issuance of a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs need only show that the issues presented are so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make them fair ground for litigation. Zsamba, 56 F.Supp.2d at 1210 (citing Resolution Trust, 972 F.2d at 1199). Although plaintiffs’ complaint contains nineteen counts, plaintiffs focus on Count I, Counts IX-X, and Counts II-IV, as those counts which are likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiffs’ arguments as to each of these counts will be discussed in turn. 1. Count I — The legal incidence of the tax falls on the Kansas Tribes and therefore the tax is per se invalid as a matter of law. The fuel tax provided for in the Act falls upon the “distributor of first receipt.” Kan. Stat. Ann § 79-3408(c). See also Sac & Fox, 213 F.3d at 578-79 (<HOLDING>). In Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation,
holding that a binding settlement on a tax liability must follow the requirements of the tax code which include the execution of a closing agreement holding that the legal incidence of a federal excise tax on gasoline falls upon the statutory producer and not the purchaser of the gasoline holding that the legal incidence of the kansas fuel tax falls on the distributor holding that the legal incidence of the kansas fuel tax falls on distributors not retailers holding that a retailer lacked standing to challenge a federal excise tax assessed against a thirdparty fuel supplier even where the retailer was required by contract to pay the supplier an amount equal to the excise tax upfront at the time of purchase since the alleged injury  in the form of increased fuel costs was not occasionedby the government