Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. HYNES

March 26, 1991

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS C. HYNES, et al., Defendants


James F. Holderman, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: HOLDERMAN

JAMES F. HOLDERMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 This case concerns an ongoing dispute between the United States of America and Cook County over the imposition of ad valorem property taxes by Cook County on two federal buildings being purchased by the General Services Administration on an installment basis pursuant to the Purchase Contract Program, 40 U.S.C. § 602a. Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted and defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.

 FACTS

 Many of the facts relevant to the disposition of this motion can be found in the Seventh Circuit's opinion in United States v. County of Cook, 725 F.2d 1128, 1129-30 (1984), and need not be repeated here. Two federal buildings located in Illinois -- the Harold Washington Social Security Center and the Federal Archives and Records Center (the "Centers") -- were purchased on an installment basis pursuant to the Purchase Contract Program, 40 U.S.C. § 602a. That section provides that

 Id. § 602a(d). However, prior to 1985, Illinois Revised statutes ch. 120, para. 500.9a ("unamended para. 500.9a") excluded from local taxation certain government property. The statute exempted

 
all property that is being purchased by a governmental body under an installment contract pursuant to statutory authority and used exclusively for the public purposes of the governmental body.

 In County of Cook, the Seventh Circuit held that the United States was a "governmental body" under para. 500.9a, and that the statute's exemption from local ad valorem taxation applies to Illinois realty being acquired by the United States under the Purchase Contract Program. 725 F.2d at 1131-32.

 Effective January 1, 1985, para. 500.9a was amended ("amended para. 500.9a"). The statute now exempts

 
all property that is being purchased by a governmental body under an installment contract pursuant to statutory authority and used exclusively for the public purposes of the governmental body, except such property as the governmental body has permitted or may permit to be taxed.

 (Emphasis added.) On the basis of the amended paragraph, defendants have assessed the Centers $ 15,259,389.76 for tax years 1985 through the first half of 1989. None of the tax bills have been paid. (Local Rule 12(l) and 12(m) statements.)

 On April 29, 1988, the United States initiated this action seeking a declaratory judgment that defendants are prohibited from imposing ad valorem real property taxes on the Centers because such taxation discriminates against the United States in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The United States also seeks to enjoin defendants from assessing, imposing, or collecting such taxes on the Centers. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which this court construed as a motion for summary judgment. In a memorandum opinion and order of May 16, 1989, this court denied defendants' motion stating that "the legislative history of the 1984 amendment raises the issue of whether the Illinois legislature, through the facially neutral amendment to para. 500.9a, sought 'to impose a tax on properties being acquired by the United States but not on properties being acquired by state or local governments.' [ County of Cook,] 725 F.2d at 1131." Defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied.

 The United States has presently filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the amendment to para. 500.9a discriminates against the United States in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment denying such discrimination ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.