WPCA 2BBcR Z3#|[#"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<gn|g|n|SR}{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^?S}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}SS}a}SFS}S}ooS}FSF}oaS}}}oc7cS?SS*SSSSSSSSSSF}}}}}oooooaFaFaFaF}}}}}}}}}}}}}oooooooo}}}}}}aFaFaFaF}FFFFF}}oooaaaaSSS}oooFoaS}}}NX?}S}}}}}}KS}K}KF}}}SS}}S}KF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"m^*,:SS}z22K[*2**SSSSSSSSSS**[[[Collluldu}=Sudzudul_dzljj\2[2[KSSCVK2Q\/,Y/\KVSCE:\QuQQH2[2[2*222222222222V/lSlSlSlSlSwlClKlKlKlK=/=/=/=/z\uKuKuKuKz\z\z\z\jQlSuVuKuKjQuKdVlSlSlSlClClClCuVlKlKlKlKuQuQuQuQuQuQ}\}\=/=/=/=/SuYd/d/d/d/d/z\z\z\z\uKuK}lClClC_E_E_E_Ed:d:d:z\z\z\z\z\z\ujQ\H\H\HuVd/z\lC_Ed:jQjQuVuKz\N[*[K,C@@SSS2-}}S2ooS}2::S''KK\\:2[[RRk*[11RRRkskk[ZZ<[){kJ%>gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^*2gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR22cx$c'c>+ c."m^3=Iff%==\o3=3offffffffff33oooQzKpzzz~~z=o=o\%ifQpQ=bp=:f=p\ifQQAp_\\U=o=o=3============f=iiiiiQQQQQK=K=K=K=p\\\\pppp~\ip\\~\\ziiiiQQQQpQQQQbbbbbbppK=K=K=K=pfz=z=z=z=z=pppp\\QQQzQzQzQzQ~A~A~Apppppp~\zUzUzUpz=pQzQ~A~\~\p\pNo3w\=QNNfffMDf=f=3GG\==\\pp%G=ooee3o<>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQXHYYY66^E@@@@(JEEE66;,1N11@@@A9<16%7,7(7,A6C/A1>1P7A/:,A1E12156(7(>4E/A1H>E>9(6144>986@9999999999999999999(((((((666666666666666666661111111444444444444>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A7AA>E>1BQck QuoteSingle spaced indented quote - Circv C   (  Cd  ( ( ( FTNFormats for each footnote,  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: ?rU@Final OpFinal Opinion Format #  ( (   X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: earned outside the taxing jurisdiction: J> i uB ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < For nonresidents, in contrast, jurisdictions generally may tax  uB] only income earned within the jurisdiction. See Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 57 (1920) (as to residents, a State may, and does, exert its taxing power over their income from all sources; as to nonresidents, the tax is only on such income as is derived from ... sources [within the State]). BQ C  , , (  That the receipt of income by a resident of the territory of a taxing sovereignty is a taxable event is universally recognized. Domicil itself affords a basis for such taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence in the state and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws are inseparable from responsibility for sharing the costs of government .... These are rights and privileges which attach to domicil within the state.... Neither the privilege nor the burden is affected by the character of the source from which the income is derived.  J New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308, 312!313 (1937). ~BQ yd   "  Ԍ ( , , This general principl[e] ... ha[s] international acceptance. American Law Institute, Federal Income Tax Project: International Aspects of United States Income  J Taxation 4, 6 (1987); see, e.g., C. Cretton, Expatriate Tax Manual 1 (2d ed. 1991) ( An individual who is resident in the UK is subject to income tax on all his sources of income, worldwide.). It has been applied  J both to the States, e.g., Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 57 (1920); see 2 J. Hellerstein & W. Hellerstein, State Taxation 20.04, p. 20!13 (1992), and to the Federal  Jp Government. E.g., Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47, 56 (1924); see 1 J. Isenbergh, International Taxation 45!56  J (1990).  i uB ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < Although sovereigns have authority to tax all income of their residents, including income earned outside their borders, they sometimes elect not to do so, and they commonly credit income taxes paid to other sovereigns. But [i]f foreign income of a domiciliary taxpayer is exempted, this is an independent policy decision and not one compelled by jurisdictional considerations. American Law Institute, Federal Income Tax Project: International Aspects of United States Income Taxation 6 (1987).  Concerning salaries of United States resident diplomats and  uB employees of international organizations, post, at 3, the dissent  uB speaks of treaties as the wellsprings of an exception to otherwise governing tax law. That is not quite right. It is dominantly United States internal law that sets the ground rules for exemptions accorded employees of foreign governments and international organizations. In return for exemption of foreign government employees from U.S. federal taxation, 893 of the Internal Revenue Code requires that the employer government grant equivalent exemption to United States Government employees performing similar services  uBf abroad. 26 U.S.C. 893(a)(3); see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 15!16 (1982) (identifying statutory genesis of 893 exemption); 1 J. Isenbergh, International Taxation 393!394 (1990).  The Tribe seeks to block the State from exercising its ordinary prerogative to tax the income of every resident; in particular, the Tribe seeks to shelter from state taxation the income of tribal members who live in  "   Oklahoma outside Indian country but work for the Tribe  J on tribal lands.W i uB@ ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < The Tribe's claim, as presented in this case, is a narrow one. The Tribe does not assert here its authority to tax the income of these tribal members. Nor does it complain that Oklahoma fails to award a credit against state taxes for taxes paid to the Tribe. W For the exception the Tribe would carve out of the State's taxing authority, the Tribe gains no support from the rule that Indians and Indian tribes  J` are generally immune from state taxation, McClanahan  J8 v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973), as this principle does not operate outside Indian country.  J Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Sac and Fox Nation, 508 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 8!10).  Notably, the Tribe has not asserted here, or before the Court of Appeals, that the State's tax infringes on tribal selfgovernance. See Brief in Opposition 9!10 (  I! infringement  !  question is not presented to this Court);  J Brief for Respondent 42, n. 37; see also Sac and Fox, 508 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 11) (reserving question whether the Tribe's right to selfgovernance could operate independently of its territorial jurisdiction to preempt the State's ability to tax income earned from work performed for the Tribe itself when the employee  J does not reside in Indian country).li uBL ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < The United States suggests, as a potential disposition, that we remand on the selfgovernance question. Brief for United States  uB as Amicus Curiae 30, n. 18. But an interference with selfgovernance plea was neither made in the lower courts nor presented here, and is therefore foreclosed in this case.  Instead, the Tribe relies on the argument that Oklahoma's levy impairs rights granted or reserved by  J federal law. See Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148!149 (1973) ( [E]xpress federal law to the contrary overrides the general rule that Indians going beyond reservation boundaries have generally been held subject to nondiscriminatory state law otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State.). The Tribe invokes the"   Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, Sept. 27, 1830, Art. IV, 7 Stat. 333!334, which provides in pertinent part: BQ C  , , (  The Government and people of the United States are hereby obliged to secure to the said [Chicka J saw] & ! % uB  ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < This treaty, first concluded between the United States and the Choctaw Nation in 1830, became applicable to the Chickasaw Nation in 1837. See Treaty of Jan. 17, 1837, Art. I, 11 Stat. 573. Nation of Red People the jurisdiction and government of all the persons and property that may be within their limits west, so that no Territory or State shall ever have a right to pass laws for the government of the [Chickasaw] Nation of Red People and their descendants ... but the U.S. shall forever secure said [Chickasaw] Nation from, and against, all [such] laws ....ߘBQ d   ( , , According to the Tribe, the State's income tax, when imposed on tribal members employed by the Tribe, is a law for the government of the [Chickasaw] Nation of Red People and their descendants, and it is immaterial that these descendants live outside Indian country.  In evaluating this argument, we are mindful that treaties should be construed liberally in favor of the  J Indians. County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226, 247 (1985). But liberal construction cannot save the Tribe's claim, which founders on a clear geographic limit in the Treaty. By its terms, the Treaty applies only to persons and property within [the Nation's] limits. We comprehend this Treaty language to provide for the Tribe's sovereignty within Indian country. We do not read the Treaty as conferring supersovereign authority to interfere with another jurisdiction's sovereign right to tax income, from all sources, of those who choose to live within that jurisdiction's limits."  Ԍ J  The Tribe and the United States8K i uBh ԍ FTN  &  XgEpXFr  ddf < In its alliance with the Tribe, the United States is not an entirely disinterested party. The United States affords Chickasaw  uB tribal member employees no exemption from federal income tax.  uB See Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 6 (1956) ( [I]n ordinary affairs of life, not governed by treaties or remedial legislation, [Indians] are subject to the payment of income taxes as are other citizens.);  uB Hoptowit v. Commissioner, 709 F. 2d 564 (CA9 1983) (rejecting claim of federal tax exemption for income from tribal employment);  uB  Jourdain v. Commissioner, 617 F. 2d 507 (CA8) (per curiam) (same), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839 (1980). And, in computing employees' federal income tax base, state income tax is allowed as an itemized deduction. 26 U.S.C. 164(a)(3). Thus, an exemption of wages  uB from state income tax increases federal income tax revenue.8 further urge us to read the Treaty in accord with the repudiated view that an income tax imposed on government employees should  J be treated as a tax on the government. See Dobbins v.  J` Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435 (1842). But  J8 see Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 480 (1939) ( The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable....). Under this view, a tax on tribal members employed by the Tribe would be seen as an impermissible tax on the Tribe itself.  We doubt the signatories meant to incorporate this nowdefunct view into the Treaty. They likely gave no thought to a State's authority to tax the income of tribal members living in the State's domain, because they did not expect any members to be there. On the contrary, the purpose of the Treaty was to put distance between the Tribe and the States. Under the Treaty, the Tribe moved across the Mississippi River, from its traditional lands within Mississippi and Alabama to unsettled lands not then within a State. See D. Hale & A. Gibson, The Chickasaw 46!59 (1991).  Jh  Moreover, importing the Dobbins rule into the Treatyh "   would prove too much. That dubious doctrine, by typing taxation of wages earned by tribal employees as taxation  J of the Tribe itself, would require an exemption for all employees of the Tribe"not just tribal members, but nonmembers as well. The Court of Appeals rejected such an extension, see 31 F. 3d, at 975 ( It is settled that the income tax is imposed on the employee, not the employer .... Therefore, to the extent that the income tax is imposed on nonmember employees who have no established claim to tribal ancestry, the tax does not infringe upon the treaty prohibition.), and even the Tribe is not urging this view before us, admitting that it is substantially more tenuous. Brief for Respondent 47. 2* * *  2  For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to the motor fuels tax, reverse that judgment as to the income tax, and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.  J ` BIt is so ordered.ă "   4APPENDIX (Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, n+Sept. 27, 1830, Article IV (17 Stat. 333!334 The Government and people of the United States are hereby obliged to secure to the said [Chickasaw] Nation of Red People the jurisdiction and government of all the persons and property that may be within their limits west, so that no Territory or State shall ever have a right to pass laws for the government of the [Chickasaw] Nation of Red People and their descendants; and that no part of the land granted them shall ever be embraced in any Territory or State; but the U.S. shall forever secure said [Chickasaw] Nation from, and against, all laws except such as from time to time may be enacted in their own National Councils, not inconsistent with the Constitution, Treaties, and Laws of the United States; and except such as may, and which have been enacted by Congress, to the extent that Congress under the Constitution are required to exercise a legislation over Indian Affairs. But the [Chickasaws], should this Treaty be ratified, express a wish that Congress may grant to the [Chickasaws] the right of punishing by their own laws, any white man who shall come into their nation, and infringe any of their national regulations.