Court Opinion

ID: 9747223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:04:28.694642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:21.464613
License: Public Domain

REIF, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
¶ 1 I agree that the majority opinion has focused on the pertinent provisions in the Osage Nation Tobacco Tax Compact that are dispositive of the tax rate dispute between the parties. I likewise agree that the majority opinion has identified the circumstances under which disputes arising under the Compact are subject to arbitration. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the dispute in question is subject to arbitration as provided in the Compact.
¶ 2 I believe the “dispute” is not subject to arbitration because it is not one “arising in the interpretation or performance of th[e] Compact.” I reach this conclusion because the undisputed material facts show that the State, through the actions of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, is simply in breach of the unambiguous “favored nations” provision of the Compact. This provision grants the Osage Nation the “option” to “automatically ... incorporate” more favorable terms of a tobacco tax compact with another Indian tribe into the Osage Nation Compact. The State, through the Oklahoma Tax Commission, admits that the Osage Nation exercised this “option” and chose to incorporate the favorable terms of the State’s compacts with the Cherokee Nation and Choctaw Nation, inter alia. The Oklahoma Tax Commission recognizes that this action constituted an amendment to the Compact, including the “exception rate” of $.58 per carton. Nothing in the Compact ties or burdens such amendment of the Compact to the continuation of any comparable terms that may have been previously incorporated from another compact, like the Pawnee Compact in question.
¶ 3 In my opinion, there is no uncertainty about the meaning of any term in the Corn-pact, nor any doubt about the performance due under any term. There is simply unjustified refusal of the Oklahoma Tax Commission to perform its ministerial duties under the Compact and a suit in district court for injunctive relief is one of the appropriate remedies for such a breach of contract. Under the record presented, I do not believe the trial court either exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.