Montana Attorney General Opinion 17-117

Opinion No. 117. State Treasurer-Oil Production Tax. HELD: Duplicate payment of oil production tax by producers on Tribal Indian lands, made to the United States Indian Office. and by the latter distributed to the state, may be con- OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 129 sidered as a payment in advance of future taxes and such arrangement is not withdrawing money from the state treasury without appropriation or re- funding taxes paid. Hon. Ray N. Shannon State Treasurer The Capitol Dear Mr. Shannon: July 2. 1937. You have asked my Opll1lOll as to whether you can legally permit oil producers on Tribal Indian lands. to reimburse themselves for duplicate tax payments made necessary bv 'the United States Department of th~ In- terior. insisting that taxes already paid to the state be now paid to the Indian Office and by that office remitted to you. in accordance with the federal law specifically making the Secretary of the Interior responsible therefor. In other words. in order to meet the requirements of the Indian Office. pro- ducers must pay to the Indian Office tax money which has already been paid to the state. The producers desire to have such payment considered a credit on, or as a payment in advance of future taxes which will become due the state on the producers' share of oil produced at )4 of 1¢ per barrel. I see no legal objection to this pro- cedure. Certainly the producers should not be penalized because they have paid the tax direct to the state instead of paying it to the Indian Office and permitting the latter to disburse it to the state. Such duplicate payment. in my opinion, may be made, and may be considered by the state as a pay- ment in advance of taxes to become due as oil is produced. and proper credit should be given therefor. for this purpose. No money is actually withdrawn from the state treasury, and there is no refunding of taxes paid. The state suffers no financial loss ~hatever. .It is an equitable and prac- hcal solutIOn of a problem arising from the application of a conflicting federal statute. Opinion No. US. Banks and Banking-Closed Banks- Liquidating Agent, Authority of Superintendent of Banks to Appoint. H E L D: The superintendent of banks has no authority under the provision of Section 3, Chapter 197. Laws of 1937, to appoint the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or their receiver, to assist him in the liquidation of a bank closed because of failure to repair capital impair- ment. July 15th. 1937. Honorable W. A. Brown Superintendent of Banks The Capitol Dear Mr. Brown: You have submitted the following facts and request for opinion: "The Farmers State Bank of Bain- ville, Montana, a bank fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, closed its doors on July 13, 1937. That Corporation has now requested that this office appoint them or their receiver as Liquidating Agent to handle the liquidation of the bank. "Section 3 of Chapter 197 of the 1937 Session Laws provides that the SlIperintendent of Banks may appoint said Corporation Agent to assist him or act for him only in the event the bank is closed on account of the in- ability to meet the demands of its creditors. This particular bank did not close by reason of the inability to meet the demands of its depositors and creditors but did close by reason of its failure to repair a capital im- pairment and further by action of its Board of Directors. "In your opinion would we have authority under this Section to ap- point the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or a receiver duly ap- pointed by them as Liquidating Agent to handle the liquidation of this bank?" Since Section 3, Chapter 197, Laws of 1937, specifically states that the superintendent of banks may appoint