Viewing page 44 of 69

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Those cases are all perfectly sound. I suppose that as long as an individual uses his property, catches his fish and eats them himself, at least doesn't sell them , there is no income tax involved, you are merely enjoying your own property, but whether you've got the property right doesn't determine whether or not you are going to pay an income tax, if you realize income from it.
Question: (lost)
John, this question is directed to a situation where an Oklahoma tribe owns Lakeshoe frontage and under the act approved Aug 9 1955, permitting tribes to lease their land for certain purposes for a period of 25 years subject to a renewal for another 25,these tribes are about to undertake a leasing of their lakeshore to private persons, non-Indians, for the most part, for recreational developmental purposes. Now, Mr. ? your question is, would the income to the tribe, this being tribally owned, land, be subject to federal income taxation. Is that your question?
That revenue to the tribes, would it be subject to taxation under the Capomin Act. Well, as Mr. Cragun previously stated, the Capomin Case does not apply to tribally owned property. It merely applies to individually owned property. Is that correct, John?
Yes, but this is a question not of individually owned property but of tribally owned property. 
To state to this group and to all groups that ought to be concerned with it. I'll be glad to state that there's an awful lot of us got our fingers crossed and are darned scared that the Bureau of Internal Revenue under constant prodding of the Department of Interior or even of its malicious ? ? has been trying to tax property on tribal incomes as corporations. A corporate tax could wipe out half your tribal income. And there's no express exemption of Indian tribes in the income tax statutes. And I say, we go around this way.