the retailer as the tax payer is entitled to the statutory language as the department shall we from statutory language has that the retailer is entitled to the refund and for good reason snyder but the illinois supreme court's landmark decision in this area counsels us that the reason for that is simple it would be unjust enrichment to the state of the state to hold on to that money fact of the matter is  that the state uses a pretext here principal pretext to hold on to that well let me ask yes i go out to a home depot i buy here there are cost twenty dollars and i pay twenty dollars plus whatever the hypothetical that explains why the distinction the states make is an irrational because they look at each individual transaction they have met that if i am them on pasha and i give credit to a customer directly dollars apiece i get credit directly to my customers three of the hundred don't pay at the end of the day so i only get nine hundred seventy dollars back on my  the financing company has a pipe back from me as a request from me on the ones that default three default thirty dollars buyback on my part state of grace i get the refund what happens in our so in the same scenario the financing company hundred widgets ten dollars apiece three defendants thirty dollars i'm still entitle to get the tax obviously because it's exactly the same scenario refund statutory scheme is to prevent i'm just rushing to the state you don't see the financing company here asking for a refund they're supporting our application you see home depot here as the party that paid the  there are a question of way back pats here no one disputes that they were back dense that had to be written off the financing company writes them off we write off the cost of the program and what we paid the financing company at the end of the day financing company making any kind of claim you know the financing company providing that this is how terribly to tell us quote the retailers are paying for those losses as part of the price of the program that our income exceeded our costs have that dissipates that there will be some bad cats and no bank is going to take that work on unless it does it's going to be made whole or more than whole and in fact the undisputed record here is that the bank was a fact made more than home in fact under the part find but under the uniform because of the illinois constitution and the equal protection and due process losses it would be not only irrational but where uniformity was purposes there is no real and substantial difference between our that is no different than if we had given the credit theoretically for free and done it on a recourse basis with the financing the end result is exactly the same and frankly there isn't any credible dispute in this record that that is the case  between the home depot and the financing company when the end result is exactly the same and you submit your orders that under those circumstances this is a statutory violation violates both the letter in the spirit of illinois law is  richmond state because they're in the sale of a good at retail state there's a tax imposed on the general assembly has decided that certain vendors will get credit when their customers don't pay their credit transaction that did not take ninety seven ninety eight or ninety nine point nine percent of the fact that it took one hundred percent of the expense of course cheese works own people in this case they've written all of that off they wan uses the word bar indicates that we have a particular taxpayer in mind obviously it's not the credit card financing company who is above transaction because most of this regulations don't apply to credit card financing transactions we're thinking  cluster around high tax areas like polk county then those numbers don't make any sense because then all the papillae should assume the statewide rates but but home depot sales are not state wide they also used system they turn everything over to handle this transaction and didn't keep the records necessary to be able to back out transaction that's why they brought in their experts that's why they used a lot of estimates instead of providing the department actual stream commerce they're being used in illinois to probably has never received taxes for them if they don't remit this tax equal protection uniformity arguments are also without merit the argument is that they try to set up an argument that surely brought a bank in the bank it's name it's really quite revolving this credit over and over and over again that's not something a vendor usually wants to do offenders in the business of selling it's not running it's it's the original sale in which the default has occurred to the extent he has paid the tax at a portion of a price it does not collect and quote then going on to say in the case of tax paid an account receivable that becomes a bad d say one word to the contrary i'm just going to testimony this has from both sides of the transaction was at the end of the day home depot for the last because it compensated the financing companies in advance and paid them or th administered to be implemented by the credit card company so it is given the right to go out and chase down bad debts at the end of the day end of the day and this party sophisticated parties know that a certain percentage of the fact that's will never be collected at the end of the bank is that a balance that isn't bad at the end of the day given what home depot has paid the credit card company to make the credit card company more than whole for those bad tests it has by both