Court Opinion

ID: 9731444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:45:56.286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:18.175502
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring: I agree with the dissent, that a “new rate” is a tax that has not previously been assessed in a particular jurisdiction. I disagree with the Second District’s interpretation of section 18 — 190 pronounced in In re Application of the Du Page County Collector for the Year 1993, 288 Ill. App. 3d 480 (1997). The definition created by the Second District is at odds with the plain and ordinary meaning of “new rate” and seems stretched to accommodate the tax challenged in that case. Department of Revenue publication PTAX 1800 is not binding law, but it is ample evidence that the ordinary meaning of “new rate” is “any rate for a fund for which the district has never levied in the past.” Department of Revenue, Property Tax Extension Limitation Law Technical Manual, 8 (2001). Unlike Justice Carter, I believe a referendum was clearly necessary to impose this tax in 1997. It was “new” then. Paying a tax one year does not, in and of itself, foreclose contesting its validity later. People ex rel. Tarman v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western R.R. Co., 261 Ill. 582, 104 N.E. 252 (1914). But each year’s tax bill represents a different cause of action with its own liabilities and defenses. People ex rel. Lloyd v. University of Illinois, 357 Ill. 369, 192 N.E. 243 (1936). Consequently, an objection that was relevant in 1997 and only in 1997 cannot be made in 2001. Plaintiffs do not allege a “rate increase” since 1997. Plaintiffs’ arguments that they are acting as private attorneys general to save the citizens of Will County from an improper tax is disingenuous and belied by the record. The record shows that plaintiffs contested this tax when it was new. Instead of seeing their protest through to a court judgment for the common good, they eked out a settlement in their own self-interest. They did the same thing in following years. Now the tax is no longer a new rate and plaintiffs have lost their basis for objection. The tax was new in 1997; it was not new in 2001. Therefore, I concur with the judgment above.