Snyder v. Wetzler

644 N.E.2d 1369, 84 N.Y.2d 941, 620 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4106
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 1, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 644 N.E.2d 1369 (Snyder v. Wetzler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Snyder v. Wetzler, 644 N.E.2d 1369, 84 N.Y.2d 941, 620 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4106 (N.Y. 1994).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the issue is whether the State Department of Taxation and Finance may require plaintiff, an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation, to collect and remit sales, use and excise taxes on sales of cigarettes and motor fuel to non-Indian consumers at plaintiff’s retail business on the Cattaraugus Reservation. Because the issue is directly governed by controlling precedent, we affirm the order of the Appellate Division dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

The United States Supreme Court has clearly established that State tax statutes requiring Indian retailers to collect and remit taxes on sales to non-Indian purchasers, and to keep the records necessary to ensure compliance, violate neither the Commerce Clause nor the constitutional proscription against direct taxation of Indians absent explicit congressional consent (see, Oklahoma Tax Commn. v Potawatomi Tribe, 498 US 505; Washington v Confederated Tribes, 447 US 134; Moe v Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 US 463). To the extent plaintiff contends that the State tax statutes at issue violate either the Supremacy Clause or New York law, his arguments are unpreserved and cannot be considered on this appeal. Plaintiff’s complaint asserted only violations of the Commerce Clause and "the Laws of the United States enacted pursuant thereto”.

*943 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Perkins v. Commissioner
970 F.3d 148 (Second Circuit, 2020)
White v. Schneiderman
31 N.Y.3d 543 (New York Court of Appeals, 2018)
Alice Perkins & Fredrick Perkins v. Commissioner
150 T.C. No. 6 (U.S. Tax Court, 2018)
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Henry
867 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (E.D. Oklahoma, 2010)
Cayuga Indian Nation v. Gould
930 N.E.2d 233 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Gould
66 A.D.2d 100 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
United States v. Kaid
241 F. App'x 747 (Second Circuit, 2007)
1550 Fifth Avenue Bay Shore, LLC v. 1550 Fifth Avenue, LLC
297 A.D.2d 781 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
New York State Department of Taxation v. Bramhall
235 A.D.2d 75 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
New York State Department of Taxation & Finance v. Bramhall
172 Misc. 2d 934 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Salahuddin v. Coughlin
222 A.D.2d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Tuck
212 A.D.2d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
644 N.E.2d 1369, 84 N.Y.2d 941, 620 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-wetzler-ny-1994.