The Arizona Court of Appeals held that state and local governments were categorically preempted from imposing property taxes on permanent improvements located on Tribal lands, regardless of the ownership of those improvements, reversing an earlier decision of the Arizona Tax Court. The case could have wide-ranging and a favorable impact on the encouragement of non-Indian development on tribal lands, particularly in areas where an Indian reservation borders a metropolitan area, like the Pima-Loop 101 corridor in North Scottsdale, which runs through the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. However, because the case relies on federal preemption principles, its impact would apply in any state where Indian tribes are seeking non-Indian investment on their reservations.
The case, South Point Energy Center LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue et al., No. 1 CA-TX 20-0004 (Apr. 27, 2021), involved the South Point Energy Center, a gas-fired, combined-cycle merchant power plant located on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in the northwest corner of Arizona. A federal statute, 25 U.S.C. § 5108 (formerly 25 U.S.C § 461), provides that “lands or rights” held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indian tribes “shall be exempt from State and local taxation.” The Court of Appeals held that “lands or rights” included permanent improvements on those lands, and that under a line of cases dating to 1903, property taxes were categorically preempted regardless of who owned the improvements.
The Court of Appeals also held that the Tax Court erred when it concluded that the entirety of the power plant was personal property without applying the federal test established in Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Comm’r, 65 T.C. 664 (1975), which set out the multi-factor test for determining whether something was a permanent improvement to realty or personal property). The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Tax Court to perform a Whiteco analysis to determine which portion of the plant was a permanent improvement and, further, to determine whether a separate federal tax preemption rule (the “Bracker balancing test” established in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980)) preempted property taxes on any personal property located at the plant.
The Arizona Department of Revenue and Mohave County had argued that because the terms of the lease required the decommissioning, demolition, and removal of the power plant at the end of the lease term, then the entire facility was personal property and 25 U.S.C. § 5108 did not apply.
For more information, please contact Pat Derdenger at pderdenger@lewisroca.com or Karen Lowell at klowell@lewisroca.com. The case has been handled by Pat Derdenger and Karen Lowell of Lewis Roca and Ben Cooper of Dickinson Wright.
Tags: Tax- Partner
Karen Lowell is a partner in Lewis Roca’s Business Transactions and Tax practice groups, advising clients on a variety of business and tax planning matters.
With a proven background in resolving business tax disputes, Karen guides clients on sales, use, and property tax matters ...
- Partner
Pat is the go-to lawyer for state and local tax issues. With his unmatched knowledge and strong communication skills, he ensures his clients get the best outcome for their bottom line.
Clients rely on Pat Derdenger for his deep knowledge of state and local tax issues that vitally impact ...
About This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam