Gee Coal Co. v. Dep't of Fin.

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFARTHING
CitationGee Coal Co. v. Dep't of Fin., 361 Ill. 293, 197 N.E. 871 (Ill. 1935)
Decision Date09 October 1935
Docket NumberNo. 22968.,22968.
PartiesGEE COAL CO. v. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Certiorari proceeding by the Gee Coal Company against the Department of Finance of Illinois to review a determination of the Department of Finance fixing a deficiency retailer's occupation tax. From an order sustaining a motion by the Gee Coal Company to quash the record and proceedings had before the Department of Finance, the Department of Finance appeals.

Order reversed, and cause remanded, with directions.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; James J. Kelly, judge.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen. (Montgomery S. Winning, of Springfield, and William C. Clausen, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Rubenstein, Haggenjos & Monarch, of Chicago (N. W. Rubenstein and Alexander J. Resa, both of Chicago, of counsel) for appellee.

FARTHING, Justice.

The state department of finance appealed to this court from a final order entered by the superior court Cook county sustaining a motion by the Gee Coal Company, appellee, to quash the record and proceedings had before the department, wherein it found, after a hearing, that appellee was liable to the state for a tax under the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act. The amount of liability fixed ($135.41) represented a deficiency for the months of November and December, 1933. The superior court by the same order overruled a motion by appellant to quash appellee's writ of certiorari.

Appellee conducts a retail coal business in Chicago. It buys coal f. o. b. the mines and ships it by rail to its yard in Chicago. It pays the mining company for the coal and the railroads their freight charges. It then sells coal to consumers. Before the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act (Smith-Hurd Ann. St. c. 120, § 440 et seq.) was passed, and up to November, 1933, its billing was at a single charge per ton, but beginning with November, 1933, it separated the charge per ton into an item for the coal and another item for freight in billing its customers. This latter item represented the freight charged appellee per ton for transporting the coal from the mine to its Chicago yard.

Appellee contends that under the terms of the act it properly excluded from the amount of its gross receipts, in computing its tax, amounts paid it by customers to reimburse it for such freight charges. If this contention is sound, the ruling of the superior court is correct. If, on the other hand, appellant's contention is correct that such freight charges are a part of the sale price of the coal, although made a separate item in billing customers, that ruling was erroneous, and the judgment of the trial court should be reversed.

Both appellant and appellee agree that the question presented is one of law and that it is to be determined from the statute. It is therefore unnecessary to set out rule 25 of the appellant department, which purported to deal with freight charges.

Section 1 of the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act (Smith-Hurd Ann. St. c. 120, § 440; Cahill's Rev. St. 1933, c. 120, par. 426), defines selling price as follows: “Selling price' or the ‘amount of a sale’ means the consideration for a sale valued in money whether received in money or otherwise, including cash, credits, services and property of every kind or nature and shall be determined, without any deduction on account of the cost of the property sold, the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
13 cases
  • Kean v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 19, 2009
    ...used, labor or service cost, or "any other expense whatsoever." These words are all-embracing in their scope. (Gee Coal Co. v. Department of Finance, 361 Ill. 293.) The obvious meaning of the expression "any other expense whatsoever" precludes the deduction which plaintiffs seek to make in ......
  • State Board of Equalization of Wyoming v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1937
    ... ... 792; Bradley Supply Company v. Ames, 194 N.E. 272; ... Franklin County Coal Company v. Ames, 194 N.E. 268 ... It is submitted that the transactions involved in this case ... ...
  • Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Clayton
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1969
    ...been paid on the goods to bring them to the retail outlet in North Carolina where the sale takes place. Gee Coal Co. v. Dept. of Finance, 361 Ill. 293, 197 N.E. 871, 102 A.L.R. 766; State v. Menefee Motor Co., 18 La.App. 694, 139 So. 61; Annot.: 102 A.L.R. 768. Thus, the net effect of inclu......
  • State v. Holly Sugar Corporation
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1941
    ... ... 384; Houghton ... Bros. v. Yocum, 40 Wyo. 57; Burton v. Union Pacific ... Coal Co., 18 Wyo. 362. The same rule will be applied to ... amendments of a statute. Fidelity & ... ...
  • Get Started for Free