Second Circuit: Income from gravel mined on Indian tribal land, taxable
Income from gravel mined on Indian tribal land, taxable
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today affirmed a “reviewed opinion” of the U.S. Tax Court concluding that income that the taxpayers earned from selling gravel that was mined from Seneca Nation land was taxable income and was not excluded by treaty or by the General Allotment Act.
The issue was one of first impression in the Second Circuit.
The case is: Perkins v. Commissioner, No. 19-2481 (2d Cir. August 12, 2020). Read the Second Circuit’s decision [PDF 334 KB]
The taxpayer husband and wife (an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation) operated a company that sold gravel mined from land belonging to the Senecan Nation of Indians. The taxpayers claimed that income they earned from selling gravel mined from the Seneca Nation land was exempt from tax under the General Allotment Act, the Canandaigua Treaty, and the Treaty of 1842 because the income was derived from Indian land.
The IRS adjusted the taxpayers’ income to include the gravel-related income, and also determined that the taxpayers were liable for additions to tax and penalties under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6662(a). The Tax Court, in a March 2018 reviewed opinion, held that the income earned from selling gravel mined from Seneca Nation land was taxable income that was not excluded by either treaty or by the General Allotment Act. The Tax Court also found the taxpayers were liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) (failure to timely file), but not for penalties under section 6662(a) (accuracy related) because the IRS did not satisfy the burden of production.
The taxpayers appealed to the Second Circuit, which today issued a decision effectively agreeing with the Tax Court that neither treaty with the Seneca Nation created an exception from federal income tax for income derived from Seneca land. As the Second Circuit noted:
Although we find the tax exemption contained in [treaty] Article IX is limited to Seneca land, we must determine whether an exemption from taxes on land must extend to [taxpayers’] gravel-mining income since their income “derives” from Seneca land. It does not. There are good reasons to treat income earned on the sale of gravel extracted from Seneca land differently than the real property itself.
The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.