Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

Faculty Publications

Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law

Indian Tribes

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Chickasaw Nation: Interpreting A Broken Statute, Erik M. Jensen Feb 2006

Chickasaw Nation: Interpreting A Broken Statute, Erik M. Jensen

Faculty Publications

This report discusses the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Chickasaw Nation v. United States, in which the Supreme Court interpreted a provision of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that contained contradictory phrases - one suggesting that Indian tribes were exempt from some occupational and excise taxes and one suggesting the contrary. The statute on its face made no sense, and the legislative history was of little help in resolving the ambiguity. Although the statute was clearly broken, the Court concluded that no ambiguity existed and that Congress did not intend to exempt tribes from those various wagering taxes. The author ...


The Continuing Vitality Of Tribal Sovereignty Under The Constitution, Erik M. Jensen Jan 1999

The Continuing Vitality Of Tribal Sovereignty Under The Constitution, Erik M. Jensen

Faculty Publications

This article discusses James A. Porres III's essay, The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes.


American Indian Law Meets The Internal Revenue Code: Warbus V. Commissioner, Erik M. Jensen Jan 1998

American Indian Law Meets The Internal Revenue Code: Warbus V. Commissioner, Erik M. Jensen

Faculty Publications

This article examines a 1998 Tax Court decision, Warbus v. Commissioner, that has implications for both American Indian law and federal tax law. Section 7873 of the Internal Revenue Code exempts from taxation amounts derived by American Indian tribal members from fishing-rights related activit[ies] of their tribes. Taxpayer Warbus claimed that discharge of indebtedness income from the foreclosure of his fishing boat qualified for the exclusion; the Tax Court said no. The author argues that Warbus was wrongly decided for two reasons: the court failed to take account of basic principles of American Indian law, and the court misapplied ...