{ "id": 2720360, "name": "Savin Business Machines, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Savin Business Machines v. State", "decision_date": "1975-10-24", "docket_number": "No. 6898", "first_page": "114", "last_page": "116", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 114" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.", "id": 8793, "name": "Illinois Court of Claims" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "31 Ill.2d 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill.Ct.Cl. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.", "case_ids": [ 2755337 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-ct-cl/30/0612-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 305, "char_count": 4165, "ocr_confidence": 0.866, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08379986632425288 }, "sha256": "82b91a08e36dea143f799f420f224faff3e04cab3cc850a76ea57437f38867ff", "simhash": "1:28ba40c2ac82241c", "word_count": 692 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:35.411419+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Savin Business Machines, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Burks, J.\nThis matter is now before the Court for a ruling on Claimant\u2019s petition for rehearing on the Court\u2019s opinion filed June 5, 1975, in which we denied this claim by a summary judgment. 30 Ill.Ct.Cl. 612. We have carefully considered Claimant\u2019s petition with Respondent\u2019s answer, and Claimant\u2019s further reply filed September 29, 1975.\nIn Claimant\u2019s well drafted petition and its reply to Respondent\u2019s objections, we fail to find any significant facts or authorities cited that we previously overlooked or misapprehended which would alter the conclusion in our opinion as filed.\nRecognizing, as we do, the unfortunate financial loss to the Claimant, it is not within the province of this Court to alter the tax laws of this State, the remedies prescribed by our statutes, nor the interpretations placed upon such statutes by our reviewing courts. The same, of course, is true of any executive officer charged with the duty of assessing and collecting franchise taxes payable by foreign corporations.\nThe fact that John W. Lewis, Secretary of State, suggested that Claimant file for a refund in this Court, or that Mr. J. Mills of the Secretary\u2019s office advised Claimant of the consequences of failure to pay the franchise tax in the amount erroneously assessed, did not create any new rights or remedies for the Claimant which were not provided by statute. \"Everyone is presumed to know the law.\u201d I.L.P. Evidence \u00a724. This rule applies to foreign corporations doing business in a sister state, as our courts have held in numerous cases. Hence, Claimant\u2019s alleged reliance upon instructions received from the office of the Secretary of State can have no legal effect on this claim.\nClaimant\u2019s argument that it paid the tax involuntarily and under \"legal duress\u201d is without merit, as we pointed out in our opinion analogizing the two cases cited by the Claimant in support of this contention, Snyderman v. Isaacs, 31 Ill.2d 193, and Alton Light & Traction Co. v. Rose, Ill.App. 83, 86.\nIn both of the above cases cited by the Claimant, the tax refund was denied. In Snyderman the tax had been paid under the 1961 amendments to the Retailers\u2019 Occupation Tax and the Use Tax Act, which were subsequently held invalid. Yet, the taxpayer was denied a refund because the tax erroneously paid was not paid under protest in accordance with the procedure for recovering such tax prescribed in these Acts. Referring to the said proper procedure, our Supreme Court said at page 196:\nIn these provisions there is recognition of the possibility that the State may be unjustly enriched through the retention of taxes erroneously paid, and a remedy has been provided.\nThe above statement justifies the State\u2019s retention of the $9,060.53 which it was overpaid on Claimant\u2019s 1970 franchise tax, and was thus \"unjustly\u201d enriched by Claimant\u2019s failure to know and follow the legal procedures for obtaining a refund as prescribed by law.\nThe Alton case on which Claimant relied was decided in 1904, before our \"protest statute\u201d first became law in 1911, as we stated in our opinion. Even so, the Court denied a refund, saying at page 85, \"The mere fact that a tax was paid unwillingly, or with complaint, is of no legal importance.\u201d The reference in Alton to a notification \"equivalent to a reservation of rights\u201d not only fails to apply to the fact before us, but is no longer controlling in the light of existing statutes.\nFinally, we are not impressed with the contention that Claimant is being made to suffer by the fault of the Respondent, and due to no fault of the Claimant. It was Claimant\u2019s long delay in filing its 1970 Annual Report, eight months after the statutory deadline, that set in motion the chain of events which resulted in Claimant\u2019s overpayment of taxes. Even then, the statute provided a remedy which Claimant failed to follow.\nFor the reasons stated above and in our prior opinion, Claimant\u2019s petition for rehearing is denied and this claim is dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Burks, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Arthur Spiro, Attorney for Claimant.", "William J. Scott, Attorney General; for Respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 6898\nSavin Business Machines, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed October 24, 1975.\nArthur Spiro, Attorney for Claimant.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General; for Respondent." }, "file_name": "0114-01", "first_page_order": 164, "last_page_order": 166 }