Capoeman v. United States, No. 1101.
| Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington) |
| Writing for the Court | JAMES ALGER FEE |
| Citation | 110 F. Supp. 924 |
| Parties | CAPOEMAN et ux. v. UNITED STATES et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 1101. |
| Decision Date | 27 August 1952 |
110 F. Supp. 924
CAPOEMAN et ux.
v.
UNITED STATES et al.
No. 1101.
United States District Court W. D. Washington, S. D.
August 27, 1952.
Kenneth R. L. Simmons, Billings, Mont., for plaintiffs.
Thomas R. Winter, Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Seattle, Wash., Ellis N. Slack, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew D. Sharpe and J. W. Hussey, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for defendants.
JAMES ALGER FEE, District Judge.
Horton Capoeman and Emma Capoeman, his wife, both citizens of the United States, hereinafter referred to as "plaintiffs," are noncompetent Indian wards of the United States under the supervision and control of the Taholah Indian Agency. They are full-blood Quinaielt Indians, born and residing on the Quinaielt Reservation in the State of Washington.
Under the provisions of the Quinaielt Treaty with the United States, dated July 1, 1855, and January 25, 1856, 12 Stat. 971, Quinaielt Indian tribal lands were transferred to the United States, but there was reserved therefrom and set apart for the exclusive use of the members of the Quinaielt tribe an area designated in accordance with the terms of the treaty. On October 1, 1907, pursuant to the terms of the treaty and the General Allotment Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, 25 U.S.C.A. § 331 et seq., a trust patent was issued to Horton Capoeman for approximately ninety-three acres of tribal land within the Quinaielt Reservation. The fee title to this land was and still is held by the United States in trust for Horton Capoeman, and said land was not and still is not subject to alienation nor encumbrance by plaintiffs except with the consent and approval of the proper agents of the United States.
During the year 1943, pursuant to a contract of sale entered into by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the United States Department of Interior providing for the cutting and sale of timber from plaintiffs' allotment, $8,418.28 worth of timber was cut, sold and paid for. Of the $8,418.28 received, $1,537 was distributed to plaintiffs, and the balance of $6,878 (with $3.28 unaccounted for) was placed in trust by the United States and maintained, subject to withdrawal solely by or for their use and benefit, in an account for the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed a joint income tax return for the calendar year 1943, reporting long-term capital gain from the sale of the timber in that year. The return was filed on October 10, 1947, and on that date plaintiffs paid the taxes shown due.
On January 2, 1948, plaintiffs filed a claim for refund of the taxes paid, and contended that their income derived from the sale of timber from the allotted land was not subject to federal income taxation because such taxation would be in violation of the provisions of the Quinaielt Treaty and of the trust patent. The claim for refund was denied by the Bureau of Internal Revenue on January 21, 1948, and this action was instituted on March 3, 1948.
The refund must be allowed.
The United States now has a sum of money in trust for these Indian wards. It is demonstrable that this amount is part and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Big Eagle v. United States, No. 158-59.
...to pay a capital gains tax thereon. Claim for refund was denied. Both the district and Court of Appeals ordered a refund. D.C., 110 F.Supp. 924; 9 Cir., 220 F.2d The Government advanced the arguments that as citizens of the United States the Capoemans were liable under the broad provisions ......
-
Squire v. Capoeman, No. 134
...was denied, and this action was instituted. The District Court found that the tax had been unlawfully collected and ordered the refund. 110 F.Supp. 924. The Court of Appeals, agreeing with the District Court but recognizing a conflict between this case and the decision of the Tenth Circuit ......
-
United States v. Lamb, Cr. No. 11800.
...as realty, United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 304 U.S. 111, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L.Ed. 1213, and Capoeman v. United States, D.C., 110 F.Supp. 924; hence § 641 (relating to personalty) could not be applied. In addition, §§ 1852 and 1853 apply to timber or trees on public land or Indian ......
-
Durkin v. Joyce Agency, No. 49 C 1558.
...employees are not exempt under the provisions of Sec. 13(a) (1), which exempts those employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, 110 F. Supp. 924 professional capacity or local retailing capacity or in the capacity of outside salesmen. Their duties do not meet the requirements, which......
-
Big Eagle v. United States, No. 158-59.
...to pay a capital gains tax thereon. Claim for refund was denied. Both the district and Court of Appeals ordered a refund. D.C., 110 F.Supp. 924; 9 Cir., 220 F.2d The Government advanced the arguments that as citizens of the United States the Capoemans were liable under the broad provisions ......
-
Squire v. Capoeman, No. 134
...was denied, and this action was instituted. The District Court found that the tax had been unlawfully collected and ordered the refund. 110 F.Supp. 924. The Court of Appeals, agreeing with the District Court but recognizing a conflict between this case and the decision of the Tenth Circuit ......
-
United States v. Lamb, Cr. No. 11800.
...as realty, United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 304 U.S. 111, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L.Ed. 1213, and Capoeman v. United States, D.C., 110 F.Supp. 924; hence § 641 (relating to personalty) could not be applied. In addition, §§ 1852 and 1853 apply to timber or trees on public land or Indian ......
-
Durkin v. Joyce Agency, No. 49 C 1558.
...employees are not exempt under the provisions of Sec. 13(a) (1), which exempts those employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, 110 F. Supp. 924 professional capacity or local retailing capacity or in the capacity of outside salesmen. Their duties do not meet the requirements, which......