close quote that ruling in the state's imposition of a double tax is contrary to the plain language of the aircraft used chance in the economic realities of a change in title the state imposed the st tax in two thousand and eight that is when the  isn't an correct correct me and if your position is different than the us your position is that he remains the exact same owner from the time he owns the plane in two thousand and eight the time he becomes a trustee trust is really identical with the individual who create the trust and is the beneficiary trustee of a trust there is no separate for purposes of taxation for example federal tax right there is no separate entity that's taxed its tax through mr shachtman individually so you are correct that he has had as a trustee he has a has a beneficiary has a had is a settler but he also is the only person under the terms of the trust who can control individually the disposition of the plane in the use of the phrase your position then that the fact that he has dish no responsibilities as the trespass does not change the aspect of ownership it doesn't change the aspect of who has the privilege of using the glider and that aspect of ownership  statute is that no they're not interpreting this particular statute they're their interpretation what the effect is of making a transfer toll revocable trust which i think is the same whether you're looking at it from the federal law perspective or state law perspective has there ever been a case in impression i don't think by the way that this is the st time that that taxes been imposed on the the cost that the tax is a burden for the individual but relatively small to the cost of challenging the imposition the tax i suspect that this happens so the partners argument here is that this is just basically we should look at the statute and look at the intent of the statute and that's all that we should really kind of apply in this piece but you cite some pieces that are not from  has previously looked to other other states rulings other the supreme court ruling to give guidance as to how this court should apply its the laws in illinois so i think it certainly is it's important i think the state's position is actually interesting because i think it has changed over time it's evolved and if you look at page seventeen of their brief and i'll jump ahead to that hurt my argument in their brief thing out of the state let me back up for thank the trial court found this kind of bright line rule it said the child protective don't care what the eck what the economic realities are i don't care about the substance of the transaction all i care about is that f a a registration form shown showed a change in title and that's the bright line tests are going to apply even the state doesn't try to define that the state says and i quote from page seventeen of their brief the department is not arguing that a mere change of the owner listed in the f a a database triggers used taxation close  according to the state what matters is whether or not sufficient aspects of ownership are also transferred along the title but having conceded the title doesn't control the transfer in total doesn't control the status also necessarily conceded  important to look behind the form of the transaction at substance to see who actually controls the squire who actually has the benefit and the privilege of using the slider and we agree you do need a book you could but i didn't go to plain language but the economic realities  trust allows mr chapman to wonder the terms control the disposition of the plane that's express the state in their brief refers to the inability to encumber the plane because the trustee has control of the owner in the control in the control of this point so once the trust is radical so long as mr shek and contain retains the power to modify or control the disposition and the terms of the trust and the disposition of trust and since he's the owner for purposes of mr shachtman is the person who is responsible for all the operation and maintenance and expenses related to the glider plane it's those aspects of the economic realities of this transaction their control and on that point there is law from this court j a very complicated three party agreement that included a party as a conduit that serve both purchaser and seller in title pass through that rd party in the court looked behind those complicated facts to determine whether or not the economic realities showed that that conduit get a little party was actually and person entity it had helped title for purposes of taxi or not and it found it wasn't one of the governing green is it was just a conduit was just passing title correct the consequences as i said this case was a case of st impression the consequences go beyond this aircraft use checks in this particular case the same kind of taxi language is used in at ruling that of the trial court and others under the state's position if individuals choose as per their lawful state plan to transfer title to those vehicles or that boat or the airplane to their individual into their profitable trust to themselves exemptions to those taxes that correct the those that say a lot of wealthy because that's that is actually taking it backwards we're not asking for an exemption we're not saying that an exemption of pi's we're saying that evan is show this statute doesn't apply and i disagree respectfully they will not find the took their word title in the text in the aircraft use tax it taxes the privilege of using a go of aircraft in this case a glider that's acquired by purchase transfer or gift if the privilege of using its not title so you don't have is not a legislative correction in its meaning and i think the plain language makes clear that tax doesn't apply when you when you when you haven't actually transferred the privilege of using if they mess title i suppose they could have said so we would have a different argument i'm not sure they would they would win that one either but it's a different argument this is a privilege of using the privilege of using hasn't changed one that if you think as i said that there's some ambiguity about it this court should construe that any duty in favor of mr chapman because we're looking at the chairman individually so long as he is with us he is able to control the disposition of those assets nd to that area that are in that trust including the squatter he could take the trust out he could take the glider out of the trust he could do whatever he wants with it he has complete the shepherd is current beneficiary and top of that the chef we individually controls the maintenance the control the disposition anything else related to the glider further if there is any doubt about his ability to control the assets of the trust  also retain for himself the right to change the terms of the trust and any time to revoke the trust at any time he could dissolve it if he wishes that's because it's revocable there's nothing there's nothing permanent and it's nothing complete about any transfer to this  and that's the important aspects of both the u s supreme court cases that we cited in the mississippi in oklahoma cases mississippi actually in the actually is the was a transfer of title under the statute if that was a taxable event and even in that case the court said we have to look behind the on the title it's not the title transfer you have to look at whether or not the use is transferred has really changed really in who owns and controls and has dominion over the trust assets i think in that case it goes in a price the watercraft use tax the vehicle use tax increase a trap for the unwary people who are engaging in routine estate planning that are that are preparing for the future when they are no longer here preparing and they're transferring terms of the art that are controlling in this case the acts imposes a tax on using any aircraft acquired by gift to purchase or transfer the language that is important here is using acquired and transfer using is not defined by the act with the act does provide that the definitions of the used to have a tax act of the same and there is a definition for use in the used it's the exercised by any person of any right or power over tangible personal property considered to the ownership of the property it doesn't look to who is able to get the benefit of using the property the sense that a person can fly the airplane or enjoy their craft the question is whether there is the exercise of power over the aircraft that's what has been part of the statute that is subject to tax and with regard to the use the word acquired means the power to dispose of the property who has the power to dispose of the property while mr shachtman purchased the glider he did but once he transferred to a trust that has termed that put limits on him now the trust has the power to the stove pretty well what about their argument that he can't sell that aircrafts he can't walk into a bank and ask for a loan based on that property as a mortgage he'd have to change the trust to do that or have to take that he'd have to take some power out of the trust that he currently put into the trust and then when trust he says in fact that he was going to pay a dollar for that per the trust was paid a dollar for that privilege and other valuable consideration this document lists mr shachtman as the seller of the plane and the trust as the purchaser of the plane so at this moment in time there was no doubt of what was in mr shachtman his mind which was to transfer this aircraft away from his personal self and into the trust that was important i assume because he didn't want plane to be probated should he die the trust is not really m provisions so under the old statute when the court look to the economic reality that made sense because there was a question about that but under the new statute the general assembly has made clear that aircraft unlike most other personal property doesn't have to be sold at retail to be taxed it's tax whenever there's a transfer the cases they cite are typically gift tax cases gifts or different gifts are not completed until there's delivery of the thing that's given that's why you know a revokable trust doesn't affect the gift because the giver hasn't really the livered the thing that he's given to the grantee so and we're not arguing that this is taxable as a gift our argument is acquires a transfer of something the use of something that is acquired by that definition of use is really important because throughout their brief they continue to say mr shachtman still enjoys the aircraft mr chapman still can fly the aircraft that's all true that isn't by his right as an individual that's now because he's the beneficiary of the trust in the trust allows him to  counsel said that there are cases because it's costly to challenge these types of taxes but as they discovered in this case or if they know from this case that it's fairly easy to challenge a tax under the protest moneys act in fact there's interest payments if if they're correct the j d for a case is the one dollar that was decided under the current statute and it's very helpful in determining what the general assembly intended with regard to this particular fact pattern in j before a l c own an aircraft and the owner of jealousy the sole owner of the l l c said that he was not subject to tax when he brought the plane into the state of illinois because there was no tax on individuals who  and came to the conclusion that under the language of the tax the statute there was a tax imposed the court did not reach the economic reality test as a matter of us deciding the case in fact they said they wouldn't need to because the act was clear they said if the  be applied but if the court were to find the statutes in the u s in some way and the court were to apply that and i'm really test the economic reality here is there's a change of ownership there's a transfer of the aircraft that should be a tax for the reasons that i just i have a couple of responses i'd like to start off with what i think is again the state's concession they the state recognizes that if mr chapman has the power to dispose of this plane to sell it that he is actually the owner of the plane even though the exemption is for businesses and business is included l l c s and so the court found the taxpayer had not met the burden of showing an l l c is subject to an individual tax