Case Name: HEINER, COLLECTOR, v. COLONIAL TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR; LEWELLYN, FORMER COLLECTOR, v. COLONIAL TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1927-11-21
Citations: 275 U.S. 232
Docket Number: Nos. 219, 220
Parties: HEINER, COLLECTOR, v. COLONIAL TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR. LEWELLYN, FORMER COLLECTOR, v. COLONIAL TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 275
Pages: 232–235

Head Matter:
HEINER, COLLECTOR, v. COLONIAL TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR. LEWELLYN, FORMER COLLECTOR, v. COLONIAL TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR.
Nos. 219, 220.
Argued October 7, 1927.
Decided November 21, 1927.
Solicitor General Mitchell, with whom Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt and Messrs. A. W. Gregg, General Counsel, and A. J. Ward, Special Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, were oa the brief, for petitioners.
Mr. John W. Davis, with whom Messrs. R. C. Allen, C. A. Jones, M. W. Acheson, Jr., James R. Sterrett, and I. J. Underwood were on the brief, for respondent.
Messrs. James M. Beck and T. J.. Leahy filed a brief as amici curiae, by special leave of Court.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Stone
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent's decedent procured an oil lease'from the Tribal Council of the Osage Tribe of Indians covering land of the Tribe in Oklahoma. The lease was in the form prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior -arid was approved by him. The lessor reserved as -royalties an agreed percentage of the gross proceeds from the sale of the oil produced, to be paid to the Superintendent of the Osage Indian Agency. On the net income derived by decedent from the sale of the oil between 1917 and 1921 there were assessed and collected income taxes aggregating more than $800,000. Respondent brought these suits; 'in the district court for western Pennsylvania to recover the tax paid, on the theory that, as the interests of the Indians were concerned, Congress had not intended by the various revenue acts to tax the income derived from the exploitation of their lands by non-Indian lessees, and that it was. thus impliedly exempt from the tax. Judgments of the district court for respondent [12 Fed. (2d) 481] were affirmed by the court of appeals for. the third' circuit [17 Fed. (2d) 36] and the cases are'here on cer-tiorari, the parties having stipulated that No. 220 shall, abide the result in No. 219.
Section 1 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1916 (c. 463, 39 Stat. 766) 'provides:
"That there shall be levied, assessed, collécted, and paid annually upon the entire net income received in the preceding calendar year from, all sources by every individual, a citizen or resident of the United States, a tax . . ." at specified rates.
Section 2 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1916, as amended by the Act of 1917, (c. 63, 40.Stat. 30Ó, 329) provides:
" That, subject only to such exemptions and deductions as áre hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains . . . growing out of the . . . use of or interest in real or personal property, . . . also [gains] from. . . , the transaction, of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or. profits and income derived from any source whatever."
The pertinent sections of the later revenue acts during the period do not differ materially from those quoted from the 1916 Act. Act of February 24, 1919, c. 18, § 210, 213, 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1065; Act of November 23, 1921, c. 136, § 210, 213, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237.
These statutes in terms plainly embrace the income of a non-Indian lessee derived-from the lease of restricted-Indian lands. But. we. are reminded by respondent that both the lease here involved and the income it brings the .lessee are beyond the taxing power of the states, for the lease is merely the instrument which the government has chosen to use in fulfilling its task of developing to the fullest the lands and resources of its wards, and a state may not by taxation lessen the attractiveness of leáses for such á purpose, Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501; Indian Oil. Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U. S. 522; and see Choctaw & Gulf R. R. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292; Jaybird Mining Co. v. Weir, 271 U. S. 609; arid reliance is'placed on those cases indicating that general acts of Congress are not applicable to the Indians whfere to apply them would affect the Indians adversely. Washington v. Miller, 235 U. S. 422, 427, 428; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 100. The conclusion .then urged on us is that Congress cannot be held to have intended by the general provisions.of the revenue acts to tax the incomes of the Indians them.selves; nor by taxing that of their lessees to do- itself what the states are forbidden to do.
The power of the United States to tax the income is undoubted. It seems to us extravagant, in the face of the comprehensive language of the statute, to infer that Congress' did not intend, to exercise that power merely: because, in the absence of congressional consent, it is one withheld from the states or because the tax in terms imposed on others may have-some economic effect upon the Indians themselves. The ' disposition of Congress has .-•been to extend the income tax as far as it can to all species ' of Income, despite immunity from state taxation! During the period now' in question the compensation of many federal officials was subject to federal income-tax, and income from government-bonds was taxed except when expressly exempted.
Assuming that the Indians are not subject to the income tax, as contended, the fact that they are wards of the government is not a. persuasive reason for inferring a purpose to exempt from, taxation the income of others derived from their dealing with the Indians. Tax exemptions are never lightly to be inferred, Vicksburg, etc., R. R. v. Dennis, 116 U. S. 665, 668; Philadelphia & Wilmington R. R. v. Maryland, 10 How. 376, 393, and we think any implication of an exemption of the income of the Indians themselves, if made, must rest pn too narrow' a basis to justify the inclusion of the income of other persons merely because the statute, if applied ás written, may have some perceptible economic effect on the Indians.
It is not without weight that the Treasury Department from the beginning has consistently collectéd income tax from lessees of Indian oil lands running into vast amounts. If this was contrary to the intention of, Congress" it is reasonable to suppose that this practice of the TDepartment would have been specifically corrected in some 6f the revisions of the laws, taxing income hi 1917, 1919, 1921, 1924 or 1926. Compare National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 140, 145, 146.
Reversed.