this case really boils down to a couple very very simple issues that all start with the municipal finance growth and the fact that the city has no civil finance issues does not give license to statutory to torture statutory interpretation for creative taxation in two thousand and one the paris wrote a memo to the city of chicago and they all know that the amusement tax ordinance cannot apply to the sale or transfer of p s l licenses for several reasons unfortunately the city then use that as an opportunity to in essence threaten the whole financing strong arm the bears and in the end and in fact attempt to have the bears the weight the half of prospective p s l purchasers and licensees according to the exclusive agency agreement that was entered between the chicago park district in the shadow and the bears the bears were to withhold and pay taxes including amusement taxes if left p s s were then sold to people across the country and the documents that were approved by the city and were issued as part of  license agreements and the rules and regulations governing p s l's simply reflected that in the event that attacks were levied it would be taken from monies already paid and there would not be a separate obligation for payment  and mission while it indicates that there was the possibility that certain taxes might be levied but certainly there was no actual notice to any of the purchasers at the time they purchased the  the issue of the refund class it deals with the issues of whether there is an equitable tolling of any statute of limitations argument that the city has advanced and also deals with in essence this entire scheme that the city hatched  in an effort to assess amusement taxes in contradiction to the plain language of the session we start with the fact that municipalities are creatures of the legislature and they're only authorized to do that which the legislature w the only constitution grants and the power to do and in this case the city lacks any home real authority to impose any of the taxes that it seeks to assess here there was a p b s the city specifically took the position that tickets were tangible crocker now in that case they were trying to avoid a different art but it's the seventh circuit noted in the stub decision before it was remanded to illinois supreme court for an advisory opinion on the issue the city in essence dug itself a hole by taking that position and it now wants to contrary position in these other amusement tax cases it can't do that it really sort of calls to mind the famous quote from justice knowles of the fourth district in department of transportation versus carla where justice no started out as opinion by saying the truth is not a weathervane it is not fear when the winds of self interest change that is precisely what the city is trying to do they're trying to take a statutory scheme of using tax ordinance which by its very words say that the tax may be assessed on the amount paid for the privilege to enter privilege to purchase particular seats every year it grants the right to a specific seat location which is standard season ticket does not grant yes and also gran right to transfer sell or bequeath the ticket rights or the ability to purchase at a location in the future to a third party which when they will things make it  personal property they ban it they do make it personal property they make it the contract itself is obviously tangible and for that reason it triggers the preemption statute a court following the mr b s opinion by the amusement tax statute that was passed by the only legislature and that statute specifically says that they can impose a tax on the seller of tickets while p s l purchasers and ticket itself season ticket holders don't have the right to guarantee a specific location within the state the p s l doesn't grant the right to enter and the season ticket doesn't grant any of the p s else in fact they're completely separate distinct him all these rights you have to buy both well it's interesting because the op p s l agreement itself does not obligate the person contractually to buy season tickets and weat national points out and this p s l point out is that if eight if a p s l owner fails to buy the season ticket on a given occasion the bears have the right but not the obligation to then sell that season ticket to another party but there's nothing in the contract that specifically obligates the p s l purchaser to purchase the season tickets that are simply doesn't exist now but they will purchase that they that was that was wrapped into the price that was charged and so therefore it since that tax was paid by in essence ate by the purchaser of the p s l albeit of knowingly and without any notice of any subsequent bears would be using funds were emitted by the p s l purchasers they were simply on to a message wish and essence they were out debating this issue with the city of chicago at that time one of the things that i think is important to note here is that when the city wants to talk about specific seats which by the way that language is nowhere in the courts nowhere in the ordinance i'm using taxes  can't average and subtract words and that's precisely what the city is attempting to do here but it's interesting to note that elsewhere in the amusement tax authorities when they talk about sky boxes and suites and things like that they specifically say that the city is not entitled to tax more than sixty percent of the cost of any of those quote special seating areas only thing that that the statute authorizes a municipality that is the entry into the areas and so i think we need to look at both of those statutes sort of hand in hand  from that from that standpoint shadow health clubs case i think also provides strong guidance for this court in assessing this situation because the chicago cubs the city was faced with a similar problem in which it wanted to  the initiation fees membership fees and other ninety usent aspects of the use of a healthy racquetball club and in that case the supreme court specifically constrained the analysis to looking at the specific terms of the question that we can expand or contract the scope of the language and that the city can't come up with host type justifications for how it wants to interpret that language and that case the city issued a revenue amount paid for the privilege to enter or view the amusement and given the fact that the p s l the name change the words you said the total amount paid not when the language is the admission fees or other charges you just inserted etc and the point is that the p s l agreement specifically says that it doesn't confer the right to enter any the p s l agreement was reviewed and approved by the city the exclusive agency agreement was reviewed and approved by the city all that goes to show dead they knew going in that there was that the purpose of the p s l was not to provide entry but it was for these other things it was the transfer ability it was the ability to sell those things because as a normal season ticket holder quote on quote some of them just not on a p s l they have no right to sell their season ticket to another person from year to year they have no guarantee they're going to be in the same location in fact they don't even have a guarantee that their seats are going to be renewed from here but all that is subject to the sole discretion and license by the bears the p s fine art respectfully i would suggest it was it was a ruling that was designed to reach a conclusion rather than a a path of logic that was  he granted the effects on both the original and that any subsequent resets correct that's correct let's let's talk about stitching the limitations as far as going back cannot apply properly where there is no notice there is no ability for somebody to even investigate or know what's going on in what in rely on several and i think if you look at all the cases in this area they really boil down to either sides of the same dichotomy but specifically really we rely and get out and the fact that there were insufficient facts in that situation and i would compare that with the city of kearney case the village a gurney case with great america and the fact that next case he amount of the tax was specifically printed on the face of the ticket and if the  notice that anyone was given that a tax was actually assessed with that the city was now attempting to assess it i'm subsequent transferees was in may two thousand and nine within a couple of days of when this case was filed challenging that practice that was the first time anyone was told that this transaction is subject to attack so i know what about the original  the price will level of giving somebody notice i will suggest death we look at the sort of the other side of the other rights of cases where court where this court and others have held that someone possessed sufficient knowledge i call the court's attention to the sundance case and to the opinion that you wrote justice mcbride in alvarez where in those situations you're looking at specific somebody had somebody wrote a chat they knew they wrote a check be a duplicate check a check for broken effie's a check for some other payment of taxes in all of those cases the common thread right through all of those cases is simply that somebody wrote a check and they knew at that time that a tax was being imposed on them and in those situations we had people who weighed it set back on their rates waited for another court and other point up another decision to be there's there's no such no facts in this record to suggest that any of the members of the plaintiff plastic anything like they were never told that it was actually being taxed they knew it they were they entered into a transaction to buy a p s l from the chicago fire district not the shadow bearers they were they were entering in a contract with a different entity and then the city goes and secretly collects this tax from the bears without anybody ever getting any not realities are that the bears were having this discussion back in two thousand and one before p s cells were offered for sale they were continuing to have this discussion with it with the bear with the city in two thousand and two and then into two thousand and three because the record reveals that the tax was not actually ate until sometime in late two thousand and three or two thousand or so there's a continuing dialogue that was taking place and so as a crew business people which i think we probably open the caskets are they went ahead and included that in whatever the price that was calculated in order to generate this money but it's important to remember that this that that money that was being paid for the p memo that shift part was sent to the bears in two thousand and one they specifically talk about the amount they needed to finance to in order to do the soldier field rather better vision the amount bed this tax would generate for them privilege of getting certain seats every year in a certain section they are also reimbursing the original p s l owner for the amount that right or she paid to the contribution should be the soldier field right of action that they're not be in there if you wish to go to the bears to buy the ticket that individual sells the p s l does not sell tickets they don't fall within the strict language of the statute that were authorized the imposition of an why would we just consider these particular tickets in a separate class as opposed to just general season tickets so for example if a pierce fan says i want section one forty road she'd see two that's the seat i want and the bear suit if you like to ticket you have to buy the tickets and you have to buy the p s l and so when the fan says ok and he puts down the ten grand i'm just wrong number on the ten grand for the p s l and he puts down the hundred dollars a game for the tickets why hasn't he paid ten thousand one hundred dollars for the right to view that amusement well because we're the ten thousand dollars is paid for the right to be able to keep sell reserve a specific seats going forward for the right to give to your kids your grandkids and so forth the right to sell them at large number and then of those it does state that the peers may consider it the ball but but the bears specifically identified this although it was not their purpose to create investment opportunities if it did any this and someone can buy a p s l can purchase those seats and sell them and never and sell off the seed stock up what have you any of those other resell vehicles and  take your tickets and give the stuff up i mean i don't think that that's wrong but it kind of cuts both ways because then it could be argued that it is definitely being used for the purpose of someone being able to enter and feel that i think that  ways but i think we need to go back to the original wording of the of the ordinance itself and say that is of all of your arguments the strongest one that the language of the statute itself does not the vision or the interpretation cannot be made the way the city itself yes i would protest for interpretation is wrong is the point of the actual ordinance as opposed to whether it's activation tax or whether it's personal property that home rule would determination and i would point out that the city's position on this issue is also been inconsistent contradictory because when we filed the first notice of appeal the city took the position that because their counter claim was still pending that somehow the notice of appeal was not yet right there had been a final decision and yet in the briefs that are now before the court they take the position that  judge white ruled on the motion to reconsider it in essence of disposed of all the issues that were pending including the city's counterclaim and therefore there was a final judgment really comes in the form of the chronology and we have two thousand and one memos back and forth to the city where the city where the bears are arguing that the transaction should not be taxable and they never price or offer for sell any of the transactions  or any of the p s l's until two thousand and two and two thousand and three so the time has actually hit the public why the bears clearly knew that they were in a debate with the city as to whether or not the city was going to attempt to impose it so your position would be that it certainly wouldn't be prudent on their part to not take into account the price of that they might get hit with this tax pro so that there in lies the plaintiff classes the damages correct but it can judge with effect that the ordinance specifically says that this is a texan the picture correct  the court the city's amusement tax helps pay for the substantial services that the city provides for the venues in chicago which sporting events and other amusement or else including police and fire protection agency response building inspection this morning i'll explain first that the city's taxation charges meet for p s l's for chicago bears games is lawful under both the city's amusement tax ordinance the ordinance specifies that it taxes all charges paid for the privileges for the privilege to enter the witness interview or to view or to participate in amusement within the city of course the most common charge made for the privilege to attend an amusement that is the face amount of a ticket to the event but the face amount of the ticket is not the only charge that the ordinance tax by its plain language the ordinance also privilege because you have to have a p s l to purchase a ticket so any amount that you pay for a p s l is fairly considered amount paid for the ticket itself it's in addition to the face amount of the tick it was brought up in the in the last presentation what if i was just an investor and i thought that p s all's we're going to you know the bears are going to do great and p s cells are going to go up and let's say that i bought the p s l but i never bought the tickets and i and i of people out there that would be entitled to exemption from the team it's far as we know there are absolutely no purchasers purchased p f sells and then have not separate apart from the ticket and that the p s l does not give you the privilege to view the view of the event and therefore doesn't fall under the order the p s l in combination with the purchase of the ticket doesn't give you the right to not aware so so are you saying now that if someone wants a p s f and then routinely buy the tickets every year up because they want to hold on to this thing for investment but they never view so you're saying now that this is not actually going there but just the privilege to be able to or something once a person actually has tickets in hand they act that there's no question but that they have  their general principle rebound that's correct and so how did we get to your position where i'm the one hand we are supposed to strictly construe this and you agree that p s l itself this license is not  payment for the privilege to enter or to witness or to view and yet you're you're joining these words he admission fees or other charges in here just let me put more or the fee the price of this ticket the fee that you pay to get in the door is what this statute is designed to x through no it's just both admission f see only if you paid the other charge which is yes that's correct that is that's absolutely correct and this is no different than any and then any other type of let's say a straight ticket transaction if you go to a  pick some seats are better than others you pay different amounts the amusement tax tax is the fair amount that you pay regardless of where you sit it is always tickets seat specific always the ordinates is always when when there are different prices for admission to the effect and there are some events that may not have different prices for admission but when there is in almost every event there are different prices for admission the ordinance taxes the full amount and no one has ever claimed that you can't tax you have to always tax them at the least expensive ticket that you can only cap but tax the amount that a least expensive ticket would allow you to tax no one's ever point you can't tax the most our sales of pick our sales of tangible personal property we don't have ticket resales in this case we have her permanent seat licenses and and the term itself licenses and clearly established law licenses are manageable personal property they may be embodied in a written contract i mean obviously any license it you've always got a piece of paper but feet but the gist of the transaction is not the piece of paper the gist of the transaction is the license and a license are legally established law is a is enjoyable property and so it's not subject to the  the eight the eleven day forty two dash five of the illinois municipal oh oh there's a lot of language of that stature he language in that in that statu and other exhibitions shows an amusement it doesn't say that it can only tax the sellers it says that it can it taxes those events though you obviously you never tax events you're either taxing the patrons for the event or you're taxing the sellers for the event because that statute does not specify whether you're taxing patrons or sellers i we wouldn't need that statute in this case in any of that we don't see because they'd be the tax is authorized independently by the home rule provision of the constitution they are to alternative  endeavors within their government affairs including the f up the pit confers the power to tax and there are it in this case through the history of this case plaintiffs have argued that the bears collected the tax in two thousand and two and two thousand and three that means that any claims for refunds had to be made one year after that something two thousand and three or two thousand and four but no claims that were ever made until this action was discovery but a mistake to discover the discovery under the discovery of the cause of action a cruise when a person knows or should know through reasonable investigation of the injury his wrongful causation the sales brochure that were given to every perspective purchaser of of p s l in two thousand and two and two thousand and might might be a levy on offer it doesn't have to would have to say will be the discovery rule doesn't require that kind of notice the discovery will only require that aid of a person  principles upholding including the discovery don't apply less that statute specifically says that those principles of the apply and of course the statute of limitations here the one year stat i guess to begin to let the the last point first the city just made a request of the court minus the the trial court to resolve the issues associated with their counter claim there's no cross appeal here there's no basis for the court to afford the relief that was just request the court asked a question a moment ago about the alvarez case and under our reading of alvarez the court was dealing in that situation the general says statutory statue of limitations under i believe thirteen deaths to a five five year general special potations of course general statute of statutes of limitation are always sub or people who just have no notice no facts never had to write the check themselves were never told that payment was made on the one hand and then we've got people who wrote checks the road builders the people who don't like paying impact fees but were aware of it from the what was contained in the ad and in the if they'll stop that says that there may be a tick imposed but it will be paid by the bearer of the inaccuracy is that none of the documents in this case there's no evidence in this record to show that anyone ever disclosed to prospective purchasers that a p s that a an amusement tax would be paid could might if maybe all those kind intended to i suppose cover the seller from those issues one of the other points that was made was whether or not there was any one of the other lessons whether that was any evidence in the record that somebody just would respectfully suggest that that is fundamentally unfair and under principles of equity that this court can apply the equitable tolling argument you're respective of whether this city chose to include that in this the language it's selected for its own statute in essence what we have here is a situation where it's fundamentally unfair we're not going to tell anybody that we're going to tax or that we did tax and never going to come back after the fact and say well there's no  tolling language in that one year and we waited until after the one year to tell you and therefore you're out of luck it's a heads i win tails you lose argument it simply conflicts with any sense of justice or or equity in this page one eighty four one of the names plaintiff class members is an individual who resided in california at the time he purchased the p s l i think that the fair inference from   they just told you here that mr pease is not it odds with the situation in their briefs they told you that mr abuse was wrongly decide they rely on the argument that a ticket is a license and therefore it is not tangible property but in mr b s they specifically argue that it was the way it was equation these were tickets were they they were not p s else that's correct ok so there is a distinction i mean the natural extension of that is that p s l must therefore be natural must be tangible personal property it's not at all the triggers is the lack of a home rule of already and the fact that they have to comply with the in the strictures of the amusement tax statute as prompted by the legislature that you agree on that if it's intangible that's certainly not the same as if it worked tangible so if there is a difference it makes difference in this case through well i think i think the the the salient point coming out of that is that mr dees that the courts rationale was that because they ticket seller in that case is one step removed from the amusement that therefore that creates a distinction in this case a p s l is it least one step removed from the  a specifically noted the inconsistency between mr b s and the positions that this that the city is now taking and i would i would also point separate bundle of rights separate in the state from the right to enter it's only been ticket that gets you in the door any further based on this would request that the court reversed and remanded the case and that that a finding you made that both original p s l sales and subsequent excellent in the case was argued very professionally and it's a interesting case and obviously we're not going to decide today will be taken under advisement but we thank you all i also thank all co