Estate of Cross

Decision Date30 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. 61961-1,61961-1
Citation891 P.2d 26,126 Wn.2d 43
Parties. Silas A. CROSS, Petitioner, v. The COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Douglas Sulkosky, Tacoma, for petitioner.

Janet Reno, U.S. Atty. Gen., Loretta C. Argrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary R. Allen, Bruce R. Ellisen, and S. Robert Lyons, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

Christine O. Gregoire, Atty. Gen., John W. Hough, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for amicus curiae.

DURHAM, Chief Justice.

In a federal income tax cause of action before the United States Tax Court, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) seeks to collect from the Does Washington State community property law (Wash.Rev.Code 26.16 et seq.) apply to determine property rights as between an enrolled member of the Puyallup Tribe and his non-enrolled wife with respect to unincorporated business income derived from the operation of a smokeshop on the Puyallup Indian Reservation by the enrolled member?

Estate of Millie Cross unpaid income tax on unincorporated business income earned by Millie Cross's husband, Silas Cross. The United States Tax Court certified the following question of state law to this court:

We answer the certified question in the affirmative.

Millie and Silas Cross were married in 1940 and remained married until Millie Cross died in 1991. Silas Cross died in 1992. Since the time of their marriage, Millie and Silas Cross lived on the Puyallup Indian Reservation. The Puyallup Indian Reservation is bordered on all sides by the state of Washington. Silas Cross was an enrolled member of the Puyallup Indian Nation. Millie Cross was never an enrolled member of the Puyallup Indian Nation or any other Indian Nation.

In 1977, 1978, and 1979 Silas Cross operated the Cross Smokeshop (Smokeshop). Millie Cross did not participate in either the operation or management of the Smokeshop during these 3 years. The Smokeshop was located on the Puyallup Indian Reservation. The real property upon which the Crosses resided and upon which the Smokeshop was operated was held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Silas Cross. The Smokeshop sold cigarettes and other tobacco products and had a net profit to Silas Cross of $175,435 in 1977, $116,248 in 1978, and $150,622 in 1979.

On August 8, 1990, the Commissioner issued to Millie Cross a statutory notice of deficiency, which determined an increase in income tax for 1977, 1978, and 1979 in the amount of $45,405, $26,135, and $36,323 respectively. The income tax deficiencies were based on a determination that the income from the Smokeshop was community property under Washington domestic relations law and, therefore, one-half of the net income was attributable and taxable to Millie Cross filed a petition in the United States Tax Court on October 29, 1990, seeking redetermination of the income tax deficiencies. She died during the pendency of the tax court proceeding on December 12, 1991. Thereafter, her son, Silas A. Cross, was appointed administrator of her estate and the estate was substituted as a party before the Tax Court. The Estate of Millie Cross challenges the commissioner's determination that one-half of the Smokeshop income earned by Silas Cross is taxable to Millie Cross. The Estate of Millie Cross argues Washington community property law is inapplicable to determine property rights as between an Indian and a non-Indian living on the Puyallup Indian Reservation. The Tax Court, rather than deciding whether Washington community property law applies to Indians and Indian territory under RCW 37.12.010, certified the question to this court pursuant to RAP 16.16.

Millie Cross. Millie Cross did not file a federal income tax return in 1977, 1978, and 1979.

PUBLIC LAW 280

"Congress has plenary authority over the Indians and all their tribal relations, and full power to legislate concerning their tribal property." Winton v. Amos, 255 U.S. 373, 391, 41 S.Ct. 342, 349, 65 L.Ed. 684 (1921). In accordance with this authority, Congress has the power to create or abrogate Indian rights, including tribal sovereignty. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1086, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978); Judith V. Royster & Rory S.A. Fausett, Control of the Reservation Environment: Tribal Primacy, Federal Delegation, and the Limits of State Intrusion, 64 Wash.L.Rev. 581, 588-89 (1989).

In 1953 Congress, in an attempt to strike a balance between abandoning the Indians to the states and maintaining them as wards of the federal government, enacted Public Law 280. 1 In re Adoption of Buehl, 87 Wash.2d 649, 655, 555 P.2d 1334 (1976). Public Law 280 conferred civil and Subsequently, Congress passed the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-23. 2 The Indian Civil Rights Act required consent on all future assumptions of civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, but it did not make the consent provision retroactive, nor did it invalidate any prior assumption of civil or criminal jurisdiction under Public Law 280. Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Eng'g, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 150-51, 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2275-76, 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984); In re Buehl, 87 Wash.2d at 655 n. 3, 555 P.2d 1334; Carole E. Goldberg, Public Law 280: The Limits of State Jurisdiction Over Reservation Indians, 22 UCLA L.Rev. 535, 539 (1975).

                criminal jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory to five states, with an express exception for three Indian reservations.  Pub.L. No. 280 §§ 2, 4;  Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 471-72, 99 S.Ct. 740, 746-48, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 reh'g denied, 440 U.S. 940, 99 S.Ct. 1290, 59 L.Ed.2d 500 (1979).  Public Law 280 gave all other states, including Washington, an option to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory.  Pub.L. No. 280 §§ 6, 7;  Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. at 473-74, 99 S.Ct. at 748.   As enacted in 1953, Public Law 280 did not require states to obtain consent from Indian tribes prior to assuming civil or criminal jurisdiction.  Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. at 473-74, 99 S.Ct. at 748;  State v. Schmuck, 121 Wash.2d 373, 394, 850 P.2d 1332 (1993)
                
RCW 37.12.010

Pursuant to Public Law 280, the Legislature in 1963 amended RCW 37.12.010. 3 State v. Sohappy, 110 Wash.2d 907, 909, 757 P.2d 509 (1988). Under RCW 37.12.010, the State of Washington assumed full civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory within the state with respect to eight areas. Sohappy, 110 Wash.2d at 909, 757 P.2d 509. Domestic relations is one of the eight areas where full jurisdiction was assumed. RCW 37.12.010 provides in pertinent part:

The state of Washington hereby obligates and binds itself to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands within this state in accordance with the consent of the United States given by the act of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 280, 83rd Congress, 1st Session), but such assumption of jurisdiction shall not apply to Indians when on their tribal lands or allotted lands within an established Indian reservation and held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, unless the provisions of RCW 37.12.021 have been invoked, except for the following:

                (1) Compulsory school attendance
                (2) Public assistance
                (3) Domestic relations;
                (4) Mental illness;
                (5) Juvenile delinquency;
                (6) Adoption proceedings;
                (7) Dependent children;  and
                (8) Operation of motor vehicles upon the public streets, alleys, roads and highways....
                

The United States Supreme Court held RCW 37.12.010 complies with Public Law 280 and is constitutional. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. at 473-74, 99 S.Ct. at 748; Schmuck, 121 Wash.2d at 394, 850 P.2d 1332; see also Makah Indian Tribe v. State, 76 Wash.2d 485, 493, 457 P.2d 590 (1969) (vehicles being operated by Indians upon public roads running through a reservation are subject to state jurisdiction and control pursuant to RCW 37.12.010(8)); Comenout v. Burdman, 84 Wash.2d 192, 201, 525 P.2d 217 (1974) (pursuant to RCW 37.12.010(7), the state of Washington has jurisdiction to permanently deprive Indians residing on an Indian reservation of parental rights).

COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW

Under RCW 37.12.010(3), the State assumed full jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory within the state in matters involving domestic relations. Washington domestic relations law is codified at RCW Title 26. Included within RCW Title 26 is Washington community property law. RCW 26.16. We, therefore, conclude when the Legislature passed RCW 37.12.010, it intended to grant jurisdiction to Washington courts to apply Washington community property This conclusion is supported by the recognition that the entire subject of domestic relations belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of the United States. In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94, 10 S.Ct. 850, 852-53, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890); Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 581, 99 S.Ct. 802, 808, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979); Sheppard v. Sheppard, 104 Idaho 1, 13-14, 655 P.2d 895 (1982) (the Idaho Supreme Court ruled Idaho Code § 67-5101, a statute similar to RCW 37.12.010, permits an Idaho state court in a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Shale
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 19 d4 Março d4 2015
    ...act did not invalidate prior assumptions of state jurisdiction. Cooper, 130 Wash.2d at 774, 928 P.2d 406 (citing In re Estate of Cross, 126 Wash.2d 43, 47, 891 P.2d 26 (1995) ).¶ 10 Setting up the question we need to answer today, the federal government accepted only partial retrocession. C......
  • Person v. Duenas
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 10 d1 Outubro d1 2011
    ...and criminal offenses committed on Indian reservations without the consent of the Indian tribe. Pub.L. 280, § 6; In re Estate of Cross, 126 Wash.2d 43, 47, 891 P.2d 26 (1995). Pursuant to Public Law 280, Washington State extended full criminal and civil concurrent jurisdiction to all fee la......
  • State v. Pink
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 3 d2 Junho d2 2008
    ...Bands & Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 471-72, 99 S.Ct. 740, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979); see Cross v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 126 Wash.2d 43, 46-49, 891 P.2d 26 (1995) (discussing the history of Public Law 280 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-1326; 2......
  • State Of Wash. v. Abrahamson, 62699-0-I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 7 d2 Setembro d2 2010
    ...power to legislate concerning their tribal property” and abrogate Indian rights, including tribal sovereignty. In re Estate of Cross, 126 Wash.2d 43, 47, 891 P.2d 26 (1995) (quoting Winton v. Amos, 255 U.S. 373, 391, 56 Ct.Cl. 472, 41 S.Ct. 342, 65 L.Ed. 684 (1921)); United States v. Wheele......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Community Property Deskbook (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...of, 103 Wn.App. 1019, No. 43707-1-I, 2000 WL 1668014, 2000 Wash. App.LEXIS 2148 (Nov. 6, 2000): 3.2(11)(a) Cross, In reEstate of, 126 Wn.2d 43, 891 P.2d 26 (1995): 7.5(1) Culp v. McMehan,123 Wash. 499, 212 P. 1069 (1923): 6.5(3) Cummings v.Anderson, 94 Wn.2d 135, 614 P.2d 1283 (1980): 3.2(1......
  • Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted by Public Law 280
    • United States
    • University of Washington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 87-4, June 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...a warrant from the tribal court. Cf. South Dakota v. Cummings, 679 N.W.2d 484 (S.D. 2004). 163. In Estate of Cross, 126 Wash. 2d 43, 50, 891 P.2d 26, 29(1995), the Washington State Supreme Court responded to a certified question from the United States Tax Court ruling that "[cjommunity prop......
  • §8.7 Indian Law
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Community Property Deskbook (WSBA) Chapter 8 The Transitory Community and Conflict of Laws
    • Invalid date
    ...Court confirmed the application of Washingtons community property laws to Indian couples, as a matter of state law, in Estate of Cross, 126 Wn.2d 43, 48-49, 891 P.2d 26 (1995). In that case, the federal tax court certified the following question of state law to the state Supreme Does Washin......
  • §7.5 Miscellaneous
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Community Property Deskbook (WSBA) Chapter 7 Taxation
    • Invalid date
    ...smokeshop on the Puyallup Indian Reservation by the enrolled member? The Washington Supreme Court answered yes. See In re Estate of Cross, 126 Wn.2d 43, 45, 891 P.2d 26 (1995). This opinion concerned income, not the ownership of the land. Landauer v. Landauer, 95 Wn. App. 579, 586, 975 P.2d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT