## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1497 S CO TT A IR F ORCE B ASE P ROPERT IE S, LLC , a l i m i ted l i abi l i ty com pany, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . C OUN TYOF S T . C LAIR, I LLINO IS, a bo dy cor pora te and pol i ti c, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 07- cv-00773

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judg e.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2008

— D ECIDED N OVE MBE R 14, 2008

Befo re R IPPLE, M A NI ON, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, Cir cu i tJudg e. Sc ott AirFo rce Base Pro perti es, LLC ( “the Co m pan y ”) , b r o ug htthi s ac ti o n a g ains t th e County ofS t. C l ai r, I l l i noi s ( “the County”) se eking a d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g me n ttha t i t s l e a s e h o l d i n t e r e s ti nt wo parce l s o fl and l oca ted o n the Sco tt A ir Force Base i s no t su bj ec t to th e pr o per ty ta x whi ch th e Cou nty a ss es se d. The2 N o. 08

- 1497 dist ri ct c ourthel d that the Tax Inj uncti on A ct ( “TI A ” o r “the A ct”) , 28 U .S
. C. § 1 341, di vest ed i t o fsubj ect m att er j ur i sdi ct i o n an d di smi ss ed th e ca se . The Co m pan y h a s a p p e a l e d
. We a ffi r m.
I
. Ba ck g r o und T he M il itary H ou sing Privatization I nitiative ( “M H PI”), enacte d i n 199 6 a s par t o fthe N ati onal Defe nse Au thor i zatio n A c t, Pub. L. N o. 10 4- 106, § 2801 , 11 0 S tat
. 18 6, 54 4- 51 ( co di fi ed as a m en ded at1 0 U. S
. C. § § 28 71

- 28 85 ) , i s i ntended to att ra ct pr i vate i nvestm en t and exper ti se to b u ild h ou sin g f o r m em b er s o f th e m ilita ry an d th eir f ami li es. De ve l o per s su bmi t co m pet i ti ve b i ds an d the federa l go ver nm ent l eas es l and to the s uc cess ful bi dd er to co n struct ho usi ng devel opm ents. Thi s pro cess pro vi des ne ce ss ary housi ngo n mi l i ta r y b as es wi thno c a p i t a l c o s tt o th e g o v e r n me n ta n d a tth e s a me t i me su ppl i es the de ve l o per w ith r el i ab l e te na nt s wi tha housi ng al l owance to pay the r ent. The Co m pan y s aw thi s a s a n a tt r ac ti ve o ppo r tu ni tya nd enter ed i nto a l eas e agr eem ent w i th the U ni ted Stat es th r o ug h the S ec r et ar y o fthe Ai r Fo r ce , a g r ee i ngt o c o nstr uct, o perat e, and m ai ntai n re ntalhousi ng uni ts f or m i l i tar y per sonnel on l and l oca ted o n the Sco tt A i r For ce Base fora ter m o ffi fty yea rs . The go ver nm ent a l so executed t o th e Com pany a quitcl ai m deed to i m prove men t s o n the l a nd a nd e nt e r e d int o a r e s t r i c ti ve cove nant and use agr eem ent with the Com pany. W hi l e th i s appe ar ed to b e ana tt r ac ti ve i nv es tment op p ortu nity for th e C om p an y, th e C ou nt y o f St. C lai r,N o. 08

- 1497 3

An ad va l or em ta x is “ [ a] t ax i m pos ed pr opor t i ona l l y onthe 1 v alu e of som e t hin g ( esp . rea l pr op erty ), rath er th an on its q u a n tit y o r so m e o therm eas ure. ” B LA CK ’ S L A W D I CT I ONA RY 1469 (7 th ed . 19 9 9 ). I l l i noi s ( w here S cot t AirFo rce Base i s l ocated) al so saw thi s a s a n attr acti ve opportunity t o obt ai n so m e t ax r eve n u e. T h e C ou n ty ad d ed t h e C om p an y’s lea se h old interest i n tw o pa rcels of th e leas e d l a nd to the C ou nt y’s ta x as se ss m en t ro lls an d as se ss ed an ad va lore m ta x in 1 the a m ount o f$1 5, 681, 30 0.0 0 o n the Com pany’s i nter est i n e ac h pa r ce l f o r the 2 00 7 ta x y ea r . I n r esp o ns e, the C om p an y filed a c om p lain t f o r d ec lar at or y jud gm en t in the Unite d Sta tes Dis tr i ct Cour t forthe So uthern Dist ri ct of I l l i no i s , a s s e r t i ng tha t the a s s e s s men t wa s c o nt r a ry to va r i o us pr o vi si o ns o fthe Uni te d S ta te s Con st i tu ti o n, fede r als ta tu to r y l aw, a nd I l l i no i s law , a nd i nv o k i ngthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s ubj ect m att erj u ris d i cti on under 2 8 U
. S. C . § 13 31. The Com pany so ught a decl ar ato ryj ud gm en t th ati ts l ea se hold i nt er es t was no t su bj ec t to the County’ s a sse ssm ent a nd thatal l tr ansact i ons enter ed i nt o unde r the M H PIwer e ex empt fr o m s ta te t ax at i o n. T h e County m ove d to dism i ss f orl ack ofsubj ect m att er j urisd iction u nd er Fe d eral R ule of C ivi l Proc ed ure 12(b)( 1), con ten d ing tha t the TIA rem o v e d the d istri ct cou rt’s j ur i sdi ct i o n t o g r an t th e dec l ar ato r y r el i efthe Co m pan y ha d r eque st ed. I n r es po ns e to th e C o unty ’ s m o ti o n, the Com pany ar gu ed thatthe A ct’ s j uri sdic ti onalbardi d not appl y b ec au se the de cl ar at o r y j udg m en t so ug htb y the Co mpa nyc o nc e r ne d a c l a i m of pr e e mpt i o n un de r fe de r a l l a w.4 N o. 08

- 1497

The County a l s o c l ai m ed thati nas m uc h a s the Com pany 2 had n otye tappl i ed f or an ex em pt i on f ro m I l l i noi s s t at e t ax , no a c t u a l c o n t r o v e r s y e x i s t e d b e c a u s e th e Co mpa n y h a d n o ts h o wn i tha d s uffer ed o r would s ufferanactual or i m m i ne nti nj ur y- i nf ac t
. T he C om pany c ount er ed thati tha d s uffer ed a n i nj ur y- i nfact an d th a t a n a ctu al co ntr ov ersy b etw een the p arties ar ose wh e n th e C o u n t y adde d t h e l e a s e h o l d i n t e r e s ti n th e t wo par c el s t o i t s as s es s m en tr ol l s an d as s es s ed the par c el s f or the 2007 tax year. The dis tr ic t c ourt did not add res s thes e argum ents
. H ow ever, as anal t er nat i ve t o i t s p rim ary hol di ng o n the e ffec tofthe T IA , the c our tdi d hol d thatno ac t ual c ont ro ver s y woul d exis t were i tt o i nte rpr etthe M H PI apa rtfro m the t ax as s es s m en t bec aus e the Com pany woul d have no i nj ur y- i n- f ac tan d the req u ested interp reta tion w ou ld b e an ad v i so r y op inio n. In so hol di ng, the di s t ri c tc our tappa re nt ly was r es pondi ng t o the Co m pa ny ’ s a r gu m e nttha ti twa s n ots e e ki ng t o e nj oi n, s us pe nd , or r es t ra i n the County’ s as s es s m en t, l evy, an d co l l ec t i on ofthe ad va l or em t ax butr athe r was seeki ng a dec l ar at i on thatthe M H PI preem pts the Co unty’ s authority to determ ine w h ether i tc ou ld a ss es s , l evy, or c ol l ec tthe t ax . The c our tal s o c oncl ud ed that the Co m pany lac ked st and ing to se ek a decl arat ory jud g m en t that th e M H P I f o rb id s the assessm en t of state taxa tion b eca u se such a d eterm ina tion w ou ld no t nece ssarily re dre s s the Com pany ’ s i nj ur y. (co n tin u ed ...) The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted the Coun ty’s m oti on t o dism i ss. The co urt concl ud ed that because a pla i n, speedy, an d effic ien t re m ed y w a s a va ilab le t o th e C om p an y in the I l l i noi s co urts to chal l enge t h e County’ s t ax as ses sm ent, the TI A di vest ed i t o fj u ris d i cti on t o re nd er th e dec l ar at o r y r el i efwhi chthe C o m pan y s o ug ht
. The 2N o. 08

- 1497 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 Bec ause w e ul t i m at el y c onc l ude thatthe TI A dive s t ed the di s t ri c tc our tofjurisd ict i on t o h ea r the c as e, we ne ed n ot a d d re ss a n y o f th es e i ssu es . Com pany appeal s.
I I
. Di scussi on Ou r re vi ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l o fthe case f o r wanto fs ubj ec t m at te r j ur i sdi ction i s de no vo , a nd we a c c e p ta l l f a c t s s t a t e d i n th e c o mpl a i n ta s t r u e a nd d raw allreason able inference s i n t he Com p an y’s f avor. N ew ell O pera ting C o . v. Int’l U nio n o f U nited A uto ., A erosp a ce, & A g r i c . Imp l e men tWo rk e rs o f A m. , 53 2 F
. 3d 583, 58 7 (7th C ir. 2008). The Com pa n y assert s that the di str i ct c ourter re d by no t addr es singt wo thr es ho l d ques ti o ns b efo r e r ea ch i ng th e TI A: 1 ) whethe r the s ubj ec t par ce l s wer e underthe excl usi ve l egi sl ati ve j uri sdic ti on o fthe U ni ted S tat es pur su an t to Art i cl e I, S ec ti o n 8 , Cl au se 1 7 o fthe Co nsti tuti on, and 2) i fso , wh etherCongr ess autho ri zed sta te ta x ati on o fthe l and thro ugh the M H PI o r the l eas e ag r ee m en t th e par ti es e nt er ed in ac co r dan ce wi ththe sta tute. I n supp or t o fi ts posi ti on, th e Com pany ci tes H um ble P ipe L ine C o . v. Wagg o nn er, 3 7 6 U. S
. 3 6 9 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , a nd A tl antic M arineCo rps Co m m uniti es, LLCv. O nsl ow Co unty, North Caro l i na , 49 7 F . Su p p . 2d 74 3 (E .D .N .C . 200 7). H u m ble PipeLi new as a n a p p ea l fr om t h e Su p re m e C ou rto f L ou isi-6 N o. 08

- 1497

an a wher e th e S upr eme Cou r t o fthe Uni te d S ta te s co nsi dered “whether the Unite d Sta tes has such excl usi ve j ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r a . . . tract o fl an d .
. . o n whi chthe B ar ks d ale A ir Fo rc e B as e is loc at ed th at L ou isia n a is w i thout j urisd ict ion t o l evyan a d val or em ta x on pri vate l y o w ned proper ty si tuate d on the tr ac t.” 376 U
. S. at37 0. H owever, the Co urt did notm enti on th e T IA

— no r s ho ul d i th a ve

— b ec au se th e c as e w as litigat ed i n the Louis i ana s tat e cou rt s and neve r appeared in a dist ri ct c ourto fthe U ni ted S tat es. W hi l e H um ble PipeLi nemay o r may not be o fs o m e ut i l i tyt o the Companyo n the mer i ts o fi ts c l ai m s, i t ha s no be ar i ng on th e que st i o n o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s j ur i sdi ct i o n in l i g ht o fth e T I A. InAt l ant i c M ar i neCorps , a com pany had enter ed i nto a fi fty- yea r gr ou n d l eas e o fcer tai n housi ng uni ts l oca ted o n s ev er alM ar i ne Co r ps i ns ta l l at i o ns pur su an t to the M H PI
. 49 7 F
. S up p. 2d at74 8. The com pany so ught a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent that these proper ti es w er e under th e ex cl us i ve j ur i sdi ct i o n o fthe fede r alg o ve r nm en t an d thus no t su bj ec t to a d v al o r em ta xation byt wo c o untie s. Id. a t74 5

- 4 6
. T he di st r i c tc o ur tf o un d tha tthe p r o per ti es w er e not s ubj ect to sta te taxat i on be cause they w er e under the e xcl usi ve j uri sdic ti on o ft h e Un i ted St at es w h ich th e g ov er n m en t h ad n o t s u rre n d er ed in th e M H P I. Id. at7 58
. Al th o ug h Atl ant i c M ar i neCorps is facial ly an alogous to the insta nt m atter, the C om p an y’s r e l i a nc e u po n i ti s mi s pl a c e d. Fi rs t, the TIA was not m enti oned i n the Atl ant i c M ar i ne Corp s op in ion ; th er efo re , th e c a s e d oe s n otd ire c tlyN o. 08

- 1497 7

And, as we di s c us s bel ow, the appl i c at i on of the TI A tur ns on 3 the nature and effectofthe rel ie fs oug ht wh en a p lai nti ffal le ges thata s t at e t ax i s unl awful

— not the s ource of law und er which the t a x i s c ha l l e ng e d. su p p or t t h e C om pany’s ar gum ent that th re sh old questi ons m ust be r eached be f or e the A ct c om es i nto pla y. S eco nd , to t h e extent that Atl ant i c M ar i neCorps m ay b e r e a d t o s ug g e s ttha tthe T I A ha s n o o pe r ati ve effect un tilcons titution al orother fed eral i ssu e s pertai ni ng to t h e m er i ts ofa case ar e a dd re sse d, w e r ej ect that vi ew . W er e d istr i ct c ourt s t o decl ar e that pr oper ti es ass e s s e d wi th s t a t e t a xe s a r e n o ts ubj e c tt o s uc h t a xe s du e to the oper ati on of the Consti tuti on o r othe r federa l l aw bef or e re achi ng the j uri sdic ti onal questi on o f the T IA , the Act w oul d be r endered nugat or y. S uch decl ar ati ons o n t h e m erits of c as es w ou ld effe c tiv ely “r es tr ain o r su spe nd” st at e ta xa ti o n pr o ce dur es an d ther eby d im i ni sh o r encum berr i ghtful sta te tax r eve nue

— whi c h, a s we d i s c u s s b e l o w, i s e x a c t l y wh a tthe TI A pro scr ibes. Rather, bec ause i t pot enti al l y di vest s th e d ist r i c t c ou rt s o f su bj ec t m at te r j u ris d ict ion, th e T IA i s itse lf a pre dicate consi derat i on i n the j uri sdic ti onal deter m i nati on. “Th e r equi re m ent that j uri sdic ti on be 3 es tabl i sh ed as a thr es ho l d m at te r ‘ spr i ng [ s] fr o m the nature and l i m i ts ofthe j ud i ci al pow er of the Unite d Sta tes ’ an d is ‘in flex ible an d w i t h o u t e x c ep tio n .’ ” St e e l Co. v. C it izens for a B et te r E nv’t, 52 3 U. S
. 8 3, 9 4- 95 ( 19 98 ) ( quo ting M ans f i e l d, C. & L. M
. Ry. Co. v. Swan , 11 1 U.S
. 37 9, 38 2 (1884)). In d e ed , “[i ]t i s ax iom atic tha t a federal cou rt m us t as su r e i ts el ftha t i t po ss es se s j ur i sd ic ti o n o ve r the8 N o. 08

- 1497 subj ect m att ero fan a cti on be f or e i t ca n p ro c ee d to ta ke an y acti on r espect i ng the m er i ts ofthe acti on. ” Co o kv. Winfrey, 14 1 F
. 3d 322 , 3 25 (7th Cir
. 19 98)
. Fo r these re as o ns , we fi nd the Co mpa ny ’ s “ thr e s ho l d que s t i o ns” ar gum ent unpers uasi ve. W e no w co ns ide r the TI A, whi chpr o vi des tha t “[ t] he di st r i ctc o ur ts sh al l no t enj o i n, s us pen d o r r es tr ain the ass ess m ent, l evyo r col l ect ion o fany tax under St ate l a w whe r e a pl a i n, s pe e dy a nd e ffi c i e nt r e med y may be h ad in t h e c ou rt s o f su c h Sta te .” 28 U .S.C . § 1 34 1. T h e T IA dive st s th e di str i ct c ourt s o fsubj ect m att erj uri sdic ti on in “case s in w hich state tax p ayers seek fed eral-court or ders enabl i ng them to avo i d payi ng st ate ta xes. ” H i b b s v. Wi nn , 5 42 U. S
. 8 8, 1 07( 20 04 )
. Pu t a not he r way, i fthe re l i efso ught would di m i ni sh o r encum berst ate ta x re venue, then the Act bar s federa l j uri sd i cti on o ver claim s s eeking su ch rel ief
. Le vy v. Pappas , 51 0 F
. 3d 755, 76 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. The TI A st r i ps th e di st r i ct co ur ts o fthe pow erto h earsui ts see ki ng noto nl y inj uncti ve but al so d ec lar at or y relief from st at e ta x es . C alif ornia v. Grace Br e t hre n Ch urch , 457U .S. 39 3, 41 1 (1 98 2); RT C Com m e r ci al Ass e t s Tr us t19 95- NP3-1 v. Phoe nix Bond & Inde m . Co. , 16 9 F. 3d 448, 45 3 ( 7th C i r. 19 99)
. I n additi on, the A ct a pp l i es to any sta te tax, i ncl ud i ng m unici pa l and l oca l ta xes. Hager v. C ity of W
. Peoria , 84 F. 3d 865, 86 8 n. 1 ( 7th Cir
. 19 96)
. M or eov er, the T IA ’ s a m bi t i s no t co nfined by the l a w u nd e r wh i c h a s t a t e t a x i s ch a l l e ng e d, f o r e v e n fe de r a l c o ns t i t ut i onal cl a i ms do n o tr e nd e r the Ac ti na pp l i c ab le. Schneide r Transp. , Inc. v. Ca tt ana ch , 6 5 7F
. 2 d 1 28,N o. 08

- 1497 9

A f ew e xc eption s t o the TI A’ s ge ne ra l r ul e do e xi s t
. The 4 Sup rem e Court has h el d t h at the Act does notbar federal j ur i s di c t i on when the Uni t ed St at es s ues t o pr ot ec ti t s el for on e ofi ts i nst rum ental it ie s f rom an unlaw ful s tat e t ax. D ep’ tof E m ploy m en t v . U n i te d S tat es , 38 5 U .S. 355 , 35 8 (196 6). It is appar en t l y s t i l l an ope n que s t i on whethe r an i ns t ru m en t al i t y of the Uni t ed S t at es with poweran al ogous t o thatofa gove rn m en t depa rt m en to r r e g u l a t o r y a g e n c y ma y s u e i n i t s o wn r i g h ta nd eva de the Act ’ s j ur i s di c t i ona l bar wi thoutthe j oi nderofthe U n ite d St a te s in th e a ct io n . SeeA rkansa s v. Far m C re di tSer vs. of C ent
. A rkansa s , 520 U.S
. 821, 831 ( 1997)
. Because the U n ited St at es i s no ta c o- pl aint i ffi n thi s c as e and i nas m uc h a s the Com pany ha s no tc l ai m ed thati ti s ani ns t ru m en t al ity o fthe fede ra l gove rn m en t, we ne ed n otc ons i der the s e excep tion s t o the TI A. A rem edy i s not “plai n” ifuncert ainty regarding it s nature 5 ex ist s. R o se w ell , 45 0 U. S. at51 6- 17( quo t i ng Tu l l y v . G riffin , 429 U .S. 6 8 , 7 6 (1 9 7 6 )). A r em ed y is n o t “ effic ie n t” if it “ im p o se s . . . unu sual hardship .
. . [o r requir es ] i neffectual act ivity or an unn ece ss ary e xp enditure ofti m e or energy. ” Id. at51 8. The Sup rem e Court has held a st ate court refund process thattakes (co n tin u ed ...) 131 (7th Cir. 1981). 4 O f cou rse, as its plain langu age ind icates, t he TIA ’s j urisd ictional bar i s con d iti one d up on the availabil ity ofa “p lain , sp ee d y a n d effic ien t rem ed y” in s ta te co u rt
. G race B re thre n Ch urch , 4 57U. S
. a t 41 1. The “ pl ain, sp eed y a nd effi ci ent r em edy” r equi re m ent i s co nstr ued narr ow l y. Id. at41 3. A c c or d in gly , th e Su p re m e C o u r t h as h eld th at th is provision m an d ates o n ly th at “a stat e-cou rt r em ed y m ee t[ ] c er ta in m in im al procedural c rit er ia.” 510 N o. 08

- 1497

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 tw o y ear s to p u rsu e sa tisfies the sp eed y rem ed y requ irem en t. Id. at 520. Rose wel l v. La Sal l eNat ’ l Bank, 450 U
. S. 503, 5 12 (1981). H owever, the re m edy m ust “pro vi de[ ] the taxpayer w i th a ‘ ful l he ar i ng and j udi ci alde te r m i na ti o n’ a t whi chs he m ayr ai se a ny a nd a l l c o ns ti tu ti o na l o bj ec ti o ns t o the tax. ” Id. at51 4 ( quoti ng LaS al l eNat ’ l B ank v. C oun ty of Cook, 31 2 N .E .2 d 2 5 2 , 2 55 -56 (Ill . 197 4)); a cco rd Hay v . Indi ana St at eBd. of

Tax Com m ’rs , 3 12 F.3d 87 6, 880 (7th Cir. 2002). A pl a i nt i ff who s e e k s t o s ur mou nt the j ur i s di c t i o nal bar of the TIA bears th e bu r d e n o f d em ons trating th e insu ffi c i e n c y o fth e r e me d y a v a i l a b l e i n th e s t a t e c o u r ts y s t e m. A m o s v. G lyn n C o un ty B d. o f Ta x A ssessors , 34 7 F
. 3d 1249 , 12 56 (11 th C ir. 20 03 ); C hase M anha tt an B ank, N
. A . v . City & Co unty o

f San Francisc o , 121 F.3d 557, 559-60 (9th C ir. 19 97 ); see Franc hi s eTax Bd. of C al i f or ni a v. Al ca n Al um i num Lt d. , 493 U .S
. 3 3 1, 34 0-4 1 (1 99 0); R T CCo m m er cial A ss ets Trust, 16 9 F
. 3d at 453- 54. To de t e r mi ne wh e the r the T I A a pp l i e s , we fi r s tn e e d t o ex am in e t h e k in d of re lief th at th e C om p an y s ou gh t in its co m p lai n t. Se eLe vy, 51 0 F
. 3d at 761- 62. I n i ts praye r f o r r e l i e f, the Co mpa ny a s k e d the di s t r i c t c o ur tto “d ec lar e [t h at ] th e le as eh old int er es t o f th e P lain tiff is n otsu bj ec t t o s ta te ta x at ion ” an d to “d ec lar e [t h at ] all t r a ns a c t i o ns e nt e re d i nt o u nd e r the [ M HPI ] a r e e xe mpt f ro m sta te taxat i on[
. ] ” Granti ng such decl ar ato ryreli ef w oul d doubtl ess “s u sp en d orr est ra i n the ass ess m ent, l ev y o r c o l l ec ti o n” o fthe Cou nt y’s a d v al o r em ta x a ndN o. 08

- 1497 11

U nd er the Il li nois Property Tax Cod e, a t axpaye r w ho has 6 be e n a s s e s s e d o n pr op e r t y whi c h he be li e ve s t o be t a x - e x e m pt c a n a ppl y f ora n e x e m pt i onwi th a l oc a l bo a r d o fre vi e w. 3 5 I LCS 2 0 0 / 1 6

- 7 0. T he t a x pa ye r i s a ff or de d a n op po r t un i t y t o be h ea rd b efo re th e b o a rd
. Id. A ft e r the b oa rd of rev iew con d u cts a hea r i n g a n d f o r wa r ds a s t a t e me n to ff a c t s t o th e De p a rt m en t of R ev en u e, the D ep artm en t d ecid es w he the r the p ro p e r t y is su b jec t to t a xa tio n an d in fo rm s th e b o a rd o f its d ec isi o n . Id. The t ax p a y e r c a n th e n s e e k r e v i e w o fth e d e c i s i o n a ta h e a ri ng b efo re th e D ep a rt m en t. Id
. at8- 35
. Af t erthe he ar i ng, the D ep artm en t w ill rend er a d e cision an d the tax p ay er (ifstill agg riev ed) c an pet i t i on the Dir ec t or ofthe Depar t m en tof R ev en u e fo r a re h ea ri n g . Id. O nc e a final ad m in i st rativ e d eci- (co n tin u ed ...) woul d r edu ce the fl o w of s ta te t ax r ev en ue o r t i e up r i g h t fu l ta x rev en u e. Id. a t7 6 2
. T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e t he Com pany w as, at botto m , a “st ate ta xpayer[ ] se ek[ i ng] [ a] f ed e r a l

- c o u r to r d e r [ ] e n a b l i n g[ i t ] t o a v o i d p ay i ng sta te taxes , ” the A ct di vest ed the dist ri ct c ourto fsubj ect m at te r j ur i sdi ct i o n un l es s a pl ain, s pee dy, a nd e ffi ci en t r e me d y w a s u n a v a i l a b l e i nth e I l l i n o i s c o u r ts y s t e m. H ibb s , 54 2 U.S
. at10 7. W e tu r n the n t o the ty pe o fr emedy a va i lable to th e Com pany un der I l l i noi s l aw . The Com pany does not cl ai m thatthe I l l in ois r em edy i s no t pl ai n orspeedy. H ow ev er , th e C om p an y d o es co n te n d th at th e Illino is re m ed y is n ot e f f icie n t b ec au se it m u st co n c u rre n tly p u rs u e t w o s ep ar at e a d m in ist ra tiv e a ve n u es in c h all en g i ngthe Co unty ’ s as se ss m en t

— the e xe mpt i o n a ppli cati on and the val uati on p ro tes t. I n supp or t o fi ts

6 7 ,812 N o. 08

- 1497

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 si on is i ss ued , the tax pay er m ay se ek revie w in the c ir cuitcourt fo r th e co u n ty i n w h ic h t h e p ro p er ty is sit u a te d
. Id. at 8-40
. W ith exc epti ons not rel evant here , the ci rcuit co u rt has origi nal ju ri sd ic tio n o f al l ju s tic ia b le m a tt er s. I LL . C ONST . a r t
. 6 , § 9
. An ap p eal fro m the circu it cou rt m ay b e tak en to the I l l i n o is a ppe l l a t e c ou r t s . 3 5 I LCS 2 0 0 / 8

- 4 0 ; 7 0 5 I LCS 25/ 8. 1, 8. 2. T he Illinois P ro p erty T ax C od e also p erm its a taxp ay er to file 7 a w ri t t enc om pl ai ntc hal l en gi ng the as s es s ed va l uat i on of prop erty w ith the localb oard ofreview
. 35 ILC S 200/16- 55. Aft er the t ax i s pai d underprote st, a n appea l ofthe boa rd’ s dec i s i on can b e tak en d i r e c t ly to the circu it cou rt in w hich the p ro p erty is lo ca te d b y filin g a t a x o b jec tio n co m p la in t. Id. a t 23- 5; 23- 10; 23- 15; 16-1 60. The ci rcui t c ourt will the n hear al l ofthe tax
p a y er ’s ob jec tio n s to th e a sse ssm en t in qu es tio n . Id. at 23- 15. A n a p p eal from the circu it cou rt m ay b e tak en to the Illinois a ppe l l a t e c ou r t s . 7 0 5 I LCS 25/ 8. 1, 8. 2. T h e C o mpa n y a l s o c l a i ms th atb e c a u s e u n de r I l l i n o i s l a w a 8 li en s ecuri ng p aym ent ofthe tax es becam e enfo rc ea ble wh en the assessm e n t s w ere m ad e, a clou d no w rests up on the title to th e lan d w hich is on ly re m ov a b l e b y m u ltiple p ro ceed ing s. Howe ve r , the Co m pa ny do e s n oti nd i c a t e wha ttyp e o fpr oc e e di ngs ( i fi ndee d the y a re di ffer en tfro m the v al uat i on and ex em pt i on one s ) woul d be re qui re d t o r em ove s uc h a c l oud on title a n d cit es no law in s up port ofs uch content ion. Inas m uch as the C om p an y di d notadva nc e thi s ar gum en ti n the di s t ri c tcou rt and h as f ai l ed t o s uffi c i en t l y de vel op i ton a p p ea l, it is w a iv ed
. H ojn ac ki v . K lei n -A co sta , 285 F. 3d 544, 5 4 9 (7t h C ir . 20 0 2 ). posi ti on, the Com pany ci tes Georgi a R. R. & Ba nk ing Co. v. R edw i ne, 34 2 U.S
. 29 9 ( 1952 ) , f orthe propos i ti on that aN o. 08

- 1497 13 state cou rt rem ed y i s ineffi c ient w he n it w ou ld req uire a mul t i pl i c i t y o fs ui t s . Ho we v e r, the Co mpa ny ’ s r e l i ance on th is c as e is m i s p lac ed . InRe dwin e, the Su p rem e C ou rt he l d tha t a r emedy whi chwoul d ha ve r equir ed th e ta xp ay er to fil e o ve r 30 0 c laim s in fou rt ee n co u n tie s in or d e r t o a ss er t it s lon e c on st itu tio n al c laim w as n oteffici en t. 3 42 U. S
. a t 30 3. The C ou rta l so f o und ine ffi ci en t a s uit

- f or - re fund r em edy thatal l ow ed the taxpayer to c ha l l en g e th e actio ns o fo nl y o ne o ff o urt ax i nga uth or itie s. Id. a t 30 1, 3 03
. By c o nt r as t, th e m atte r b efo r e us potenti al l y i m pli cate s o nl y tw o separ ate pro ceedi ngs

— a f arc r y fr o m the o ne r o us ne ss a nd i ne ffi ci en cy i nhe r en t i n pur su i ng300 cl ai m s i n Red win e . I n additi on, unl i ke th e r e me d yi n R edw i ne, the I l l i no i s r emedy a l l o ws the Companyt o c ha l l en g e th e ac ti o ns o fe ve r y t ax i ng author i ty ( i n thi s ca se, o nl y t h e County) wh i ch has m ade a n a ss es sment
. M o r e i m p o r ta nt l y, unl i k e th e ta xpay eri n Red win e, th e C om p an y h as n o t s h ow n th at it w oul d have t o l i tig ate the s a mecl ai m s in the val uati on pro ceedi ng as i n the exem pti on o ne. W hi l e i t m ay be tr ue thata re m edy thatwould al l ow the Com pany to ass er t i ts exem pti on and v al uati on ch all enges to the County’ s tax ass ess m ent i n one p ro ce edingwoul d b e a r el at i ve l y mor e effi cient c o ur se , the TI A i s not so exacti ng tha t i t r equi re s a st ate r em edy to b e t h e b es t o n e c on c eiv ab le. M i l l e rv. B a uer, 51 7 F
. 2d 27, 32 (7t h C ir. 19 75 ); cf. Ro se w el l , 4 50 U
. S. at5 20 ( ex pl aini ng that “[ n]ow h er e i n the Tax I nj uncti on Act did Congr ess sugge st that the re m edy m ust be the speedi est ”)
. Because the Co mpa nyh a s n o ts ho wn tha tthe I l l i no i s r e med y “i m poses . . . unusual hardshi p . . . [ orr equi re s] i neffectual14 N o. 08

- 1497

S ee s u pra notes 6- 7. 9 ac ti vi tyo r a n unne ce ssary expe ndi tu r e o ft i m e o r e ner gy [,]” w e c an n otsa y t h at it is n oteffic ien t. R osewel l , 450 U
. S. at51 8. I n a ddi t i o n, we c o nc l ud e

— as d id th e d istri ct cou rt

— that the Com p an y would r ecei ve a fullhear i ng and j ud i ci al deter m i nati on o fi ts const i tuti onalcl ai m s in the I l l in ois sys tem as se t for th i n the I l lin ois P ro pertyTax Code. 9 R osewel l , 450 U .S . a t 5 14 . In d ee d , I llin ois ca se law cle ar ly i nd i cate s that I l l i noi s t axpayer s are abl e t o l i ti gat e thei r const i tuti onal and otherfedera l

- l aw chal l enges to sta te tax m att er s i n the I l l i noi s a dm i ni str ati ve and j ud i ci al sy st em . Se e, e . g. , M cL e an v. D ep’ t o f R even ue, 70 4 N
. E.2 d 3 52, 356, 359 (I ll
. 1998); Ro c k f o r d L i f e In s . Co
. v . D e p’ t of Rev e nue, 492 N .E .2 d 1 27 8, 12 79 -83 (Ill . 198 6); LaSa ll e N at’l Bank v. County of

Cook, 312 N
. E
. 2d 252, 255-5 6 ( Ill
. 1974); For d M ot orCo. v. Korz en , 1 96 N
. E
. 2d 656, 661 (I ll
. 1964); P rice Fla vo ring E xtra ct C o . v. Lind heim er, 14 N
. E.2 d 476, 47 7- 7 8 ( Il l. 19 38 ); H om eInt e r i ors & Gi f t s , Inc . v. D ep’ tof Rev e nue, 741 N
. E
. 2d 998, 1001 -03 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 2001); M o n tg o m ery Ward Lif e Ins
. Co
. v. D ep’tof Local G ov’t A ffa irs , 411 N
. E
. 2d 973, 976, 980 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 1980). T h e C o m p an y la st ly c on te n d s t h at ev en if th e T IA is im p lica te d , “[w ]h er e, as h er e , a c as e p re se n ts ‘fac ially co nc l us i ve c l ai m s o ffede r alpr ee m pti o n, ’ a fede r alc o urt need not abst ai n an d m ay deci de the preem pti on questi on. ” In supp or t o fi ts p os ition, the Com pany ci tes N ew O rl e ans Pub. Se r v. , Inc . v. Counc i l of t he City of N ew O r l e ans , 491 U .S. 35 0 (1 98 9), U nite d State s v. C om m onw ealthN o. 08

- 1497 15 of Ke nt uc ky, 2 5 2 F
. 3 d 8 1 6 ( 6 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) , a nd B un nin g v . C o m m onw ealth , 4 2 F
. 3 d 1 0 0 8 ( 6 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )
. T he s e c ase s a r e i na pp o s i t e b ecaus e a l l a ddr e s s ab s t e nt i o n o r p r e e mption d octrines and non e involve the T I A
. M oreover, when th e Act appli es, a di st r i ctc o ur t i s wi th o ut su bj ec t m at te r j ur i sd ict i o n a nd thus c anmake no further j ud i ci al deter m i nati on. Put ano ther way,
“ ‘[w ]ith ou t jur isd ict ion th e c ou rtca n n otp ro c ee d atall i n a n y c a u s e . J u r i s d i c t i o n i s p o we r t o d e c l a r e th e l a w, and w hen i t ce ase s t o exi st, the on ly functi on re m ai ni ng to the cour t i s that of announci ng th e fa ct and dism i ssing the cause . ’ ” St e e l Co. , 52 3 U.S
. at94 ( quoti ng E x parteM cCa rdle, 74 U
. S. (7 W all
. ) 50 6 , 5 1 4 ( 1868 ))
. Thi s i s pr ec i sely w ha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d, a nd we a ppr o ve o ftha t dec i si o n.
I I I
. Concl usi on Because a pl ai n, speedy, and effi c ien t r em edy was av ai l abl e to the Com pany i n the I l l i noi s cour ts, th e T IA dive ste d the di str i ct c ourto fsubj ect m att erj uri sd ict i on o ve r t he Co m pan y ’ s co mpl a i n t
. Ac c o r d i n g l y, t he dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l o fthe acti on fo r w ant o fj uri sdict i on i s her eby A FFI RMED .

11- 14- 08