facility in units they're not called apartments itself it's a up i want to call a co operative i know people will argue about what that means but basically it's a facility where people pay monthly assessments in reside in the facility in and under the light care facilities at our organization the the company must provide certain types of benefits for those that are there are in good the type of has provided a particular set of benefits through of life care facilities and one of the things that one finds the property quote is right to apply for a senior homestead exemption and  allow the exemption for the homestead exemption he was looking at at two thousand one step toward change that had occurred ob it in the change was not in the body oh fifteen one seven fatah that's legislators explained to make sure that seniors were able to get the homestead exemption when they're in a life care facility or one city find reference of a provision of one seventy that existed when it was first put in place but w changed by the two thousand and one law has a two thousand one law change particular provision that said of must be considered to be a co op under one seventy in the one seventy five  vision is said alleged care facility that of what is considered to be a co op under once one seventy with then you can do some other things be entitled to the exemption so off when one look at the one seventy section after the two thousand and one option inches that exact wording was taken out however when one reads one seventy it's very clear that refight refers to the life care facility  seventy five i want to say i that's the actual lousy assessor each year to determine whether residential homes that exemptions in which is this is one seventy five that's what the section is are going to be allowed and so each going to od decide whether or not to grant them the point of view isn't really in a position to interpret statutes it usually is probably about certain certain provisions and this was coming down to of you know a under one of the exceptions to exhaustion of the ministry of review is when some action is done on authorized by law so when someone takes one of government entered takes on a of an action that isn't within his authority or her homestead exemption the statute defines what a lead care facility is our facility me said definition and the fact that they're going to change in within the wording with regard to section one seventy odd in two thousand and one a dozen years before is is something where we thought we believed that that was actions authorized by law and allows a simple declaratory action to declare those actions to be beyond proceed in the court house rather than through the administrative process was with regard to exhaustion of the ministry of remedies and the fact that something is an authorized by law so i know that this you know of a tough area  when one is facing an issue where exemptions have been removed i'm not sure that particularly applies but the case law that talks about section twenty five on the property code does talk about and i think the case that we would point to is carol brazil my department of revenue meaning six eleven third twenty nine which speaks about that kind of accession and you know  i can't really say too much more i mean that's for me this is not a very complicated issue with regard to that particular aspect but i would certainly be willing to answer any further questions on that that would be very cool target interpreted section fifty one seventy five i think one has to ruled on this case he went down to the other section and he talked about whether or not the residents have to be title holders of real estate which is up at the bottom part of that of they have to keep their one seventy five section and when one reads it it does talk about ownership in the apartment building the court change that to the premises and i think when one reads that it's pretty clear that it's interspersing that of the two types of with when the court got to looking at that section it confused the fact that the residence would have to be almost all of the apartment building because those apartment buildings are co ops there where people are actually owners is what the section is allowing not not apartment dwellers in so i think this section is clearly about the owners having to be about the residents had to be owners it's clearly related to a private buildings and not the right care facilities because when you make it clear that tool will provide those residents don't have the title for shit and that's really what the court found it changed the word a problem bill the two premises and i think that that certainly was  seventy three and specifically said that out and then goes on to say that it was viable by contract with the owner or the owners for pain the property taxes on the property and is an owner of record  in chicago there were recorded interests of people and there's a whole type of ownership today mostly condos but you know i can't say that there aren't some throughout the state there are apartment buildings that would meet this but it's not you know typically apartment buildings people don't myself with respect to the homestead exemptions with that statute says with respect to non state exemptions that can be reviewed by the department of revenue and that if the party doesn't like that decision says that section doesn't apply to any of the exemptions wasn't in fifteen one sixty five through fifteen one eight and those numbers are the sections where the homestead exemptions are found but this isn't one of those cases that are meant to be within that exemption of the supreme court in the name park so that in trying an authorized by law charge arises where the taxing body has no statutory power to tax so you can't tax a license so therefore that i said that the law for most of all here for the reasons i stated before a property tax code provides a clear run in which is a tax grant or deny the exemption they're just saying that the assessor was wrong in denying it that's not going to invoke that exception to the jurisdiction issue i'd like to focus my time here on the merits of the statutory issue we believe that the trial court was correct i'm friendship manor and its residents don't qualify for the general homestead exception because the residents have no friendship manners are right residents are entitled to that exemption and that's where that is because in the statute itself in section one seventy governing the senior homestead exemption it says that li in if you don't have an ownership in section one seventy they said you get it if you don't have an ownership interest in section one seventy five which is the issue in this appeal they don't quantity built that's in the pre the entry section of the five so when they get down to the war a section talking about how to apply the exemption and say you have to be a resident who is liable for paying property taxes through contract with the record owner and an owner of a legal or you want interest in the cooperative apartment building what that's really that's winking it back to senior citizens exemption threat in two thousand and one it says the exemption applies to life care facility residents irrespective of an ownership interest section one seventy five which is the general homestead exemption which is at issue in the appeal does not say that and in fact it says that there is an ownership interest needed it doesn't have to be zero record ownership you know there's talk about walk principles on the statutory issue you have a court needs to be aware of the first is we're interpreting a property tax exemption statute the presumption is in favor of taxation and against finding an exemption air probably so that means that any ambiguity uses the quad city open case that means that any ambiguity in the statute has to be resolved against the applicant for the that purpose was not furthered by the argument friendship and manners advancing here because the residents undisputed through their contract with friendship manor they expressly disclaim  ownership interest and the ownership require meanest seen a hole through the property tax exemption statute not just the two sections that we've discussed here but if you look at section one seventy six should be any different honor but the general some police for whatever its reasons of this seemingly made a choice the senior citizens exemption which is the legislative history discussed our friendship manner when that was changed in two thousand one they said you can get your senior citizens exemption if you if you don't have an ownership interest they want section one seventy five which does require an ownership interest on was speaking about the authorized by law argument that we're making we're not talking about something the border refuted here we're talking about how the supervisor of assessment goes about awarding these olmstead exemptions he's the person who decided that for in friendship manor should not get this exemption he's the person who we believe acted on authorized by law because the statute is pretty particular it provides for life care facilities who enjoy these kinds of exemptions of course residence benefit because the stench of requires a dish the expense of them and that is actually also the purpose of the statute was to extend these exemptions to the seniors and people who no longer had an individual home but were also one and some were some clarifying language too to address the senior citizens homes that exemption what was added to one seventy because there have been some issues with regard to get this money which is taking them out in the middle of that really was nothing to really do with one seventy eight it doesn't really need to have that whopper to being definitional whopper to be in here but nothing bad in the statute that is what's now affecting section fifty one seventy and considered to be a quadrant co operative under section fifty one seventy i say that you know considered to be a quantity of under fifty one seventy i suppose they fifty one seventy  in that section so i think that one then looks at twenty three dead twenty five feet and if you've had an exemption in a previous year you are allowed to come to court but i also argue that you also have the right to come to court under the grounds of of winning administrative review and not having to exhaust administrator remedies because the interpretation of the statute by this supervisor