Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/424

 502us2$21K 08-19-96 17:39:52 PAGES OPINPGT

266

COUNTY OF YAKIMA v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF YAKIMA NATION Opinion of the Court

regard each as effective.” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551 (1974). III Yakima County sought to impose two separate taxes with respect to reservation fee lands, an ad valorem tax and an excise tax on sales. We discuss each in turn, in light of the principles set forth above. A Liability for the ad valorem tax flows exclusively from ownership of realty on the annual date of assessment. See Timber Traders, Inc. v. Johnston, 87 Wash. 2d 42, 47, 548 P. 2d 1080, 1083 (1976). The tax, moreover, creates a burden on the property alone. See Wash. Rev. Code § 84.60.020 (1989) (“The taxes assessed upon real property . . . shall be a lien thereon from and including the first day of January in the year in which they are levied until the same are paid . . .”); Clizer v. Krauss, 57 Wash. 26, 30–31, 106 P. 145, 146–147 (1910). See also Timber Traders, Inc., supra; In re Electric City, Inc., 43 B. R. 336, 341 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Wash. 1984) (dictum). The Court of Appeals held, the Tribe does not dispute, and we agree, that this ad valorem tax constitutes “taxation of. . . land” within the meaning of the General Allotment Act and is therefore prima facie valid. The Court of Appeals, however, derived from our decision three Terms ago in Brendale the conclusion that the Yakima Nation has a “protectible interest” against imposition of the tax on Tribe members upon demonstration of the evils described in that opinion, and remanded to the District Court for further findings in that regard. Neither of the parties supports this aspect of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, believing that the law affords an unconditional answer to permissibility of the tax. We agree. Brendale addressed a challenge to the Yakima Nation’s assertion of authority to zone reservation fee land owned by non-Indians. The concept of “protectible interest” to which