STEVEN KENT LUKER, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought litigation expenses under the Administrative Procedure Act for a tax refund proceeding he initiated against the IDR. The court granted summary judgment to the respondent, holding the fee-shifting statute applies only to agency-initiated cases, not citizen-initiated ones.
Statutes cited: 5 ILCS 100/10-55(a); 705 ILCS 505/8(i)
Cases cited: Leslie v. Teacher's Retirement System
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-fee-shifting statute did not apply to claim for litigation expenses incurred in Claimant’s administrative proceedingclaim denied. Where the Claimant filed an action for litigation expenses incurred in an administrative proceeding against the Department of Revenue on the Claimant’s request for a tax refund which was ultimately granted, summary judgment was entered for the State and the claim was denied, because the fee-shifting provisions of section 10-55 of the Administrative Procedure Act apply only to cases initiated by an agency and not to administrative proceedings brought by a citizen against an agency.
ORDER
EPSTEIN, J.
This claim against the Respondent’s Department of Revenue (“IDR”) is for litigation expenses allegedly incurred by the Claimant in an administrative proceeding against the IDR on the Claimant’s request for a tax refund, which was ultimately granted. Claimant brings this claim under section 10-55(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/10-55(a)), and asserts jurisdiction in this Court under section 8(i) of the Court of Claims Act. 705 ILCS 505/8(i).
This claim is before us on the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, to which the Claimant has not responded, which asserts a failure to state a cause of action under the statute.
Respondent’s point is well taken. We need look no further than the language of section 10-55 which plainly applies that fee-shifting statute to and only to “* * * any [*243]
Leslie v. Teacher’s Retirement System 243 contest [administrative] case initiated by any agency * * *.” That is limiting language and it manifestly does not include administrative proceedings initiated against an agency by a citizen, as Claimant’s taxpayer claim against the IDR undisputedly was in this case. The statute simply does not apply to this circumstance.
There are no disputed material facts. Claimant’s alleged litigation expenses were not incurred in a proceeding that is covered by section 20-55(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and his complaint must therefore be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action under this statutory fee-shifting provision.
Wherefore, it is hereby ordered: Summary judgment is granted to the Respondent; and this claim is denied and forever barred.