Document: 526 U.S. 32119 S.Ct. 957143 L.Ed.2d 27 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARIZONA DEPARTMENT REVENUEv.BLAZE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. CERTIORARI TO APPEALS No. 97 1536. Argued December 8, 1998 Decided March 2, 1999 Over several years, Bureau Indian Affairs contracted respondent Blaze Construction Company to build, repair, and improve roads on reservations located Arizona. At end contracting period, petitioner Arizona Department Revenue (Department) issued tax deficiency assessment against its failure pay Arizona's transaction privilege proceeds from contracts Bureau; that levied gross receipts companies doing business State. protested prevailed administrative proceedings, Tax granted summary judgment. Appeals reversed, rejecting Department's argument New Mexico, 455 720, controlled, holding federal law pre-empted tax's application Blaze. Held: A State generally may impose nondiscriminatory upon private company's Federal Government, regardless whether contractor renders services an reservation. In supra, announced clear rule immunity appropriate only when levy falls itself, or agency closely connected instrumentality. Id., 733. To expand beyond these narrow constitutional limits, Congress must expressly so provide. 737. Thus, absent congressional exemption, does not shield tax. incidence Blaze, Government; nor exempted taxation. Nevertheless, employed balancing test weighing state, federal, tribal interests, held intent pre-empt could inferred laws regulating welfare. cases involving taxation on-reservation activity, undertaken such particularized examination where legal fell nontribal entity engaged tribes members. See, e.g., Cotton Petroleum Corp. 490 163. But never seeks between Government non-Indian contractor, declines do now. need avoid litigation ensure efficient administration counsels favor bright-line standard taxing contracts, contracted-for activity takes place reservations. Moreover, political process uniquely adapted accommodating interests implicated state contractors. 738. decision exempt rests Congress, Court. Pp. 2 6. 190 Ariz. 262, 947 P.2d 836, reversed remanded. Thomas, J., delivered unanimous Opinion 1 NOTICE: This subject formal revision before publication preliminary print Reports. Readers are requested notify Decisions, Supreme States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical other errors, order corrections made goes press. 1536 REVENUE, PETITIONERv.BLAZE COMPANY, 3 ON WRIT ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE 4 [March 1999] 5 Justice Thomas 6 720 (1982), we Government. case asks us determine same applies We hold does. 7 * Under Lands Highways Program, 23 U.S.C. § 204 finances road construction improvement projects public roads, including reservation roads. Various agencies oversee planning particular allocation funding them. §§202(d), 204. Commissioner responsibility "plan, survey, design construct" 25 CFR 170.3 (1998). 8 several-year Navajo, Hopi, Fort Apache, Colorado River, Tohono O'Odham, San Carlos Apache Reservations incorporated under Blackfeet Tribe Montana owned member Tribe. But, company concedes, equivalent purposes because none work occurred Reservation. Brief Opposition n. 1; see Washington Confederated Tribes Colville Reservation, 447 134, 160 161 (1980). 9 State.1 Rev. Stat. Ann. §§42 1306, 42 1310.16 (1991). but, review, judgment favor. reversed. 836 (1997). It rejected our controlled denied petition one justice voting grant petition. certiorari, 523 ___ (1998), now reverse. II 10 considered use taxes property, income, purchases remedy "the confusing nature precedents" area, U.S., 733, rule: 11 "[T]ax circumstance: instrumentality two cannot realistically viewed separate entities, least insofar taxed concerned." 735. 12 reasoned "narrow approach" scope governmental "accord[ed] competing imperatives, giving full range each sovereign's authority." 735 736 (citing Graves York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 466, 483 (1939)). For expanded limits," explained "take decision, providing respects form, programs." 737 (emphasis added); also Carson Roane-Anderson 342 232, 234 (1952). Applying those principles, upheld issue contractors, contractors instrumentalities had contractors' activities rather, repealed pre-existing statutory exemption. 743 744. 13 These principles control resolution case. Absent id., 737; James Dravo Contracting 302 (1937). argue Mexico's would have foreclosed circumstances. Nor Cf. Carson, 234. 14 (and urges here) applied taking reservations.2 After "weighing respective interests," 163, 177 (1989), court below welfare Indians. "particularized examination," Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. N. M., 458 832, 838 Corp., 176 187 (state severance imposed lessee's production oil gas); Ramah, 846 contractor's contract tribe school construction); Central Machinery Co. Comm'n, 448 160, 165 166 (1980) (tax sale farm machinery tribe); White Mountain Bracker, 136, 144 153 (motor carrier license fuel logging hauling operations pursuant enterprise). contractor. 15 decline Interest setting cloud established Mexico. Oklahoma Comm'n Chickasaw Nation, 515 450, 459 (1995); County Yakima Bands 502 251, 267 268 (1992).3 recognized "political 'uniquely accommodating' " 738 (quoting Massachusetts 435 444, 456 (1978) (plurality opinion)). Accord, 460 536, 546 (1983). Whether make; deci- sion rests, instead, Congress. 16 Our conclusion way limits Tribes' ample opportunity advance their they choose so. Self-Determination Education Assistance Act, 88 2203, 450 et seq., (1994 ed. Supp. III), request Secretary Interior enter into self-determination "to plan, conduct, administer programs portions thereof, §450f(a)(1). enters contract, assumes greater over management funds operation certain programs. 900.3(b)(4) Here, whose Blaze's was performed exercised option, retained responsibility. Because assumed responsibility, occasion consider preemption doctrine apply take more direct active role administering funds. Therefore, depart 17 18 foregoing reasons, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 19 ordered. Notes 20 1. initially sought housing authorities eventually dropped claim. therefore liability respect contracts. 21 2. appears infringes right make own decisions governed them sufficient, preclude Williams Lee, 358 217, 220 (1959). upholding variety settings squarely foreclose argument. 156 (1980); Moe Salish Kootenai Flathead 425 463, (1976). 22 3. Indeed, recent Mexico illustrates perils fact-intensive inquiry. Constr. Taxation Dept. 118 M. 647, 884 803 (1994), cert. denied, 514 1016 (1995). imposition 163 (1989) reached exact opposite Appeals. 652 653, P.2d, 808 809.

Category: 9