context: . This principle is not at all alien to the federal system, as federal tax obligations have been interpreted in an identical manner.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: observing that state "taxing scheme[s]" may "switch[] the incidence of the tax from one party to a transaction to another when the party that would ordinarily be taxed is immune."
citation_a.sentence: See also Washington v. United States, 460 U.S. 536, 544 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1344, 75 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983) (observing that state “taxing scheme[s]” may "switch[] the incidence of the tax from one party to a transaction to another when the party that would ordinarily be taxed is immune.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 541 U.S. 123, 123
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that a derivatively liable corporate officer need not be separately assessed because "[t]he consequences of the assessment ... attach to the tax debt without reference to the special circumstances of the secondarily liable parties."
citation_b.sentence: See Galletti, 541 U.S. at 123, 124 S.Ct. 1548 (holding that a derivatively liable corporate officer need not be separately assessed because "[t]he consequences of the assessment ... attach to the tax debt without reference to the special circumstances of the secondarily liable parties.”); United States v. Holmes, 727 F.3d 1230, 1235 (10th Cir.2013) (same).