United States: Voiding Of Illinois Sales Tax Regulation Leads To Prospective Uncertainty For Sourcing Sales

The Illinois Supreme Court recently struck down an Illinois Department of Revenue (Department) regulation sourcing sales to the location of order acceptance.  While the Supreme Court found that the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights protected the taxpayer from retrospective liability, going forward, Illinois retailers need to closely evaluate their filing positions.  The decision will lead to a period of chaos for taxpayers, local governments and the Department.

In a highly anticipated decision, Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. Hamer, 2013 IL 115130 (November 21, 2013), the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the Illinois Department of Revenue's (Department) regulation sourcing sales to the location of order acceptance.  While the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights protected the taxpayer from liability for back taxes, Illinois retailers need to closely evaluate their filing positions on a prospective basis.  The decision creates a chaotic situation for taxpayers, local governments and the Department.

The Illinois Retailers' Occupation Tax is an unusual form of sales tax that sources sales based on the location of the retailer rather than the location of delivery.  It is imposed on the privilege of engaging in the occupation of making retail sales.  Various local governments (municipalities, counties and special purpose agencies) may impose their own retailers' occupation taxes.  As a result, there are dozens of different tax rates in the state.  The applicable rate depends on where a retailer is carrying on its retail occupation.  When a retailer operates in multiple locations, that determination can be difficult.  For decades, the Department sought to simplify the question by interpreting its sourcing regulation to mean that the retailer is carrying on its occupation at the location where it accepts purchase orders.  Some retailers have engaged in tax planning to place the location of order acceptance in more favorable jurisdictions, and local governments have offered economic development incentives to retailers in exchange for locating a sales office within the jurisdiction.

In Hartney, the Department audited and challenged the taxpayer's claim that its sales were sourced to a sales office in the Village of Mark, in Putnam County, where no local sales tax applied, instead of the taxpayer's office in Forest View, a suburb of Chicago with a significant local sales tax burden.  During the years at issue, Hartney had an arrangement with an unrelated company in Putnam County, by which a clerk employed by that company would take daily telephone orders from Hartney's customers.  Hartney claimed this arrangement established the point of sale for its fuel business.  The Department asserted that Hartney's sales actually occurred at its office in Forest View.

The trial court judge held that the rented place in the Village of Mark was a legitimate sales office and that Hartney should be allowed to continue its practice of operating a sales office in a jurisdiction of its choice.  The judge criticized the Department's audit process and noted that it was "flawed, incomplete, factually unsupported and legally in error." The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the clerk's power to accept orders in the Village of Mark meant that Hartney's sales were accepted in the Village of Mark, not Forest View, under the Department's sourcing regulation.

The Illinois Supreme Court's decision first analyzed the language in the state and local Retailers' Occupation Tax statutes that impose a "tax upon all persons engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property at retail."  The statutes do not provide guidance for determining which local jurisdiction a retailer is engaged in the retail business.  Several Supreme Court cases from the 1940s considered whether out-of-state retailers with some Illinois operations were carrying on enough of their business inside Illinois to be subject to the state's Retailers' Occupation Tax.  In those older cases—particularly, Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. McKibbin, 383 Ill. 316 (1943)—the court concluded that the answer depended on the location where the retailer carried on the "business of selling."  The location of such a business is a "composite of many activities," requiring a "fact-intensive" analysis. In short, no single factor controls.

After concluding that the statutes required this fact-intensive analysis, the Supreme Court turned to the Department's sourcing regulation.  For many years, the Department had interpreted its regulation to mean that a retailer was subject to tax at the location where it accepted customer purchase orders.  It issued a series of letter rulings, which conclude that a retailer accepted orders in a local jurisdiction so long as it had an employee or agent accepting the orders there.  This was so even if the rest of the business was conducted in another local jurisdiction.  However, the Department reversed course in Hartney and other pending cases.  The Department's new position was that its sourcing regulation really called for a detailed analysis of the entire business operation, such that Hartney could not rely on the location of order acceptance to source its sales to the Village of Mark.  The Supreme Court disagreed with the Department and found that the regulation clearly established that the location of order acceptance was the single, controlling factor.

The court's findings created a conflict between the statute and the regulation.  On one hand, the court had found that the statute required an analysis of the entire business operation in order to decide which locality had jurisdiction.  On the other hand, it found that the regulation made the point of order acceptance the controlling factor.  The Supreme Court considered the possibility that the conflict could be reconciled by viewing the regulation's order-acceptance test as a reasonable compromise position that would simplify the task of administering the local occupation taxes.  However, the court rejected that suggestion because it believed that the legislature intended local governments to have a broader ability to tax retail businesses than the order-acceptance test would permit.  As a result, the Supreme Court invalidated the regulations governing local taxing jurisdiction.

All was not lost for the taxpayer, however, because of the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, which requires the abatement of taxes and penalties if the taxpayer has relied on erroneous written information or advice from the Department.  Although the regulation was invalid, Hartney had entirely complied with it and, so, qualified for a complete abatement of tax, penalty and interest.

The decision in Hartney provides relief for taxpayers who have been facing retrospective liabilities on Illinois local sales tax sourcing: While sourcing to an order acceptance sales office was not necessarily the correct treatment, the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and the Department's regulation should protect taxpayers who had used that tax-planning technique from liability for back taxes.  In particular, the Regional Transportation Authority, the City of Chicago and several other local governments have vociferously claimed, in the Hartney case and in other litigation, that the use of an order acceptance office to source sales to a desired jurisdiction was a "sham."  The Supreme Court explicitly found that the sham transaction doctrine did not apply because Hartney structured its affairs in accordance with the regulation.  The Supreme Court cited the rule that "[t]he legal right of the taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

Prospectively, the Hartney decision will lead to a period of chaos.  The jurisdictional regulation has been invalidated, and all of the Department's letter rulings and publications implementing the regulation have been declared to be "erroneous."  Thus, tax liabilities arising after the November 21, 2013, decision cannot be abated because taxpayers can no longer rely on the order-acceptance test.  The Department and taxpayers must now apply the fact-intensive "composite of many activities" test to decide how to source sales.  Unfortunately, there is very little guidance on how to do so.  Indeed, the Supreme Court recognized the coming confusion.  In rejecting pro-business groups' arguments that the court should sustain the regulation because of the certainty and predictability provided by the "bright line" order-acceptance test, the court said that "[t]hese are arguments well-suited for the General Assembly.  Should the legislature decide that tax certainty warrants a single-factor determination of retail occupation tax situs, it can draft such a test."

The Illinois General Assembly could enact legislation providing a clearer rule.  While the Hartney litigation proceeded through the court system, various interest groups had proposed legislative solutions.  Each proposal predictably triggered strong support and equally strong opposition.  The pending litigation put off the need for a legislative solution.  Now, with the Supreme Court having invalidated the order-acceptance test, the inevitable chaos on how to source retail sales among competing tax jurisdictions may provide sufficient pressure to bring about a legislative compromise.  For example, Illinois could abandon the concept of taxing the occupation of making retail sales and move to a traditional sales tax that would source the local tax on a sale to the point of delivery.

In the absence of legislation, the Department could promulgate new rules, applying the fact-intensive "composite of many activities" approach.  Additionally, as an administrative practice, the Department could issue guidance for taxpayers transitioning from the order-acceptance rule to the new regime.  With the next returns due as early as December 20, taxpayers should contact their advisors at their earliest convenience, particularly if they may need to begin charging their customers higher tax rates.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions