it was created by defamation of trust thousand to the trust was funded through distribution of assets from a separate trust of the p g linda trust which was one of twenty trust created by the grant who are under a involves a single issue and the question here is whether the state may tax autonomy trust as an illinois writes and by that i mean or or what the state can do with autonomy trust is another going resident it may tax one hundred percent of autonomy trust income regardless of where it's earned so problem why it may tax one hundred percent of autonomy trust worldwide and on the other hand of autonomy trust is not resident trust now what the state does is it imposes its taxed on illinois resident trust us only or in this case only on the basis of the grand tour who died in one nine hundred eighty six was it only a resident the state is asking this court to do this or to uphold the imposition of the tax in the absence of any contemporaneous connections between the state and the trust and any contemporaneous benefits or protections afforded to the trust by the state what do i mean by contemporaneous connections in this particular case during the two thousand tax year excuse me two thousand and six teacher autonomy trusts sole trustee was a tech services who administered the trust from his sole office in houston texas the trusts only get income was income beneficiary was a montana resident the trust contingent remainder meant the beneficiaries children were all residents of states other than the state of illinois the trust had no  benefits were texans i mean that in two thousand and six just like in every year from the date of its creation how annoying to not provide anything to this trust for which you can ask to return it was texas not the state of illinois provided the trust with all the benefits of a civilized society such as policing for fire protection and utility in transportation systems and educated workforce the maintenance of an economic marketplace and the protection of the state's laws first to support taxation under the due process clause there is a requirement of a definite link or minimum connection between the taxing state and the person the property or the transaction  tax payer and the state that's in seeking to impose its tax and i would suggest that standard is somewhat higher than the due process clause minimum connection the state or state of illinois residency civic correct yes that is incorrect why because the trust no longer has any context this trust was created as a texas trust in two thousand and two pursuant to the trustees power to distribute assets to a new trust or to the beneficiary directly they chose to distribute the assets to a new trust to a texas trustee who resides in texas administers the trust from texas there are no other contacts with the s we were concerned about potential publicity this case with attract because of the people and so what where is it written so that when your clients seek the protections of the public institutions otherwise known as courts that they can do so under seal i would suggest to you at least in my view that the right to privacy may court declined to continue to be the protective order in place so be it but this is a tax case and i'm not sure that that issue should impact the outcome of this because i'm not suggesting it would i just want to express my there be a substantial nexus between the taxpayer and the state and i would also suggest it's a somewhat higher standard than the minimum context required under the due process clause and the tax must be fairly related to the services provided by texas created their trustee in texas so i believe it's because the statutory definition of a resident trust it defines a resident trust as a trust that's created by illinois grant or it becomes irrevocable at the time he creates the trust and i think that's the question that we have to deal with here what what happened between two thousand and two with two thousand and six of south that that there was no i absolutely i would suggest that there was no action why there was no action between two thousand to two thousand and six i'm not sure i can answer that question i really don't know all i do know is that the facts with respect to the two thousand and six to two thousand season two thousand and two through two thousand anyway we believe that the state's attempt to tax autonomy trucks in the two thousand and six tax year and again it could tax autonomy trust in each year subsequent to two thousand and six so long as the trust exists but it violates both the process and the commerce clause of the us constitution first there is no connection between the trust as they've already indicated whether it be physical or economic there is no economic connection between this trust  no benefits or afforded any protections to autonomy trust during the two thousand and six tax year or for that matter to the trust beneficiary who is a montana resident of new york n trust or the beneficiary have availed itself of any of these benefits or protections really this problem is that we process test and the how much trust has considers taxation as a price to be paid for the enjoyment of a civilized society and the maintenance of an economic environment in which the trust earns income and that just isn't occurring here simply stated i would suggest that the trust has not given anything excuse me the state has not given anything here for which you can ask to return a couple of examples which might indicate a good sense of these requirements let's look at the corporate setting for a moment let's assume we have a corporation created  that was conducted in illinois prior to the creation of this new and a second example might be somewhat more understanding to all of us and i'll use myself as an example  my wife and i are dumb sillars residents of the state of illinois our daughter was born in the state of illinois she resided here until you can track of which laughter but she has relocated to san francisco become a resident and done the sillier the state of california no one would suggest that the state of illinois would have the right to continue to tax her on any income she earned or have the income from any assets that she may have accumulated in the only way while she was down the silly area trust and in fact the trust instrument itself governing autonomy trust has its own choice of law provision and it's texas it's not illinois just let me ask you about the texas court judge said it would become which clarified the generation skipping transfer issues and in that regulation it said that it would no longer issue liens on issues so that the ability to obtain a ruling was no longer in existence and the regulation itself us satisfied the concerns of the trustee concerning the generations giving tree so what the trustee did was to go back to the texas court and say the revenue service will have issue a ruling trust now in addition to mistakenly holding that all noise walk govern the autonomy trust the circuit court further erred as a matter of law in holding that a choice of operation can create the necessary contacts and necessary minimum contests to create taxing jurisdiction under the due process clause and the substantial nexus prong of the complete auto transit test for commerce clause purposes we know of no case in the state cites to no case that holds  instead the state refers to historical connections either between the grand tours family in the state or between the p g linda trust in the state and all of which predate the creation of the trust in the state's view these connections establish some kind of unbreakable bond between autonomy trust and the state that allows a state to treat autonomy trust as if it were no more resident during two thousand and six let me get into the seventy so in court reformation proceedings i think that's the important factor here the state incorrectly argues that autonomy trust owes its very existence to the illinois courts one nine hundred seventy seven decision first of all it's wrong for the simple reason that what happened in one nine hundred seventy seven is not contemporaneous with anything that occurred in one thousand six and cannot serve as a basis for closing tax in jurisdiction in two thousand sakit it is not true that the seventy seven proceeding created or validated the powers that were exercise in creating autonomy trust those powers were in the nine hundred sixty one trust agreement they were granted by the they actually had the power in two thousand and two i guess to distribute certain assets from that trust the trustees did have the power in two thousand and two to distribute d after quill and the new york case mercantile safe deposit are no longer with law doesn't really change the landscape as the state suggests with respect to trust taxation all the court did was to recognize it in addition to physical presence an economic presence could satisfy the minimum contacts requirement of the process because the benefits and protections afforded to a taxpayer who purposely directs its activities to the residents of taxing state court did was to eat passengers stiction to persons jurisdiction and really what the court said with respect to personal jurisdiction that comes from the international shu case is that will talk in terms of a taxpayer if a taxpayer purposely directs its activities toward the foreign state where the marketing state or the residence of the state and takes advantage of its marketplace that will confer personal jurisdiction and then what the court does is draw it draws an analogy between personal jurisdiction and taxing touristic and basically says if there isn't personal jurisdiction there can be no mentioned mr berkus i literally do not recall the request ever before being made in twenty five years much less granted in i want to make sure that the attorney general's office some would say is there's no precedent for this really have brought this case i think it's fair to say if we were back in the year two thousand real or not long after or time we came into existence by virtue of any particulars that rancher and the transfer of over a million dollars cash and stock shares it around two thousand and two from what the texas court called the predecessor ph d trust so this court really comes this case comes to this court for two reasons first mr pritzker is deceased and receives creation of autonomy you just have contemporaneous physical presence in illinois to be sure and the twenty six tax year comes four years after the creation of autonomy but neither of those exist but for a series of events protections and benefits that occurred between one nine hundred sixty one and two thousand and four and we highlighted seven in our brief and i would like to talk itself which is in the records is fifty fifty pages it just seems to me usual to characterize that decision as an advisory opinion and it was because beyond that the one nine hundred seventy seven a texas trust the houston trustee lives and breathes air and houston might use their fire services i think that would be the surprise not not that he was subject to the ongoing jurisdiction  the beneficiaries and they made a decision to create a new trust which has some connection to the state of texas and apparently has some connection to a state of mind  for aspect of that case makes clear that it's the benefits and protection that's in your to the trust that makes the taxation based on either the grant for beneficiary and we just had a fanatical ranch where there would be no doubt that taxation of income on that trust would be sister with due process under the statute yeah immortal but they're not even corporations or in the purpose of and the trust doesn't die when the branch work that is the very purpose is to enable the distribution of assets cross generation maybe she was created here this idea across the street i'm reasonably sure that someone will take up the idea that nonresidents can be taxed because they would not exist but for the fact that they were all these connections that the state curves to the connections between and could screw the grant who are in the state his family in the state and the twenty trusts that were created under the one nine hundred sixty one trust agreement are histor connections they don't satisfy the contemporaneous requirements of the process cause there is no connection between what occurred prior to two thousand and two date on which the time you trust was created and what happened once autonomy trust is created that connection those historical connections have no relevancy whatsoever to autonomy trust autonomy trust is a separate trust it has separate trustees two terms of the agreement are different or the provisions of the agreement are different the choice of laugher vision each trust is different the trustees and minister autonomy trustees is ministered texas the p g linda trust and the other trusts or minister here in illinois historical connections play absolutely no role in the question of whether or not there are sufficient contacts or benefits or protections provided to autonomy trust in the two thousand and six tax year the state cites to the gavin in the chase trusts are created without court supervision there is no question about that the various cases that are cited by both the state and by us in the briefs are one thing in common with all of those states all those  there is always something else required in addition to the residency of the grand tour and then as you are the rez the presence of the trustee in the state or the presence of a non contingent beneficiary in the state if you look at each one of those factor that's required and that's what's missing here with respect to quell again all quit really did was to say that in addition to physical contacts economic context would be sufficient but the trust that we're talking about here autonomy trust it's economic contacts are with the state of texas they're not with the state of illinois that's where the business is conducted that's where it's at mr and as i indicated at the outset if this trust eleanor's source income it would be subject to tax on their income in the state of illinois and that is just not the case in the two thousand and six year or well i can address any other year in two thousand and six there is no only source of income conclusion i would suggest autonomy trust does not satisfy the minimum context test of the due process clause for the substantial nexus prong of the commerce clause i would also suggest that there are no benefits or protections afforded to either trust it's a term that the texas court used called a sub trust but it's not it's a new trust that was created pursuant to the power to distribute s s i would ask that for the attorney general at the same time it's not necessary to write that ruling as occurred it would be nice if the message went for that we do not view favorably the closing of court proceedings or the ceiling of documents your honor i get the