Why don't we use importance sampling for one step Q-learning? Why don't we use importance sampling for 1-step Q-learning?  
Q-learning is off-policy which means that we generate samples with a different policy than we try to optimize. Thus it should be impossible to estimate the expectation of the return for every state-action pair for the target policy by using samples generated with the behavior policy.
Here is the update rule for 1-step Q-learning:
$Q(s_t,a_t) = Q(s_t,a_t) + \alpha [R_{t+1} + \gamma \max_a{Q(s_{t+1},a) - Q(s_t,a_t)}]$
Here is a link to Sutton's RL book in case you want to look something up.
 A: It is explained in the book on page 149:

Note that the importance sampling ratio here starts and ends one step
  later than for n-step TD (7.9). This is because here we are updating a state–action pair.  We do not have to care how likely we were to select the action; now that we have selected it we want to learn fully from what happens, with importance sampling only for subsequent actions.

A: One-step Q-learning does not sample forward trajectories, it just takes the maximum value bootstrapped from the estimated action value.
You will notice that in the examples of importance sampling in Monte Carlo control, that the weighting by importance sampling is applied after taking a step. So the weight is always 1.0 for the first step. This is then consistent with having no apparent importance sampling in one-step off-policy bootstrapping methods.
In multi-step Q-learning, e.g. Q($\lambda$) you should notice that taking any action other than the greedy action will zero the weights of further samples from that trajectory that are used to adjust earlier state, action values. That is a form of importance sampling, since the probability of not taking the greedy action in the target policy is zero. 
In theory you could also multiply weights of future greedy actions by the inverse probability of selecting them in the behaviour policy - I have not tried that, but I suspect that it mainly just interacts with $\lambda$ and/or increases variance without much benefit. You would also need to track (and average) all the zero-ed adjustments and add them back in . . . 
A: Here is the one-step Q-learning update rule as you gave it:
\begin{equation}Q(s_t, a_t) = Q(s_t, a_t) + \alpha \left[ R_{t+1} + \gamma \max_a Q(s_{t+1}, a) - Q(s_t, a_t) \right]\end{equation}
That update rule actually matches exactly what the "target policy" (greedy policy in this case) is doing; we update the $Q$ value for the state-action pair for which we've just obtained a new observation ($s_t, a_t$, with the new observation being $R_{t+1}$) under the assumption that we follow up with the greedy / target policy immediately afterwards (resulting in $\max_a Q(s_{t+1}, a)$). In this equation, the only action that we may not have taken according to the target policy is the action $a_t$, but that's fine because precisely that same action is the one for which we're updating the $Q$-value.

Now suppose that we try writing a multi-step (or two-step) update rule naively, without importance sampling. That would look as follows:
\begin{equation}Q(s_t, a_t) = Q(s_t, a_t) + \alpha \left[ R_{t+1} + \gamma R_{t+2} + \gamma^2 \max_a Q(s_{t+2}, a) - Q(s_t, a_t) \right]\end{equation}
This update rule assumes that our behaviour policy (typically something like $\epsilon$-greedy) was used to select another action $a_{t+1}$, resulting in an additional reward observation $R_{t+2}$ and state $s_{t+2}$. In this update rule, we suddenly have a problem for off-policy learning, because our update rule uses a reward $R_{t+2}$ that is the result of an action $a_{t+1}$ which our target policy may not have selected, and it's a different action ($a_t$) for which we're actually updating the $Q$-value. Using information from "incorrect" actions is fine if it's only used to update $Q$-values for those same "incorrect" actions, but it's not fine if we're using it to update $Q$-values for a different ("correct") action (an action that would also have been selected by the greedy / target policy).
A: 
Since a(t) is already determined in 1 step, the importance sampling ratio is 1.
