of the word to hold that an Indian tribe was a “person” for purposes of § 7701(a)(1) and therefore was subject to federal wagering and occupational excise taxes). Interpreting “person” to cover Indian tribes has another virtue: it is consistent with courts’ treatment of other sovereign entities as “persons” for various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. For example, the Tenth Circuit has construed “person” in '§ 7701(a)(1) to cover the United States and individual states. See Estate of Wycoff v. Comm’r, 506 F.2d 1144, 1151 (10th Cir. 1974). More broadly, the Supreme Court has held that states and other sovereign entities are “persons” for other Code provisions with similar definitions of “person.” See Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112, 79 S.Ct. 641, 3 L.Ed.2d 667 (1959) (<HOLDING>); Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 370, 54
holding that the term person included a state or other sovereign where the special definition of person in 26 usc  6632 spoke only of corporations and partnerships and the employees or officers thereof holding that the secretary may only delegate the powers and duties of the office to a natural person not to an administration or entity other than a natural person holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc  1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities holding that person as defined in njsa 112 does not include the state based on the fact that 1 the definition of person indicates that such term includes the state when it is used to designate the owner of property which may be the subject of an offense and 2 state and municipality are separately defined in njsa 112 holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983