Arenas v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | 6221.,Civ. No. 1321 |
| Citation | 140 F. Supp. 606 |
| Parties | Lee ARENAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Eleuteria Brown ARENAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Irl Davis Brett, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff and petitioner Lee Arenas and petitioner Richard Brown Arenas.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Richard A. Lavine, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant United States of America.
James W. Hickey, Sacramento, Cal., Walter H. Miller and Vincent J. McMahon, Los Angeles, Cal., for claimant Robert C. Kirkwood, Controller of State of California.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., James C. Maupin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for claimants People of State of California, and Franchise Tax Board of State of California.
The State of California seeks to impress upon certain funds on deposit in the Registry of this Court a lien for alleged inheritance taxes claimed to be due the State, "by reason of the death of Guadalupe Rice Arenas wife of Lee Arenas and by reason of the death of Eleuteria Brown Arenas adopted daughter of Lee and Guadalupe Arenas * * *." Cal.Rev. & Tax Code, § 13401 et seq.
The funds in controversy are remnants of larger funds derived from sales, with the consent of the United States, 25 U.S. C.A. § 392, of a portion of the lands within the Palm Springs Reservation of the Agua Cliente Band of Mission Indians previously allotted to Lee Arenas and to the heirs of Guadalupe, meantime deceased, pursuant to § 4 of the Mission Indian Act. 26 Stat. 712, Act Jan. 12, 1891; see 24 Stat. 388, Act Feb. 8, 1887, 25 U.S.C.A. § 331 et seq.; 36 Stat. 859, Act June 25, 1910; 39 Stat. 969, 976, Act March 2, 1917.
The sales were made in proceedings ancillary to these suits for allotments under 25 U.S.C.A. § 345, in order to provide cash with which to pay allowances made for the fees and expenses of the attorneys who have represented the successful claimants to the Arenas allotments throughout this long litigation. Arenas v. Preston, 9 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 77; Id., 9 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 62, 68; see Arenas v. United States, 9 Cir., 1943, 137 F.2d 199, reversed, 1944, 322 U.S. 419, 64 S.Ct. 1090, 88 L.Ed. 1363; Id. on remand, D.C.S.D.Cal.1945, 60 F.Supp. 411, affirmed in part and reversed in part, 9 Cir., 1946, 158 F.2d 730, certiorari denied, 1947, 331 U.S. 842, 67 S.Ct. 1531, 91 L.Ed. 1853.
Following the death of Guadalupe, Lee Arenas as surviving husband received one-half, and Eleuteria as surviving daughter received one-half, of Guadalupe's allotment. 25 U.S.C.A. § 372; Arenas v. United States, 9 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 418.
Upon the death of Eleuteria in 1954, her surviving son, Richard Brown Arenas, was declared pursuant to 25 U.S.C. A. § 372 to have inherited his mother's interest in Guadalupe's allotment.
The State's claim for inheritance taxes is based upon the succession of Lee Arenas as surviving husband of Guadalupe, and Richard as surviving son of Eleuteria, to the allotted lands.
Lee and Richard have filed an ancillary petition in each of these suits, seeking a declaration that no inheritance-tax lien exists against the remaining proceeds from the allotted-land sales.
The lands so sold were subject to trust patents issued under 25 U.S.C.A. § 348, which provides that "patents shall be of the legal effect, and declare that the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, of his heirs according to the laws of the State or Territory where such land is located, and that at the expiration of said period the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian, or his heirs as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever: Provided, That the President of the United States may in any case in his discretion extend the period."
In Arenas v. Preston, supra, Judge Stephens observed for the Court that: "The interest of the United States in the allotment will not cease to exist until the `trust patent' to the property is ripened into an unqualified patent * * *." 181 F.2d at page 67.
And it has recently been held that the proceeds from the sales are held by the United States subject to the same trust as the lands prior to sale. United States v. Preston, supra, 232 F.2d 77; see Buchanan v. Alexander, 1846, 4 How. 20, 45 U.S. 20, 11 L.Ed. 857; cf. Federal Housing Administration v. Burr, 1940, 309 U.S. 242, 60 S.Ct. 488, 84 L.Ed. 724.
The United States "does not assert or claim any lien against the funds * * * by reason of any Federal Estate taxes * * *." Cf. Landman v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 787, certiorari denied, 1942, 315 U.S. 810, 62 S.Ct. 799, 86 L.Ed. 1209.
The state inheritance taxes here claimed are in the nature of an excise imposed upon the privilege of succeeding to property by inheritance under the law of California. Stebbins v. Riley, 1925, 268 U.S. 137, 140, 45 S.Ct. 424, 69 L.Ed. 884; Campbell v. State of California, 1906, 200 U.S. 87, 26 S.Ct. 182, 50 L.Ed. 382; Magoun v. Illinois Tr. & Sav. Bank, 1898, 170 U.S. 283, 288, 18 S.Ct. 594, 42 L.Ed. 1037; cf. United States Trust Co. of New York v. Helvering, 1939, 307 U.S. 57, 60, 59 S.Ct. 692, 83 L.Ed. 1104; Knowlton v. Moore, 1900, 178 U.S. 41, 47, 20 S.Ct. 747, 44 L.Ed. 969; Scholey v. Rew, 1874, 23 Wall. 331, 90 U.S. 331, 346, 23 L.Ed. 99.
The Act of Congress which provides for allotment of the Mission Indian lands in trust specifies that the trust shall be for the "use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, of his heirs according to the laws of the State or Territory where such land is located * * *." 24 Stat. 389, Act Feb. 8, 1887, 25 U.S.C.A. § 348.
Thus the Federal statute in effect incorporates by reference the California law as to intestate succession; and so the State law is adopted as Federal law. Cf. Uravic v. F. Jarka Co., 1931, 282 U. S. 234, 240, 51 S.Ct. 111, 75 L.Ed. 312.
Hence the inheritance of allotted Mission Indian lands held under a trust patent devolves in accordance with, but not under, California law. And intestate succession results under and by force of Act of Congress. See 25 U.S. C.A. §§ 348, 371-379.
Accordingly the right of petitioners to succeed to Guadalupe's allotment is not dependent upon the law of California, but upon Federal law. This right of succession is the privilege here sought to be taxed.
And as explained in Mager v. Grima, 1850, 8 How. 490, 49 U.S. 490, 12 L.Ed. 1168, "if a State may deny the privilege altogether, it follows that, when it grants it, it may annex to the grant any conditions which it supposes to be required by its interests or policy." 49 How. at page 494.
But only "the authority which confers it may impose conditions upon it." Magoun v. Illinois Tr. & Sav. Bank, supra, 170 U.S. at page 288, 18 S.Ct. at page 596; cf. Chanler v. Kelsey, 1907, 205 U. S. 466, 479-482, 27 S.Ct. 550, 51 L.Ed. 882 (dissenting opinion, Holmes, J.).
Here "the lands really passed under a law of the United States", and not by California's permission. Childers v. Beaver, 1926, 270 U.S. 555, 559, 46 S.Ct. 387, 388, 70 L.Ed. 730.
Until recently it could be stated as a general proposition that Indian lands held under trust patents, such as those involved here, are immune from all manner of taxation, in view of the undertaking "that at the expiration of said trust period the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian, or his heirs * * * in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever * * *.". 25 U.S.C.A. § 348; Board of Commissioners of Creek County, Okl. v. Seber, 1943, 318 U.S. 705, 716-717, 63 S.Ct. 920, 87 L.Ed. 1094; Heckman v. United States, 1912, 224 U.S. 413, 32 S.Ct. 424, 56 L.Ed. 820; United States v. Rickert, 1903, 188 U.S. 432, 23 S.Ct. 478, 47 L.Ed. 532; The New York Indians, 1866, 5 Wall. 761, 72 U.S. 761, 18 L.Ed. 708; The Kansas Indians, 1866, 5 Wall. 737, 72 U.S. 737, 18 L.Ed. 667.
In Oklahoma Tax Comm'n of State of Oklahoma v. United States, 1943, 319 U. S. 598, 63 S.Ct. 1284, 87 L.Ed. 1612, upon considering the validity of Oklahoma's imposition of "inheritance taxes * * * upon the transfer of the estates of three deceased members of the Five Civilized Tribes" involving in part "restricted cash and securities held for the Indians by the Secretary of the Interior", Id., 319 U.S. at pages 599, 600, 63 S.Ct. at page 1284, the Supreme Court held that "the transfer of those lands which Congress has exempted from direct taxation by the state are also exempted from estate taxes", Id., 319 U.S. at page 611, 63 S.Ct. at page 1290, but concluded "upon an examination of both the cases * * * and the statute which imposes the restriction 47 Stat. 777, Jan. 27, 1933, that the restriction, without more, is not the equivalent of a Congressional grant of estate tax immunity." 319 U.S. at pages 601-602, 63 S.Ct. at page 1285.
Although the Supreme Court makes no mention of it, the scholarly dissent of Circuit Judge Murrah in Oklahoma Tax Commission rests largely upon the contention that the property in question devolved not only in accordance with, but also under and by force of Oklahoma law. United States v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 10 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 635, 638-640, reversed Id., supra, 319 U.S. 598, 63 S.Ct. 1284, 87 L.Ed. 1612.
As Judge Murrah expessed it: "The law of Oklahoma is not merely a guide or criterion, but it creates the right and provides the means and manner of disposition." Id., 131 F.2d at page 639; see Jefferson v. Fink, 1918, 247 U.S. 288, 290, 38 S.Ct. 516, 62 L.Ed. 1117; In re Pryor's Estate, 199 Okl. 17, 181 P.2d 979, 982, certiorari denied Pryor v. Craft, 1947, 332 U.S. 816, 68 S.Ct. 155, 92 L.Ed. 393; cf. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkwood v. Arenas
...from direct taxation and thus could not be included in the estate for inheritance tax purposes. The opinion is reported as Arenas v. United States, 140 F.Supp. 606. The Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States, 319 U.S. 598, 63 S.Ct. 1284, 87 L.Ed. 1612 and West v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, ......