# Respondents Brief — White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_0057%3A07 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Respondents Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1980 - **Citation:** 448 U.S. 136 ## Text SWE. 2AANNT LU 1Vi 2 tel Supreme Court, U . 4 FILED DEG MA 1919 puceacs RODAK, JR., CLERK In The Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1979 No. 78-1177 WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE, ét al., Petitioners, Vv. ROBERT M. BRACKER, et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS, DIV. ONE BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS ROBERT K. CORBIN Attorney General IAN A. MACPHERSON Assistant Attorney General ANTHONY B. CHING Solicitor General State Capitol—West Addition 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 255-4681 Attorneys for Respondents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INDEX OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES ................. i PET IIIT The Respondents agree with the proposi- tion that there is no intent expressed in the Buck Act to permit the direct application of State taxes (i.e., the visita- tion of the legal incidence of said taxes) to reservation Indians. There is, however, a clear expression of intent by the Congress to extend the Buck Act to “licensed traders” on a particular species of federal area, viz., Indian reserva- tions. An interpretation such as this will bring consistency to the decisions in the Warren and McClanahan cases and will be completely harmonious with this Court’s decision in Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 (1976). There, this Court held that where the legal in- cidence of a state tax fell upon an Indian, it was impermissible. However, where the legal obligation for the tax fell upon a non-Indian, it was upheld notwithstanding the facts that (1) the vendor was an Indian, (2) the vendor was an Indian seemingly clearly engaged in the business of Indian trading on an Indian reservation (see 25 U.S.C. §§ 261, 264; 25 C.F.R. Part 251), and (3) the vendor Indian demonstrated or alleged that adverse economic ramifica- tions would unavoidably be placed upon him by mandate of state law (i.e., the Montana “pre-collection” requirement: see Moe, 425 U.S. at 482) as a result of the imposition of the taxes upon his non-Indian custemers.”” Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons it is the Respon- dents’ position that both the Hayden-Cartwright Act (with respect to the Arizona use fuel tax, Ariz. Rev. Stat. } 28- 1552) and the Buck Act (with respect to the Arizona motor %° A similar but more extensive discussion of this result is contained in the Brief of the Appellee in Central Machinery Co. v. State of Arizo- na, USSC Doe. No. 78-1604, October Term, 1979 (argued in tandem with the case herein). © See, n.20, supra. 30 carrier tax, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-641) are properly applied to the non-Indian, independent log-hauling contractor, Pinetop Logging Co. Rather than being preempted under the rationale of Warren, these state taxes neither invade the federal sphere of federal tribal forestry management nor do they infringe upon any right of self-government en- joyed by the White Mountain Apache Tribe. CONCLUSION As is true with respect to most questions involving the perplexing area of Indian law, answers are not always easily discernible. However, in the present case, the Respondents would respectfully submit that a thorough, candid and objective examination of the issues presented must lead to the conclusion that the Hayden-Cartwright Act and the Buck Act are the precise species of governing acts of Con- gress referenced in Williams v. Lee, supra. The decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals was correct when rendered and remains correct now. Accordingly, the decision should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, Rospert K. CorsBin Attorney General Ian A. MACPHERSON Assistant Attorney General ANTHONY B. CHING Solicitor General ~ State Capitol West Addition - 2nd Floor 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 255-4681 Attorneys for Respondents December, 1979 A-1 APPENDIX 4 U.S.C. § 104. Tax on motor fuel sold on military or other reservation[;] reports to state taxing authority. (a) All taxes levied by any State, Territory, or the Dis- trict of Columbia upon, with respect to, or measured by, sales, purchases, storage, or use of gasoline or other motor vehicle fuels may be levied, in the same manner and to the same extent, with respect to such fuels when sold by or through post exchanges, ship stores, ship service stores, commissaries, filling stations, licensed traders, and other similar agencies, located on United States military or other reservations, when such fuels are not for the exclusive use of the United States. Such taxes, sa levied, shall be paid to the proper taxing authorities of the State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, within whose borders the reservation affected may be located. (b) The officer in charge of such reservation shall, on or before the fifteenth day of each month, submit a written statement to the proper taxing authorities of the State, Territory, or the District of Columbia within whose borders the reservation is located, showing the amount of such motor fuel with respect to which taxes are payable under subsection (a) for the preceding month. (c) As used in this section, the term “Territory” shall in- clude Guam. 4 U.S.C. § 105. State, and so forth, taxation affecting federal areas; sales or use tax (a) No person shall be relieved from liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax lev- ied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal A-2 area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full ju- risdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area. (b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall be applicable only with respect to sales or purchases made, receipts from sales received, or storage or use occurring, after Decem- ber 31, 1940. 4 U.S.C. § 106. Same; income tax (a) No person shall be relieved from liability for any in- come tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax, by reason of his residing within a Federal area or re- ceiving income from transactions occurring or services performed in such area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area. (b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall be applicable only with respect to income or receipts received after December 31, 1940. 4 U.S.C. § 109. Same; exception of Indians Nothing in sections 105 and 106 of this title shall be deemed to authorize the levy or collection of any tax on or from any Indian not otherwise taxed. 4 U.S.C. § 110. Same; definitions As used in sections 105-109 of this title— (e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_0057%3A07. Public record. Not legal advice.