Court Opinion

ID: 9520439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:39:51.881209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:15.221704
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HALL, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that the Brooker estate may not avoid the imposition of Illinois estate tax by failing to claim a credit on its federal tax return. Well-settled rules of statutory construction require that the circuit court’s decision be affirmed. I agree with the majority that the goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislative body. However, “the simplest and surest means of effectuating this goal is to read the statutory language itself and give the words their plain and ordinary meaning.” Board of Education, Joliet Township High School District No. 204, 231 Ill. 2d at 198. Our supreme court has cautioned that where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, a court need not consider other interpretive aids. Ultsch v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 226 Ill. 2d 169, 184, 874 N.E.2d 1 (2007). Significantly, “[t]here is no rule of statutory construction that authorizes a court to declare that the legislature did not mean what the plain language of the statute says.” Ultsch, 226 Ill. 2d at 184. After agreeing with the parties that the section 2(a) is not ambiguous, the majority ignores the plain language of the statute and, instead, reads “allowed” as “allowable” in order to achieve the result in this case. However, those terms are not interchangeable. See Beyer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 916 F.2d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 1990) (“ ‘allowable’ deductions, those available to a taxpayer whether or not they are actually claimed on a tax return, and ‘allowed’ deductions, those actually claimed by the taxpayer on a particular return”); but see Lacks, 255 Mich. App. at 562, 662 N.W.2d at 58. The result reached by the circuit court in this case does not ignore the legislative intent to protect its revenue source from changes to the federal tax code. In the majority of cases, the credit will be taken. The facts of the present case make it an exception to the rule. I would affirm the decision of the circuit court. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.