that the purchases of what are known as toads centrally containers used to ship all are from solomon colors plant in springfield illinois to its customers throughout the state of illinois the purchases of those posts are not subject pick illinois use tax on issues fairly straightforward the question is whether the purchases of the post by solomon were made with the intent to resell the coats and therefore not subject to use tax or rather the purchases of the coats were made with the intent to use consume other posters in the state of illinois and the subject used for certain a stipulation  entered into between the department of revenue and presented of of solid colors that the parties agreed to use certain evidence related to the question of the usage of the post not recreate the wheel as to the usage of the quote what is the purpose of the tops if it is true that the document that the primary i mean that we rely on was used in the two thousand to two the potential penalties for interest on that use tax that use tax have been paid they did it really stipulate to the fact that the toilets were subject to use tax they stipulated that these documents would be coloring inside of these toads to our customers and when it's cost feasible we take them back sometimes we discard them and leave them there and if you look at the department's regulation eighty six illinois minister code section one thirty the property issue which is the codes if the purpose is to deliver to the customers while retaining and reusing the containers or discarding the containers at the location of the customers those that have a property is for the purpose of use consumption and that's what mr krueger testified to sometimes we take the post back and we use it reuse them which is what document number ten attests to or sometimes we discard the totes at the location but if i buy something this cold and i rest during other liquids write or call or write so i will say on that on that one point one thing we would like to stress is that testimony also does contradict sahlins own documentary evidence and this is not a typical he said she said take the case where the trial court weigh which side to believe because the documentary evidence the big years i don't think the documentary referring to here's earlier but there was a stipulation that we would still use this document to determine th intention to use a recent post twenty six i think that shows that at the time solomon purchases these tolls and it doesn't intend to sell the tolls to any particular customer there's no evidence that the sale has been made there's nothing on the invoice that shows they would take it for what it's worth but there was there was no there was no evidence contradicting the fact that there was an agreement between the department and solemn callers that they exhibit one service evidence  agreement that we would use this document to determine usage of the toast and stalin did not put on any evidence to contradict that agreement so that agreement right isn't this stipulation doesn't have the facts saying this is admissible in this role correct it's not determined i mean there's what's so strange about one piece of evidence contradicting another piece right because if this isn't your typical he said she said where out what i understand now what we're doing is why there's a document from two keeps it and does it send it back why am i why am i not calling them up and then later when they call me up and say you know we really don't want to keep and if it comes back to me and i can reuse it that's a bit to my company that's a visit to our business but i have no particular expectation or will come back because it's a useful container right and or some people may object to paying a recycling fee and maybe some people that are close to my distribution point if they call and say pick these up i'll pick them up for free because yeah i transfer ownership of the toilets all possession of the toilets has been transferred i stuck by if i stop by jack yard that manufacturing facility and they're sitting out front and i pick them up i isn't i mean if they're discarded right nobody owns them and now point nobody owns them right nobody owns them so solid to stop it to the choice of the customer whether what they want to do with it that's not that's that's not purchasing post for the purpose of selling  and remember use tax does not apply here if solomon purchases the toilets with the intention of reselling it talks to its customers sama doesn't charge the customers anything for shipping the codes there's there's just insufficient evidence to show that there was an actual resale of the codes in mind when solomon purchased the post from the artist a purchaser grange some earlier time some earlier audit period there had been this document which was essentially some kind of costing document say how much does the total cost if we were able to reuse the key more is the key as i think mr by we just say it sounded to me as if he was saying his the only way that he could not find this to be a purchase for resale did the toe transfer in order shipped in conjunction with the sale of the product that it held in the trial court found that that's exactly what happened just like when you buy  as judge just disconnect said a gallon of paint our toner at a cartridge for a copy machine the sale of the container went with the sale of the product and as a result of that sale then the of the the the product in the container if purchased from granger plastics fact during the period god it would have been a sale for purchase for resale a purchase for use our consumption in the state of illinois i think you've already seized on the issue it really boils down to a pretty simple question if after selling the ok and in the entire evidence in the series of tips and pieces of that evidence that show the handling and the the the disposition of the code things with some of them they redeployed to some other use and put chemicals in them some of them ended up in landfills some of them ended up in australia never to be seen again and some of them ye it ownership transfer to you not only for the liquid inside coat but the toad itself and whether ninety percent came back or ten percent came back doesn't change that issue in terms of whether the ownership transfer and in terms of the return of the tote those that were returned as i indicated solomon colors couldn't for the purchaser and whether or not to landfill it whether he has to be dried out and what condition it has to be so it becomes kind of a two sided economic decision between the customer who's bought and tote full of color product and solvent colors as to whether or not they get together and say hey we've got to have teetotal over here you want to come pick it up and solvent colors on the other hand says for matter goodwill yes we'll be that will bring it back there's no guarantee the south colors when it gets that top back that it's going to be worth anything it's taking its its economic risk in making this the decision to send the truck out to pick it up transfer it to the purchaser then that's the end of the question the  and so it is designed to protect the seller where the department of revenue comes knocking etc why did you collect sales tax on the transaction that you made in selling these products or this th the solomon colors it doesn't affect solomon colors in that situation because it's the responsibility of the retailer to collect that tax and so the certificate if this had been an illinois sale you would have expected seller was not going to collect the tax that the remittance of the state of illinois that the seller would be there with the certificate and says here you've got to sell this otherwise i've got to collect sales tax from in this situation we don't even have an illinois seller we've got ohio seller and there's you know i don't know what the ohio sales tax law would require whether or not the ohio seller should have a yes solvent colors for some persian of a certificate of resale that would require its sales tax but the onus for my perspective rests upon south of of the pro transfer as i've indicated the brief the permit of are prohibited regulations indicate that that would make this a sale for resale  i'm not going to quote it but it's it's in pages five six of our brief eighty six illinois ministry code section one thirty point twenty seven and once you elements of the sale occurring in illinois then that use tax does not apply to the use of that of the tangible personal property in this state and that's what we have we have a serial outside state of illinois which green i do i'm environmentally friendly but if i don't you know call me up and say we're through our country with you do you have an idea of what might happen with those you know i don't know specifically in the context of these cartridges but i think the answer with by any white is the seller of the nks contention at the time that company purchases the cartridges from the manufacturer hope they're told that the time they purchased the cartridge from the manufacturer hope that that's what they purchased the partridge for the purpose of using and reusing the cartridges if that's what their purpose was then it is just something about the  from the case performance here but i want i would object to the statement that there's nothing in the record to show that solomon couldn't go back and take the totes from unwilling customers this has nothing to say that they couldn't do that if they could do