Document: 448 U.S. 160 100 S.Ct. 2592 65 L.Ed.2d 684 CENTRAL MACHINERY COMPANY, Appellant,v.ARIZONA STATE TAX COMMISSION. No. 78-1604. Argued Jan. 14, 1980. Decided June 27, Syllabus Held : Arizona had no jurisdiction to impose a tax on appellant corporation's sale of farm machinery an Indian tribe, where the took place reservation even though did not have permanent business and was licensed trade with Indians. Since transaction plainly subject regulation under federal statutes implementing regulations governing licensing traders, law pre-empts asserted state tax. It is irrelevant that trader, since it existence trader statutes, their administration, field transactions Indians occurring reservations. Nor relevant maintain reservation, apply less nonresident who sells goods than they do resident trader. The purpose these protect from becoming victims fraud in dealings sellers would be easily circumvented if seller could avoid simply by failing adopt or obtain license. Pp. 163-166. 126 Ariz. 183, 589 P.2d 426, reversed. Rodney B. Lewis, Sacaton, Ariz., for appellant. Ian A. Macpherson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, appellee. Louis F. Claiborne, Sol. Washington, D. C., United States, as amicus curiae, special leave Court. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion 1 This case presents question whether State may tribe when made corporation reside 2 * Appellant chartered doing Arizona. In 1973 sold 11 tractors Gila River Farms, enterprise Tribe. Tribe federally recognized governed constitution adopted pursuant Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 476. Farms conducts farming operations tribal individual trust land within Reservation, which established Act Feb. 28, 1859, ch. 66, Stat. 388, 401. 3 Appellant's salesman solicited contract there, payment delivery also there. does §§ 261-264 CFR Part 251 (1979) engage approved, however, Bureau Affairs. 4 imposes "transaction privilege tax" State. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 42-1309, 42-1312, 42-1361 (Supp.1979).1 amounts percentage gross receipts taxable entity. assessed against goods, purchaser. this case, added amount tax—$2,916.62—as separate item price tractors, thereby increasing total purchase paid Farms. protest instituted administrative proceedings claim refund.2 denied, then filed action court, contending trading pre-empted application question. Superior Court Maricopa County held transaction, accordingly ordered refund. Supreme v. Central Machinery Co., 121 426 (1978). 5 We noted probable jurisdiction, 444 822, 41, 62 28 (1979), now reverse. II. 6 1790, Congress passed statute regulating traders. July 22, 33, 137. Ever time, Federal Government has comprehensively regulated prevent "fraud imposition" upon them. H.R.Rep. 474, 23d Cong., 1st Sess., (1834) (Committee Report respect Trade Intercourse 1834, 161, 729). current regulatory scheme, Commissioner Affairs "the sole power authority appoint traders tribes make . rules specifying kind quantity prices at such shall Indians." 261. All persons desiring are Commissioner's authority. 262. President authorized prohibit introduction any article into land. 263. Penalties provided unlicensed trading, residence trade. 264. promulgated detailed implement statutes. (1979). 7 Warren Trading Post Co. Tax Comm'n, 380 685, 85 1242, 14 165 (1965), unanimously "apparently all-inclusive authorizing them," id., 690, S.Ct., 1245, prohibited imposing precisely same issue present operator retail post located reservation. determined "in themselves sufficient show taken reservations so fully hand room remains laws additional burdens traders." Ibid. been left "largely free run its affairs without control, policy automatically relieved all carrying those responsibilities." See White Mountain Apache Bracker, 136, 152, 2578, 2588, 665. 8 There only two distinctions between Post, supra, case: reservation.3 concluded indicated bar disagree. 9 involved executed were effected Under 261-264, regulation. Indeed, falls squarely language 264, makes criminal offense "[a]ny person introduce trade" license country, reservation." then, reservations.4 10 262 ("[a]ny reservation" Affairs); 263 ("President country belonging tribe"); 264 (making person" license). expressly provides "itinerant peddlers," 251.9(b) definition nonresidents, see 252.3(i) One fundamental purposes regulations—to selling goods—would As we U.S., 691, n. 18, 1246, enacting "has undertaken regulate comprehensive way there States legislate subject." light modern conditions should allowed one case. Until repeals amends must give them "a sweep broad [their] language," Price, 383 787, 801, 86 1152, 1160, 16 267 (1966), interpret intent enacted them, Wilson Omaha Tribe, 442 653, 666, 99 2529, 2537, 61 153 (1979); Oliphant Suquamish 435 191, 206, 98 1011, 1019, 55 209 (1978).5 12 decision 13 Reversed. STEWART, whom POWELL, REHNQUIST, STEVENS join, dissenting. 15 before us immune imposed proceeds tribe. concludes affirmative answer required rationale 165, similar some respects one. While I agree states legal principles, cannot principles lead result reached Accordingly, dissent. here [federal] licensed, traders," ibid. 17 recognizes, circumstances differ presented Post. Specifically, ante, 164. considers differences immaterial, apparently because, reads subjected somewhat like fact not. Thus relies unlawful 18 Even assuming correctly statutory reach anybody "on reservation," understand why ascribes significance does. question, after all, license, but rather, believed, "runs afoul congressional enactments" dealing Indians, 184, 427 consistently " '[e]nactments government guard wards affect operation, [reservation,] conflict enactments,' Moe Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 463, 483, 96 1634, 1646, 48 96, quoting McGowan, 302 535, 539, 58 286, 288, 82 L.Ed. 410.1 With regard determinative Arizona's inconsistent law, says "[i]t reservations," given 'a language,' 166, 267.2 19 But simple this. grounds twofold. First, today reiterates, income residing "disturb disarrange plan set up order deemed unfair unreasonable," 1246. Second, saw governmental justification support State's "put[ting] financial [the trader] deals addition prescribed," Because nearly century "left control," "automatically responsibilities," 1245. That being so, "believe intended levying tax," 20 Neither considerations here. although obliged approval 262, much more governs engaged continuous course circumstances, Court's expressed belief minimal "leaves room" strikes me hyperbolic. administratively possess taxation isolated jeopardize interests thorough on-reservation merchants continuously Indians—the situation dealt impaired ability prescribe Indians," 261, might threatened very trader's enterprise, depended essential commerce. No risks exist one, involving sales transaction. viability assumed willingness trade, reasonableness terms guaranteed, review true lower hardly relevant. occasion sustained reservations, notwithstanding economic burden fell indirectly members. Washington Confederated Tribes Colville 447 134, 151, 156-157, 2069, 2080, 2083, 10; supra. Cf. Mescalero Jones, 411 145, 148, 93 1267, 1270, 36 114. 21 inexplicably ignores wholly legitimate taxing appellant, large presumably derives substantial benefits services taxpayer's expense.3 Aside entering solicit execute receive payment, certain characterize today's decision, other nondiscriminatory concededly applies. Thus, quite unlike duties responsibilities respecting Yet, despite settled teaching decisions area every interest weight, supra; McClanahan 164, 171, 1257, 1261, 129; cf. 144, 2584, 665, consider valid involved. 22 important recognize limits inherent pre-emption rests. Those necessary careful inquiry pertinent federal, tribal, interests, rational accommodation possible. Had am convinced exercise sovereign non-Indian citizens law. 23 dissenting concurring. 24 write separately because distinguish 160, 2592, 684, contractor logging pervasive bring play doctrine (1965). routine single therefore join dissent Machinery. 26 levy company regularly operated scheme 261-264. "These regulations," concluded, "show 27 too persuaded superficial similarity mistakenly having ." Although sell inside secure approval, regulations—and facts case—show approved need become itinerant peddlers pattern merely "considered traders" requirement. "The trader," fact, "must managed bonded principal, habitually 251.14 (1979).1 complete range regulation, enters transaction.2 Our most recent cases undermine notion occupy pre-empt affecting unanimous 481-483, 1645-1646, (1976), require retailers prepay validly customers. Rejecting argument based 'passed Indians] [reservation], enactments.' 410 (1938). 159-160, 2084, 2085, (1980), holds can keep records both non-Indians. 446 F.Supp. 1339, 1347, 1358-1359 (ED Wash.1978) (three-judge court). 29 Finally, taxes "to extent frustrate evident ensuring except Acts Acts." aspects included costs attributable seeks recover. 161-162, 2594. interfere unreasonable specific each danger ordinary will impair Bureau's fraudulent excessive pricing. To hold otherwise due gives windfall buyer unwarranted advantage over others deal seller. II 30 different situation. Petitioner Pinetop Logging operates solely enterprise. Pinetop's daily controlled designed assure greatest possible return timber. officials direct hauling down details choice equipment, selection routes, speeds travel, dimensions loads. 146-148, 2585-2586. roads constructed, maintained, requires contractors repair existing construct new logging. exhausts performing contractual obligations. 2586. 31 Government, responsible uses, "cannot believe levying" road use operations. raising revenues cost nothing exercises control. 162-164, 2086.3 construction expenses already bears maintaining successful timbering. pay twice roads. double exaction force reallocate work itself costly concessions contractors. concluding "is indistinguishable Post." 153, 2588. At time 42-1309 (Supp.1979) provided: "A. levied collected measured volume transacted account activities, rates values, sales, income, be, accordance schedule forth 42-1310 through 42-1315." 42-1312 subsection A equal per cent engaging continuing tangible personal property whatever retail, (Supp.1973) department revenue tax: "1. On state, application, provisions schedules [§ 42-1301 et seq.], fifty article." Ariz.Sess.Laws, 123, 117. stipulated refund rather itself. 157, 13, 1275, 114 (1973). appellee used uphold imposition Moore, 95 110, 387 809 (1963). reversal that, regardless label placed tax, Commission." 686, 1, 1243, 1. event, budget, allocated money machinery. decline appellee's invitation re-examine our conclusion Buck 105-110, dos permit POWELL observes his opinion, 172, 2599, 2600, rejected contention completely sweeps far broadly language, portion indicates intention immunize taxation. revenues, likewise strongest directed [economic value created off reservation] taxpayer recipient services." 10. Fed.Reg. 8267 conduct businesses management habitual (1958). oral argument, counsel conceded taxed completed firm's usual business. Tr. Oral Arg. 7. Machinery's reduces proposition locus dispositive. Quite apart opportunities evasion creates, position unsound. Persons unauthorized prosecuted. 264; ex rel. Hornell 1976 Chevrolet Station Wagon, 585 F.2d 978 (CA10 1978). certainly prove considered motor carrier 40-641 inordinate public Purolator Security, Inc. Thorneycroft, 116 394, 396-397, 569 824, 826-827 (1977); Campbell Commonwealth Plan, Inc., 101 554, 557, 422 118, (1966). earmarked maintenance improvement highways. 40-641(C) (Supp.1979). fuel excise 28-1551 "for partially compensating highways." 28-1552

Category: 1