g500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 724 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5050 times:
Looks like United got caught with their hand in the cookie jar
"CHICAGO — A transportation agency plans to file a lawsuit Monday alleging that United Airlines is falsely claiming to buy huge amounts of jet fuel out of a small, rural Illinois office that doesn't even have a computer to avoid paying tens of millions of dollars in taxes in Chicago, where the purchases are allegedly being made.
The Regional Transportation Authority alleges United Aviation Fuels Corp., a subsidy of United Airlines, has operated a "sham" office in the DeKalb County community of Sycamore since 2001 after reaching an agreement to pay the town more than $300,000 a year - a fraction of what it would have owed in sales taxes in Chicago and Cook County."
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18835 posts, RR: 64 Reply 1, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5018 times:
Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Looks like United got caught with their hand in the cookie jar
Apparently, perfectly legal.
"While most states collect sales tax based on where products are received, Illinois collects the tax based on where a company claims a purchase was accepted."
jcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4965 times:
Nothing but a money grab....Totally legal under the current State statues and when the politicans set this up missed the loophole they themselves created.
As someone who lives in Illinois, this type of going after every nickle and dime by local and state agencies is really getting old.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10456 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4841 times:
Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 2): Nothing but a money grab....Totally legal under the current State statues and when the politicans set this up missed the loophole they themselves created.
Or perhaps they were from the DeKalb County community of Sycamore and inserted said "loophole".
jcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4694 times:
Without going too far off topic...in Illinois, you have Chicago (and Cook county) and then the rest of the State. A lot of laws created usually separate the two and in this instance, you have UA and AA taking advantage of it.
If UA and AA found a legal work around (and they have), then bless their corporate hearts for doing so.
BlueLine From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 72 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4430 times:
Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 2): Nothing but a money grab....Totally legal under the current State statues and when the politicans set this up missed the loophole they themselves created.
As someone who lives in Illinois, this type of going after every nickle and dime by local and state agencies is really getting old.
Yup. With the state and city's financials the way they are and no agreement on pension reform, they are just looking for any way to get a few more bucks. Maybe they are looking at ways to get every nickel they can out of ORD. They just more than doubled the CTA fare to leave ORD (but not MDW or anywhere else) from $2.25 to $5.00.
And they will get a few bucks out of this, I promise you
United is Chicago's "hometown airline", they don't want to come across as cheating the home city, they do not want any bad publicity associated with this..
United will settle out of court and they will be writing a check.
SavannahMark From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4300 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 9): And they will get a few bucks out of this, I promise you
United is Chicago's "hometown airline", they don't want to come across as cheating the home city, they do not want any bad publicity associated with this..
United will settle out of court and they will be writing a check.
Sorry, but in a industry that yields such tiny profit margins to begin with, I don't see United rolling over on this. As was previously observed, this is just a regional transportation agency trying to place their greedy hands in the pockets of a corporate player that is doing what it must to curb costs. I suppose time will tell.
planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3438 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4291 times:
It's legal, but obviously it's a workaround that doesn't exactly go along with the spirit of taxation. The fuel never gets to Dekalb county - it's dispensed in Cook county.
When I lived in Chicagoland and filled up my car in Cook county, I paid Cook county/municipality taxes - that's why if I needed gas I would sometimes try to time it so that I could fill up while I was driving in Lake county, because gas taxes were cheaper ... but I had to drive my car there to do it. I couldn't just call up the the village of Lincolnshire (in Lake) and say that I really wanted to pay all of my gas taxes there even though I typically got gas in Northbrook (in Cook).
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 282 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4258 times:
There is nothing illegal with what United and American are doing. United does have an office in Sycamore and Americans office is right up the street from United's. So for the RTA (Regional Transportation Authority) and Cook County to say they are filing a lawsuit against United but not American even though by the RTA's and county's own admission both airlines are doing the same thing is grounds enough for United's lawyers to have this case thrown out of court. Neither airline is breaking the law the RTA is just upset that they did not think of something like this and Cook County is just mad that they are not getting millions of dollars in fuel tax revenue. The RTA does not represent the City of Chicago (although they have included the City in it). As it stands right now both the Mayor and the City are staying out of this because the Mayor and the City fought hard to keep United's headquarters here in downtown Chicago and the Mayor recognizes that the city gets tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue from O'Hare operations Cook County also gets tax revenue from O'Hare because the airport is in Cook County.
And for those of you who do not live in Chicago or Cook County the one thing you need to understand is that the RTA is a poorly run agency that has been ran into the ground by people who have no clue how to run a business. The RTA's mismanagement has cost the CTA (Chicago Transportation Authority they run the buses and trains in Chicago) millions of dollars and as a matter of fact today CTA fares went up because the RTA needs more money and they have in the past looked to the City of Chicago and Cook County for a bailout which hasn't happened. The RTA feels like if they can win these ridiculous lawsuits then perhaps they can get a some money from it. United and American have nothing to worry about here they are in full compliance with Illinois law.
ripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1022 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4212 times:
Crook County and the Shady City of Chicago got burnt on this one they will have to try and pass some laws to stop this but what they are doing is legal and they will fight it. Maybe they should lay off some of the 50 alderman making 100K plus for part time work also they get 176K for employee staff and 73K to pay for misc expenses which can be used just about anything they want there is 2.7 mil people in chicago est and 8.2 mil in NY with 51 alderman making 112K. I'd like to see Crook County and Chgo go after their own expenses as much as they try to find ways to milk companies out of there money.
kngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 354 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4204 times:
Quoting SavannahMark (Reply 11): Sorry, but in a industry that yields such tiny profit margins to begin with, I don't see United rolling over on this. As was previously observed, this is just a regional transportation agency trying to place their greedy hands in the pockets of a corporate player that is doing what it must to curb costs. I suppose time will tell.
In a similar lawsuit filed a few years ago and currently still in court, the city of Chicago and Cook County both joined the RTA. So it might not just be a 'regional transportation agency'. Plus it's not like the RTA is some tiny governmental agency, they oversee the CTA, PACE, and Metra, which together move about 2 million people a day.
From an outside point of view it does seem like what they are doing is legal based on Illinois law, but I'd imagine they have a case to make. We shall see.
kngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 354 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4190 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 13): iling a lawsuit against United but not American even though by the RTA's and county's own admission both airlines are doing the same thing is grounds enough for United's lawyers to have this case thrown out of court.
That is because American is currently in bankruptcy.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21240 posts, RR: 19 Reply 17, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4167 times:
Quoting BlueLine (Reply 8): They just more than doubled the CTA fare to leave ORD (but not MDW or anywhere else) from $2.25 to $5.00.
. . . which should have happened ages ago. It's a good - albeit imperfect - way to get those who do not pay taxes to pay their fair share of CTA costs.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
bcoz From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 358 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4153 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 13): So for the RTA (Regional Transportation Authority) and Cook County to say they are filing a lawsuit against United but not American even though by the RTA's and county's own admission both airlines are doing the same thing is grounds enough for United's lawyers to have this case thrown out of court.
The story I heard this morning on WBBM-AM indicated that the RTA does indeed plan on filing suit against American as well.
Two things are certain here: 1). United and American are complying with the letter of Illinois law here. 2). The RTA isn't exactly the best run organization on the face of the planet.
That being said... as a person who has relied on both CTA and Metra to get to work for the past eight years, I'd personally like to see United and American pay their fair share of taxes to RTA. While both agencies (PACE seems to be a bit better) have big problems in terms of efficiency, they continue to cut some service (CTA bus routes) and raise fares. And that's something I personally (greedily) would rather not see.
It is no surprise that this came out today... The day when CTA pass costs went up... and the ORD surcharge goes into effect.
bcoz From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 358 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4146 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 17): . . . which should have happened ages ago. It's a good - albeit imperfect - way to get those who do not pay taxes to pay their fair share of CTA costs.
I have to agree with you on that. I would, however, like to see the Chicago Card and Chicago Card Plus exemptions remain in place beyond six months.
RDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1059 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4090 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 13): As it stands right now both the Mayor and the City are staying out of this because the Mayor and the City fought hard to keep United's headquarters here in downtown Chicago and the Mayor recognizes that the city gets tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue from O'Hare operations Cook County also gets tax revenue from O'Hare because the airport is in Cook County.
Exactly. Think about the other revenues they gained. United has right about 12,000 employees that physically work in the City of Chicago. (The two headquarters buildings, plus ORD)
I work in Willis, I go out for lunch every day (I'm a little lazy to make my lunch). I'd say an average lunch runs ~$8. 8*.11=.88. .88*5*50=$220 per year. Multiply that out across the 4k+ employees just in downtown Chicago and that sales tax alone is a decent sum. Then add in the payroll taxes, and corporate taxes that those lunch $$ also stimulate and you're talking about a LOT of money for the city being generated. And that's just lunch money.... Then talk about the fact that a vast majority of those employees live in Cook County, and a lot in Chicago proper. And that 98% of them are taking public transit (RTA) to work... I take the EL/Bus to work, which is $1032 per year (pre-rate hike).
All in all, I personally pay somewhere north of 1k in sales taxes, plus 1k in CTA fees, plus over 3k in IL taxes. IL and Chicago in particular are not cheap places to live.
RDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1059 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4070 times:
Quoting bcoz (Reply 18): That being said... as a person who has relied on both CTA and Metra to get to work for the past eight years, I'd personally like to see United and American pay their fair share of taxes to RTA.
Think about how much CTA revenue AA and UA generate by being hubbed at ORD and the feed that CTA gets from that! I'm curious to see what happens with MDW if they pursue that as well.
Quoting bcoz (Reply 19): I have to agree with you on that. I would, however, like to see the Chicago Card and Chicago Card Plus exemptions remain in place beyond six months.
I've not read the letter of the increase, but is there a surcharge for those of us with unlimited cards? If so, how does this affect employees who work at ORD?
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15727 posts, RR: 47 Reply 22, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4041 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 10): Chicago really can't complain when they used tax breaks to lure the headquarters of the newly merged UA to downtown Chicago.
I find it hard to believe the incentives were high enough to put up with things like this, never mind everything else in IL
LFutia From Netherlands, joined Dec 2002, 3195 posts, RR: 31 Reply 23, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3965 times:
Quoting planespotting (Reply 12): When I lived in Chicagoland and filled up my car in Cook county, I paid Cook county/municipality taxes - that's why if I needed gas I would sometimes try to time it so that I could fill up while I was driving in Lake county, because gas taxes were cheaper ... but I had to drive my car there to do it. I couldn't just call up the the village of Lincolnshire (in Lake) and say that I really wanted to pay all of my gas taxes there even though I typically got gas in Northbrook (in Cook).
When I am up in Lake County, I try to fill up there also as it is 20 cents cheaper than Cook County and 30 cents cheaper than Chicago.
Leo/ORD
Leo/ORD -- Groetjes uit de VS! -- Heeft u laatst nog met KLM gevlogen?
planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3438 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3942 times:
Quoting RDH3E (Reply 20): I work in Willis, I go out for lunch every day (I'm a little lazy to make my lunch). I'd say an average lunch runs ~$8. 8*.11=.88. .88*5*50=$220 per year. Multiply that out across the 4k+ employees just in downtown Chicago and that sales tax alone is a decent sum. Then add in the payroll taxes, and corporate taxes that those lunch $$ also stimulate and you're talking about a LOT of money for the city being generated. And that's just lunch money.... Then talk about the fact that a vast majority of those employees live in Cook County, and a lot in Chicago proper. And that 98% of them are taking public transit (RTA) to work... I take the EL/Bus to work, which is $1032 per year (pre-rate hike).
Exactly - you're paying your share to live and work and operate in Chicago. Your employer should too.
FYI, the reason they operate out of ORD is because lots of people fly out of there because lots of people live and work around Chicagoland, which is brought to you by the city of Chicago. People take the CTA to get to O'Hare, people take Metra to get to O'Hare, some people probably even take Pace to get there. Why shouldn't United pay what they deserve to pay because of the fuel they're using - if they want lower fuel taxes, then lobby the city of Chicago/RTA/the state of Illinois to give them an actual break, not just use a loophole.
I'm not saying United is breaking the law by doing what they're doing, but they don't really have a moral reason to not pay fuel taxes where they pump the gas. The demand for air travel in and out of ORD will not go away if United decided to up and move their hub to STL or something.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
25 stlgph: Disagree. It's no different than driving across the county line or state line to get a cheaper deal on gas or cigarettes or milk or groceries. You ha
26 liftsifter: Airline mixed with Fuel is not a good combination. Look at fuel surcharges. Rose more than 40% in 2011, when the price of gasoline only rose 24%. Ever
27 MaverickM11: Why would an employer want to be in Chicago though? The cost of doing business is so much higher than even nearby states, and it's not like the emplo
28 KC135TopBoom: Even as explained by the RTA, UA and AA practice of buying fuel for their operations at ORD is legal. Why? The RTA doesn't own or sell the fuel, they
29 planespotting: I used this analogy in an earlier post to show why what United is doing isn't the same thing - to get cheaper gas for my car, I have to physically dr
30 Flighty: That fair share grows and grows. Chicago's costs (payments to a connected elite) have skyrocketed. There's nothing fair about that.
31 planespotting: Notice I didn't say "fair." And I completely agree - that's one of the reasons my wife and I left Chicagoland and moved back to Iowa Agreed - but you
32 stlgph: and while we're at it, let's talk about all the companies that incorporate in Delaware.
33 bobloblaw: If UA and AA are following the law, the RTA has no case to make. This is a just another example of IL corruption and waste.
35 MaverickM11: I just can't imagine any company wanting to HQ in IL. I love how Chicago makes a big deal of all the jobs they've created (inside the loop, with huge
36 bcoz: The surcharge only impacts people using paper pay-as-you-go magnetic transit cards. If you have an unlimited ride paper transit card OR a pay-as-you-
37 FWAERJ: 36 posts and I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the possibility of UA using a threat to relocate to the sCO headquarters in Houston to get a sett
38 MaverickM11: Without a doubt, for many reasons; first and foremost is the economic state of IL which will necessitate economic higher taxes and/or lower services
39 FriendlySkies: Why bother? What they are doing is not illegal, therefore the RTA has no case and this should be immediately thrown out. The PR damage is already don
40 COflyerBOS: You reap what you sow. Good luck, United. This would have never happened down in Houston.
41 ytib: At least it is not just the passengers United knows how to squeeze some extra money out these days.
42 enilria: I doubt it. It's a sham everybody knew about. I think the most likely outcome is that the law is changed. True. Poor Elk Grove. Exactly the point I w
43 bobloblaw: IL has to give gigantic tax breaks to large corporations to sty in the state, CBT, CAT, Boeing etc. They make up the lost revenue by raising taxes on
44 Revelation: I couldn't make much sense of it at the time either. As noted, they even pulled down operations in suburban towns to get everything centralized in th
46 UALWN: Exactly. UA happily took Chicago's tax breaks and moved its HQ there, then tried to cheat the city out of its tax revenue. Why should they be surpris
47 stlgph: Except the Sycamore operation has been around ... legally ... since 2001. Long before the move to Chicago.
48 bcoz: I'm not sure if others have pointed this out before, but UA would have been subject to the tax regardless of whether or not it moved its HQ downtown
49 BMI727: The city got them to move their headquarters by giving them tax incentives and is surprised when United does other things to avoid taxes too? I don't
51 bohica: Sounds to me like someone at the RTA didn't receive his bribe money.
52 UALWN: Yes. If I wave half or your debt to me, am I supposed to take it kindly if you cheat me out of the other half?
53 Cubsrule: How is United cheating? Had the City wished to do so, I'm sure they could have negotiated something about fuel taxes in to the incentive deal. The Ci
54 UALWN: By pretending to do business in a county in which it doesn't?
55 enilria: Yes and no. That may be the goal. After they lose in court, they can cry about it's unfairness and the accompanying angst might propel voter opinion
56 Cubsrule: It's legal. It's a dumb law that should be changed, but following the law isn't "cheating."
57 BC77008: Right now employees of ORD must use the Chicago/Chicago Plus card (which is directly linked to a checking account and auto-reloaded) in order to stil
58 UALWN: I already said it all before: pretending to do business in a county in which it doesn't could be seen as fraud. Let's see what the court will say.
59 sancho99504: Its perfectly legal what they did. many companies are incorporated in Delaware to avoid taxes, y'et many of them don't even do business in Delaware.
60 FriendlySkies: You're confusing ethical integrity with legality. United followed the letter of law. Whether that is ethical or not is another question, but they can
61 moo: But they *do* do business - they have an office there. If the situation were reversed, and Sycamore was trying to tax UA based on that offices presen
62 UALWN: Is it really so obvious? How many companies have been sued by some public office for being incorporated in Delaware? None that I know of. Hence, it m
63 UALWN: Maybe. But not the spirit. And somebody is suing them for that. So I presume the situation is not so obvious as most people here seem to think it is.
64 UALWN: No, they don't do any business there, even if they have a sham office. Hence the fraud.
65 moo: The only thing companies are required to follow is the law, not the spirit - the law says "you do X, you don't do Y", and those are your boundaries.
66 sancho99504: I may be no lawyer, but I am a business owner who happily takes advantage of laws and "loopholes" to maximize profit. While it may be unethical, Okla
67 mcdu: How is taking advantage of better tax rates cheating? If you have ever filed a tax return with a legal exemption did you consider that cheating? Warr
68 UALWN: Never. But I don't pretend to live in Andorra (even if I have an Andorran passport) to avoid paying taxes in Spain, where I live now. Other people ha
69 UALWN: Except they do not do any bysiness in there. Those taxes pay for public services that you use. This is just the usual baseless anti-government rhetor
70 tugger: These types of "bogus" (quotes because they are usually established and structured in such a way as to be legal yet everyone knows what they are) sate
72 moo: But the difference is, the law says that this is legal - a receiving office acting as an invoice address, regardless of where the goods were bought o
73 UALWN: Do tell me the answer, please. Certainly, not the ridiculously low tolls.
74 mcdu: Who are you to declare the office a "sham". Have you been this location? A good point was made by another poster about the taxes in Delaware. Also, a
75 UALWN: Them why is UA being sued? Are the lawyers so stupid?
76 airbazar: Oh the irony Apparently nickle and diming is only acceptable when it's done by a private entity on regular tax paying citizens. Just because it's leg
77 moo: Because theres more happening here than a court case - you read this on A.Net, in a thread with 75 replies, its made the national news, its made the
78 RDH3E: How can you talk about government waste? You stated you lived in Spain... Not exactly a picture of government fiscal responsibility. Just FYI, before
79 UALWN: I already replied above: nobody sues the companies with HQ in Delaware. Hence, it must be OK. However, now UA (with HQ in Chicago, by the way) ,it is
80 MaverickM11: Taxes in IL aren't going to interstates. IL is the poster child of ever increasing taxes going to ballooning deficits primarily due to entitlements.
81 Cubsrule: Yes, but that doesn't mean that the reason has anything to do with the law.
82 UALWN: Do you know anything at all about the Spanish economy? Do you know that Spain's debt as a fraction of its GDP is now hovering around 80% while the US
83 UALWN: Those were just examples. As I said above, governments doe a lot of things for their citizens. Some of them are more efficient and honest than others
84 exFWAOONW: That just about sums it up. One schmuck didn't get his cut and he cried all the way to his lawyer's office. If someone has to be in the office and ge
85 CalebWilliams: UALWN: Based on your own self-admitted ignorance. Basically anybody can sue anybody else in the US. That doesn't mean they have a case, legally. In si
86 UALWN: Thanks, but I already knew that. I'm not a lawyer but I am a US citizen. But you are not a corporation. And you don't employ a bunch of layers. I'd p
87 Cubsrule: Governmental entities lose lawsuits all the time. Unless you have a really warped view of government power, that should not be news to you.
88 sancho99504: I'm incorporated in Delaware, I have just a PO Box, no HQ office, do no business in Delaware, but pay all business related taxes to Delaware, and its
89 exFWAOONW: It wasn't always like that. I've seen many different plates on UPS and FEDex trucks. I was referring to other companies that "should" have been based
90 UALWN: Of course. I'm not saying they will win. I'm saying if they sue, they must have a point, they must see a chance to win.
91 jcwr56: I have a choice with a private entity, with taxing bodies..I don't.
92 steex: This isn't necessarily reasonable causation. While it's true that incorporating in Delaware to do business elsewhere is legal, the lack of suits deal
93 Cubsrule: People file lawsuits with no (or very small) chance of winning all the time.
94 CalebWilliams: Nope, just a chance to settle out of court. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/business/08law.html?_r=0
95 UALWN: But why would UA settle out of court if they think they aren't doing anything wrong and the case would be thrown out in court?
96 steex: It's possible the settlement would be for an amount less than the fees associated with fighting the charge in court, even if they believe they would
97 CalebWilliams: Exactly. Does it make sense? No. From the above article: "On average, getting it wrong cost plaintiffs at about $43,000; the total could be more beca
98 Cubsrule: It's never going to cost $1.1 million to take a $500 case to trial. Sorry.
99 BMI727: United isn't cheating anyone out of anything. They're simply not incurring the additional debt. Not a question worth considering. Just not on the Sky
100 KC135TopBoom: The City of Chicago, Cook County, etc. have no ethics If they are following the state law, how are they cheating Chicago out of anything?
101 CalebWilliams: That's what you call an analogy. But how much does it cost go on Judge Judy to recover $400 for a past due cell phone bill from your ex?
102 UALWN: Really funny. I wrote Note the "may". That's all I'm saying.
103 nws2002: As other's have pointed out, neither UA nor AA are cheating. They are following the law of the state of Illinois. I don't know about you, but I file
104 exFWAOONW: RTA is rolling the dice. Friom their perspective: we lose: nothing ventured, nothing gained, the attornies are on retainer so it won't cost us much an
105 EWRandMDW: Who decides what's "fair" in the way of taxes? Who decides where that tax money goes? I live in western Cook Cty near the Tri-State Tollway and I alm
106 trex8: Unless UA can show to that Cook County jury that the office was anything but a sham front (which it seems to have been whether legal or otherwise), th
107 Flighty: UA and others are following the law here. Lawyers -- of all people -- should see that. If they don't like the way Illinois taxes, they should take ove
108 moo: UA doesn't have to do anything of the sort - this is a civil trial, so the plaintiff will have to prove that UA owe them the money they wish to colle
109 trex8: Its cook county inhabitants who will sit on that jury , assuming UA want a jury trial. Its Cook county government who can, if they choose, make life
110 EWRandMDW: As stated in a previous post, I live in western Cook Cty and I have had the joy of serving as a juror on civil cases, once at the courthouse on 26th
111 KC135TopBoom: That is who should preside over a case like this. Company or county regulations have no meaning when it comes to choosing between a law and a regulat
112 United1: ...they do quite allot of business there. Every year UA, through a subsidiarity, makes fuel purchases at the office. From what I understand the offic
113 KC135TopBoom: Correct. The RTA has a long history of funding problems and mismanagement.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 724 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2002, 3195 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
