LEAHY
v.
STATE TREASURER OF OKLAHOMA ET AL.
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.
An enrolled member of the Osage Tribe challenged an Oklahoma state income tax on his pro rata share of tribal mineral income, claiming it violated the principle that states cannot tax federal instrumentalities. The Supreme Court affirmed the state tax, holding that because the taxpayer was entitled to receive and freely use the income as his own, the state had authority to tax it, applying the same reasoning it had adopted in a parallel federal income tax case.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the .opinion of the Court.
Leahy brought this action in a court of Oklahoma against the State Treasurer and others to recover $11.99 paid under protest as state income tax. He is a duly enrolled member of the Osage Tribe of Indians, and has long held a certificate of competency. As such member he is entitled to receive, from time to time, his pro rata share of the income of the restricted mineral resources of the Tribe held by the United States for the Tribe under the Act of June 28, 1906, c. 3572, 34 Stat. 539, and later legislation. The tax challenged is upon such income paid to' him. Leahy claims that it is void because laid by the State upon a federal instrumentality. The trial court overruled the contention and entered judgment for the defendants. On the authority of Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 691, its action was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, three judges dissenting. 173 Okla. 614; 49 P. (2d) 570. We granted certiorari because of the constitutional question presented.
The-facts are substantially the same as those presented in Choteau v. Burnet, supra, which upheld a federal income tax on a like payment. The applicable statutes and decisions are discussed-there. As Leahy was entitled to have the income paid to him and was free to use it as he saw fit, no reason appears why it should not be taxable also by the State.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLANAHAN v. Ariz. State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1973)…sserts, that some of the later Indian tax cases turn, not on the Indian sovereignty doctrine, but on whether or not the State can be said to have imposed a forbidden tax on a federal instrumentality. See, e. g., Leahy v. State Treasurer of Oklahoma, 297 U. S. 420 (1936); United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432 (1903). To the extent that the tax exemption rests on federal immunity from state taxation, it may well be inapplicable in a case such as this involving an individual [*170] income tax.5 But it would v…1 / 2
-
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1973)…x. Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 691, 696-697 (1931). [*157] The Court has also held that a State, as well as the Federal Government, may tax an Indian’s pro rata share of income from a tribe’s restricted mineral resources. Leahy v. jState Treasurer, 297 U. S. 420 (1936). Lessees of otherwise exempt Indian lands are also subject to state taxation. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342 (1949). On the face of § 465, therefore, there is no reason to hold that it forbids income as well as property taxe…
-
Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Tex. Co., 336 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1949)…essor’s interest rather than on the severed oil. But royalty income is subject to state and federal net income taxes. Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U. S. 691; Superintendent of Five Civilized Tribes v. Commissioner, 295 U. S. 418; Leahy v. State Treasurer, 297 U. S. 420. At note 18. Distinguishing Jaybird Mining Co. v. Weir, 271 U. S. 609, on the ground that there the interest of the Indian lessor had not been prepaid or segregated. See The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737; The New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761. Those ea…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1931)