at least in the concurring opinion by justice sandra day o'connor of the u s supreme court better wrong here we're going back one year is even possibly problematic constitutionally but we don't have any clear expression  from the illinois supreme court as to a time as roy timeframe but well have they indicated their temporal reach when they say that if you have one i legislature can go back three years if you have multiple iranian exemptions which isn't this case you can go back six years and so it's there that is what the right down to ok and they have this they have a specific penalty in the statute that was not imposed to correct the fifty percent in fact i don't think she could have i don't think there could have been a fifty or whatever amount was i don't think there could have been a penalty imposed against her because there is a an amnesty provision and there's also a provision that says that i think i have to reference it but i think it says that for the twenty thirteen going back determination that the language in that statute indicated the temporal reach because the legislature used the words has been convicted so she in that decision she indicated that there was clear evidence temporal reach and therefore it wasn't a retroactive application or improper retroactive cation of a statute yes but also to this is  take homeowners exemption for a property where they didn't resign i mean there's multiple bases for which you can get orders exemption but the only one that would apply here would be to be living in the property live in the property and you only you've never been entitle to take to form owners exemptions for two different houses you don't get it for recreational home you don't get it or a second home because you can't really live you it and the evidence is one contradicted that her husband handled the payment of the tax bill she merely sign the check for this particular property because of sort of title was written her name out and then it is is the government past conduct correct all right and don't the case is interpreting that say that simply because there's an antecedent fact doesn't make it creating liability she was never in title that if you paid the iranians exemption within the first taxing year you won't have any interest or penalties or anything in fact that this new provision was for about five and a half months and the government doesn't always catch it right away you could make a mistake on your income tax you could see their deduction that to which you're not in time the government may never know about it i'm sure it's come true a lot of the time or they may find out about it two years later and might also mistakenly i'd i accept that this was probably a mistaken homestead exemption by this by your client it's certainly possible probable even the government doesn't necessarily catch these things right away is there something  inherently equitable about the government figuring out later not within the same action for example but maybe even a few years later that in fact people were not paying the taxes they were supposed to pay and if and then doing something about that fact we cou and new tax a new penalty notice being head and your client then for lack of a better word caught making the improper homestead exemption at the time these three years are in question twenty and tell me i'm having difficulty grasping the idea that it's all right in oppressive to go back three years to read coop a exemption for the homeowner where that person didn't or was not ever entitle to that exemption now they didn't go back twenty years they didn't go back to them but what is harsh and oppressive about years which is what they the out of pocket for an exemption that the person was never entitle to in the first instance but what is harsh an oppressive about that and more to i'm not i don't want to diminish the significance of the amount of money i think it for each year it comes out to somewhere in the neighborhood of fifteen hundred dollars or so for this whole mall or what is harsh and oppressive about permits the legislature to go back six years and it didn't bollards multiple eroni as exemptions and i'm not sure that you know we would compare that to this but what i guess about this case is is there permissible taking that exemption was not something that the weather i mean it's not about intent here or anything like that there's no question about it tend to or anything it's just that a house next door you know they weren't that was created has been around for a long long time and this is now one of the exemptions you get to take an exemption for the home that you live in but you don't get to take double exemptions i'm just saying i don't i'm just trying to get what  suggestion about temple bridge and you may be correct that you should fight it there should be some clear intent of temple reach so what piece which you suggest that we look at to determine that this other language they have where they say we're going to go back three years you can go back three years what case would you say is the best one for us to look at to say that the temporal reach is not really present  in the illinois property tax code that when the owner obtains title to a property i they need to notify the assessor's office to make sure that there are no improper exemptions or exempt status on the office i submit did determine that there were these erroneous homestead exemptions and once there was this procedure in place with the statute they did notified miss milray now reece memory also received tax bills for the property she did in fact have notice yes ok is it your position that there's nothing wrong with the rhetoric if you have nothing to do so long as the legislature indicates that that's what they want us to do a bit so yes there is nothing wrong with that first of all the collection of taxes is in its very nature retroactive on the taxes for the year two thousand and thirteen are due in two thousand fourteen and so on and so forth so obama is always that that collection is always an assessment getting back in time so here for the assessor's office to recover the erroneous homestead exemption that was received in years prior only makes sense because they weren't even to you until it was already considered a retroactive application of the law for retroactive collection are you sorry i was simply going to say in this case suggested as a homestead with the individual living in the home yes that is always been a condition precedent for the homestead exemption is that the person the taxpayer claiming the homestead exemption must reside in that property and they are entitled to only one homestead exemption for a year now what about council suggestion that this language about the temple roll reach has been sandwiched in the language bit it really is no indicator of all that the legislature wanted to be at three years well on the there is no legal requirement that a statute to be retroactively applied include preexisting statutes so weak in light of the case that there's a preexisting statute it does seem incumbent upon the general assembly to clearly articulate when these amendments will take place he's there affecting pending  could have been offered for sale and that could ultimately lead to the loss of the property that would have been the remedy that was available but that's just available through work on overarching unpaid taxes nothing specific for  homestead exemption and in light of the fact that there isn't doesn't the plaintiff have a point that you are now increasing the penalty you're not just going back which are actually penalize you them something for which no penalty existed at the time they committed the decision made because of the statute the statute would not permit penalties in this particular instance that is correct or looking at this if we look at this case there was never a penalty imposed there was never a penalty imposed there was never a penalty that could be imposed because mr mori was claiming one erroneous homestead exemption on one property so all you're doing is you're asking for the principle that you should have paid at the time plus an interest it's a group that said yes why isn't this  liability is increasing the party's liability for past conduct that's really what mr ball and said he's aiming his yeah why is that it's not increasing the liability because it's simply seeking to recover the principle our heroes homestead exemption that was received but you've been there if there really wasn't a mechanism to do this in the castle aren't you really increasing a liability for p s she was always responsible for the taxes on this property she was always liable for the amount of taxes on this property it was through her claim of the erroneous homestead exemption that she did not pay her phone taxes would your argument then be kind of the same for imposing a new duty with respect transactions already entitled to we also look at the length of the period of retroactivity we're only talking about three years and as i stated before taxes are already i collected in a retroactive fashion the three year period  other parts of the property tax code including the certificate of certificates of exemption scavenger sales those are three years apiece we can collect delinquent taxes for twenty years and certainly not on bases for refund to the taxpayer can see for a twenty year period they also look to see if there's a reasonable detrimental reliance and in this case the exemption was unlawful so we cannot conclude that any sort of reliance was reasonable on and lastly whether there was an adequate notice of the change and there was at least a two year period prior to the enactment and then enforcement of this statute does the mere fair that there's action be taken from elena graf and a number of other cases just because the behavior predated the enactment of the statute does not in fact make it retroactive are you attaching new legal consequences to events that articulate sweat the legal consequences of claiming an erroneous homestead exemption are well is it your position that the state you faced with says going forward we're just not going to let people take this anymore isn't that kind of asked she said that even if you get convicted in the past for sexually assaulting a patient going forward we're not going to remove your license because of something you did last year ye prohibit him from being licensed as a health care professional but it's some point in time the on general assembly determined that they no longer wanted individuals convicted of sexual criminal sexual abuse to be found not to be a retroactive statute but prospectors only even though on the refusal to license health care professionals was based upon behavior that occurred prior to the enactment of the statute but we have here statute was in the acted in july of two thousand and thirteen and granted amnesty up than through december thirty one thirty first of two thousand and thirteen anticipates that the assessor could only bring suits under statute right now if if let's say we have a new assessor comes in and says ok i'm going to clean this up we've got a bunch of unpaid homesteader improper homestead exemptions like you said a big mess let's just do a quick goddess put a bunch of mori you didn't you had an improper tax i'm set exemption and twenty we're going to demand that you repay it now with interest or sue you if you don't because they have done that i believe they could have gone to the common or whatever there's nothing that would stop them from doing presented at the hearing supporting the administrative i hear an officer is decision that it's more you didn't fact receive the road use exemption and she was liable for the repayment of the principal plus interest for the three tax years of two thousand and ten eleven and twelve the evidence indicating that was published in the newspaper there is nothing on the record indicating it was inserted or with any factual nothing on the record indicating it was inserted without any notice of assessment which is typically given wonder's a change fact that stands for the traditional the traditional rule and when we have the engram was that if this legislature lets us know the tempore in other words if they let us know that they want to go when they said you can go back three years previous if we interpret that is as and none seeing temporal reach isn't that the end of the discussion cases so i guess what i'm saying is that if we find the language in this even though you know one of your arguments as it stands which if we find the language evidence