Feather Smoke Shops, LLC v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

2009 OK 75, 236 P.3d 54, 2009 Okla. LEXIS 80, 2009 WL 3111416
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 29, 2009
Docket106,247
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2009 OK 75 (Feather Smoke Shops, LLC v. Oklahoma Tax Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Feather Smoke Shops, LLC v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 2009 OK 75, 236 P.3d 54, 2009 Okla. LEXIS 80, 2009 WL 3111416 (Okla. 2009).

Opinions

OPINION

WATT, J.:

II1 In this case we are asked to determine whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion when it entered a temporary injunction against the State of Oklahoma, by and through the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC). The Plaintiff is Feather Smoke Shops, LLC, (Feather) an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Osage County, Oklahoma. Feather is a tribally licensed retailer of the Osage Nation (Tribe) with a license to sell cigarettes and tobacco products for resale. It is also a holding company for three smoke shops in Osage County1 and for other shops in different counties. The injunction entered by the trial court prevents the OTC from collecting and enforcing a payment in lieu of excise tax on the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products at Feather’s Osage County shops at the rate of $8.58 per carton (.8575 per pack), instead of $2.58 per carton (.2575 per pack), which Plaintiff contends is the correct rate. We find the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the injunction. We vacate the injunction and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND AND THE ENACTMENT OF 68 O.S. § 346

¶ 2 The dispute in this case arises out of the rights and duties of the parties under the “Tobacco Tax Compact Between the State of Oklahoma and the Osage Nation” (Compact), which became effective December 16, 2003.2 The authority for the Compact derives from the State Legislature’s enactment of 68 O.S. [56]*56Supp.1992 § 346,(amended 2004),3 following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla-homo, 498 U.S. 505, 111 S.Ct. 905, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991).4 The Court considered [57]*57whether the State of Oklahoma could legally sue the Tribe for taxes on sales of cigarettes and tobacco products, sold either to members or nonmembers of the Tribe, at its tribal stores within Oklahoma. The Court found the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity prohibited the State from bringing a lawsuit against the Tribe to collect state taxes on sales to either members or nonmembers of the Tribe, absent the Tribe’s waiver of immunity or Congressional abrogation of the doctrine. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505, 510, 111 S.Ct. 905, 910. However, the Court held the Tribe’s sovereign immunity did not deprive the State of its authority to tax sales to nonmembers of the Tribe at the Tribe’s store. 498 U.S. at 512, 111 S.Ct. at 911. Moreover, the Court reiterated that tribal sellers have an obligation to assist the State in the collection of valid state taxes on sales to nonmembers at Indian stores on reservation lands. Id., citing Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) and Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U.S. 463, 96 S.Ct. 1634, 48 L.Ed.2d 96 (1976). Additionally, the Court suggested alternative methods for collection of taxes on sales to nonmembers of the Tribe. One such method was the adoption by the State and Tribe of “a mutually satisfactory regime for the collection of this sort of tax,” Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. at 514, 111 S.Ct. at 912, citing 48 Stat. 987, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 476. In response, our Legislature enacted 68 O.S. Supp.1992 § 346. See § 346(A)(3).5

THE COMPACT

¶ 3 The Compact, effective December 16, 2003, provides the Tribe will pay 25% of all applicable excise taxes6 which were effective as of January 1, 2003, and 100% of all increases enacted by the State after January 1, 2004, with exceptions noted. At the time the Compact was executed, the 25% rate was $2.58 per carton of ten packs ($.2575 per pack). See Compact, ¶ 3.7 However, the compact provided that the Tribe would not be required to pay the increase in Oklahoma taxes after January 1, 2004, in the following cases:

1. At any of its retail businesses within 20 miles of the Kansas state line until Kansas increases its taxes on tobacco products [emphasis added];
2. At its existing retail business on Highway 99 in Pawhuska and at a future retail business to be located “on the corner of 15th Street and Highway 99” in Pawhuska until Kansas increases its tax on tobacco products;8 [emphasis added] and
3. On products bought and sold at any of its retail businesses within 10 miles of a retail business which:
(a) was in operation on January 1, 2003,
(b) was owned by a tribe subject to a compact,
(c) under which the Tribe was obligated to pay only 25% of all applicable excise and sales taxes,
until such tribe’s compact terminates or is cancelled by mutual agreement of the parties, [emphasis added].

Compact, ¶ 3.

¶ 4 Another provision of the Compact which could affect the rate required from the [58]*58Tribe is paragraph 16, informally referred to as the “favored nation clause,” (FNC). It provides:

16. Should the State at some future date enter into a tobacco tax compact with another Indian tribe with terms more favorable to the other Indian tribe than those in this compact, such more favorable terms may, at the option of the Nation, automatically be incorporated herein.

¶ 5 After the Compact became effective, the Tribe, through its Principal Chief Jim Gray, sent a letter dated December 3, 2004, via FAX to the OTC, advising it of more favorable provisions included in later executed compacts. These compacts contained a lower tax rate for the other tribes which were located within 20 miles of another state’s border, as well as more favorable terms for shops within 10 miles of other tribes’ shops. In particular, the Chief noted Choctaw Nation smoke shops located within 20 miles of the Texas border, pay $.58 per carton. Because the Choctaw Nation’s Compact contains savings clauses identical to those in the Osage Compact,9 the Chief asserted the Tribe’s right to pay the tax at the $.58 per carton rate ($.0575 per pack).

¶ 6 Also noted in the letter were references to later executed compacts between the State and the Cherokee Nation, the absentee Shawnee Tribe, the Iowa Tribe and the Seminole Nation. The alleged “more favorable” provision in the later compacts related to the distance between shops of different tribes, similar to the Osage Compact’s provision saving the Tribe from incurring Oklahoma’s 2004 tax increase.10

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

Related

Feather Smoke Shops, LLC v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2009 OK 75 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2009 OK 75, 236 P.3d 54, 2009 Okla. LEXIS 80, 2009 WL 3111416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feather-smoke-shops-llc-v-oklahoma-tax-commission-okla-2009.