ALBERT L. AND RITA F. LAFONTAINE, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an individual's status as an Indian does not exempt their wages from federal income taxation absent a specific treaty or statutory provision.
The taxpayer, an enrolled member of a Native American tribe, earned wages from employment and claimed he was not subject to federal income tax due to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court is before a screening panel of this Court pursuant to Eighth Circuit Court Rule 6. We affirm the decision of the Tax Court.1 See Eighth Circuit Court Rule 9.
Albert L. LaFontaine, the taxpayer, is a certified member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and Chief of the Grand Council of Confederated Nations. He and his wife, Rita F. LaFontaine, filed a joint federal income tax return for 1971, reporting $9,060.56 of income. The income was derived exclusively from wages earned by the taxpayer from his employment as a machinist for Burlington Northern, Inc. The taxpayer calculated the tax due as zero because Indians are not, in his opinion subject to taxation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserted a deficiency of $1,104, which the Tax Court upheld.
The Supreme Court has stated the applicable law:
Indians are citizens and * * * in ordinary affairs of life, not governed by treaties or remedial legislation, they are subject to the payment of income taxes as are other citizens.
Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 6, 76 S.Ct. 611, 615, 100 L.Ed. 883, 888 (1956).
See also Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691, 51 S.Ct. 598, 75 L.Ed. 1353 (1931); Holt v. C.I.R., 364 F. 2d 38 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 952, 17 L.Ed.2d 805 (1967); C.I.R. v. Walker, 326 F. 2d 261 (9th Cir. 1964).
Although the taxpayer has cited more than thirty treaties, he has failed to point to any provision in any of the treaties which exempts his wages from federal income taxation because he is an Indian. The Tax Court was also unable to find any exempting provision. As the taxpayer has failed to demonstrate his right to an exemption, the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.
. The opinion of the Tax Court is unofficially reported at 1975 P-H Memo T.C. fi 75,165.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
FRY v. United States, 557 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
Jourdain v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 617 F.2d 507 (8th Cir. 1980)
Authorities Cited
- Squire v. Capoeman et ux., 351 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1956)
- Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1931)
- Bentley L. Holt and Bonnie J. Holt v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 364 F.2d 38 (8th Cir. 1966)
- Commissioner OF Internal Revenue v. Freeman P. Walker and Bernice Walker, 326 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1964)
- Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co. v. Hoisting & Portable Eng'rs Local Union No. 701, 386 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1967)
- Massachusetts v. Painten, 386 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1967)