Case Name: STATE of Arizona, State Tax Commission of Arizona, Appellant, v. CENTRAL MACHINERY COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Appellee
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 1978-12-04
Citations: 121 Ariz. 183
Docket Number: No. 13593
Parties: STATE of Arizona, State Tax Commission of Arizona, Appellant, v. CENTRAL MACHINERY COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Appellee.
Judges: CAMERON, C. J., and HAYS and HOLOHAN, JJ., concurring.
Reporter: Arizona Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 183–186

Head Matter:
589 P.2d 426
STATE of Arizona, State Tax Commission of Arizona, Appellant, v. CENTRAL MACHINERY COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Appellee.
No. 13593.
Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.
Dec. 4, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1979.
Bruce E. Babbitt, Former Atty. Gen., John A. LaSota, Jr., Atty. Gen. by Ian A. Macpherson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellant.
Burton G. Hirsch, Phoenix, Rodney B. Lewis, Sacaton, for appellee.

Opinion:
STRUCKMEYER, Vice Chief Justice.
This appeal arises out of an action brought by the Central Machinery Company for a refund of sales taxes in the amount of $2,916.62, paid under protest. The Superior Court of Maricopa County entered judgment in favor of Central Machinery, and this appeal followed. Judgment reversed.
The parties in their second agreed statement stipulated to these facts: Central Machinery is an Arizona corporation and maintains an office in Casa Grande, Arizona, which is not on an Indian reservation. In 1973, agents of Central Machinery went onto the nearby Gila River Indian Reservation to solicit the sale of farm machinery from the Gila River Farms, an enterprise of the Gila River Indian Community. The Gila River Indian Community is an Indian Entity existing under the authority of 48 Stat. 984, 25 U.S.C. 461, et seq. After a period of negotiation, Gila River Farms executed a purchase order for eleven John Deere tractors at a total price of $100,-137.26. An item of $2,916.62, Arizona's Transaction Privilege Tax, was included in the total purchase price. Delivery of the tractors was made by the John Deere Company to Central Machinery in Casa Grande, Arizona. Central Machinery, after servicing the tractors, delivered them to the Gila River Farms on the Indian reservation at Sacaton, Arizona. Central Machinery did not possess a federal license to trade on any Indian reservation and, although it could have been excluded from the solicitation of business on the reservation by the Superintendent of the Pima Indian Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs gave permission to Central Machinery to sell the tractors to the Gila River Farms. The purchase order provides for delivery of the tractors F.O.B. Sacaton. Payment to Central Machinery was by check delivered on the Gila River Indian Reservation. Central Machinery, if it recovers in this action, will remit the amount of the recovery to Gila River Farms.
In the court below, on summary motion, a judgment in favor of Central Machinery was entered. The trial court felt, and so stated, that the decision in Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Commission, 380 U.S. 685, 85 S.Ct. 1242, 14 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965), prohibited this tax. But we do not think so.
In Warren, Arizona attempted to levy a tax upon the gross proceeds of sales of the Warren Trading Post Company. The company did a retail trading business with Indians on the Navajo Indian Reservation under a license granted by the United States Commissioner of Indian Affairs pursuant to 19 Stat. 200, 25 U.S.C. § 261 (1958 ed.). The United States Supreme Court decision pointed out that the federal government had comprehensively regulated Indian traders and that existing statutes made specific restrictions on trade with the Indians. Under authority of Congress's Acts, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs had promulgated detailed regulations "prescribing in the most minute fashion who may qualify to be a trader and how he shall be licensed; conditions under which government employees may trade with Indians; articles that cannot be sold to Indians; and conduct forbidden on a licensed trader's premises." The opinion concluded:
"These apparently all-inclusive regulations and the statutes authorizing them would seem in themselves sufficient to show that Congress has taken the business of Indian trading on reservations so fully in hand that no room remains for state laws imposing additional burdens upon traders."
The Court also said:
"We think the assessment and collection of this tax would to a substantial extent frustrate the evident congressional purpose of ensuring that no burden shall be imposed upon Indian traders for trading with Indians on reservations except as authorized by Acts of Congress or by valid regulations promulgated under those Acts." (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that Warren was decided on the theory of federal preemption. It is also clear that by the use of the words "Indian traders" the Court meant a defined group of persons licensed under authority of the United States statutes to carry on the business of trading on Indian reservations with Indians.
This case is clearly distinguishable. Central Machinery is not an "Indian trader", although it may on occasions do business with reservation Indians, even to the extent of going on the reservation to solicit business. Since Central Machinery is not an Indian trader within the meaning of Warren and since this transaction has not run afoul of any congressional enactments passed to protect and guard its Indian wards, we do not find a federal preemption which would forbid the imposition of this tax.
The foregoing is sufficient to settle the dispute in this case. However, Central Machinery seems to be asserting that because the economic burden of the tax falls upon the Indians, it is somehow immune from the imposition of the tax. As to this, it has been repeatedly held that where the economic burden falls is not the controlling factor. Fort Mohave Tribe v. County of San Bernardino, 543 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1976); Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1971), cert, denied 405 U.S. 933, 92 S.Ct. 930, 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972), rehearing denied 405 U.S. 1033, 92 S.Ct. 1280, 31 L.Ed.2d 491 (1972), motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied 409 U.S. 901, 93 S.Ct. 94, 34 L.Ed.2d 163 (1972); G. M. Shupe, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 89 N.M. 265, 550 P.2d 277 (1976).
The factors controlling the imposition of a state tax have recently been set forth in Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 425 U.S. 463, 96 S.Ct. 1634, 48 L.Ed.2d 96 (1976):
"We see nothing in this burden which frustrates tribal self-government, see Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 219-220, 79 S.Ct. 268, 270, 3 L.Ed.2d 251, 253 (1959), or runs afoul of any congressional enactment dealing with the affairs of reservation Indians, United States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535, 539, 58 S.Ct. 286, 288, 82 L.Ed. 410, 413 (1938): 'Enactments of the federal government passed to protect and guard its Indian wards only affect the operation, within the colony, of such state laws as conflict with the federal enactments.' " Id. at 483, 96 S.Ct. at 1646.
No claim is made that Arizona's tax conflicts with any enactment of the federal government passed to protect and guard its Indian wards.
Judgment of the Superior Court reversed.
CAMERON, C. J., and HAYS and HOLOHAN, JJ., concurring.