Harjo v. Commissioner

34 B.T.A. 467, 1936 BTA LEXIS 687
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedApril 30, 1936
DocketDocket No. 77020.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 B.T.A. 467 (Harjo v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harjo v. Commissioner, 34 B.T.A. 467, 1936 BTA LEXIS 687 (bta 1936).

Opinion

[468]*468OPINION.

Smith :

This is a proceeding for the determination of the liability of the petitioner as transferee for an estate tax due from the estate of Nitey, a restricted full-blood Seminole Indian.

The respondent determined a deficiency against the estate of Nitey in the amount of $29,216.55. No tax has been paid by the estate. The respondent issued notices of deficiency to the petitioner herein, who was the husband of the decedent, to each of her five children, and to the Superintendent of the Five Civilized Tribes. So far as the record appears the petitioner is the only one who has appealed to this Board from the determination of the respondent that he is liable for the tax as transferee. The petition was signed by George H. Zeutzius as counsel for the petitioner. The petition alleges:

The petitioner Alex Harjo is a restricted ¾⅛ blood Seminole Indian and widower of tbe decedent Nitey who was a restricted full-blood Seminole Indian; petitioner is also a beneficiary and transferee of part of decedent’s estate, having received or having had transferred to his credit under a settlement approved by the Secretary of the Interior $126,000, less certain claims and expenses of approximately $40,000. Petitioner resides at Sasakwa, Oklahoma.

The petition is verified as follows:

William Zimmerman, Jr., being duly sworn, says that he is the duly appointed and qualified Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs and has under his supervision and jurisdiction the affairs of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, including the Seminole Tribe; that as such Commissioner he is the representative of the Secretary of the Interior; that under the law, as he is informed and believes, it is the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to supervise and pay, as well as make report, of any taxes which may be due and owing by restricted members of the Seminole tribe of Indians; that the above named petitioner is a member of the Seminole tribe of Indians and is restricted; that decedent was also a restricted Seminole Indian, of full-blood; that he has read the foregoing petition and is familiar with the facts therein stated and that said statements and facts are true as he verily believes.

The facts necessary to the determination of the issues have been stipulated before the Board as follows:

1. It is agreed that the decedent, Nitey, was a full-blooded Seminole Indian, enrolled opposite Seminole No. 1446, and at the time of her death, August 17, 1930, was under full restrictions as to all of her real estate and personal property ; that she was incompetent, and by decree of a competent court of the State of Oklahoma, her guardian was Lynn Adams.
2. That during her lifetime decedent Nitey was allotted, in Seminole County, Oklahoma, 240 acres of land under the Seminole Agreement dated October 7, 1899, and confirmed by an Act of Congress dated June 2, 1900 (81 Stat. 250), which lands are described as
The NE/4 of Section 2, Township 7 North, Range 6 East, containing 160 acres, and
The E/2 of the SE/4 of Section 35, Township 8 North, Range 6 East, containing 80 acres;
[469]*469of which Lot 1, or the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 2 (a part of said tract of land) was allotted to decedent Nitey as her homestead. All of said tract of 240 acres of land was, at the time of decedent Nitey’s death, and still is, restricted as to sale, lease or other encumbrance without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, under the Acts of Congress dated April 26, 1906 (34 Stat. 137) and May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. 312).
3. That during the year 1922 an oil and gas lease was entered into between said Nitey and Guy M. Buckner, under date of January 28, 1922, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior on March 31, 1922, for a period of ten years, or as long as oil and gas is found in paying quantities, covering the northeast quarter of Section 2, Township 7 North, Range 6 East, which is now owned by the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, as to the N/2 of the NE/4 and SW/4 of NE/4 of Section 2-7N-6E, designated on the records of the office as lease No. 45164; Lease No. 44999' to the Gladys Belle Oil Company as to the E/2 SE/4 of Sec. 35, Township 8 North, Range 6 East, now owned by the Blackwell Oil & Gas Company, dated January 28, 1922, and approved March 18, 1922; Lease No. 45164 was further assigned to the Amerada Petroleum Corporation as to the SE/4 of NE/4 of Section 2-7N-6E. The whole area was leased in 1922. Production was had in 1927, and the land is still producing oil and gas in paying quantities.
4. That at the time of her death the receipts that were credited to her account and held by the Secretary of the Interior in trust for her were as follows:
Transfers_ $328.15
Pipe Line Damages_ 184. 25
Redeposits and refunds_ 4, 356.49
Interest:
Open account_$37,133. 09
Treasury Bonds_ 10,125.00
Rentals, surface- 262. 50
A ½ inherited interest in her husband’s allotment, oil and gas royalties_ 55, 629. 51
Surplus, derived from Section 35_ 324, 922.19
Surplus and Homestead in Section 2, Surplus from NW NE Sec. 2_ 34,103. 89
Homestead_1_102, 311. 68
Surplus, SE NE of Section 2_ 197, 937.21
Total receipts to date of death_ 767, 294.21
Interest_ 2, 502. 40
769, 796. 61
Less Disbursements_ 255, 565. 21
Balance on hand at time of death-514, 231.40
Nitey inherited an undivided ⅜ interest in the estate of her husband, John Hayecha, Seminole No. 1445, and the interest in oil and gas derived and produced from this allotment has been credited to her account. The description is the E/2 SE and SW SE of Section 26, Township 8/N., Range 6 East. SE SE being the homestead.
[470]*470The following table shows the amount of the receipts and the balance left after applying the ratio or percentage of the total receipts bore to the total disbursements.
Pipe Line Damages_ 184.26 65. 88 118.37
Rentals, surface- 262.50 S3.68 168.82
John Hayecha- 55, 629. 51 19, 891. 94 35, 737. 57
Surplus, Sec. 35_ 324, 922.19 116,185. 64 208, 736. 55
Surplus, NW NE- 34,103.89 12,194. 87 21, 909.02
NE NE Homestead- 102, 311. 68 36, 584. 52 65,727.16
Surplus SE NE- 197, 937. 46 70, 548. 68 127,388.78
Totals_ 715,351. 48 255, 565. 21 459', 786.27

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

Related

Harjo v. Commissioner
34 B.T.A. 467 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 B.T.A. 467, 1936 BTA LEXIS 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harjo-v-commissioner-bta-1936.