at it now here we get into the esoterica especially for someone like myself who doesn't have really a science or chemistry background of solvents and so we we have stipulated facts which do it address all  one what solvents or and solvents just to get to the basics or things like water paint thinner anything that takes another device and and dilutes it and so when you think of a solvent it's somewhat of a unique entity it's obviously a liquid interacts with other things it's typically used in cleaning i think maybe of dish detergent which is something you know that i deal with in my home but in any event safety clean systems inc has these machines that clean parts and the cleaning is done with the use of savants in the solvents removed from the parts let's say it's a place you for a car the grind the d chemicals and at some point the the the property really gets transformed because the solvent takes on all this gunk and i don't want to get too graphic but it's pretty disgusting and it's really gets to the point of a hazardous waste and it gets to the point where the solvent really isn't a solvent anymore so it's kind of a transforming process as we described in the affidavit so safety clean buys outside of the state solvents they bring those in they get a use tax exemption they store them they combine them with other solvents and then they take the solvents out of state now the the state is arguing that because these used or what else refer to as consumed a solvents are brought back in for recycling and reprocessing that the temper storage exemption is lost because they say that it's all one product and that the the property in the product or one in the same and the problem with the case is that the affidavit if the if the justice judges review that carefully just doesn't support that it doesn't support it let me just review very quickly some of the things in the affidavit that i think are important i mean there's a discussion of what you solvent is a version solvent recycled solvent in the affidavit and you'll see that those things are much different things from a chemical physical legal standpoint in fact that the st into the what's been referred to as virgin solvent or the it's also referred to as recycled solvent and you know you could you could i suppose go with the idea of the water table well water comes in it rain i drink it it goes into the waste stream and that water water never never you know that's a molecule of water of water we're going to we're going to follow it forever that isn't that isn't a reasonable construction and that's almost what they're trying to do here well trust here you know the case and well then wishy overstate but well i hopefully it's helpful to complement the court when i when i can doesn't or thought the problem there is you had these mobile medical devices and they went out of state and they came back then there was no change to the mobile medical device and it was a very simple case you can only use the item once if you use it you know use it by pouring it in you take it out bring it back in you lose exemption i understand the logic of that opinion nowhere in that opinion was there any issue about something much different in other words a mobile medical device doesn't really get transformed you know i suppose you could take all the parts of the mobile medical device apart you could you could melt all the parts down you could recycle them at all and you might have not really an analogous situation but you'd have something that would be an issue but here that wasn't involved here we have completely different property and completely different products that are in illinois that are then sent out of state that that data is used that's consumed that's transformed into a completely different property and product and then it's brought back in transformed again to another completely different property and product in the chemical legal physical status of these products is much much different according to the stipulation of the parties and there are eight you know there are eight different areas of which there are different and i can i can you know pontificated but in fact when the the used solvent comes back it has to go through a process of fractional distillation and that's really a processing remains actually process now i also want to focus quickly on the language of the exemption the temper storage exemption which is of course very important that the language i believe contemplates a distinction between a product in a new product because and this is this is reproduced i think on page three of a incorporated or attached to other tangible personal property and that that's different than the property but then it goes on and talks about property that is alter altered and then it gives examples by converting fabricating manufacturing printing processing so in my mind the legislature in the wording of this statute talks about property and then other property and altering the property so that states idea and the tax tribunals judges idea of well the static property that we have to trace through kind of like my water cycle example i don't think that works i'll see if that makes any sense and so there's not a really a textual basis for that at all now this is maybe you know unusual case because we're dealing with solvents and we're dealing with a complete transformation of this and if you look at the facts of this case it's much different than a case for example let me give you some examples of easy cases let's say you had a title the tire leaves the state the targets put on a car the car comes back in well is the tire coming back in just qualifying the term for stores exemption i think there's an argument probably that it does because the target really change it got attached to the car you might say well because it was attached to the car we're going to allow it to come back in and still claim the temper store's exemption so those kind of issues are going to be there i suppose let's say on the mobile medical devices what if there was a part that broke ok so they says well the mobile medical device came in but we change the light bulb i mean i think we can definitely see some of those cases where there's not really a transformation of the item like you have here you know if there's a difference between you that i saw a really good argument that the return you solve that you that you could separate out the time that the return you saw was in illinois and that's of so actually different than the virgin solvent so storing they at would be that amount of i would agree with you with what you're saying completely i think he was out in the argue that well i think what we're arguing is that the used solvent which is what's brought in which which is really should be the focus that's much different product then the that was created in illinois and so the use text doesn't even apply to the recycled soul remember the used car so we applies to something you buy or or a car out of state and bring it in so i would argue and i think the facts support this that the the the recycled solvent is created is a new product created by safety clean in their illinois facility that's not subject to use tax that's not that's that's different so i i guess i disagree with the idea that mixing these things together is problematic i don't i don't think that's true because the product that's brought in is the use although it's a new product it gets its own temporary storage exemption but it's brought in from another cd and storytelling and that's allowed because you have a product that you acquire other state which is a new product we argue because it's not the same product i just wanted to say and nd you have to differentiate them well think about how it comes back the nd time though it  comes back after it's mixed with a version solvent that then that mixture that goes out of state and it's completely transformed again into a new product and con's vacuum and so i don't think that the the limitation on temper storage exemption ever occurs because you have a new product it's like hey you make we make newberg bread at the bakery every day right i mean it's not snot exactly the same thing but i mean you're making you're creating you know new things in illinois you're creating new things outside of the state and you never really have a problem that you had in the in the other case that you know what the taxpayer was that's that's my view of it and there's such a fundamental difference between the use solvent and the version sol recycled solvent and creating recycled solvent if you saw them is not a taxable activity there is no use tax or political something you create in the state so i don't really think there's a problem at all with with with with recycling plant because the use solvent goes to the recycling plant and that is then transformed into a basically new product which is recycled solvent and that was cycled solvent is what is next with virgin sulphur you don't mix the use solvent with  and there's a step in between which is really important and the process by which that is all occurring is called fractional distillation paragraph thirty one of the stipulation goes into that that's a very fundamental transfer calculated like that i believe it's eight thousand four hundred and eighty percent in stipulation but there's a large percentage of this that is purchased goes back comes back and there's there's never any tax is going to be due and we've got a percentage  simulate to between the parties by the way that would be the appropriate percentage so i think the stipulation really obviates this concern because we have a percentage that's been agreed to of that you know that the true taxable percentage because some of this is us detroit ever goes outside of state so i don't really think that your question needs to be addressed because of the parties have stipulated on that on that amount does that make sense and we also have a case a call with all the american distilling case which whiskey barrels and admit i've been i don't know much about making whiskey or drinking it but the whisky barrels were deemed by the court to the new product these of the the whiskey barrel because of the interaction with the bourbon with the whiskey barrel and so i think this is actually a fairly easy case just in terms of the way the statutes worded where it contemplates product new products modify product i think that shows an intent not to take the static approach talking about any kind of gets confusing maybe some diagrams were would have helped in hindsight but you've got you know that that version solving you got that that you solvent which is really consumed solvent which is you know hazardous waste and the amount of processing a transformation has to occur is really unique in the case of solvents now you could talk about milk bottles for example you know milk bottles get made into you know children's play things or whatever made out of plastic and then those end up getting you know destroyed and recycled again and then those end up as milk bottles again i don't think we would say well the milk bottles got made into the children's you know toy sat and then somehow they ended up as and as no balls again when we're doing through all of these processes of industrial plastic recycling i just don't think that that makes sense to do that in those kinds of situations you know think about paper right and start to use paper you can take a newspaper maybe figure out how to make it into roof shingles or cardboard boxes you know they're doing all kinds of things with recycling so then maybe that ends up at the end of the day ends up back in newspapers and i don't think the legislature really suggested that the department of revenue needed to be tracing molecules of water or newspapers you know i just don't really think that that's the intent of the statute and i don't think you're undermining your earlier decision at all all right green with a track spear i don't think history says a lot of revenue i was looking for their name or may it please the court take you clean has not carried its heavy burden to show that it is exempt from paying a one time tax on salvage that it uses in illinois and illinois taxation is the rule and exemptions are to be narrowly construed the use tax is a sales tax on tangible personal property that is used in illinois regardless of whether that property is purchased in illinois or outside of illinois and this tax is critical for the state to raise revenue and it prevents individuals from avoiding the sales tax by going out of state to make their purchases it also protects illinois retailers who lose business to out of state vendors who charge less of a sales tax or no tax at all it is a one time tax that applies at the time of purchase and it confers the privilege of unlimited use of that product at illinois illinois general assembly has recognized a few limited exemptions to this tax including the temporary storage exception and while my colleague said that this could be an exemption are an exclusion depending on how you look at it that is simply not state and then temporarily stored in illinois and safety clean does not dispute that the solvents can only be used once in illinois but safety claim contends that once this clean or version solvent is taken from illinois shipped to other states in used and becomes dirty it is an entirely different product for purposes of taxation that is part of its business operations safety clean provides the service to its customers where it takes  from illinois it's used in other states it's brought back to illinois cleaned and then used again for the exact same purpose in safety clean repeats this process again and again until it can no longer extract and you value from the s that's the type of activity to which the hughes tax applies safety clean as it is a feeling of self of the privilege of using the solvent in illinois it's essentially treating illinois as a home base for its operations so this is not what opposing counsel suggested were trying to track a molecule as it goes throughout the states and transforms into different things instead the solvent is starting to be stored in known oil it goes to other states and then it keeps coming back to illinois as part of safety cleans operations and it's safety clean wishes to avoid paying any tax at all on this it has to prove that an exception applies but as this court noted in shared imaging the plain text of the temporary storage exemption requires that the property be used solely outside of illinois after it's stored period no limitation and so the square in shared imaging rejected the plaintiff's arguments about how it limitation we did stipulate that there are differences in the solve it between when it is clean and what is dirty and those differences might be important for purposes of environmental considerations such as how that solvent is transported but they do not change the analysis for purposes of taxation because at the end of the day notwithstanding these differences safety clean is able to reuse that solvent for the same purpose so trying to have it both ways here on the one hand by recycling the settlement safety clean does not have to purchase as much additional virgin settlement to supply to its customers but on the other hand it doesn't want to pay any tax at all on the solvent so it says that  is used or becomes dirty it is entirely different product and so it shouldn't have to be a tax but that simply does not hold up safety clean as a trying to read into the statute or requirement that does not exist the statute doesn't say anything about the property being in the same form when it comes back to illinois and as my colleague pointed out the statute does contemplate that the property might be entered but then the statute says that as our tour of the property cannot come american distilling actually weighs against their arguments there after the barrels were used to create whiskey it was illegal to ever use the barrels for the same purpose again here safety clean is capitalizing on the the solvent again and again for the same purpose and as this court noted in american distilling taxability often turns the purpose to which the properties being cut so although the undergo some changes when it becomes dirty at the end of the day it is being used for the same purpose so this is a very different case than american distilling safety clean it must pay tax on its purchase of virgin solve because that solvent at the end of the day is part of this route especially it starts in illinois goes back to other states that comes back to illinois is ready for another use and then goes back to states again as a safety clean has to pay a tax safety clean it contends that segment isn't a solvent anymore once it becomes dirty but this simply does not hold up and the record at page eighty three dollars footnote one the party stipulated here that what happens when solvent is mixed with dirt is that it's creating a solution mush like when water is mixed with salt it creates salt water would contend that water is no longer water because it is mixed with salt by the same analogy solvent is still solvent when mixed with dirt but in order to reuse it again and to capitalize on the solvent safety clean has to clean the solvent by among other things heating it to remove the dirt but this does not change the fact that the solvent is still solvent my colleague and arguments raised some other examples for instance when turned into tori's and back into bottles but this is simply not that type of case the solvent isn't being turned into a product that is used for some other purpose the salt was just simply used and it becomes dirty and sick to clean clean say and it uses it again and it is free to do so but doing so it is using the solvent in illinois and so it should have to pay a tax and in illinois because taxation is the rule to the extent that this court has any concerns or doubts and questions must be resolved in favor of taxation and an argument here that the statute is ambiguous they haven't established him acuity so we don't think the idea of strict construction of exemptions comes into play and that's what we argue in our brief we also argue that they don't have a regulation that they promulgated on this issue if they had a product they had a regulation maybe you would give some deference to the regulation this is really an ad hoc interpretation of this that we think will be needed for the st time on audit so it's not really a situation where in other property and property being modified and the modification that occurred here the processing that occurred here occurred out of state and so the whole point of the exemption is to say in state activities qualify for the temper stores exemption as long as you don't repeat the same in state activities with the same property here i think we've shown in that stipulation that you had different property or different products that were created out of state so you know if you have a different product created out of state and you bring it back in it gets true it is a new product in fact the the the tax truck you know even made that point and the tax tribunal says in your opinion there situations where things can be so transformed out of state where they qualify for a new tempers towards exemption well the problem is if this doesn't qualify as a transformation and doesn't get a new temper stores exemption i'm not sure you would really ever have that occur i mean this is such a clear cut case and i think that my posing counsel tends to under play the facts because the facts show that this has turned into from a solvent into something that's ha this that the parties have stipulated it can't be used for cleaning and it's so gumped up with waste that it's really not functioning as a solvent i don't agree that you would think of this is a solvent you would think of this is another really another  product and it has much different characteristics chemical composition is regulated differently i mean we point out a differences in the stipulation so i don't agree that you should just look at this is one product in the same now probably the biggest thing i want to talk about a suggestion that the intent of this is to prevent tax avoidance and somehow my client is going to get out of not paying tax on this i disagree if you look at the text of the provision it starts out with these words to prevent actual or likely multi state taxation the reason for that have restores exemptions pretty obvious if they're sending these things to other states those other states are taxing or can tax or should be taxing it because the other state's going to say you broke the solvent and you brought this this virgin solving or recycle solvent time and time again into this state it was used to clean it was just it was used up we get to tax it and so if anybody should be taxing it it should be taxed where it's being used in the whole idea of a temporary stores exemption is to encourage companies so based operation in illinois and base their operations here and as long as the products are being used out of the state then that's why you have a temporary stores exemption otherwise you have a very hostile business climate created because companies are saying why should we base our activities in illinois we're going to get used techs were we would get in other places and other states have every ability to tax  the solvent when it's when it's used in these other states and so i really think it's not a good argument for them to say oh gee there's some tax avoidance going on here no this is exactly why there's a temper stores exemption because new facture base their operations here or service provider base offer a sions and they want to be able to operate out of illinois who's illinois a base and you know illinois gets jobs in economic development and i think that's all for sleep good and these other states have every ability to tax to impose use tax on these things when they're brought into the other states so you're going to have the problem of duplicative taxation if it department can suddenly say we're just going to treat this is all one product we're going to ignore all the facts here well then what happens when the other states say look we're taxing you too you know then then and i hate to say it only gets a really bad reputation in the business community for just tick egregiously creating double taxation and i think that's really you know what what the focus of this should be i don't have any other comments i think the case is very well briefed i'm sure you're very familiar with their earlier case and so if there's any questions you have or any information i provide out otherwise i'll sit down