Section 21 (a) stated that the $962.5 million, which Native Corporations or individual Natives would receive, could not be taken back by government through taxation.
Section 21 (b) The receipt of shares of stock in the Regional or Village Corporations by or on behalf of any Native shall not be subject to any form of Federal, State, or local taxation.
Section 21 (c) The receipt of land . . . shall not be subject to any form of Federal, State, or local taxation . . .
Section 21 (d) Real property interest conveyed, pursuant to this Act . . . shall be exempt from state and local real property taxes for a period of twenty years after the date of enactment of this Act.
I found this part of the law interesting. Section 21 (a) makes complete sense. The original amount need not be taxed. Section 21 (c) makes sense when you look at the original wording "receipt of land". To me this means the original receipt of the land not the continuing occupation or owning of the land. Generally speaking I find government to be money hungry, I am suprised that they weren't asking for tax money directly after the giving. Section 21 (d) when taking into account the intent of the law is fascinating as well. They thought enough ahead to allow the corporations time to get on their feet before taxing them.
The part that I am most curious about is section 21(b). The law reads that the shares of stock are not taxable. Is this typical? To my knowledge shares of stock are taxable, but is it only in the selling and not the receipt of the stock? Are the stock holders free from tax today? When Doyon pays its dividends are those taxed? They are dividends and therefore different from stocks correct? Again is it the word "receipt" that is important in the interpretation of the law? I can't imagine a government allowing for income to be tax free forever.
Another piece that occurred to me as I was reading was the apparent cooperation of all of the Alaska Native tribes. It seems early on that they realized more would be gained if they worked together instead of separately. Traditionally these tribes would have not interacted much if at all (ie Inupiat Eskimos and Aleuts). I think that having a united voice helped to accomplish their goal. It would have been easier for Congress to deny their wishes if every group wanted something different or if each group was asking different people at altering times.
I do agree that by joining together as one and not staying separate made it alot easier on them to get what they wanted and made it complicated to deny anything from them.
ReplyDeleteThose are alot of good questions that maybe Dave can answer for us? I believe that taxes are very important. Government regulations protect us in ways we take for granted until the necessity for protection arises. The most recent example is the newest laws protecting investors from greedy CEO's. As members of a nation it is our responsibility to pay some form of tax if we expect anything in return. Even the simple things like bridges, medicare, etc etc. are taken for granted until something happens to them.
ReplyDeleteHuh,
ReplyDeleteYou know I should know if shares are taxed. I know corporations in general get double taxed from the government.
I think the reason why the government did not take the initial allotment of land was because of the fact that the government did not want to continue dealing with the Alaska Native issues over the land.
I think the initial allotment, though at the time, was huge. But probably in this era, and economy, the deal would have been a small in comparison to some of the profits reigned out of the land. This probably would wouldn't matter anyway since The Native corporations would benefit anyway.
It's true that the government is often hungry for tax dollars, and probably would have liked to wring every penny they could out of the native corporations. But we should remember that lawmakers also like to be reelected. If they levied heavy taxes on the native corporations, they would have risked angering a significant portion of the electorate. An alliance between the various native corporations posed such a threat to politicians, in fact, that they included in ANCSA a clause which restricted the number of native corporations which could merge together. See Section 7(b).
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the Alaska Natives' unification helped them to achieve certain gains. I found some interesting ammendments regarding taxation on the following website: http://www.lbblawyers.com/ancsa.htm
ReplyDeleteBecause of the coalition of Natives in the push for passing ANCSA shows the brilliance of the corporate model of Land settlement. Having 13 seperate corporations seems to spread the power more so than having put together one Corporation engulfing all the native tribes. Can you imagine the economic and political they could ascribe too.
ReplyDeleteThe government does seem to endlessly want more money. It can be frustrating, but the government is trying to protect us from ourselves in some ways. Without taxes who would pay for our roads, schools, law enforcement, fire dept., and EMS systems. Until they are needed people tend to take these things for granted. Private funding does pay for some, but not nearly enough to take care of the entire country. Taxes are not fun, but necessary.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was good that ANCSA gave them a break on their taxes for the 20 year period, but after that they need to be paying taxes because they receive the same benefits as everyone else.