proprietor simply to add the tax to the sales price[.]” Id. at 483, 96 S.Ct. 1634. Since Moe, the Supreme Court has continued to affirm that cigarette tax schemes containing pass through provisions place the legal incidence of the tax on the consumer. See Chickasaw, 515 U.S. at 461, 115 S.Ct. 2214 (pass through provisions are dispositive when determining who bears a tax’s legal incidence); Milhelm Attea, 512 U.S. at 64, 114 S.Ct. 2028 (upholding cigarette tax scheme that provides that “the ultimate incidence of and liability for the tax [is] upon the consumer”). Indeed, the Supreme Court has upheld numerous cigarette tax schemes even without pass through language that explicitly states that the consumer bears the legal incidence of the tax. See Chemehuevi, 474 U.S. at 11, 106 S.Ct. 289 (<HOLDING>); Colville, 447 U.S. at 159, 100 S.Ct. 2069
holding that an official of an indian tribe should be stripped of his authority and corresponding immunity to act on behalf of his tribe whenever he exercises a power his tribe was powerless to convey to him holding that both the state and the tribe can tax cigarette sales to nonindians holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity holding that an express pass through statement is not necessary before an indian tribe may be required to collect cigarette taxes