[1] NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

 

Only the most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Watchman

 

DATE TYPED:

01/23/02

 

HB

230

 

SHORT TITLE:

“Indian Country” Defined

 

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Dunbar

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY02

FY03

FY02

FY03

 

 

 

 

$0.1

See Narrative

Recurring

Local Property Tax Revenue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Responses Received From

 

LFC Files

Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)

State Highway and Transportation Department (SHTD)

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

House Bill 873 defines "Indian Country" for when the term is used in statutes.

 

     Significant Issues

 

The bill prescribes four sections that define "Indian Country." The first three (Sections A - C) follow the current definition that is found in federal statute (18 U.S.C §1151). The bill proposes to broaden the federal definition to include lands subject to "restriction by the United States against alienation." This means the definition would be extended to lands held in fee by a tribe. Under federal statute (25 U.S.C. §177), all land owned by tribes are subject to restriction by the United States against alienation. Thus, according to the Taxation and Revenue Department, the definition would include any land a tribe would acquire.

However, under Buzzard v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 992 F.2d 1073 (10th Cir. 1993), the federal definition of "Indian Country" for tax purposes does not include fee land owned by the tribe subject to restriction against alienation. The SHTD’s Office of General Counsel points out that if the proposed state law conflicts with federal law, then the federal law will take precedent. Also, they indicate that New Mexico and federal courts have consistently adhered to the federal statutory definition.

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There is no appropriation contained in this bill. According to the Taxation and Revenue Department there is an indeterminate fiscal impact that depends on how much land individuals and tribes acquire in fee and where that land is located.

 

MW/prr:ar

 [1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode.  Do not add or delete spaces.