State v. Central Machinery Co.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 13593,13593 |
| Citation | 121 Ariz. 183,589 P.2d 426 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, State Tax Commission of Arizona, Appellant, v. CENTRAL MACHINERY COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Former Atty. Gen., John A. LaSota, Jr., Atty. Gen. by Ian A. Macpherson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellant.
Burton G. Hirsch, Phoenix, Rodney B. Lewis, Sacaton, for appellee.
This appeal arises out of an action brought by the Central Machinery Company for a refund of sales taxes in the amount of $2,916.62, paid under protest. The Superior Court of Maricopa County entered judgment in favor of Central Machinery, and this appeal followed. Judgment reversed.
The parties in their second agreed statement stipulated to these facts: Central Machinery is an Arizona corporation and maintains an office in Casa Grande, Arizona, which is not on an Indian reservation. In 1973, agents of Central Machinery went onto the nearby Gila River Indian Reservation to solicit the sale of farm machinery from the Gila River Farms, an enterprise of the Gila River Indian Community. The Gila River Indian Community is an Indian Entity existing under the authority of 48 Stat. 984, 25 U.S.C. 461, et seq. After a period of negotiation, Gila River Farms executed a purchase order for eleven John Deere tractors at a total price of $100,137.26. An item of $2,916.62, Arizona's Transaction Privilege Tax, was included in the total purchase price. Delivery of the tractors was made by the John Deere Company to Central Machinery in Casa Grande, Arizona. Central Machinery, after servicing the tractors, delivered them to the Gila In the court below, on summary motion, a judgment in favor of Central Machinery was entered. The trial court felt, and so stated, that the decision in Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Commission, 380 U.S. 685, 85 S.Ct. 1242, 14 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965), prohibited this tax. But we do not think so.
River Farms on the Indian reservation at Sacaton, Arizona. Central Machinery did not possess a federal license to trade on any Indian reservation and, although it could have been excluded from the solicitation of business on the reservation by the Superintendent of the Pima Indian Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs gave permission to Central Machinery to sell the tractors to the Gila River Farms. The purchase order provides for delivery of the tractors F.O.B. Sacaton. Payment to Central Machinery was by check delivered on the Gila River Indian Reservation. Central Machinery, if it recovers in this action, will remit the amount of the recovery to Gila River Farms.
In Warren, Arizona attempted to levy a tax upon the gross proceeds of sales of the Warren Trading Post Company. The company did a retail trading business with Indians on the Navajo Indian Reservation under a license granted by the United States Commissioner of Indian Affairs pursuant to 19 Stat. 200, 25 U.S.C. § 261 (1958 ed.). The United States Supreme Court decision pointed out that the federal government had comprehensively regulated Indian traders and that existing statutes made specific restrictions on trade with the Indians. Under authority of Congress's Acts, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs had promulgated detailed regulations "prescribing in the most minute fashion who may qualify to be a trader and how he shall be licensed; * * * conditions under which government employees may trade with Indians; articles that cannot be sold to Indians; and conduct forbidden on a licensed trader's premises." The opinion concluded:
"These apparently all-inclusive regulations and the statutes authorizing them would seem in themselves sufficient to show that Congress has taken the business of Indian trading on reservations so fully in hand that no room remains for state laws imposing additional burdens upon traders."
The Court also said:
"We think the assessment and collection of this tax would to a substantial extent frustrate the evident congressional purpose of ensuring that no burden shall be imposed upon Indian traders for trading with Indians on reservations except as authorized by Acts of Congress or by valid regulations promulgated under those Acts." (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that Warren was decided on the theory of federal preemption. It is also clear that by the use of the words "Indian traders" the Court meant a defined group of persons licensed under authority of the United States statutes to carry on the business of trading on Indian reservations with Indians.
This case is clearly distinguishable. Central Machinery is not an "Indian trader", although it may on occasions do business with reservation Indians, even to the extent of going on the reservation to solicit business. Since Central Machinery is not an Indian trader within the meaning of Warren and since this transaction has not run afoul of any congressional enactments passed to protect and guard its Indian wards, we do not find a federal preemption which would forbid the imposition of this tax.
The foregoing is sufficient to settle the dispute in this case. However, Central Machinery seems to be asserting that because the economic burden of the tax falls upon the Indians, it is somehow immune from the imposition of the tax. As to this, it has been repeatedly held that where the economic burden falls is not the controlling factor. Fort Mohave Tribe v. County of San Bernardino, 543 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1976); Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1971), Cert. denied 405 U.S. 933, 92 S.Ct. 930, 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972), Rehearing The factors controlling the imposition of a state tax have recently been set forth in Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 425 U.S. 463, 96 S.Ct. 1634, 48 L.Ed.2d 96 (1976):
denied 405 U.S. 1033, 92 S.Ct. 1280, 31 L.Ed.2d 491 (1972), Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied 409 U.S. 901, 93 S.Ct. 94, 34 L.Ed.2d 163 (1972); G. M. Shupe, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 89 N.M. 265, 550 P.2d 277 (1976).
"We see nothing in this burden which frustrates tribal self-government, see Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 219-220, 79 S.Ct. 268, 270, 3 L.Ed.2d 251, 253 (1959), or runs afoul of any congressional enactment dealing with the affairs of reservation Indians, United States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535, 539, 58 S.Ct. 286, 288, 82 L.Ed. 410, 413 (1938): 'Enactments of the federal government passed to protect and guard its Indian wards only affect the operation, within the colony, of such state laws as conflict with the federal enactments.' " Id. at 483, 96 S.Ct. at 1646.
No claim is made that Arizona's tax conflicts with any enactment of the federal government passed to protect and guard its Indian wards.
Judgment of the Superior Court reversed.
I must dissent from the majority opinion, because it distinguishes Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Commission, 380 U.S. 685, 85 S.Ct. 1242, 14 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965) from the facts of this case. I believe that Warren, supra, controls and prohibits the imposition of the tax in question.
In both Warren, supra, and in this case, the vendors are non-Indians making sales to Indians on reservation land. The tax in dispute in both cases is the same, and in both, although the non-Indian seller is legally required to pay the tax, the economic impact is borne by the Indian buyer. The tax was invalidated in Warren but is upheld here. Only two meaningful differences exist between the cases: Central Machinery did not maintain a permanent place of business on the reservation and did not possess a trader's license. Neither of these differences merits the outcome of the majority opinion.
Volume 25 C.F.R. § 251.9(b) provides for the licensing of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Machinery Co. v. State
...trial court ruled that Central Machinery was not liable for the tax. The state appealed. This court reversed. State v. Central Machinery Co., 121 Ariz. 183, 589 P.2d 426 (1978). Central Machinery subsequently appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that the ......
-
Central Machinery Company v. Arizona State Tax Commission
...regulations simply by failing to adopt a permanent place of business on a reservation or to obtain a federal license. Pp. 163-166. 126 Ariz. 183, 589 P.2d 426, Rodney B. Lewis, Sacaton, Ariz., for appellant. Ian A. Macpherson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee. Louis F. Claibor......