Parliament Ins. Co. v. Department of Revenue, No. 61623
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | JOHNSON |
| Citation | 365 N.E.2d 667,8 Ill.Dec. 429,50 Ill.App.3d 341 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 61623 |
| Parties | , 8 Ill.Dec. 429 PARLIAMENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Summit Fidelity & Surety Company, Prestige Casualty Company, and Transportation Motorists Assn., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE of the State of Illinois, Defendant-Appellant. |
Page 667
Company, Prestige Casualty Company, and
Transportation Motorists Assn.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
The DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE of the State of Illinois,
Defendant-Appellant.
Rehearing Denied July 14, 1977.
[50 Ill.App.3d 342]
Page 668
[8 Ill.Dec. 430] William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago (Patricia Rosen, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.Robert J. Lifton, Neistein, Richman, Hauslinger & Young, Ltd., Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellees.
JOHNSON, Justice.
The plaintiffs-appellees, surety companies authorized to do business in the State of Illinois, brought an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division, to reverse an administrative decision of the Illinois Department of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as the Department) not to accept surety bonds issued by plaintiffs, pursuant to statute (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 120, par. 440 et seq.; hereinafter referred to as the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act or the Act). On September 10, 1974, the circuit court reversed the decision of the Department and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The Department appeals from the decision of the trial court.
The question on review is whether the Department is authorized to exercise discretion to determine the right of surety companies to issue bonds under section 2a (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 120, par. 441a), and to conduct hearings for that purpose.
The plaintiff surety companies issued bonds required to be posted by [50 Ill.App.3d 343] taxpayers under section 2a of the Act. That provision requires Illinois taxpayers to post such a bond with the Department as security for any moneys becoming due the State, within 30 days subsequent to engaging in the business of the retail selling of tangible personal property within the State, in order that the Department issue the requisite certificate of registration. The Department held a hearing on April 30, 1973 to determine whether it should continue to approve bonds issued by the plaintiff companies.
Mary K. Younger, supervisor of the Department's surety unit, testified for the Department. The record reveals that 60 files concerning 60 different taxpayers were admitted into evidence at the hearing. The designation at the top of each file referred to the "Parliament Insurance Company, in care of Transportation Motorist Association, Inc., 330 South Wells Street, Chicago, Illinois." When questioned as to one of the files, Mary Younger testified that it involved a defaulting taxpayer where a surety bond had been posted with the State of Illinois by the Parliament Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Parliament). A notice of tax liability issued. An assessment was issued by the Department's collection section and a notice of assessment was sent to Parliament. The case was eventually returned to the surety unit in order that a claim could be filed with the surety company. Attached to the case file was a letter, identified by Ms. Younger as one prepared by the Department under her supervision, which was sent to the surety notifying it of the notice of delinquent taxes. The letter outlined the amounts due and the interest accrued. Neither the taxpayer nor Parliament remitted to the Department any of the money due. Ms. Younger stated that her testimony regarding all of the case files would be substantially the same in reference to the collection procedure employed by the Department. She attested that as of January 31, 1973, the 60 case files represented outstanding liabilities on surety bonds posted by Parliament.
Plaintiff Parliament moved to strike the Department's complaint and dismiss the hearing on the ground that the Department was without statutory authority and lacked jurisdiction to conduct a revocation hearing; that is, to revoke the right of the plaintiffs to issue surety bonds. Parliament objected to the hearing, the admission and consideration of any evidence at hearing, and maintained that by its procedure the Department was denying Parliament a fair and
Page 669
[8 Ill.Dec. 431] impartial hearing, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The Hearing Referee denied the motion and found in favor of the Department. The Referee recommended to the Director of Revenue that the Department no longer accept surety bonds posted by Parliament until all outstanding amounts due on the existing bonds were remitted. The Referee recommended as follows:"(T)he said Surety Company posted surety bonds * * * and [50 Ill.App.3d 344] collected (premiums) on these bonds. The posting of such bonds carries with it the obligation to remit to the Department of Revenue all sums due as a result of a final assessment against a taxpayer who has posted bond with the Department through said Surety Company. Such obligation is for the maximum amount of the bond posted. The position taken by the Surety Company is inconsistent in that while they are willing to collect (premiums) on bonds posted by them, they are not willing, and have failed to pay sums due the Department of Revenue when these sums become due as the result of a final assessment."
On January 25, 1974, the Director issued an order in accordance with the findings and recommendation of the Hearing Referee.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint for administrative review of the Department's determination. The Department filed as its answer the transcript of the administrative proceedings held before the Referee. On September 10, 1974, following a review of the administrative record, the trial court reversed the decision of the Department and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ted Sharpenter, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Com'n, No. 2-85-0583
...Revenue (1983), 116 Ill.App.3d 1072, 1077, 72 Ill.Dec. 577, 452 N.E.2d 830; Parliament Insurance Co. v. Department of Revenue (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 341, 347, 8 Ill.Dec. 429, 365 N.E.2d 667.) The acts of administrative agencies and officers should be upheld where such acts are within limits ......
-
City of Chicago v. State & Mun. Teamsters, AFL-CI
...all that is reasonably necessary to execute that power or authority." (Parliament Insurance Co. v. Department of Revenue (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 341, 347, 8 Ill.Dec. 429, 433, 365 N.E.2d 667, 671.) It includes the authority which is incident to and included in the power expressly conferr......
-
O'Grady v. Cook County Sheriff's Merit Bd., Nos. 1-92-0441
...to execute that power or to perform the duty specifically conferred. Parliament Insurance Co. v. Department of Revenue (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 341, 347, 8 Ill.Dec. 429, 365 N.E.2d 667; Meana v. Morrison (1975), 28 Ill.App.3d 849, 854, 329 Page 92 [198 Ill.Dec. 33] N.E.2d 535; Fahey v. Cook Co......
-
People v. Holleman, No. 79-216
...understood sense are the best indicia of the legislative intent behind it (Parliament Insurance Co. v. Dept. of Revenue (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 341, 8 Ill.Dec. 429, 365 N.E.2d 667); and all the language used must be given effect so as to avoid rendering its provisions meaningless or superfluo......
-
Ted Sharpenter, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Com'n, No. 2-85-0583
...Revenue (1983), 116 Ill.App.3d 1072, 1077, 72 Ill.Dec. 577, 452 N.E.2d 830; Parliament Insurance Co. v. Department of Revenue (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 341, 347, 8 Ill.Dec. 429, 365 N.E.2d 667.) The acts of administrative agencies and officers should be upheld where such acts are within limits ......
-
City of Chicago v. State & Mun. Teamsters, AFL-CI
...all that is reasonably necessary to execute that power or authority." (Parliament Insurance Co. v. Department of Revenue (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 341, 347, 8 Ill.Dec. 429, 433, 365 N.E.2d 667, 671.) It includes the authority which is incident to and included in the power expressly conferr......
-
O'Grady v. Cook County Sheriff's Merit Bd., Nos. 1-92-0441
...to execute that power or to perform the duty specifically conferred. Parliament Insurance Co. v. Department of Revenue (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 341, 347, 8 Ill.Dec. 429, 365 N.E.2d 667; Meana v. Morrison (1975), 28 Ill.App.3d 849, 854, 329 Page 92 [198 Ill.Dec. 33] N.E.2d 535; Fahey v. Cook Co......
-
People v. Holleman, No. 79-216
...understood sense are the best indicia of the legislative intent behind it (Parliament Insurance Co. v. Dept. of Revenue (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 341, 8 Ill.Dec. 429, 365 N.E.2d 667); and all the language used must be given effect so as to avoid rendering its provisions meaningless or superfluo......