Opinion ID: 1118569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the commission's undifferentiated procedural approach to taxing cigarettes for sale to indian tribes at the wholesale transaction level is at best an excess rather than absence of jurisdiction

Text: The administrative law judge's findings show the contested assessment against City Vending to be for the sale of cigarettes at the wholesale transaction level to Indians and/or Indian tribes for resale and consumption within the State and for failing to affix thereto cigarette excise tax stamps. City Vending's license was revoked for distributing cigarettes without the required tax stamp. It is apparent on the face of the Commission proceedings that its procedure did not distinguish between two distinct taxing categories  the ultimate sales to tribal and nontribal members. From this undifferentiated procedural approach one could infer an infirmity apparent upon the face of the proceedings. The Commission may have indeed exceeded its taxing power by including in the contested assessment transactions that qualify as federally exempt intratribal sales. But even if intratribal sales were in fact improperly taxed, their inclusion would not create a facial invalidity. The Commission's exercise of such unauthorized power is, at most, an act in excess but not in the absence of its jurisdiction.