state taxes on federal entities as insults to national sovereignty and impermissible burdens on federal operations”); see also United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720, 733, 102 S.Ct. 1373, 71 L.Ed.2d 580 (1982) (noting that “the Court has never questioned the propriety of absolute federal immunity from state taxation”); United States v. City of Columbia, 914 F.2d 151, 153 (8th Cir.1990) (“Unlike the states’ immunity from federal taxation, which is somewhat limited, the United States’ immunity from state taxation is a ‘blanket immunity.’ ”) (citation omitted). Notwithstanding the absolute prohibition on state taxation, the government may be charged for services rendered or for its use of state or local property. See, e.g., Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80, 85-86, 24 L.Ed. 377 (1877) (<HOLDING>); Cincinnati v. United States, 153 F.3d 1375,
holding that a charge for the use of a public wharf was a user fee rather than a tax for constitutional purposes holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act  of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege holding that where a contract for legal services fails to expressly provide for the amount of the fee a reasonable fee is implied holding that a deduction of a tribunal user fee from a settlement award is not a taking holding that effect of suit rather than the purpose for which it was brought is controlling for purposes of the fifth factor