Illinois Plans To Take UA To Court Over Fuel Taxes

G500 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:02 am

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."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01...-united-running.html#storylink=cpy

AeroWesty · Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:20 am

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."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...merican-airlines-of-fuel-tax-dodge

jcwr56 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:37 am

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:32 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:41 pm

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.

eaglepower83 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:13 pm

LOL! Holy crap I worked in Sycamore for almost 4yrs in college.
The things that go on that you don't know about......

stlgph · Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:46 pm

Best part is ... it appears the Sycamore City Council knew exactly what they were doing ...

http://www.cityofsycamore.com/City%2...uncil/2003%20Agenda/agen053003.pdf

eaglepower83 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:00 pm

Quoting stlgph (Reply 6):
Best part is ... it appears the Sycamore City Council knew exactly what they were doing ...

http://www.cityofsycamore.com/City%2...3.pdf

That's crazy!
I used to eat chinese food in that mini plaza with old coworkers!

BlueLine · Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:01 pm

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.

G500 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:34 pm

Quoting BlueLine (Reply 8):

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.

STT757 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:39 pm

Chicago really can't complain when they used tax breaks to lure the headquarters of the newly merged UA to downtown Chicago.

SavannahMark · Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:40 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:42 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:49 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:58 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:00 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:03 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:07 pm

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.

bcoz · Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:13 pm

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

bcoz · Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:15 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:37 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:40 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:45 pm

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 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:00 pm

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

planespotting · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:07 pm

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.

stlgph · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:17 pm

Quoting planespotting (Reply 24):

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 have every right to dispense your wallet as you see fit - so does United Air Lines.

liftsifter · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:23 pm

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%. Every airline wants to be the best, unfortunetly none can afford it.

MaverickM11 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:28 pm

Quoting planespotting (Reply 24):
Exactly - you're paying your share to live and work and operate in Chicago. Your employer should too.

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 employer gets anything "for" that extra cost.

kc135topboom · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:30 pm

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.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):
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.

Even as explained by the RTA, UA and AA practice of buying fuel for their operations at ORD is legal.

Quoting bcoz (Reply 18):
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.

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.

Why? The RTA doesn't own or sell the fuel, they don't own the pipelines, they don't even own the hydrants the fuel comes out of. UA and AA just have better business smarts than the RTA.

It was just a few months ago when it came out the RTA/CTA defrauded the US Government of up to $150M by falsifying bus deadhead milage reports back to 2003, and possibly back as far as 1982 (which would mean the stole even more US taxpayer money).

http://freebeacon.com/chicago-fraud/

“We know why it’s a sensitive issue,” he said, noting that there were several potential conflicts of interest tied up in the case.

“CTA’s General Counsel from 2001-2004, Robert Rivkin, is the current General Counsel of the DOT and Valerie Jarrett, Chair of the CTA from 1995 to 2003, is a Senior Advisor to President Obama,”according to the Cause of Action report."

BTW, Valerie Jarrett is the same person who got 200 Chicago Cops to guard her daughters wedding in 2012, at no charge to her or the wedding party. Mayor Emmanual assigned the cops to the assignment, many were on OT, at a significant cost to the City of Chicago.

planespotting · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:34 pm

Quoting stlgph (Reply 25):
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.

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 drive my car to a different municipality. United can't do that with aircraft, nor would they want to. The "spirit" of gas taxation is that the entity in which you're paying taxes to gets tax dollars for providing you the facilities/infrastructure to be able to operate your car. In the same vein are fuel taxes for aircraft, which in this case apparently a percentage of which go towards facilities/infrastructure to help transport passengers to get to the airport to get on your planes.

The city of Sycamore isn't providing any of that (beyond a very small footprint of roads that someone could feasibly argue helps people in Sycamore drive on hwy 38 or get to I-88 to drive to ORD). They're getting money to save United Airlines money.

Again, I'm not saying United is doing anything illegal - just that they are a business who is getting an advantage that at the same time disadvantages an entity that is trying to help United get passengers.

Flighty · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:34 pm

Quoting planespotting (Reply 24):
Exactly - you're paying your share to live and work and operate in Chicago. Your employer should too.

That fair share grows and grows. Chicago's costs (payments to a connected elite) have skyrocketed. There's nothing fair about that.

planespotting · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:38 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 30):
That fair share grows and grows. Chicago's costs (payments to a connected elite) have skyrocketed. There's nothing fair about that.

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

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 27):
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 employer gets anything "for" that extra cost.

Agreed - but you'll have to ask United Airlines that. Like I said, they could move all their employees and their midwest hub to St. Louis, Milwaukee, Indianapolis - any of those cities would be happy to take them. But they obviously see value in Chicago/ORD, and if they're using it, they should pay the price to do so, or lobby the state of Illinois for an official United Airlines fuel tax break.

stlgph · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:38 pm

and while we're at it, let's talk about all the companies that incorporate in Delaware.

Bobloblaw · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:40 pm

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):
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.

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.

Flighty · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:44 pm

Quoting planespotting (Reply 32):
Notice I didn't say "fair."

Thanks for pointing that out.

MaverickM11 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:49 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 35):

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.

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 tax breaks), that came from abroad (outside the loop)

.

bcoz · Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:17 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 21):
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?

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-go plastic Chicago Card or Chicago Card Plus, you are exempt from the surcharge (the Chicago Card exceptions are only for six months as I understand it... I think that is partly because of the blow back the CTA got from ORD employees).

Base fares are not going up otherwise, but passes are. For instance, my monthly pass will now cost $100 instead of $86 (it went up to $86 from $75 a few years ago). I think daily passes will go from $7 to $10, etc.

FWAERJ · Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:05 pm

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 settlement.

Heck, moving back to Houston might be better in the long run for UA, even if they have to forfeit the incentives from Chicago and the State of Illinois and pay break-up fees in the process. If DL could pay a $250+M breakup fee in MSP, UA could pay a similar or bigger breakup fee in Chicago.

MaverickM11 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:11 pm

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 37):
Heck, moving back to Houston might be better in the long run for UA, even if they have to forfeit the incentives from

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 in IL, if that's even possible

FriendlySkies · Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:28 pm

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 37):
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 settlement.

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 done, so UA has nothing to gain by settling.

We can discuss ethics all we want, but unless the state closes this loophole, there is no reason to expect UA or AA or anyone else to stop taking advantage of it. Ethics and business in this country (and certainly not in IL) don't mix. Not saying that's right, it's just the unfortunate truth.

COflyerBOS · Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:30 pm

You reap what you sow.

Good luck, United.

This would have never happened down in Houston.

ytib · Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:38 pm

At least it is not just the passengers United knows how to squeeze some extra money out these days.

enilria · Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:49 pm

Quoting g500 (Reply 9):
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.

I doubt it. It's a sham everybody knew about. I think the most likely outcome is that the law is changed.

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.

True. Poor Elk Grove.

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 40):

You reap what you sow.

Good luck, United.

This would have never happened down in Houston.

Exactly the point I was headed toward. Knowing UA, I would not be a bit surprised to see this turn into the same acrimony that occurred in Houston. UA is childish enough to start burning bridges. They should just quietly fight it in court where they will probably win, but I bet they start making statements about not supporting the hometown airline and such.

Bobloblaw · Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:55 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 35):
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 tax breaks), that came from abroad (outside the loop) .

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 small business, who leave the state depriving the state of revenue. What they need to do is stop playing thess moronic crony capitalist games and simply have a low tax rate for everyone.

Revelation · Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:25 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 27):
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 employer gets anything "for" that extra cost.

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 the Sears(sic) Tower. I guess they feel it gives the best shot at getting and retaining their employees?

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 39):
What they are doing is not illegal, therefore the RTA has no case and this should be immediately thrown out.

I have to agree. The pols can't put dubious loopholes in the law to benefit corporations (and in turn, themselves, via campaign donations etc) then sue the corporations for using the loopholes.

Quoting enilria (Reply 42):
I think the most likely outcome is that the law is changed.

I hope so, but the place to do that is in the legislature, not the courts.

ripcordd · Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:30 pm

Just move the HQ to sycamore

UALWN · Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:04 pm

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 40):
You reap what you sow.

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 surprised that they're being sued?

stlgph · Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:08 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 46):
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 surprised that they're being sued?

Except the Sycamore operation has been around ... legally ... since 2001. Long before the move to Chicago.

bcoz · Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:30 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 46):
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 surprised that they're being sued?

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 from Elk Grove Village. The RTA tax applies in Cook, Lake, DuPage, Will, Kane and McHenry Counties I believe. The rate in the collar counties is less, but it wouldn't really matter as Elk Grove Village and ORD are in Cook County.

[Edited 2013-01-14 13:30:28]

[Edited 2013-01-14 13:30:51]

BMI727 · Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:49 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 46):
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 surprised that they're being sued?

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?

Quoting stlgph (Reply 47):
Except the Sycamore operation has been around ... legally ... since 2001. Long before the move to Chicago.

I don't see anything wrong with what United did.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net