Casey's Marketing Company v. Hamer, 51 N.E.3d 35

Casey’s Marketing Company, a distributor with hundreds of Illinois outlets, challenged a 2012 cigarette tax floor increase.
Illinois raised cigarette tax from 49 mills to 99 mills, effective June 24, 2012, affecting floor tax on distributors’ inventory.
The 2012 amendment imposed a floor tax based on the calendar year 2012 average monthly stamps in a distributor’s possession versus 2011 purchases.
Illinois circulated a bulletin describing the tax as a floor tax and provided a form and method to calculate liability.
Casey’s paid $279,816 under protest and filed suit seeking a declaration of invalidity and refund, arguing uniformity clause violation.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the State; the appellate court reviews de novo and upholds the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the 2012 floor tax violate the uniformity clause?	Casey’s contends the formula yields nonuniform taxation among distributors.	State argues the classifications are reasonable and uniformly applied in practice, with legitimate aims.	No uniformity violation; classifications reasonable and uniformly applied.
Who is the proper subject of the tax for purposes of uniformity—the distributor or the retailer?	Incidence lies on retailers; distributor’s role is only collection.	Statutory language and structure place the tax on distributors, with retailers ultimately bearing the cost.	Distributor is the intended taxpayer for the floor tax; retailers reimburse distributors.
Is the floor tax method reasonably related to a legitimate legislative objective?	Formula arbitrarily creates disparate burdens on distributors.	Volume-based approach ties tax to increased activity and prevents pre-emptive purchases to dodge the tax.	Yes; method reasonably correlates to distributor activity and revenue-raising goals.

Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias, 231 Ill. 2d 62 (2008) (uniformity and classification scrutiny; current economic activity as basis for tax)
Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 204 Ill. 2d 142 (2003) (narrow review of tax classifications; minimal standard of reasonableness)
Primeco Personal Communications, L.P. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 196 Ill. 2d 70 (2001) (reasonableness and classification test for non-property taxes)
Geja's Cafe v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 153 Ill. 2d 239 (1992) (reasonableness standard and court’s limited inquiry into classifications)
Crusius v. Illinois Gaming Board, 216 Ill. 2d 315 (2005) (statutory rationality related to legitimate state interests)
Wirtz v. Quinn, 2011 IL 111903 (2011) (de novo review of constitutionality; minimal burden on government to justify classification)
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Manna, 227 Ill. 2d 128 (2007) (uniformity considerations in tax applying uniformly to class)