Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/320

 546US1

Unit: $U11

[08-22-08 15:19:52] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 95 (2005)

109

Opinion of the Court

actually applied, it must be rejected.4 Second, the availabil­ ity of tax deductions does not change the nature of the tax­ able event, here the distributor’s receipt of the fuel. By analogy, an individual federal income taxpayer may reduce his tax liability by paying home mortgage interest. But that entitlement does not render the taxable event anything other than the receipt of income by the taxpayer. See 26 U. S. C. § 1 (2000 ed. and Supp. II), § 163(h) (2000 ed.); cf. North American Oil Consol. v. Burnet, 286 U. S. 417, 424 (1932) (federal income tax liability arises when “a tax­ payer . . . has received income”). Finally, the Nation contends that its interpretation of the statute is supported by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79–3417 (1997), which permits a refund—in certain circumstances—for de­ stroyed fuel. However, the Nation’s interpretation is actu­ ally foreclosed by that section. Section 79–3417 entitles a distributor to a “refund from the state of the amount of motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels tax paid on any. . . fuels of 100 gallons or more in quantity, which are lost or de­ stroyed at any one time while such distributor is the owner thereof,” provided the distributor supplies the required noti­ ﬁcation and documentation to the State. This section illus­ trates that a distributor pays taxes for fuel in its possession that it has not delivered or sold, and is only entitled to the refund described in this section for tax it has already paid 4 Indeed, the dissent acknowledges that tax is owed on fuel a distributor receives and holds in inventory—and thus implicitly concedes that the dis­ tributors’ off-reservation receipt of motor fuel is the event that gives rise to tax liability. See post, at 120 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.). While the dissent contends that such tax is ultimately “effectively offset” by a subse­ quent delivery of the inventoried fuel, ibid., the dissent does not explain the meaning of this opaque contention. A distributor’s subsequent deliv­ ery of fuel to the Nation or any other fuel retailer in Kansas has no effect on tax that it has already paid in a preceding month. Indeed, the distrib­ utor does not report delivery to retailers on its monthly tax return. See Kansas Form MF–52. And a distributor must pay the tax even if the fuel is never delivered.