GUSTAVO R. CALDERON, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought recovery of money collected under an unconstitutional tax act and a declaration of constitutional violations. The court dismissed the claim as untimely under the two-year statute of limitations and for lack of jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims.
Statutes cited: 705 ILCS 505/22(h); 705 ILCS 505/8; 35 ILCS 520/1 et seq.
Cases cited: Wilson v. DOR, 169 Ill. 2d 306, 662 N.E. 2d 415 (1996); Ziegler v. State of Illinois, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 405 (2002)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Limitations - Claims to recover money paid for a tax later found to be unconstitutional must be brought within 2 yrs - Claimant’s claim to recover money paid for a tax that was later found to be unconstitutional is barred by the two year statute of limitations set forth in Section 505/22(h) of the Court of Claims act where the claimant brought the action eight years after accrual. Accrual began when tax was found to be unconstitutional
- Jurisdiction - Federal law violation beyond jurisdiction of court - The Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain questions of federal law under section 505/8 as the Court is created by Illinois statute and only has limited jurisdiction on matters enumerated by the General Assembly.
ORDER
STEFFEN, J. This matter coming to be heard on the motion of Respondent, STATE OF ILLINOIS, to dismiss the claim herein, and it appearing to the Court that Claimant has received due notice and the Court being fully advised in the premises.
THE COURT FINDS:
In September 1992, Claimant plead guilty to possession of more than 1 gram but less than 15 grams of a controlled substance and was sentenced to four years in prison. At the time, there was in effect in the State of Illinois the Cannabis and Controlled Substances Tax Act (“Act”). 35 ILCS 520/1 et seq.
Pursuant to the Act, the Illinois Department of Revenue (DOR) did tax at statutory rates amounts of cannabis and/or controlled substances in the possession of persons identified as dealers under the Act. Pursuant to the Act, Claimant’s tax liability was determined to be $20,115.00. DOR did collect a [*281] total of $8,681.71, the last payment being received on September 23, 1993.
Contemporaneously, DOR placed a tax lien on Claimant’s real property.
On February 15, 1996, the Act was found to violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy and was held to be unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court. See Wilson v. DOR, 169 Ill. 2d 306, 662 N.E. 2d 415 (1996). In response, on April 4, 1996, DOR issued a certificate authorizing a release of tax lien on Claimant’s real property. Claimant seeks recovery of money collected by DOR pursuant to the Act claiming federal constitutional violations.
Claimant’s cause of action is governed by the limitations set forth in Section 505/22(h) of the Court of Claims Act.
Every claim cognizable by the Court and not otherwise sooner barred by law shall forever be barred from prosecution therein unless it is filed with the Clerk of the Court within the time set forth as follows:
(h) All other claims must be filed within 2 years after it first accrues, saving to minors, and person under legal disability at the time the claim accrues, in which case the claim must be filed within 2 years from the time the disability ceases.
705 ILCS 505/22(h) Claimant’s cause of action accrued on February 15, 1996, the date the Illinois Supreme Court found the Act unconstitutional. The latest date for Claimant to file his cause of action would have been February 15, 1998.
Claimant filed this claim on March 16, 2006 - more then eight years past the statute of limitations date. Accordingly, Claimant’s claim must be dismissed for failure to adhere to the limitations of Section 505/22.
This Court also does not have jurisdiction over Claimant’s claim.
Claimant’s complaint prays this Court enter an order declaring Respondent’s actions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and returning Claimant’s property with interest. Given the Wilson decision, Claimant’s Fifth Amendment claim is moot supra. There is no need for an order of this Court declaring that Respondent’s actions violated constitutional protections against double jeopardy. However, the Wilson decision aside and in relation to Claimant’s federal constitutional claims, Court of Claims precedent is clear. This Court does not have jurisdiction under Section 505/8 to entertain questions of federal law.
This court is a creature of Illinois statute, and [its] limited jurisdiction is solely what the General Assembly has granted by law. If a subject [*282] matter is not enumerated or encompassed by the jurisdictional grant in [this Court’s] enabling Act (/8, Court of Claims Act,705 ILCS 505/8), and if jurisdiction over that subject is not granted by another Illinois statute, that subject does not lie within [its] adjudicatory jurisdiction to hear and determine claims against the State (ibid). Federal statutory and constitutional claims are among the subjects that are not mentioned in /8 of the Court of Claims Act, [this Court’s] primary jurisdictional statute, and thus this court has long held that it lacks jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law.
Ziegler v. State of Illinois, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 405 (2002).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the motion of the State of Illinois is granted and the claim herein is dismissed with prejudice.