You are here: / / REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES...
,

REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the requirement that retailers on Indian lands collect and remit taxes on cigarettes sold to non-Indian consumers did not violate the Indian Law or the Buffalo Creek Treaty of 1842:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking (1) a declaration that Tax Law § 471 is unconstitutional and invalid and (2) a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from enforcing the law against them. The complaint alleged that the tax law conflicts with the Buffalo Creek Treaty of 1842 and Indian Law § 6. * * *

… “[I]t is the legal burden of a tax—as opposed to its practical economic burden—that a state is categorically barred by federal law from imposing on tribes or tribal members” … . The express language of New York’s tax law provides that “the ultimate incidence of and liability for the tax shall be upon the consumer,” and mandates that the tax money advanced by any “agent or dealer” be paid back by the consumer … . * * *

Tax Law § 471 does not constitute a tax on an Indian retailer, and therefore it does not run afoul of the plain language of the Treaty or Indian Law § 6. White v Schneiderman, 2018 NY Slip Op 04028, CtApp 6-7-18

​TAX LAW (CIGARETTES, REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP))/INDIAN LAW CIGARETTES, REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP))/TREATIES (INDIAN LAW, CIGARETTES, REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP))/CIGARETTES (INDIAN LAW,  REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP))

You might also like
DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP).
A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT IS NOT AN ‘INTERNET IDENTIFIER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THEREFORE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IT TO THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IS NOT A CRIME (CT APP).
WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CIVIL SUBPOENAS, UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT.
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED; EXTENSIVE THREE-JUDGE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP). ​
THE EXTENSION (NOW TO 2026) OF THE TIME FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE 9-11 CLEANUP TO FILE CLAIMS FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS DOES NOT APPLY TO CLAIMS FOR DEATH BENEFITS BY A BENEFICIARY OF A DECEASED PARTICIPANT; HERE THE PARTICIPANT’S WIFE MADE A CLAIM FOR DEATH BENEFITS WHICH WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE STATUTORY DEADLINE IN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SECTION 28 HAD PASSED (CT APP).
CONVERSION OF A HISTORIC LOWER MANHATTAN LANDMARK, A RARE CLOCK AND CLOCK TOWER, TO A LUXURY APARTMENT WAS PROPERLY APPROVED BY THE NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
Privatization of a Mitchell-Lama Cooperative Housing Corporation Is Not a Taxable Conveyance Subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE COOPERATIVE OWNER, THE BOARD REFUSED TO TREAT PETITIONER AS DECEDENT’S “SPOUSE” WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE AN AUTOMATIC TRANSFER OF DECEDENT’S LEASE AND SHARES; THE MAJORITY, OVER TWO DISSENTING OPINIONS, DETERMINED THE BOARD’S REFUSAL TO TREAT PETITIONER, WHO WAS NOT MARRIED TO DECEDENT, AS A “SPOUSE” DID NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION BASED ON “MARITAL STATUS” (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION... COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH’S DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE NYS MEDICAL INDEMNITY...