The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 51 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Native American tribes, as sovereign nations, are exempt from state tobacco excise taxation, and self-govern on-reservation activity in the USA. Under Federal law, state excise taxes are owed by non-members purchasing tobacco on tribal land, but states are limited in how they enforce or collect these taxes. This study highlights the various policy approaches that states have taken to regulate tobacco sales on tribal lands given jurisdictional challenges. METHODS: State laws (statutes, regulations and case law), Attorney General opinions, and revenue notices and rulings effective as of 1 January 2015 for all 50 states and the District of Columbia were compiled using Boolean searches in Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw. Laws were limited to those addressing taxation compacts or tobacco sales involving tribal entities. Master Settlement Agreement laws and non-codified tribal codes/compacts were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty of the 34 states with tribal lands address tribal tobacco sales. Fourteen states address intergovernmental compacts: 11 are tobacco specific, and suggest or require specific provisions. Fifteen states address tribal tax stamps: 2 explicitly prohibit stamping tribally sold products, 9 stamp all products, and 4 stamp some. Prepayment of excise tax is required in 12 states: 6 on all products, 4 on products in excess of quota, and 2 on products sold by non-tribal retailers. 6 states use quotas to limit tax-free tobacco available to tribes. CONCLUSIONS: Many states with a tribal presence have no formal strategies for non-members purchasing tobacco on tribal lands. Formalising policies and harmonising tax rates may assist states in collecting tax revenue from non-tribal consumers.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study compiled state laws effective 1 January 2015 to describe how states regulate tobacco taxation and sales on tribal lands. It found that 20 of the 34 states with tribal lands addressed tribal tobacco sales, using compacts, tax stamps, prepayment, and quotas, while 14 tribal-presence states had no tribal-specific tobacco sales laws under the study’s parameters.
Key findings
- Of the 34 states with tribal lands, 20 had codified laws addressing tribal compacts or tribal tobacco sales; 14 states with tribal lands had no tribal-specific tobacco sales laws as defined by the study, and 17 states had no tribal lands.
- Fourteen states addressed intergovernmental compacts; all but New York suggested or required specific compact provisions, with the most common being revenue collection/sharing (11 states), enforcement (6), duration/renewal (6), and distribution of funds (4).
- Fifteen states addressed on-reservation tax stamps: 2 explicitly prohibited stamping tribally sold products, 9 stamped all products, and 4 stamped some products.
- Twelve states required excise tax prepayment: 6 on all products, 4 on products in excess of quota, and 2 on products sold by non-tribal retailers; 6 states used quotas to limit tax-free tobacco available to tribes, 2 of which used a coupon or voucher system.
Methods
- Legal research compiled state statutes, regulations, case law, Attorney General opinions, and revenue notices/rulings effective as of 1 January 2015 for all 50 states and the District of Columbia using Boolean searches in Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw.
- Laws were limited to those addressing taxation compacts or tobacco sales involving tribal entities; Master Settlement Agreement laws and non-codified tribal codes/compacts were excluded.
- Laws were coded by two independent attorney coders with final consensus coding, uploaded into RedCap, and exported to STATA v. 10.1 for descriptive analysis using dichotomous indicators.
Limitations
- Stated: the study excluded collection and analysis of compacts generally not incorporated into official state statutory or administrative law, so it is limited to codified compacts and does not reflect non-codified compacts that may exist.
- Stated: nuances or gaps in implementation or enforcement at the agency level were not captured unless included in codified law, official agency rulings, or case law.
- Evident from the design: this is a cross-sectional legal compilation as of 1 January 2015 and does not measure the actual effectiveness or enforcement outcomes of the identified mechanisms.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
36 Own result · 14 Own interpretation · 12 Not checked yet · 8 Check pending · 8 No full text of the sources · 6 Sources not found · 5 Own method · 4 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourteen states address intergovernmental compacts”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While 9 states use only one of these methods”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As of 1 January 2015, 34 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia had tribal lands located within their borders”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“6 states use quotas to limit tax-free tobacco available to tribes.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2 explicitly prohibit stamping tribally sold products”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Utah and Idaho, stamps are applied to products intended for sale to non-members.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In two states (Florida and New York), quotas are further enforced with vouchers or coupons, which are given to distributors in exchange for tax-free cigarettes.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“codified laws that function outside, or in lieu, of compacts (hereafter ‘codified laws’) which can only regulate off-reservation behaviour (17 states)”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifteen states address tribal tax stamps”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In an attempt to differentiate products sold on reservation, some states use stamps that differ in appearance from those applied to products sold off reservation.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
- It may state two separate claims as one. 40
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compacts, which allow states and tribes to avoid certain complications inherent in tribal sovereignty by functioning within the bounds of contract law, are the most popular means of addressing tribal tobacco sales to non-members.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Arizona, a similar strategy limits a tribe's access to tax-free cigarettes via quota, and requires tax prepayment on cigarettes sold to non-members.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These provisions address tax stamps (three states), record-keeping (three states) and tax rates (two states).”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Results > Compacts and intergovernmental agreements
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the use of codified laws that seek to reduce the amount of tax-free cigarettes available to tribes are a popular method of tobacco sales regulation, as they function to reduce the availability of tax-free cigarettes in the tribal marketplace.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Montana, taxes are prepaid on all cigarettes, and refunds are given based on established quotas.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As distributors must apply tax stamps prior to sale, they are able to redeem those vouchers for refunds from the state for taxes paid on stamped packs.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While some states continue to establish or modify laws pertaining to tribal tobacco sales, many still have no formal structure for addressing tax collection from non-members purchasing product on tribal lands.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“including a waiver of sovereign immunity, and established refunds for tax prepayment (two states each).”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Results > Compacts and intergovernmental agreements
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some states (such as Iowa and Wyoming) explicitly prohibit the stamping of cigarettes sold on tribal lands as a means of differentiating tribal sales from non-tribal sales, while others limit stamps to certain products.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the regulatory mechanisms discussed can and are used in tandem.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Conclusion
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“11 are tobacco specific, and suggest or require specific provisions.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While compact formation is the most commonly used strategy, three strategies within codified law are also widely used: tax stamps, tax prepayment on cigarettes sold to tribes and tax-free quotas”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Results > Codified laws
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Minnesota, in addition to stamping cigarettes intended for non-members, also stamps all products sold to tribes without intergovernmental agreements.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“and are especially detrimental when conflicting jurisdictions or interests make tax harmonisation or enforcement difficult.4”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] World Health Organization, 2010
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There are currently 566 federally recognised tribes, and 34 states that contain tribal lands within their borders.17–19”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2015, Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fedl Reg
- Not matchedcites [18] National Park Service. Indian Reservations in the Continental United States. Date Unknown. http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/ResMAP.HTM (accessed 23 Mar 2016).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites [19] Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribal Leaders Directory. Fall/Winter. 2015. http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xois/documents/document/idc1-028053.pdf (accessed 23 Mar 2016).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 2000, cartons of cigarettes purchased on reservations in Washington retailed about $10 less than off-reservation prices, and an ∼$80 million dollars tobacco tax revenue loss was attributed to those purchases.16”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] Stehr, 2004, Cigarette tax avoidance and evasion, J Health Econ source
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in 2010–2011, Washington's on-reservation cigarettes were priced ∼65% lower than their off-reservation counterparts, with almost 17% of smokers reporting making purchases on reservations.10”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [10] US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (2015), National Cancer Institute-sponsored Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (May 2010–2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Increasing the price of tobacco products is one of the most effective strategies in tobacco use prevention,1”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Chaloupka, 2012, Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy, Tob Control source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“courts have limited a state's ability to enforce tax collection or remittance against tribes, directing states to pursue alternative solutions, such as precollecting tax at the wholesale level, or establishing intergovernmental compacts.13 14”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13] Okla. Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [14] Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation et al. 425 US 463 (1976).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Native American tribes, as sovereign nations within the USA,7 are exempt from state excise taxation, and have the power to govern their own lands,8 including on-reservation tobacco sales.9”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [7] Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [8] Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220 (1959).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [9] Oklahoma Tax Com'n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450 (1995).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The funds generated from tobacco sales on reservation lands are often used in many of the same ways as state tax revenue, such as funding education, roads, public health initiatives, public safety and infrastructure.11”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Zelio, 2005
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While all states tax cigarettes and most other tobacco products,5”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Gourdet, 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The state of Washington has established that all tobacco compacts contain tobacco control elements, prohibiting tribes from using tobacco tax-derived revenue to subsidise cigarette retailers.24”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Check pendingcites [24] Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 43.06.455 (2015). source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effectiveness of prepayment can depend on how it is implemented, and many states (including those that apply quotas) use tax stamps as a method of enforcement.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, our study excluded the collection and analysis of compacts, which are generally not incorporated into official state statutory (legislative) or administrative (regulatory) law, as their terms are regularly renewed and negotiated, and do not require codification to be binding for either the tribes or the state.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Tax harmonisation, which can be implemented through the use of taxation agreements; and changes in distributor regulations, including the implementation of tax stamps at strategic points along the supply chain, could lessen price differentials and aid in the reduction of tax avoidance and evasion.3”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Chaloupka, 2015
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Failing to address tribal sales to non-members could undermine these tobacco control efforts, as tax avoidance and evasion opportunities could increase where a state is unable to enforce the application of excise tax to certain sales, resulting in disparate cigarette prices.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compacts can be especially effective strategies where tribal lands are pervasive, and within close proximity to large populations.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nuanced tax stamping procedures, including application early within the distribution chain, and limitations on resale; combined with tax prepayment or quotas can reduce the general population's access to tax-free cigarettes, while still respecting tribal sovereignty.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Conclusion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is often done through the use of tax stamps, but can be done even where tax stamps are not used, or where purchasing parties may be tax exempt in limited circumstances.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strategic application within the distribution chain is important.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In response, tribes increased their manufacturing efforts; cigarettes manufactured on-reservation bypassed stamping agents, and allowed tribes to sell them untaxed.35”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Kaplan T . In Tax Fight, Tribes Make, and Sell, Cigarettes. New York Times 22 Feb 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/nyregion/indian-tribes-make-own-cigarettes-to-avoid-ny-tax.html?_r=0 (accessed 22 Feb 2016).
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These compacts, typically negotiated between state and tribal officials, can allow both parties to protect their interests in tax revenue and self-governance.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the inclusion of provision suggestions or requirements does not necessarily dictate the actual content of negotiated compacts, it can provide consistency in states with multiple tribes, and can ensure that key provisions are addressed across all future negotiations.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These quotas, established formulaically, are typically based on tribal member population and national or tribal consumption habits;27–30 establish the amount of tax-free cigarettes tribes may purchase, and represent a presumed number of packs that a tribe will sell to its tax-exempt members.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [27] N.Y. Tax § 471-e (2015).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [28] Fla. Stat. Ann. § 210.1801 (2015).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [29] 68 Okl. Stat. Ann. § 349.1 (2015).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Check pendingcites [30] Mont. Code Ann. § 16-11-155 (2015). source
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, our study is limited to only those compacts that were codified into state law, and does not reflect the content of non-codified compacts that may exist.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 2010, as a means to address the loss of ∼$500 000 in state income a day to sales on tribal lands,26 New York adjusted its implementation, and began requiring that all cigarettes receive tax stamps prior to shipment to tribal distributors, reducing the opportunity for tribal distributors to opt out of state tax collection.12 33 34”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Gralla J . New York wins ruling in tribal cigarette tax clash. Reuters. 9 May 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/newyork-tobacco-idUSN0924451920110509 (accessed 20 Feb 2016).
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Samuel, 2012, Internet cigarette sales and native American Sovereignty: political and public health contexts, J Public Health Policy source
- Check pendingcites [33] Kurti, 2015, The intended and unintended consequences of a legal measure to cut the flow of illegal cigarettes into New York City: the case of the South Bronx, Am J Public Health source
- Not matchedcites [34] Oneida Nation of NY v. Cuomo, 645 F3d 154 (2nd Cir. 2011).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Tobacco has become a popular source of income for tribes, and the number of tribal manufacturers has increased steadily,32 in part, as a response to state regulatory efforts to curb evasion.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Check pendingcites [32] Bondaryk, 2016, Master settlement agreement compliance tobacco directories: a tool to track tribally manufactured cigarettes, Nicotine Tob Res source
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Formalising taxation policies as they relate to non-tax-exempt sales on tribal lands, and the creation of enforcement or precollection strategies, may assist states in collecting revenue otherwise lost.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Conclusion
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The legal research strategy was defined by the lead study author, was conducted by a law student, and the lead author provided a quality assurance review of the legal research compilation.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The practical result of tribal sales to non-members is a complete shift of the economic incidence of the tribe's tax break to consumers,20 resulting in sometimes significant price differentials, and a potential loss of state revenue.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Check pendingcites [20] DeCicca P , Kenkel DS , Liu F . Reservation Prices: an Economic Analysis of Cigarette Purchases on Indian Reservations. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series 2014;No. 20778. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20778.pdf (accessed Nov 2015). source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In that sense, comprehensive approaches to tribal tobacco sales regulations are crucial to curbing evasion and avoidance, and reducing consumption rates.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, compacts are a mechanism that can bolster additional regulatory efforts, and help to maintain positive relationships between state and tribe where jurisdictional issues may present issues with enforcement.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Conclusion
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The state successfully negotiated several rounds of compacts, slowly increasing tribal tax rates to meet state levels, and affording refunds to account for sales to tax-exempt parties.21 22”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] Laux, 2015 source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Chaloupka, 2016
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In theory, these quotas limit the amount of tax-free packages available to non-members, and are generally enforced with record-keeping.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These stamps can be used across all tribes within a state, or be specific to an individual tribe.31”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Check pendingcites [31] Chriqui, 2015, Use of tobacco tax stamps to prevent and reduce illicit tobacco trade—United States, 2014, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Despite alternative efforts to source tax-free tobacco by the tribes, the presence of stamp-free tobacco packages (typical of preimplementation, on-reservation purchases) and tribally manufactured cigarette packages in New York has declined significantly post-2010 implementation, suggesting a shift away from on-reservation tobacco purchases by non-tribal consumers.36”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] National Research Council, 2015
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While compacts are popular, negotiating them can be time and cost intensive,12 21 and they can be difficult to use or enforce where the state–tribe relationship is fractured (eg, New York).15 26”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Samuel, 2012, Internet cigarette sales and native American Sovereignty: political and public health contexts, J Public Health Policy source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] Laux, 2015 source
- Not checked yetcites [15] Associated Press. Ruling Clears New York State to Tax Tribes’ Cigarette Sales . New York Times 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/nyregion/ruling-clears-new-york-to-tax-tribes-cigarette-sales.html (accessed 29 Feb 2016).
- Not checked yetcites [26] Gralla J . New York wins ruling in tribal cigarette tax clash. Reuters. 9 May 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/newyork-tobacco-idUSN0924451920110509 (accessed 20 Feb 2016).
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similar provisions directing revenue towards tobacco control efforts on reservation could bolster a state's public health initiatives among a population with the nation's highest smoking rate (29.2%).25”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] Jamal, 2015, Current cigarette smoking among adults — United States, 2005–2014, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While these quotas are meant to provide tribes with enough cigarettes for personal consumption, quota formulas often result in overstated estimates, resulting in an excess of tax-exempt cigarettes in the market-place.3”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Chaloupka, 2015
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All laws were then coded using a detailed coding tool by two independent coders (both attorneys). After the independent coding, the two coders met to conduct a final, consensus coding.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar to prepayment, tax stamps are only as effective as their implementation.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Discussion
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Formalising policies and harmonising tax rates may assist states in collecting tax revenue from non-tribal consumers.”
§ Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 > Abstract > Conclusions
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
States do not have jurisdiction on tribal lands and are unable to use the court system to pursue back taxes.
“As per the nature of tribal sovereignty, states do not have jurisdiction on tribal lands, and are unable to use the court system to pursue back taxes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
This issue has not been explored comprehensively across all states.
“To our knowledge, while some studies have examined state-specific tribal tobacco regulation efforts, this issue has not been explored comprehensively across all states.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Tribal tobacco sales are not limited to members of the tribe; anyone can purchase tobacco from tribal retailers.
“Tribal tobacco sales are not limited to members of the tribe; anyone can purchase tobacco from tribal retailers, and they do.”
Citations
Cites
Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults — United States, 2016
Jamal, A., Phillips, E., Gentzke, A. S., Homa, D. M., Babb, S. D., King, B. A., & Neff, L. J. (2018) · MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report · doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6702a1 · Cited by 737
Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy
Chaloupka, F. J., Yurekli, A., & Fong, G. T. (2012) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050417 · Cited by 705
Self-citationCurrent cigarette smoking among adults — United States, 2005–2014
Jamal, A., Homa, D. M., O’Connor, E., Babb, S. D., Caraballo, R. S., Singh, T., Hu, S. S., & King, B. A. (2015) · MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report · doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6444a2 · Cited by 528
Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs, 2014
King, B. A., Pechacek, T. F., & Mariolis, P. (2014) · Cited by 443
WHO technical manual on tobacco tax administration
Smith, K. E. (2013) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2012.10.004 · Cited by 170
From cigarette smuggling to illicit tobacco trade: Table 1
Joossens, L., & Raw, M. (2012) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050205 · Cited by 130
Cigarette tax avoidance and evasion
Stehr, M. (2005) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.08.005 · Cited by 91
(2016) · Trends in Organized Crime · doi:10.1007/s12117-016-9290-3 · Cited by 55
Kurti, M., von Lampe, K., & Johnson, J. (2015) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302340 · Cited by 19
Internet cigarette sales and native American Sovereignty: political and public health contexts
Samuel, K. A., Ribisl, K. M., & Williams, R. S. (2012) · Journal of Public Health Policy · doi:10.1057/jphp.2012.4 · Cited by 19
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Gourdet, 2015, Tobacco product taxation: an analysis of state tax schemes nationwide, selected years, 2005–2014
- Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220 (1959).
- Zelio, 2005, Piecing together the state-tribal tax puzzle
- Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2015, Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fedl Reg, 80
- Chaloupka, 2016, A significant cigarette tax rate increase in Oklahoma would produce a large, sustained increase in state tobacco tax revenues
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Association between maternal e‐cigarette use during pregnancy and low gestational weight gain
Wen, X., Thomas, M. A., Liu, L., Moe, A. A., Duong, P. H., Griffiths, M. E., & Munlyn, A. L. (2023) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.14672 · Cited by 19
Golden, S. D., Kong, A. Y., Lee, J. G. L., & Ribisl, K. M. (2017) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.017 · Cited by 18
Empty Discarded Pack Data and the Prevalence of Illicit Trade in CigarettesPreprint
Aziani, A., Kulick, J., Norman, N., & Prieger, J. E. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2906015 · Cited by 13
Wang, X., Xu, X., Tynan, M. A., Gerzoff, R. B., Caraballo, R. S., & Promoff, G. R. (2017) · Public Health Reports · doi:10.1177/0033354917703653 · Cited by 12
Cigarette Taxation, Regulation, and Illicit Trade in the United States
Kulick, J. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65361-7_16 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- DeLong, H., Chriqui, J., Leider, J., & Chaloupka, F. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- DeLong, Hillary
- Venue
- Tobacco Control
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2016-06-27
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- Suppl 1
- Pages
- i32-i37
- ISSN
- 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3318
- PMC
- PMC5099202
- OpenAlex
- W2469918504
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 42.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Tobacco Control (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (UO1-CA154248)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Keywords
- Native American tribes, tribal areas, state tax policy, tax quota, tax collection, jurisdictional conflict, tribal sovereignty, United States
- MeSH terms
- Commerce, Humans, Indians, North American, Public Policy, Smoking, State Government, Taxes, United States, Tobacco Products
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
