Wampanoags don't have agreement to buy the Galleria property named in compact

 

But the Tribe doesn't have an agreement to buy it

The casino compact between the state and the Wampanoags identifies more than 100 acres of Silver City Galleria mall as the site for the Taunton casino

Article | March 23, 2013 - 7:18am | By Walter Brooks

 

Mashpee Wampanoag tribe says it has no agreement to purchase Galleria property identified in compact
The Herald-News reports today that the casino compact between the state and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe identifies more than 100 acres of Silver City Galleria mall property as being part of the approved site for the proposed tribal casino, although the tribe says it has no agreement in place to purchase the parcels.

The land identified as part of the tribe’s proposed casino project is located across from the Liberty & Union Industrial Park.

The tribe tried to get an agreement to purchase the Galleria last year, but was unable to make a deal.
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell. said yesterday “We’re working on a resolution. My only concern is protecting the city of Taunton’s interests".

The one forward development this week came on the gaming front with Gov. Deval Patrick and the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe agreeing to a new revenue sharing compact. The deal tiers the amount of casino revenue the tribe would return to the state - the most likely scenario being a 17 percent return.

The state stands to see no revenue, however, if the southeast region is opened to a commercial
developer as well, food for thought after the Gaming Commission this week delayed a decision on how to handle the region.

Fall River and New Bedford official say this is preventing southeastern Massachusetts from benefiting from the economic development lawmakers anticipated when they passed the gambling legislation.

Officials who represent Fall River and New Bedford, raise concerns that the tribe’s pursuit of a casino is a dead end due to the Bureau of Indian Affair not yet accepting the tribe's land deal.

The Supreme Court’s 2009 Carcieri v. Salazar decision states that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to take land in trust for tribes that were not under federal jurisdiction at the time of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.

Mashpee Wampanoag tribal leader Cedric Cromwell counted this saying, “We expect to have land put into trust this year and have shovels in the ground next year and open for gaming in 2015... the tribe is years ahead of any potential commercial casino developer".

Read the Herald-News story here.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2013/03/23/17827-wampanoags-dont-have-agreement-buy-galleria-property-named-compact

TAXES 

|

 

10/11/2012

Native American Casino And Tax Rules That May Surprise You

COCONUT CREEK, FL: A dealer works the blackjack table at the Seminole Casino Coconut Creek in Coconut Creek, Florida. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

1. Federal Law Regulates Indian Gaming. In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Supreme Court ruled that tribes can conduct gaming on Native American lands unhindered by state regulation in states that allow gaming. A year later, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), creating a regulatory framework for gaming on Indian lands. The National Indian Gaming Commission within the Department of the Interior has oversight.

2. Tribes are Tax Exempt. Gaming on Native American lands earned $26.5 billion in 2011. 236 Native American tribes operate 422 facilities across 28 states. Yet Native American tribes and their wholly owned tribal corporations are not subject to federal income taxes on their earnings.

3. The Exemption is Absolute. Some types of tax-exempt organizations are taxed on some types of income. Tribes are exempt from federal income taxes even when conducting commercial activities. They can form corporations to conduct business and their income remains exempt.

4. Individual Native Americans are Taxed.Native Americans are U.S. citizens, and unlike their tribes, individuals are subject to federal income taxes. Even exempt tribal income can be taxed when distributed to individual members of the tribe. One of the more complicated provisions of IGRA permits Native American tribes to make per capita distributions of revenue from gaming activities to tribe members. These per capita distributions are taxed.

5. But Some Payments to Native Americans are Exempt. Some “general welfare” payments to individuals under social benefit programs are not taxed. In general, to be tax-free, payments must be made under a governmental program; be for the promotion of general welfare (i.e., based generally on individual, family or other needs); and not be compensation for services. This General Welfare Exception from income has become increasingly controversial as applied to tribal members and the IRS is being asked to weigh in.

6. State Taxes are Tricky. Absent an express authorization from Congress, states do not have the power to tax Native Americans living on a reservation whose income is derived from reservation sources. However, a state may tax Native Americans on income (including wages from tribal employment) if they reside in the state but outside the reservation.

As with many other tax rules, these rules are becoming more controversial. Expect renewed discussion of these rules and their limits in the future.

Robert W. Wood practices law with Wood LLP, in San Francisco. The author of more than 30 books, including Taxation of Damage Awards & Settlement Payments (4th Ed. 2009 with 2012 Supplement, Tax Institute), he can be reached atWood@WoodLLP.com. This discussion is not intended as legal advice, and cannot be relied upon for any purpose without the services of a qualified professional.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/10/11/native-american-casino-and-tax-rules-that-may-surprise-you/