Albert L. And Rita F. Lafontaine v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Eighth Circuit

Albert L. And Rita F. Lafontaine v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

533 F.2d 382, 37 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1162, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11938

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1976

Docket75-1740

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 533 F.2d 382 (Albert L. And Rita F. Lafontaine v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert L. And Rita F. Lafontaine v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 533 F.2d 382, 37 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1162, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11938 (8th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court is before a screening panel of this Court pursuant to Eighth Circuit Court Rule 6. We affirm the decision of the Tax Court. 1 See Eighth Circuit Court Rule 9.

Albert L. LaFontaine, the taxpayer, is a certified member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and Chief of the Grand Council of Confederated Nations. He and his wife, Rita F. LaFontaine, filed a joint federal income tax return for 1971, reporting $9,060.56 of income. The income was derived exclusively from wages earned by the taxpayer from his employment as a machinist for Burlington Northern, Inc. The taxpayer calculated the tax due as zero because Indians are not, in his opinion subject to taxation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserted a deficiency of $1,104, which the Tax Court upheld.

The Supreme Court has stated the applicable law:

Indians are citizens and * * * in ordinary affairs of life, not governed by treaties or remedial legislation, they are subject to the payment of income taxes as are other citizens.

Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 6, 76 S.Ct. 611, 615, 100 L.Ed. 883, 888 (1956).

See also Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691, 51 S.Ct. 598, 75 L.Ed. 1353 (1931); Holt v. C.I.R., 364 F.2d 38 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 952, 17 L.Ed.2d 805 (1967); C.I.R. v. Walker, 326 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1964).

Although the taxpayer has cited more than thirty treaties, he has failed to point to any provision in any of the treaties which exempts his wages from federal income taxation because he is an Indian. The Tax Court was also unable to find any exempting provision. As the taxpayer has failed to demonstrate his right to an exemption, the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.

1

. The opinion of the Tax Court is unofficially reported at 1975 P-H Memo T.C. fi 75,165.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court is before a screening panel of this Court pursuant to Eighth Circuit Court Rule 6. We affirm the decision of the Tax Court. 1 See Eighth Circuit Court Rule 9.

Albert L. LaFontaine, the taxpayer, is a certified member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and Chief of the Grand Council of Confederated Nations. He and his wife, Rita F. LaFontaine, filed a joint federal income tax return for 1971, reporting $9,060.56 of income. The income was derived exclusively from wages earned by the taxpayer from his employment as a machinist for Burlington Northern, Inc. The taxpayer calculated the tax due as zero because Indians are not, in his opinion subject to taxation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserted a deficiency of $1,104, which the Tax Court upheld.

The Supreme Court has stated the applicable law:

Indians are citizens and * * * in ordinary affairs of life, not governed by treaties or remedial legislation, they are subject to the payment of income taxes as are other citizens.

Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 6, 76 S.Ct. 611, 615, 100 L.Ed. 883, 888 (1956).

See also Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691, 51 S.Ct. 598, 75 L.Ed. 1353 (1931); Holt v. C.I.R., 364 F.2d 38 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 952, 17 L.Ed.2d 805 (1967); C.I.R. v. Walker, 326 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1964).

Although the taxpayer has cited more than thirty treaties, he has failed to point to any provision in any of the treaties which exempts his wages from federal income taxation because he is an Indian. The Tax Court was also unable to find any exempting provision. As the taxpayer has failed to demonstrate his right to an exemption, the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.

1

. The opinion of the Tax Court is unofficially reported at 1975 P-H Memo T.C. fi 75,165.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 F.2d 382, 37 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1162, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-l-and-rita-f-lafontaine-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca8-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack