No. 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

THIRD DIVISION November 2, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

CITIBANK, N.A., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 13 L 50072 ) THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ) and BRIAN HAMER, Director of Revenue, ) The Honorable ) Patrick J. Sherlock, Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________ ) ________________________________ ) CHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of AMERICAS, LLC, n/k/a TD Auto Finance, LLC, ) Cook County. ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) No. 13 L 50005 THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ) and BRIAN HAMER, Director of Revenue, ) The Honorable ) Robert Lopez-Cepero, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding. ) ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Lavin concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

¶1 These consolidated appeals involve the review of the determinations of the Department of

Revenue (Department) on claims by plaintiffs Citibank, N.A. (Citibank) and Chrysler Financial

Services America, LLC, n/k/a TD Auto Finance, LLC (Chrysler), for refunds of taxes under

section 6 of the Retailers’ Occupation Tax Act (ROTA) (35 ILCS 120/6 (West 2012)). Citibank

and Chrysler sought refunds of ROTA taxes associated with uncollectible debt on credit and

installment contracts financed by Citibank and Chrysler for the purchase of goods. The

Department denied both Citibank’s and Chrysler’s claims for refunds. The circuit court reversed

the Department’s determination on Citibank’s claim, which the Department now appeals (Appeal

No. 1-13-3650). In contrast, the circuit court affirmed the Department’s determination on

Chrysler’s claim, in response to which Chrysler instituted the other appeal at issue in this matter

(Appeal No. 1-15-0812).

¶2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court on Citibank’s

claim. Although involving very similar facts relevant to the issue of standing, Chrysler’s appeal

must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 Appeal No. 1-13-3650

¶5 In its claim to the Department, Citibank sought a refund of $1,600,853.32 in ROTA taxes

paid on sales funded through the use of consumer accounts owned by Citibank. Citibank’s claim

was submitted to the Department’s administrative law judge (ALJ) on facts stipulated to by the

parties. Those stipulated facts established the following:

¶6 The retailers (doing business in Illinois) involved in the sales at issue provided their

customers with the option to finance their purchases, including the applicable ROTA tax, on a

credit basis. Citibank, through agreements with the retailers, would then originate or acquire

-2- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

those consumer charge accounts and receivables from the retailers on a non-recourse basis.

Under these agreements, Citibank acquired all rights related to the accounts, including the right

to all payments from the consumers and the right to claim ROTA tax refunds or credits.

¶7 Each time a consumer used his or her account to finance a purchase, Citibank would

remit to the retailer the full amount financed by the consumer, including any applicable ROTA

tax. The retailer would then remit the ROTA tax to the State.

¶8 Eventually, some of the consumers on these accounts defaulted, leaving unpaid balances

that included amounts attributable to financed ROTA taxes. After attempting to collect the

balances on the defaulted accounts, Citibank determined that the defaulted accounts were

worthless, wrote the balances off on its books and records, and claimed the balances as bad debt

on its federal income taxes between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2009.

¶9 The $1,600,853.32 Citibank sought to have refunded constituted that portion of the

ROTA taxes attributable to the unpaid and written off balances of the defaulted consumer

accounts.

¶ 10 On January 31, 2011, the Department issued a Notice of Tentative Denial to Citibank. In

response, Citibank requested an administrative hearing. In his recommendation for disposition,

the ALJ recommended that (1) Citibank’s claim be denied on the bases that Citibank did not

include all of the required information or sufficient detail on its application for a refund,

(2) Citibank did not bear the burden of the ROTA tax, (3) the ROTA tax was not paid in error,

(4) there was no evidence that any erroneously paid taxes were refunded to the consumer,

(5) Citibank was not the remitter of the taxes to the State, and (6) the assignments from the

retailers to Citibank did not give Citibank a right to a refund of the ROTA taxes. On December

-3- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

13, 2012, the Director of the Department adopted the ALJ’s recommendation. Citibank appealed

to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

¶ 11 On October 17, 2013, the circuit court issued an order reversing the Department’s denial

of Citibank’s claim. The circuit court concluded that the primary issue was whether Citibank

bore the burden of the taxes, not whether it was a retailer, as neither the applicable statute nor the

applicable administrative regulation limited refunds to retailers. According to the circuit court,

even if it was of some consequence whether Citibank was a retailer, the retailers had properly

assigned their rights to Citibank, entitling Citibank to a refund. Finally, the circuit court

concluded that Citibank was not required to refund the taxes to the consumer before seeking a

refund and that Citibank did not fail to provide all of the information required in its application

for a refund.

¶ 12 The Department then filed a timely notice of appeal.

¶ 13 Appeal No. 1-15-0812

¶ 14 In its claim, Chrysler sought a refund of $4,630,622.71 in ROTA taxes on the sales of

certain motor vehicles. As in the previous appeal, Chrysler’s claim was submitted to the

Department’s ALJ on facts stipulated to by the parties. Those stipulated facts established the

following.

¶ 15 For the sales at issue, the retailer and consumer entered into retail installment contracts

(in Illinois) under which the consumer agreed to pay the entire amount financed over time in

fixed installments of a specific sum. The total amount financed included the total purchase price

of the vehicle, along with the total ROTA tax due on the sale, minus any down payment made by

the consumer. Any down payments were applied pro rata between the purchase price and the

ROTA tax.

-4- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

¶ 16 Contemporaneously with the execution of the installment contracts, the retailers assigned

to Chrysler all of their rights, titles, and interests in the installment contracts, without recourse.

The assignments included the right to enforce the debt and to repossess the collateral in the event

of default by the consumers. In exchange for these assignments, Chrysler paid the retailers the

entire amounts financed under the contracts. The retailers then reported and remitted to the State

the amount of ROTA taxes due on each of the sales.

¶ 17 Some of the consumers who entered into the installment contracts with the retailers

defaulted on their obligations to pay, resulting in a failure to fully repay the total purchase price

and ROTA tax amounts. In some instances, the vehicles were repossessed and sold. Any

amounts collected on the sale of the repossessed vehicles were applied pro rata between what

remained of the sales price and the ROTA tax.

¶ 18 Following reasonable attempts to collect any outstanding balances on the defaulted

installment contracts, Chrysler determined them to be worthless and claimed the remaining

balances as bad debts on their federal taxes. These bad debts were written off between April 1,

2006, and March 31, 2009.

¶ 19 The $4,630,622.71 Chrysler sought to have refunded constituted the portion of the ROTA

taxes attributable to the unpaid and written off balances of the defaulted installment contracts.

¶ 20 On August 6, 2010, the Department issued a notice of tentative denial to Chrysler. In

response, Chrysler requested an administrative hearing. In his recommendation for disposition,

the ALJ recommended that (1) Chrysler’s claim be denied on the bases that Chrysler did not bear

the burden of the ROTA tax, (2) the ROTA tax was not paid in error, (3) there was no evidence

that any erroneously paid taxes were refunded to the consumer, (4) Chrysler was not the retailer

of the goods sold and did not remit the ROTA taxes to the State, (5) the assignment from the

-5- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

retailer to Chrysler did not give Chrysler a right to a refund of the ROTA taxes, and (6) Chrysler

failed to prove the claimed refund amount. On November 29, 2012, the Department issued its

final determination, denying Chrysler’s claim. Chrysler appealed to the Circuit Court of Cook

County.

¶ 21 On March 14, 2014, the circuit court issued an order sustaining the Department’s denial

of Chrysler’s claim on the bases that (1) no tax was paid in error, (2) Chrysler did not remit the

ROTA taxes to the State, (3) Chrysler was not a retailer, (4) the assignments did not bind the

State, and (5) Chrysler did not bear the burden of the ROTA taxes.

¶ 22 Eight and a half months later, on November 25, 2014, Chrysler filed a petition to modify

the judgment under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West

2012)). In the section 2-1401 petition, Chrysler claimed that it did not learn that the circuit court

had issued its decision on Chrysler’s appeal until October 2014. Chrysler claimed that upon

review of the circuit court’s decision, it realized that the circuit court had failed to address

Chrysler’s contention that the ALJ erred in disregarding the parties’ stipulation as to the amount

of Chrysler’s claim and requiring Chrysler to support the claimed amount with documentation.

Chrysler requested that the circuit court modify its March 14, 2014, judgment to include an

analysis of this issue.

¶ 23 On December 16, 2014, the circuit court issued an order simply stating that the section 2-

1401 petition was granted. Thereafter, on March 3, 2015, the circuit court issued a supplemental

opinion, which was identical to its March 14, 2014, order, with the exception that it also

contained the circuit court’s conclusion that the ALJ had erred in disregarding the parties’

stipulation as to the amount of Chrysler’s claim and a statement that the period for appeal of the

-6- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

circuit court’s decision began to run as of the date the circuit court’s supplemental opinion was

entered.

¶ 24 Chrysler filed its notice of appeal on March 19, 2015, purporting to appeal from the

circuit court’s supplemental opinion under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(3) (eff. Jan. 1,

2015).

¶ 25 ANALYSIS

¶ 26 On appeal, both Citibank and Chrysler argue that they are entitled to refunds of the

ROTA taxes attributable to the uncollectible debt on the defaulted credit and installment

contracts, because they bore the burden of the ROTA taxes and because the retailers assigned the

rights to such refunds to Citibank and Chrysler. The Department, on the other hand, argues that

Citibank and Chrysler lack standing to obtain refunds of the ROTA taxes, because they are not

retailers who remitted the taxes to the State. As we discuss below, Citibank is entitled to a refund

as the assignee of the retailers. Chrysler’s appeal, however, must be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

¶ 27 Appeal No. 1-13-3650

¶ 28 On appeal, the Department argues that Citibank is not entitled to a refund of ROTA taxes

attributable to the uncollected amounts on the defaulted accounts because (1) Citibank lacks

standing under the relevant statute to seek such a refund because it is not a retailer, and (2) even

if it did have standing, Citibank failed to comply with the procedural application requirements of

the applicable statutes and regulations. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Citibank

had standing by way of assignment to seek a refund and that any deficiencies in Citibank’s

application were moot because the Department stipulated that the refund amount sought by

Citibank was comprised of ROTA taxes attributable to the unpaid debt.

-7- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

¶ 29 We first address the Department’s motion to strike a portion of Citibank’s brief on the

basis that it cites to the unpublished decision of Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Hamer, No. 4-09-0611

(May 5, 2010) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23), for the proposition that the

Department is collaterally estopped from arguing that Citibank did not bear the burden of the

ROTA taxes at issue and, thus, did not have standing to seek a refund. Because we resolve this

case on different grounds and do not consider the holding of Home Depot in reaching our

decision, the Department’s motion is denied as moot.

¶ 30 We turn now to the merits of this case. On appeal, we review the determination of the

administrative agency, not that of the circuit court. Richard’s Tire Co. v. Zehnder,

(1998). Administrative agency decisions on questions of law—such as whether a party

has standing—are reviewed de novo. See City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations

Board,

(1998); Kohls v. Maryland Casualty Co.,

(1986). Questions of mixed law and fact—such as whether Citibank is entitled to a refund of

ROTA taxes—are reviewed for clear error. City of Belvidere,

.

¶ 31 The Department first contends that Citibank lacks standing to seek a refund of ROTA

taxes because it is not a retailer that remitted the taxes to the State and because the right to a

refund could not be assigned to Citibank by the retailers. We need not address the Department’s

contention that only retailers that remit the taxes have standing to pursue a refund, because we

conclude that even if only remitting retailers have standing under the statute, the retailers in the

present case effectively assigned their rights to pursue a refund to Citibank.

¶ 32 The parties do not quibble about the law applicable to assignments. An assignment is a

transfer of property or a right from one person to another, which confers a complete and present

right in the property or right to the assignee. Amalgamated Transit Worker’s Union v. Pace

-8- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

Suburban Division,

(2011). Assignability is the rule in today’s legal

world, and nonassignability is the exception. Kleinwort Benson North America, Inc. v. Quantum

Financial Services, Inc.,

(1998). Both common law and statutory rights are

assignable, unless a statute or public policy clearly states otherwise. Amalgamated Transit,

. Following an assignment, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor with

respect to the rights, title, and interest in the thing assigned. Collins Co. v. Carboline Co.,

(1988); In re Estate of Martinek,

(1986).

¶ 33 The Department asserts that the assignment of the right to a refund of ROTA taxes is

prohibited by section 6 of ROTA and violates public policy. We address each of these in turn.

¶ 34 Our supreme court has explained the tax scheme under ROTA and the complementary

Use Tax Act (35 ILCS 105/3 (West 2006)) as follows:

“ROTA and the Use Tax Act are complementary, interlocking statutes that comprise

the taxation scheme commonly referred to as the Illinois ‘sales tax.’ [Citations.] Whereas

ROTA imposes a tax ‘upon persons engaged in the business of selling at retail tangible

personal property’ [citation], the Use Tax Act imposes a tax ‘upon the privilege of using

in this State tangible personal property purchased at retail from a retailer’ [citation]. ***

A retailer’s tax liability under ROTA is computed as a percentage of ‘gross receipts’

(35 ILCS 120/2-10 (West 2006)), defined as the ‘total selling price’ (35 ILCS 120/1

(West 2006)). Similarly, the use tax is determined as a percentage of the ‘selling price.’

35 ILCS 105/3-10 (West 2006).” Kean v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

(2009).

The tax rate under both ROTA and the Use Tax Act is 6.25%. 35 ILCS 120/2-10 (West 2014);

35 ILCS 105/3-10 (West 2014).

-9- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

¶ 35 Typically, the retailer collects the use tax from the consumer and remits it to the

Department. A retailer need not remit the use tax, however, if it has paid the ROTA tax on the

gross receipts of the same sale. Accordingly, although a single sale and purchase triggers the

duty to pay two different taxes, the Department receives payment for only one of the taxes, and

that payment satisfies both taxes. Kean,

.

¶ 36 With respect to refunds of ROTA taxes, section 6 of ROTA provides in relevant part:

“If it appears, after claim therefor filed with the Department, that an amount of tax or

penalty or interest has been paid which was not due under this Act, whether as a result of

a mistake of fact or an error of law, except as hereinafter provided, then the Department

shall issue a credit memorandum or refund to the person who made the erroneous

payment *** .” 35 ILCS 120/6 (West 2014).

The Department contends that this section limits refunds to the remitter of the tax and, therefore,

also prohibits the assignment of the right to a refund to anyone other than the remitter of the tax.

We disagree. The language of section 6 does not discuss the assignment of the right to a tax

refund, much less limit or prohibit the assignment of such a right. Even if section 6 bestows the

right to a tax refund solely upon the remitter of the tax, that does not mean that after the initial

bestowment, the remitter is not free to do what it pleases with that right. Given the lack of

language in section 6 limiting the assignment of the right to a refund, we conclude that the

retailers’ assignments to Citibank were not precluded by statute. See People ex rel. Stone v.

Nudelman,

(1940) (concluding that because the language of the statute did not

limit what could be done with a credit memorandum after it was issued or otherwise discuss its

assignability, the credit memo was assignable).

-10- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

¶ 37 The Department also argues that the assignment of a right to a ROTA tax refund violates

public policy (1) because it could result in the refund of taxes not actually paid, leading to the

unjust enrichment of persons who did not pay the taxes themselves, and (2) because Citibank

was compensated through vendor discounts, cardholder charges, and interest payments. With

respect to the first contention, the Department claims that assignments are more likely to result in

mistakenly issued refunds than if refunds are limited to those with whom the Department has an

existing taxpayer/collector relationship, i.e., retailers. In illustration of this point, the Department

points to Citibank’s claimed failure to present documentation evidencing the transactions

underlying the bad debts. The Department does not explain, and we do not find, any correlation

between this supposed lack of evidence and Citibank’s status as an assignee. Rather, as discussed

below, any lack of documentation on the part of Citibank appears to have been a result of the

parties’ stipulation to the amount of taxes attributable to the uncollected debt, not Citibank’s

status as an assignee. Moreover, the conclusion that the right to a refund under section 6 is

assignable does not alter the procedural requirements a claimant—whether remitter or

assignee—must comply with before a refund will be issued. Therefore, the Department is still

free to vet applications for refunds in the same manner it always has.

¶ 38 We also find to be without merit the Department’s second contention that the assignment

of the right to a ROTA tax refund violates public policy because it would be unfair to allow

Citibank to collect a tax refund where it has already been compensated—through vendor

discounts, cardholder charges, and interest payments—for the “bad debt risks” inherent in its

business through vendor discounts, cardholder charges, and interest payments. The compensation

Citibank receives for its services has no bearing on whether the right to a tax refund is

assignable. More importantly, it is not the province of this Court to police what is considered to

-11- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

be fair compensation for Citibank’s services. Resolution of what constitutes fair compensation

belongs to the parties to the agreement—Citibank and the retailers—and it would appear that the

parties considered Citibank’s services to be worth not only the vendor discounts, cardholder

charges, and interest payments, but also the assignment of any ROTA tax refund that might

become due. Thus, regardless of whether the vendor discounts, cardholder charges, and interest

payments do, in fact, adequately compensate Citibank for the risks they run in financing

purchases by consumers, it is inappropriate to invoke public policy to undo an agreement

between the parties. See Kleinwort,

(“The power to invalidate part or all of an

agreement on the basis of public policy is used sparingly because private parties should not be

needlessly hampered in their freedom to contract between themselves.”).

¶ 39 Although interwoven into its other arguments, the Department also argues that Citibank

is not entitled to a refund via the assignments, because the retailers (the assignors) would not be

entitled to a refund under the present circumstances. We disagree. Pursuant to the Department’s

regulation 130.1960(d) (86 Ill. Adm. Code 130.1960(d) (2000)), a retailer who incurs bad debt

on a sale may obtain a “bad debt credit” to the extent that the retailer has paid ROTA taxes on

the uncollected debt or to the extent that he has paid ROTA taxes on a portion of the sales price

that he is not permitted to retain due to repayment to a lending agency under a “with recourse”

agreement. To qualify, the written off debts must be deducted on the retailer’s federal taxes. 86

Ill. Adm. Code 130.1960(d)(1)-(2) (2000). These taxes are considered to be paid in error, and the

retailer may file a claim for their refund pursuant to section 6 of ROTA. 86 Ill. Adm. Code

130.1960(d)(3) (2000).

¶ 40 According to the parties’ stipulation, in the course of business the retailers would offer

financing to their customers. Citibank then originated or acquired those credit accounts and

-12- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

receivables from the retailers by way of assignments that included the retailers’ rights to any and

all payments from the consumer and to claim ROTA tax refunds. In exchange, Citibank would

remit to the retailer the entire purchase price plus any applicable ROTA tax. Under these facts,

had the assignments not occurred and the retailers retained the accounts on which the consumers

defaulted, they would have been permitted to obtain a refund of the ROTA taxes attributable to

those portions of the defaulted accounts that were not collected, so long as they deducted the

debts on their federal taxes. Accordingly, because the retailers would have been permitted to

obtain a refund had they not assigned the accounts, Citibank, by stepping into the retailers’ shoes

via assignment, should also be permitted to obtain a refund.

¶ 41 The Department disagrees with this conclusion because, according to it, to take advantage

of the bad debt credit, the retailer must have either financed the sale itself or have a “with

recourse” agreement with a lender. There is no dispute that the latter does not apply, because the

parties stipulated that the agreements between the retailers and Citibank were without recourse.

As to the former, however, the Department contends that the retailers did not finance the

transactions, Citibank did. Even assuming that the bad debt credit regulation requires that a

retailer self-finance, the parties’ stipulation indicates that is what happened here.

¶ 42 Admittedly, the stipulation of the parties does not specifically state whether the retailers

entered into financing agreements directly with the consumers and then sold the rights under

those agreements to Citibank or whether Citibank entered into financing agreements directly

with the consumer. The stipulation does state, however, that Citibank originated or acquired the

accounts from the retailers and that Citibank acquired all rights to payments from the consumers

and to ROTA refunds or credits by way of its agreements with the retailers. These statements do

not make sense unless the retailers entered into financing agreements with the consumers directly

-13- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

and then sold and assigned their rights under those financing agreements to Citibank in exchange

for payment of the financed amount. After all, if Citibank had not provided the financing directly

to the consumer, there would have been nothing for the retailers to assign to Citibank or for

Citibank to acquire from the retailers. See People v. One 1999 Lexus,

, 692-

93 (2006) (stating that stipulations are contracts and that they should not be interpreted in such a

way so as to render any portion meaningless).

¶ 43 The Department also argues that retailers would not have been able to obtain a refund

because there is no evidence that any of the ROTA taxes were refunded to the consumers.

Section 6 of ROTA provides:

“No credit may be allowed or refund made for any amount paid by or collected from any

claimant unless it appears that the claimant has unconditionally repaid, to the purchaser,

any amount collected from the purchaser and retained by the claimant with respect to the

same transaction under the Use Tax Act.” 35 ILCS 120/6 (West 2014).

This language does not require a refund claimant to return any and all taxes collected from the

consumer before pursuing any refund whatsoever. Rather, it simply limits the refund a claimant

may seek to those taxes that were paid but not collected from the consumer. Those taxes that

were both paid to the State and collected from consumers, however, cannot be refunded to

claimants absent refunds being first issued to the consumers. Here, the parties stipulated that the

ROTA taxes were paid to the State, but that the consumers did not repay all of the ROTA taxes,

i.e., Citibank did not collect all of the taxes. The parties further stipulated that it is these

uncollected taxes (as opposed to all of the ROTA taxes) for which Citibank seeks a refund.

¶ 44 The Department’s contention that the retailers collected the entire amount of taxes from

the consumers and, therefore, a refund is unavailable unless the taxes are first refunded to the

-14- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

consumers is unavailing. First, the retailers did not collect the taxes from the consumer; they

collected them from Citibank. Second, as previously discussed, as assignee, Citibank steps into

the shoes of the retailers, meaning that if there had been no assignment and the retailers retained

the defaulted accounts (and, thus, no deal with Citibank), the retailers would not have been

required to refund to the consumers taxes that the consumers had not paid in the first place. Thus,

Citibank is also not required to refund to the consumers taxes the consumers have not actually

paid. Instead, Citibank is simply limited to seeking a refund of those taxes that remain

uncollected.

¶ 45 Finally, the Department contends that Citibank is not entitled to a refund because it failed

to comply with the procedural application requirements of the applicable statutes and

regulations, namely, that it failed to provide information required under section 6a of ROTA and

failed to submit supporting documentation. More specifically, the Department argues that

(1) Citibank failed to identify the merchants that made the sales at issue; (2) represented that it

(as opposed to the retailers) had overpaid taxes in an amount that equated to a tax rate of 8%;

(3) signed the application form, stating that it had repaid any overpaid sales tax collected from its

customers; and (4) failed to submit documentary evidence in support of its claimed tax

overpayment.

¶ 46 According to the Department, this information was necessary to ensure that any refund

given to Citibank did not exceed the amount of the overpaid taxes. Although we agree that it is

important to ensure that any refunds issued are in the correct amount, there is no such concern in

this case, as the parties specifically stipulated that the amount Citibank sought to have refunded

was “the portion of balances that were written off as bad debts that is attributable to the

Retailers’ Occupation Tax.” Because the parties stipulated that the claimed refund amount was

-15- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

equal to the amount of ROTA taxes not collected from the consumers, there was no need for

Citibank to provide additional information or evidence in support of this claim. One 1999 Lexus,

.

¶ 47 In sum, we conclude that Citibank does have standing to pursue a refund of the ROTA

taxes attributable to the uncollected debts as a result of the assignments from the retailers. Any

deficiency in Citibank’s application for refund or supporting documentation is moot, as the

Department stipulated to the amount of ROTA taxes attributable to the uncollected debt,

dispensing with the need for Citibank to present any other evidence on the issue.

¶ 48 Appeal No. 1-15-0812

¶ 49 Although the legal issues raised by Chrysler in appeal number 1-15-0812 are similar to

those raised in the Citibank appeal, we are unable to address them, as we lack jurisdiction over

this appeal. The Department argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Chrysler’s

appeal, because Chrysler failed to file a timely notice of appeal following the circuit court’s entry

of its March 14, 2014, order resolving Chrysler’s challenge to the Department’s denial of its

claim for a ROTA tax refund. Even if the Department had not raised a jurisdictional challenge,

we have a duty to consider our jurisdiction sua sponte and to dismiss if jurisdiction is wanting.

Revolution Portfolio, LLC v. Beale,

(2003).

¶ 50 To recap, on March 14, 2014, the circuit court issued its order upholding the

Department’s denial of Chrysler’s claim for a ROTA tax refund. Eight and a half months later,

on November 25, 2014, Chrysler filed its section 2-1401 petition. On December 16, 2014, the

circuit court issued an order granting the section 2-1401 petition. Thereafter, on March 3, 2015,

the circuit court issued its supplemental opinion, which was identical to the March 14, 2014,

order, except that it contained a discussion of the ALJ’s disregard of the parties’ stipulation and a

-16- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

statement that the time for appeal would begin to run from the entry of the supplemental opinion.

Chrysler filed its notice of appeal on March 19, 2015.

¶ 51 In its statement of jurisdiction on appeal, Chrysler claims that it filed its notice of appeal

within 30 days of the entry of the March 3, 2015, supplemental opinion, and, therefore, this

Court has jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994), and 303(a)(1)

(eff. Jan. 1, 2015). Rule 301 provides that every final judgment of a circuit court in a civil case is

appealable as of right. Rule 303(a)(1) requires that the notice of appeal from such orders be filed

within 30 days of the entry of the final judgment. To be final, an order must dispose of the

parties’ rights “either upon the entire controversy or upon such definite and separate part thereof,

such as a claim in a civil case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State Farm Fire & Casualty

Co. v. John J. Rickhoff Sheet Metal Co.,

(2009).

¶ 52 On March 14, 2014, the circuit court issued its order upholding the Department’s denial

of Chrysler’s claim for a ROTA tax refund. This order fully disposed of Chrysler’s claim seeking

review of the Department’s determination that it was not entitled to a refund. Because the court’s

order resolved all pending claims against all parties in the case, it was a final and appealable

order. At that point, Chrysler had four options: file a timely posttrial motion within 30 days, file

a timely notice of appeal within 30 days, do nothing and accept defeat, or file a section 2-1401

petition within two years. Chrysler chose the last option, filing its section 2-1401 petition

requesting that the circuit court address its argument regarding the ALJ’s disregard of the

stipulated amount of its claim.

¶ 53 Even so, we still lack jurisdiction to review Chrysler’s appeal. The circuit court granted

Chrysler’s section 2-1401 petition on December 16, 2014. This was a final order resolving that

-17- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

section 2-1401 petition. Chrysler was obligated to file its appeal within 30 days of that date. It

did not.

¶ 54 Chrysler cannot rely on the entry of the March 3, 2015, supplemental opinion as the date

that triggered its obligation to file a notice of appeal. According to Chrysler, the supplemental

opinion was not related to the section 2-1401 petition, but instead was a modification of the

circuit court’s March 14, 2014, original opinion. This, however, means that the supplemental

opinion was entered without authority because it was entered more than 30 days after the March

14, 2014, opinion. City of Chicago v. Heinrich,

(1989); Welch v.

Ro-Mark, Inc.,

(1979). If the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter

the supplemental opinion, then we lack jurisdiction to review it. Keener v. City of Herrin,

(2009) (“Because the circuit court had no jurisdiction to enter its order of August 25,

2006, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to review that judgment.”).

¶ 55 We further note that the circuit court’s inclusion of a statement that the time for appeal

began to run as of the date the supplemental opinion has no effect on our analysis. The supreme

court rules determine when and how a timely notice of appeal is taken, and the circuit court lacks

authority to extend that time. Meyer v. Blue Cab Co.,

(1984); see also .

Moreover, as discussed above, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the March 14, 2014,

opinion after 30 days, thus depriving us of any jurisdiction to review the supplemental opinion.

The trial court’s statement does not cure the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to enter the

supplemental opinion and, accordingly, does not cure our lack of jurisdiction to review it.

¶ 56 Ultimately, no matter how we view it, we lack jurisdiction over Chrysler’s appeal. This is

fitting, as Chrysler seeks review of only those issues decided by the circuit court in the original

opinion, which was issued over a year before Chrysler filed its notice of appeal. If Chrysler

-18- 1-13-3650 & 1-15-0812 (cons.)

desired to appeal the circuit court’s judgment upholding the denial of Chrysler’s claim, it should

have done so within 30 days of that determination, i.e., by April 14, 2014. Its failure to keep

abreast of the status of its case, such that it did not learn of the entry of the circuit court’s March

14, 2014, opinion until six and a half months later does not excuse Chrysler from the duty to file

a timely notice of appeal (see Mitchell, 158 Ill. 2d at 150). Accordingly, we conclude that we

lack jurisdiction to review it, and this appeal must be dismissed.

¶ 57 CONCLUSION

¶ 58 In appeal number 1-13-3650, we affirm the Circuit Court of Cook County’s judgment, as

we conclude that the assignments from the retailers afforded Citibank standing to pursue a refund

of the ROTA taxes attributable to the uncollected debt. Although Chrysler’s appeal involves

facts similar to those in Citibank’s appeal, including assignments from the retailers to Chrysler,

we are unable to afford Chrysler any relief from the ALJ’s decision in appeal number 1-15-0812,

because we lack jurisdiction to address Chrysler’s contentions. Accordingly, we dismiss that

appeal.

¶ 59 Appeal number 1-13-3650 affirmed.

¶ 60 Appeal number 1-15-0812 dismissed.

-19-