The county filed a motion with the circuit court seeking damages in excess of $16 million from Plaintiffs for the tax revenues allegedly lost during the time period that the TRO halted the imposition of the Tax.The appellate court denied the TRO motion. Plaintiffs appealed from the Order and filed a motion for emergency reinstatement of the temporary restraining order (TRO) with the appellate court. The fight continues despite the fact that the Tax is now in effect. The Order also provides that the court was not responsible for evaluating whether the Tax was of a “progressive or regressive nature.” (Order at 2.) In the Order, the court expressly disclaimed any reliance on the county’s public airing of its budgetary woes. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the Tax regulations unlawfully exceeded the scope of the Ordinance. In making this ruling, the court relied heavily on the regulations issued by the county regarding the Tax, including those which soften the impact of the Ordinance’s requirement that the Tax be included in the selling price, even with respect to goods sold to individuals purchasing through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that the tax was unconstitutionally vague, concluding that people of ordinary intelligence could understand and comply with the requirements of the Tax. According to the court, the “County has set forth a real and substantial difference between the people taxed, who purchase ready-to-drink, pre-made sweetened beverages, and those not taxed, who purchase on-demand, custom sweetened beverages.” (Order at 9.) The court then held that Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of establishing that the county’s justifications were insufficient in law or unsupported by the facts. The court went on to hold, however, that the county met its burden to justify this arbitrary tax classification by alleging that pre-made sweetened beverages were more widely available and therefore more likely to be purchased and consumed than made-to-order beverages (thus generating more tax revenues) and by arguing that imposing the Tax on made-to-order beverages would be administratively burdensome. The court held that Plaintiffs raised a good faith Illinois Uniformity Clause challenge, and thereby shifted the burden of proof to the county, because the Tax applied to pre-made, but not made-to-order sweetened beverages. The Order rejected both of the constitutional arguments raised by the Complaint. The county also announced that by September 20, retailers must remit a “floor tax” on the inventory of sweetened beverages in their possession as of August 1. In response to the Order, the county required Tax collection to begin on August 2. The Order also dissolved the June 30 temporary restraining order which had halted the county’s imposition of the Tax, on which we have previously reported. A copy of the court’s Order is linked here (Order). In Cook County, 444 TIF Districts across 96 municipalities accounted for more than $1.3 billion in property tax revenue last year - or 8.4% of the entire $15.6 billion billed.On July 28, Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak dismissed the Complaint filed by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and a group of retailers challenging the constitutionality of the Cook County, Illinois Sweetened Beverage Tax (Tax). (8th), Dennis Deer (2nd), Bridget Degnen (12th), Bridget Gainer (10th), Brandon Johnson (1st), Bill Lowry (3rd), Donna Miller (6th), Stanley Moore (4th), Sean M. Daley (11th) and Larry Suffredin (13th) were lead sponsors of the amendment, which had 13 cosponsors: Alma E. “I am grateful to the Board for doing the same with TIFs.”Ĭommissioners John P. “The County Board took ground-breaking action regarding transparency when it passed the Debt Disclosure Ordinance in 2009 at my request,” Pappas said. Pappas suggested the idea to the board and helped draft the amendment. This information also would be posted to for taxpayers to view and download. The amendment would give taxpayers the opportunity to examine how TIF dollars have been spent and to whom. The Board approved an amendment to the Debt Disclosure Ordinance, which allows the Treasurer’s Office to gather vital financial data for the county’s 547 primary taxing districts and publish it on. The Cook County Board of Commissioners has enacted an ordinance that would increase disclosure in an area where it is long overdue - Tax Increment Financing districts, Treasurer Maria Pappas stated. Pappas: Cook County Board passes ordinance to bring transparency to TIF spending
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |