Join now!   |   Subscribe   |   Pay an Invoice   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In
Unclaimed Property Focus
Blog Home All Blogs
Search all posts for:   

 

View all (248) posts »
 

Illinois Official Addresses Unclaimed Property Legislation Questions

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Updated: Tuesday, November 28, 2017

On Nov. 14, 2017, Allen Mayer, deputy general counsel for the Illinois Treasurer’s Office, spoke to the Illinois Chamber of Commerce about the Illinois Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. UPPO submitted several questions, most of which Mayer addressed during his presentation. Sara Lima and Freda Pepper, members of UPPO’s Government Relations and Advocacy Committee, attended the event.

 

According to Lima, Mayer’s attitude toward the state’s new law was exceedingly positive, as would be expected given that the law “favors the state’s position on many ambiguous legal issues.” Of particular note, Mayer described Illinois’ prior unclaimed property law as an “antiquated mess” and characterized the prior business-to-business exemption as a “loophole” that has now been closed.  

 

Has the legislature considered the constitutionality issues raised by the transitional provision? Requiring Holders to look back 10 years (five-year requirement plus five-year dormancy period) to report otherwise exempted property raises due process issues. 

Mayer said that, although he cannot speak for the Illinois General Assembly, he considers the lookback period to be eight years (five-year requirement plus three-year dormancy period under the new Illinois unclaimed property statues). He noted that he personally researched the constitutionality issue and believes the exemption can be retroactively revoked, citing Riggs Nat. Bank v. District of Columbia (581 A.2d 1229) in particular.

 

In attempting to comply with the transitional provision, records dating back to that period of time will most likely not exist, particularly because there has been no record retention requirement contained in Illinois’ unclaimed property law. What will be the consequences of not being able to “catch up” report when these records are no longer available?

Mayer responded that there has always has been a record-retention provision, although it was hard to find before the new Illinois unclaimed property legislation. He cited Section 11(h)(ii), which proscribes a five-year retention from when property is reportable. According to Mayer, holders who report “catch up” property on the 2018 report will not be subject to interest and penalties. He also invited feedback and suggestions on how the state should otherwise deal with the issue.

 

Has there has been any study of the impact of the transitional provision on the business community?

Mayer did not directly respond to this question.

 

Has there has been any study of the impact of the removal of the B2B exemption on the business community?

Mayer said there were some fiscal projections and that the exemption was not as significant as he believes many expected. He noted that he believes companies may not have been fully using the exemption in practice.

 

What specifically will the administrative rules be addressing?

Mayer did not provide any specific topics, but noted Illinois will be considering pay cards (possibly in new legislation) and is open to informal discussion about this topic.

 

Could you please provide clarification of when reports are expected to be filed by investment companies? Are they considered “business associations” that are required to file by May 1?

Mayer specified that investment companies are business associations, required to file by May 1. He said he would be open to including clarification in future legislation.

 

Tags:  Illinois  RUUPA 

Share |
Permalink | Comments (0)
 
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal