Opinion ID: 623760
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probable Demand

Text: MCN argues that the Excise Tax Statute impermissibly restricts the number of taxfree stamps that an OTC-licensed wholesaler may receive from the OTC. The Supreme Court addressed this argument in Milhelm Attea, where the petitioners, federally-licensed Indian traders, challenged a New York statute that had a similar probable demand formula for the distribution of tax-free cigarettes. 512 U.S. at 75-76. Because the Indian traders had brought a facial challenge to the statute, the Court refused to consider “consequences that, while possible, are by no means predictable.” 512 U.S. at 69. Thus, -33- it rejected the Indian traders’ challenge to the limitation of tax-free cigarettes based on the probable demand mechanism. Id. at 75. The Court stated: While the possibility of an inadequate quota may provide the basis for a future challenge to the application of the regulations, we are unwilling to assume, in the absence of any such showing . . . that [the State] will underestimate the legitimate demand for tax-free cigarettes. . . . This procedure should not prove unduly burdensome absent wrongful withholding or delay of approval—problems that can be addressed if and when they arise. Id. at 75-76. Like the petitioner in Milhelm Attea, MCN has not alleged that wholesalers, and as a result, its tribally-licensed retailers, are not receiving a sufficient amount of cigarettes with the tax-free stamps. Thus, “we are unwilling to assume, in the absence of any such showing” that the State will underestimate the amount of tax-free cigarettes to send to wholesalers. See id. at 75-76. Furthermore, MCN does not address the provision in the Excise Tax Statute that permits the tribe to comment on the initial calculation of the probable demand or the provision that allows wholesalers to request more tax-free stamps or other tobacco products provided the wholesaler and/or the tribe establish “good cause shown by verifiable information.” Okla. Stat. tit. 68, §§ 349.1(C)(5); 349.1(D)(5). For these reasons, we do not find that the probable demand quota is an impermissible burden.