he challenges the refusal of the territorial auditor to undertake an audit of the Legislature. It is this governmental action-the refusal to undertake an audit-in which the Appellant must show a property interest. He has not done this. Regardless of whether the audit is undertaken, Appellant will continue to be taxed at the same rate. Thus, he has shown no property interest in. the territorial auditor's refusal to audit the legislature. Appellant argues that his standing to bring suit as a taxpayer necessarily shows that he has a property interest which has been infringed. This argument is also misplaced. The mere fact that a person has standing to bring an action does not mean that they have a property interest at stake. The re 79 (9th Cir.), modified 812 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1986) (<HOLDING>); Punikaia v. Clark, 720 F.2d 564, 566 (9th
holding that the state did not have jurisdiction over crime committed on land held by the bureau of indian affairs for the use and benefit of a discrete indian community holding that an indian reservation was a federal area subject to the haydencartwright act but analyzing the tax as levied on a nonindian contractor doing work for the bureau of indian affairs on tribal land holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation holding that a tribe had no property interest in the continued operation of a bureau of indian affairs office on the reservation