written Testimony of Kenneth Kahn, Chairman Sana Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (did not 

address dual taxation)

Written Testimony Native American Financial Officers Association (discussed treaty 

obligations and lack of tax base but did not address dual taxation specifically)

Governmental and Financial studies (note with explicit signed permission from authors/tribe)

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights “Broken Promises: Continued Federal Funding Shortfall 

for Native Americans. 2018

Articles

“The Power to Tax Economic Activity in Indian Country”. Willis, Michael F. Natural Resources and 

Environment. Vol 28. No.4. Spring 2014.

“Why Beggar Thy Indian Neighbor? The Case for Tribal Primacy in Taxation in Indian Country”. 

Croman, Kelly S. & Taylor, Jonathan B. JOPNA 2016-1. The Harvard Project on American Indian 

Economic Development and The University of Arizona Native Nations Institute.

“Government to government: Models of cooperation between states and tribes.” Johnson, S., 

Kaufmann, J., Dossett, J., Hicks, S. & Davis S. National Conference of State Legislatures. April, 2009).

“The Unfulfilled Promise of the Indian Commerce Clause and State Taxation, the Tax Lawyer, 

Summer 2010 (published by the American Bar Association).
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

12

Relevant laws 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 25 U.S.C.§2710(d)(4).

25 U.S.C §3505 (establishing a commission to develop recommendations on dual taxation and 

report to Congress). Not established and repealed by Title V of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 25 

U.S.C.§3501 et. seq.

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Residential Business, and Wind and Solar Resource Leases on Indian Lands, 

77 Red. Reg. 72440 (Dec 5, 2012), Codified at 25 C.F.R pt. 162.

Indian Tribal Governmental Tax Status Act of 1983. 26 U.S.C §7871

Indian Trader Regulations

Court Decisions 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside Cnty. et al., 749 Fed. Appx. 650 (9th Cir. 2019),

Confederated Tribes of the Chelhalis Reservation v. Thurston County Board of Equalization 724 

F3d (1153) (9th Cir. 2013)

Cotton Petroleum v. New Mexico 490 U.S 163 (1989)

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Noem, 938 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2019).

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard, 772 F.3rd 457 (2d Cir.2013)

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 137

McClanahan v Ariz. State Tax Commission 411 U.S. 164, 165, (1973)

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones 411 U.S. (1973)

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 2014

Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 1986

Montana v. Crow Tribe, 484 U.S. 997 (1988), affirming 819 F.2d 895 (9th Cir. 1987)

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Potawatomi Tribe, 1991

Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114, 123 (1993)

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wis. v. Village of Hobart, 732 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2013)Poarch Band of 

Creek Indians v. Moore, No. CV 1:15-0277-CG-C (S.D. Ala, Dec. 5, 2016). 

Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue, 458 U.S. 832 (1982)

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Stranburg, 799 F.3d 1324 (2015)

Seminole Tribe v. the State of Florida, 2014

South Dakota v. Wayfair, 138 S.Ct. 2080 (2018)

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2011)

Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington, No. CV 15-00940 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2018).
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

13

Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)

Washington v. Colville, 1980

Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., No. 16-1498 (2019) (note the treaty 

discussion in Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion)

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980)

Bibliography

Butler, R. (2020, March 4). House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures. 

Washington, DC.

Consulting, M. (2018). The Economic Impact of Tribal Gaming: A State by State Analysis. American 

Gaming Assocation.

Croman, K. S., & Taylor, J. B. (2016). “Why Beggar Thy Indian Neighbor? The Case for Tribal 

Primacy in Taxation in Indian Country. JOPNA1, 1.

Dean PhD, K. D. (2017). The Economic Impact of Tribal Nations in Oklahoma Fiscal Year 2017. 

Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma City University.

Kaufmann, D. H. (2009). Government to government: Models of Cooperation betwen states and tribes. 

National Conference of State Legislatures, (p. 1).

Maruca, M. (2019). From Exploitation to Equity: Building Native-Owned Renewable Energy in 

Indian Country. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 489.

Merrion v. Jicarilla (U.S. Supreme Court 1982).

Miskwish, M. C. (2015). Quantification of the Public Benefit of Indian Economies in San Diego County”. 

Created for the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaa Nation.

NCAI. (2015). Resolution #Sd-15-045. Washington, DC: National Congress of American Indians.

(2015). Reno-Sparks Indian Colony. Retrieved January 10, 2016, 

from http://www.rsic.org/about/business-enterprises-andeconomic-development/

Taylor, J. B. (2019). Economic Impact of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. 

Hyannis, MA: Taylor Policy Group.

(2008). The California Economic Forecast, Econoimic Impact of the Chumash Casino Resort on the County of 

Santa Barbara). Santa Barbara.

(2008). The California Economic Forecast, Economic Impact of the Chumash Casino Resort on the County of 

Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara.

USET. (2017, May). USET SPF Proposals for Tribal Tax Reform. Adopted by the Board of Directors.
REPORT OF THE TTAC DUAL TAXATION SUBCOMMITTEE

14