Where does a sale take place for purposes of the local portion of the state sales tax? For lots of localized businesses, it’s a straightforward question. But what about businesses that operate in multiple counties — particularly where some portion of the sales function is separated from the rest of the day to day business? That’s the question presented in Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. Hamer, which was argued during the September term at the Illinois Supreme Court. It’s a potentially high-stakes question: the simpler it is to move a sales tax locus, the more incentive there will be to do so. Our detailed description of the underlying facts and lower court holdings is here. Our preview of the oral argument is here.

The plaintiff in Hartney resells fuel oil to railroads, trucking companies, gas stations and other fuel distributors. In 1995, it moved its sales operation out of Forest View in Cook County. By 2003, the sales operation had landed in Mark, in Putnam County.

The plaintiff had two kinds of sales during the relevant period. First, there were daily purchase orders. The customer was informed by fax or email of the next day’s price, and responded to the sales office: what it needed, how much, where and when. The sales agent in Mark accepted the order and made the arrangements. Second, there were long-term purchase orders. A fully executed contract was mailed from the Mark sales office to the customer. Originals were stored in Mark, with copies to the customer as well as the plaintiff’s accounting department in Forest View.

The Department of Revenue audited the plaintiff (not for the first time) for the period of 2005 through mid-2007. The auditors ultimately concluded that all sales occurred in Forest View rather than Mark, and the plaintiff got a bill for $23.1 million in past-due taxes. The plaintiff paid under protest and sued; the board of commissioners of Putnam County and the board of trustees from Mark joined the suit, seeking the local share of the sales taxes. The Circuit Court found for the plaintiffs. The Third District affirmed, adopting a bright-line test: where acceptance of the order occurs, sales tax liability is fixed.

Counsel for the intervenor governments led off the argument. Counsel argued that the Appellate Court erred for at least three reasons: (1) the regulations which the Appellate Court construed are incompatible with the bright-line, acceptance-is-all rule; (2) the Appellate Court’s rule is also incompatible with the statute; and (3) even if mere acceptance, without more, is sufficient to fix the tax locus, on the facts before the court, the sham doctrine barred the conclusion that sales occurred in Mark. Counsel argued that the purchase order test can be easily manipulated by retailers to locate taxes in the most advantageous place. The regulations don’t say that the place of acceptance is the only relevant factor, counsel argued; they merely say that it’s the most important factor. Justice Garman asked whether the regulations list other factors, and counsel conceded that they did not. Justice Garman asked whether that was significant, but counsel said no. The regulations stated that in order to locate the sales tax liability, enough of the business activity must occur within the taxing jurisdiction to conclude that the seller is engaged in the business of selling with respect to that sale. Counsel argued that nobody reviewing the record could possibly say that anything was going on in Mark — the acceptance of the sales was a sham. Justice Burke asked whether the test was different for an out-of-state seller as opposed to one that was in-state, but doing business in another county. Counsel argued that there was no single factor controlling. Justice Burke asked whether acceptance occurred by sending a fax to the Mark office, or whether acceptance involved something else. Counsel argued that the taxpayer’s Mark office was nothing but a place to receive faxes and a mail box. The arrangement, counsel insisted, was nothing but a subterfuge to avoid the tax. Justice Thomas asked whether the court needed to agree that the acceptance was a sham for the appellant to win, and counsel said no. Justice Garman asked whether the employee running the Mark office had the authority to bind the plaintiff, and counsel said she did.

Counsel for the state appellants argued next. Justice Burke asked whether the state was challenging the view that acceptance had happened in Mark for purposes of the appeal. Counsel responded that the state was not challenging the factual finding, but was challenging the notion that acceptance alone was enough to fix the tax locus. Justice Thomas asked whether it was of any consequence that the Department’s audit manual concluded that the place of acceptance controls for sales tax liability. Counsel responded that the manual deals with possible issues that might arise in a summary fashion, and recommends using statutes and regulations to illuminate disputes when necessary. The manual was by no means dispositive, counsel noted. Justice Garman asked whether the Appellate Court should have given deference to the Department’s interpretation of the statutes and regulations. Counsel responded that if the Department’s interpretation of its own regulations was reasonable, it should be deferred to; but the question was really one of law, and if the Department got it wrong, the Court would doubtless say so. Justice Garman 1pointed out that counsel was nonetheless inviting the court to ignore the audit manual, and asked him to reconcile that with any request for deference. Counsel explained that the manual is not law; rather, the manual as a whole invites auditors to rely on facts when appropriate to deviate from the manual’s advice. Further, counsel argued, internal guidance from the Department couldn’t change the courts’ years-long construction of the term "in the business of selling." Counsel concluded by accusing the plaintiff of having taken guidance intended for good faith, bona fide retailersand taken it out of context as a way to avoid taxes. The proper standard, counsel argued, was that the sales tax locus happened where the most important selling activities took place, regardless of where acceptance was.

Counsel for the taxpayer began by emphasizing that there is nothing wrong with structuring business affairs to reduce the tax incidence on the company’s customers. The taxpayer here did so in full view of the Department, counsel argued; it had hidden nothing and was embarrassed by nothing. Justice Garman asked whether the plaintiff was bound if the Mark employee accepted an offer which she shouldn’t have. Counsel agreed the taxpayer was bound. Justice Thomas argued that the taxpayer had arguably received the benefits of Cook County services, and was now trying to minimize taxes. What would stop other Cook County businesses from doing the same thing? Counsel responded by arguing that the concern that Cook County’s finances would collapse absent reversal was overblown; the regulations which were the basis for the court’s holding had been in place for years. Justice Thomas pointed out that this would be the first major Supreme Court decision on the issue. Counsel answered that if anyone concluded that the acceptance-only rule wouldn’t work, the Legislature should either change the regulation or the statute.   Justice Thomas asked whether the taxpayer relied to some extent on the concept of estoppel. Counsel agreed that it did, but argued that the Court could find for the taxpayer without reaching the issue.   The factual issue of where the acceptance was settled the question, counsel argued, and that should be the end of the matter under the regulations. Counsel concluded by arguing that his client and other taxpayers are entitled to rely on the Department’s view, expressed again and again over the years, that the place of acceptance of the order is conclusive for the locus of the tax.

Leading off rebuttal, counsel for the State returned to the issue of how the State could simultaneously ask for deference and yet disavow its own audit manual. Counsel explained that while regulations go through notice and comment, manuals don’t. Justice Burke asked whether the Department conceded that there was acceptance in Marks. Counsel agreed that the Department was not challenging that finding, but rather was challenging the legal significance of those established facts. Counsel disputed the taxpayer’s citation to Private Letter Rulings in recent years finding that the place of acceptance, without more, fixes the locus of sales taxes. Counsel argued that the PLRs are hypothetical scenarios, not precedents citable, let alone enforceable, against the state.

We expect Hartney Fuel Oil to be decided in the next two to four months.

When the Appellate Court’s decision came down, the Chicago Tribune called it a "ground-breaking decision that "has stunned the condominium community nationwide." So will the Illinois Supreme Court overturn the Second District’s controversial decision in Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Carlson? Based on the oral argument last week, it’s difficult to be certain; several members of the Court seemed at least somewhat conflicted, and the Court heavily questioned both sides. Our detailed summary of the facts and lower court decisions in Spanish Court is here. Our preview of the oral argument is here.

The defendant in Spanish Court stopped paying her monthly assessments for her condominium association in August 2009. She stopped paying special assessments around the same time. So the plaintiff condo board sued her for possession of the unit and the unpaid assessments. The defendant filed an answer, affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. Her defenses and counterclaim made virtually the same allegations – she’d stopped paying the assessments because the Board of the condo association had quit fixing the common areas, per the maintain-and-repair covenant in the condo articles.   Specifically, the plaintiff had supposedly stopped fixing the roof – thus the leaking into the plaintiff’s unit – and certain brickwork above her unit.   The Circuit Court struck the defenses and counterclaim, holding that they were not "germane" to the plaintiff’s action under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act. The Appellate Court reversed in part, holding that although defendant’s counterclaim had to be severed, her defenses were germane, analogizing the claim to permissible defenses by renters under the Forcible Entry Act.

Counsel for the condo board began the argument by pointing out that the Second District had conceded that it was placing itself in a "small minority" by its decision. Condominiums survive through assessments, counsel argued, and without them all the residents’ investments are imperiled. Counsel predicted chaos in the condominium industry absent reversal. Justice Burke asked what remedy a condominium owner had if the board failed to meet its responsibilities, and counsel responded that the owner could sue the board members. Justice Garman asked which affirmative defenses were "germane," and counsel responded that all defenses which went to ability to pay or flaws in the underlying agreement were. Justice Thomas asked whether counsel’s argument was primarily based on public policy, and counsel responded that the relevant policies were embedded in the Illinois Condominium Property Act. Counsel argued that the important issue was whether the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act would continue to be a summary proceeding designed to decide possession quickly or not. Justice Freeman asked whether it was important to get all possible claims before the courts as soon as possible, and counsel pointed out that a party always had an injunction action available if time was of the essence. Justice Freeman suggested that the alternative remedy would take significantly longer, and counsel responded that courts sometimes recognize the need for expedition, and there are tools available to achieve it. Justice Thomas suggested that the Appellate Court had apparently limited the permissible defenses to flaws which made the unit uninhabitable. Counsel responded that there had been no showing that the unit was uninhabitable. Counsel should bring the claim as one for breach-of-fiduciary-duty in a separate case, counsel argued. Justice Thomas pointed out that in fact, the Appellate Court had held that the counterclaim wasn’t germane because it only sought damages, not possession. Counsel responded that the allegations were exactly the same in the counterclaim and defenses with the exception of the final paragraph seeking a remedy. Justice Karmeier observed that the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act gave counsel a powerful remedy, and asked whether the individual would have the right to present defenses if the suit was a simple one for damages. Counsel responded that if any action was outside the Affordable Care Act, then the defendants could bring any defense they chose to bring.

Counsel for the resident argued that public policy adequately answered the question presented. Justice Thomas asked whether there was a difference between a landlord/tenant relationship and the relationship between the Board and the condo residents. When counsel responded that the Board-resident relationship was solely contractual, Justice Thomas asked whether the contract was between the owner and all other owners. When counsel agreed it was not, Justice Thomas asked whether the owners’ interests all rose or fell together. Counsel reiterated that the contractual relationship itself was bilateral, between the association and the owner. Justice Garman pointed out that an owner could participate in management, but counsel argued that his client was helpless to affect repairs to the common elements that might affect her unit, particularly after being shut out of the process. Justice Burke asked whether the purpose of assessments was defeated by allowing the defenses, since the owners collectively use those funds to maintain the common elements. Counsel suggested that the problem was with the particular board, not the law. He argued that if residents are not allowed to raise these issues in a Forcible Entry and Detainer Act suit, the only alternative was a two to four year court battle. When counsel stated that the leak problem had begun in 2007, Justice Thomas asked why the defendant hadn’t sued then. Counsel responded that the resident had attempted to resolve the matter informally, but had been unable to do so. There was no public policy reason, counsel argued, why this situation should be treated any differently than any other contractual relationship: if a party breached, it was not entitled to enforcement. Justice Thomas asked whether the resident’s position was limited to purported breaches which make the unit uninhabitable. Counsel responded that the Appellate Court had not limited the holding that much; any material breach could be raised as a defense to the action, just the same as any other contract. Justice Thomas asked whether, if the Appellate Court had tossed the defenses but severed and preserved the counterclaim, the possession action would have been stayed while the counterclaim was tried. Counsel responded that the resident would have been forced to pay while pursuing her remedy.  Justice Thomas wondered whether it was practical to slow down Forcible Entry actions with such issues, given the number of such actions there are. Counsel responded that the only issue would be breach of contract, and the proof should take no more than a day or two. Besides, if the Association obtained a finding of no breach in the Forcible Detainer Act lawsuit in connection with the resident’s defenses, the separate counterclaim would be cut off, thus saving judicial resources. Counsel concluded by arguing that the Appellate Court’s holding promotes performance and mutuality, and is consistent with the general Illinois law of contract.

Counsel for the Board argued in rebuttal that both the declaration and articles, and indeed, the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act remedy itself were designed for the benefit of all owners. Counsel repeated the point that the resident’s proposed result would amount to withholding the funds needed for necessary repairs and other aspects of the Association’s operations. Counsel argued that there was no incentive for board members not to make repairs, since they were owners too, and thus investors in the building. Counsel argued that the Forcible Entry and Detainer claim didn’t divest fee simple ownership from the owner, merely possession. In closing, counsel argued that even a meritorious defense couldn’t be permitted to imperil the functioning of the entire Association.

We expect a decision in Spanish Court within two to four months.

Last week, the Illinois Supreme Court seemed poised to reject an expansive interpretation of the "traveling employee" exception to the "going and coming" rule, which holds that employees injured during their commute to work are not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for their injuries. The argument was in Venture-Newberg Perini Stone & Webster v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. Our detailed summary of the underlying facts and Commission and Appellate Court decision is here. Our preview of the argument is here.

The employer in Venture-Newberg was a contractor hired to do maintenance and repair work at a nuclear plant in Cordova, Illinois. The union local for Cordova was unable to fill all the available jobs, so the openings were posted in other union halls, including the claimant’s union hall in Springfield. The claimant bid on the job and was hired. But Cordova is 200 miles from Springfield; the claimant concluded that commuting was impractical, and besides, he would be unable to be available for on-call emergencies, as he believed the employer wanted. So he found lodging about thirty miles from Cordova for the few weeks’ duration of the job. The claimant was injured one morning traveling from his lodging to the plant. The Commission found that the course or method of travel was determined by the exigencies of the job rather than the personal preference, and that the claimant was essentially traveling on business, satisfying the "traveling employee" exception to the "going and coming" rule. The Circuit Court reversed, but the Appellate Court reversed the trial court.

Counsel for the employer began the argument. He argued that the claimant was not entitled to coverage for a long list of reasons: (1) he had no exclusive or continuous relationship with the company; (2) he was hired through union referrals for a series of short engagements; (3) the claimant couldn’t accept the job if positions were available in his local’s territory, and he was not required to accept work outside the area; (4) the employer hired the claimant through union referrals; (5) the claimant chose to live where he did, rather than being required to by the employer; (6) the employer did not pay for the claimant’s travel or lodging, or make his lodging arrangements; (7) the claimant was not definitively hired until he passed background checks and drug testing; (8) the claimant was not on call when he was injured; and (9) the claimant was hired for employment at only one location and paid only from clock-in to clock-out. The facts and circumstances didn’t fit any other traveling employee case, counsel argued. Justice Theis asked whether it changed the analysis that the employer had had to recruit outside its area. Counsel argued that "recruit" was a loaded term, and that the claimant hadn’t been recruited more than any other local member. Justice Garman asked whether the "traveling employee" determination was a finding of fact entitled to the Court’s deference, and counsel responded that in fact, it was a finding of law — the facts were undisputed. Justice Burke pointed out that the employer had premises in Wilmington, and the Cordova plant was a job site. Counsel responded that the claimant wasn’t hired in Wilmington, so the plant was irrelevant. Reviewing the traveling employee cases, counsel pointed out that the claimant had never had to travel away from a single location. Chief Justice Kilbride asked whether it was important that the claimant had been employed by the employer four different times for brief stints. Counsel argued that he was not a "traveling employee" at any location.

Counsel for the appellee argued that the Appellate Court decision did not expand the traveling employee exception. Counsel pointed out that the decision was based on two exceptions, both of which focus on the demands of the claimant’s employment, not the instructions of the employer. Justice Burke suggested that both require employer control of travel, but counsel disagreed, arguing that if instructions were the crucial issue, employers would avoid the exception simply by never directing temporary employees where to live. Justice Garman asked what the difference was between the claimant and other employees coming and going to work. Counsel argued that traveling out of town was inherently different, carrying a different level of risk. Justice Garman asked whether that meant anybody who travels to work is a traveling employee, and counsel responded that it depended on the facts and circumstances. Justice Thomas asked whether a traveling employee wasn’t traditionally one traveling away from an employer’s premises. Counsel responded that the Cordova plant was not the employer’s premises. Justice Karmeier asked whether counsel’s argument meant that when a contractor hired short-term employees to work at a job site, whether in construction or anything else, they were all traveling employees. Counsel responded that it depended on the particular facts – whether the exigencies of the assignment required travel. Justice Freeman asked whether the parties’ disagreement was on facts or permissible inferences, and counsel responded that there were disputes of fact. Justice Karmeier asked whether it was fair to say that there was no dispute that the employer hadn’t required the claimant to stay anyplace in particular. Counsel responded that while the employer hadn’t directly directed the claimant where to stay, he had testified that it was his understanding that the employer preferred its employees to be nearby. Chief Justice Kilbride asked whether the record suggested that employees were expected to be reasonably close so as to respond to on-call emergencies. Counsel agreed that the record reflected that.

On rebuttal, counsel argued that the claimant was not on call the morning of the accident, nor was there any emergency. The Commission’s decision was unreasonable, counsel argued, and an unjustified expansion of the traveling employee exception.

We expect Venture-Newberg to be decided in two to four months.