No. 20-1388

Alice Perkins, et vir v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2021-04-06
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: 1842-treaty canandaigua-treaty federal-income-tax federal-tax-law income-taxation internal-revenue-code native-american-rights seneca-nation treaty-interpretation treaty-obligations
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

This Court is presented with a question of first impression, as to the taxability of income derived from the sale of sand and gravel, mined from treaty protected land by an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation of Indians ("Seneca Nation"). Upon the granting of certiorari, the Court will examine the language in two federal treaties, promising not to disturb the "free use and enjoyment" of lands by the Seneca Nation and "their Indian friends residing thereon and united with them," and protecting these lands "from all taxes" for any purpose. Treaty with the Six Nations ("Canandaigua Treaty"), art. III, Nov. 11, 1794, 7 Stat. 45; Treaty with the Senecas ("1842 Treaty"), art. 9th, May 20, 1842, 7 Stat. 590. Congress has explicitly stated the Internal Revenue Code "shall be applied to any taxpayer with due regard to any treaty obligation of the United States which applies to such taxpayer." 26 U.S.C.A. § 894(a)(1)(West).

The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court have given "due regards" to the treaty obligations of the United States by finding these treaties had no textual support for an exemption from federal income tax applicable to an enrolled Seneca member whose income is derived from the lands of the Seneca Nation. Perkins v. Comm'r, 970 F.3d 148, 162-67 (2d. Cir. 2020).

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the income derived from the sale of sand and gravel, mined from treaty-protected land by an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation of Indians, is exempt from federal income tax under the terms of two federal treaties

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-10-04
Motion to substitute Mark A. Perkins, authorized representative, as a petitioner in place of Alice Perkins, Deceased GRANTED.
2021-09-09
Reply of petitioners Alice Perkins, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2021-09-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-20
Brief of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue in opposition filed.
2021-07-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 20, 2021.
2021-07-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 21, 2021 to August 20, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-07-12
Motion to substitute Mark A. Perkins, Authorized Representative as petitioner in place of Alice Perkins, Deceased filed by petitioners.
2021-06-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 21, 2021.
2021-06-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 21, 2021 to July 21, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-05-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 21, 2021.
2021-05-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 21, 2021 to June 21, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-05-07
Brief amicus curiae of William A. Starna, Ph.D. filed.
2021-04-21
Response Requested. (Due May 21, 2021)
2021-04-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
2021-04-09
Waiver of right of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to respond filed.
2021-03-31
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 6, 2021)

Attorneys

Alice Perkins, et al.
Margaret A. MurphyLaw Office of Margaret A. Murphy, Petitioner
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent
William A. Starna, Ph.D.
Joseph John HeathLaw Office of Joseph J. Heath, Esq., Amicus