ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
CALENDAR: 04
PAGE 1 of 17
CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
CHANCERY DIVISION
CLERK DOROTHY BROWN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DWISION

MICHAEL LABELL, JARED LABELL,
SILAS PEPPLE, NATALIE BEZEK,
EMILY ROSE, and BRYANT
JACKSON-GREEN

)
)
)
)
)

Case No.

Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, and DAN
WIDAWSKY, in his official capacity as
Comptroller of the City of Chicago,

)
)
)
)

Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AN]) INJUNCTWE RELIEF
Introduction
1.

On June 9, 2015, the City of Chicago’s Finance Department issued a

ruling extending the city’s 9% “Amusement Tax” to cover Internet-based streaming
video services such as Netflix, Internet-based streaming audio and music services
such as Spotify, and Internet-based gaming services such as Xbox Live

—

services

the City has never taxed before and which the City Council has never authorized
the Finance Department to tax. This lawsuit challenges that ruling for exceeding
the Finance Department’s authority and as a violation of the federal Internet Tax
Freedom Act, 47 U.S.C. § 151 note (2015).
Jurisdiction
2.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under 735

ILCS 5/2-701 because Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that a tax ruling

 issued by the City of Chicago Comptroller exceeds Defendants’ authority under the
law.
3.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because this lawsuit

arises from the Defendants’ actions in the State of Illinois.
4.

Venue is proper in Cook County because Plaintiffs reside in Cook County,

Illinois, and Defendants are located in Cook County.
Parties
5.

Plaintiff Michael Labell is a resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois,

and currently pays for subscriptions to Netflix’s Internet video-streaming service
and Spotify’s Internet music-streaming service and to Amazon Prime, which among
other things provides members with video and music streaming services.
6.

Plaintiff Jared Labell is a resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and

currently pays for a subscription to Amazon Prime, which among other things
provides members with video and music streaming services.
7.

Plaintiff Silas Pepple is a resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and

currently pays for a subscription to Xbox Live’s “Gold” Internet gaming and digital
media delivery service.
8.

Plaintiff Natalie Bezek is a resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and

currently pays for a subscription to Spotifr’s Internet music-streaming service.
9.

Plaintiff Emily Rose is a resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and

currently pays for subscriptions to Netflix and Hulu’s respective Internet video

2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 2 of 17

 streaming services and to Amazon Prime, which among other things provides
members with video and music streaming services.
10.

Plaintiff Bryant Jackson-Green is a resident of Chicago, Cook County,

Illinois, and currently pays for subscriptions to Netflix and Hulu’s respective
Internet video-streaming services and Spotifr’s Internet music-streaming service
and to Amazon Prime, which among other things provides members with video and
music streaming services.
11.

Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation.

12.

Defendant Dan Widawsky is the Comptroller for the City of Chicago and

has held that office at all relevant times. As Comptroller, Defendant Widawsky is
the head of the Finance Department and is authorized to adopt, promulgate and
enforce rules and regulations pertaining to the interpretation, administration and
enforcement of Chicago’s Amusement Tax. Chi. Mun. Code 4-156-034.
Factual Allegations
Chicago’s Amusement Tax
13.

The City of Chicago imposes a 9% “Amusement Tax” on admission fees or

other charges paid for the privilege to enter, witness, view or participate in certain
activities within the City of Chicago that the ordinance defines as “amusements.”
Chi. Mun. Code 4-156-020.
14.

The Chicago Municipal Code defines the “Amusement” subject to the

Amusement Tax to include just three categories of activities:
any exhibition, performance, presentation or show for
entertainment purposes, including, but not limited to, any
3

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 3 of 17

(1)

 theatrical, dramatic, musical or spectacular performance,
promotional show, motion picture show, flower, poultry or
animal show, animal act, circus, rodeo, athletic contest, sport,
game or similar exhibition such as boxing, wrestling, skating,
dancing, swimming, racing, or riding on animals or vehicles,
baseball, basketball, softball, football, tennis, golf, hockey, track
and field games, bowling or billiard or pooi games;
(2)

any entertainment or recreational activity offered for public
participation or on a membership or other basis including, but
not limited to, carnivals, amusement park rides and games,
bowling, billiards and pooi games, dancing, tennis, racquetball,
swimming, weightlifting, bodybuilding or similar activities; or

(3)

any paid television programming, whether transmitted by wire,
cable, fiber optics, laser, microwave, radio, satellite or similar
means.

Chi. Mun. Code 4-156-010.
15.

Until June 9, 2015, the City did not interpret the Code’s definition of

“amusement” to include Internet-based streaming services for video, audio and
gaming, such as Netflix, Spotify, and Xbox Live, and accordingly did not tax those
services.
16.

On June 9, 2015, however, Defendant Widawksy issued Amusement Tax

Ruling #5 (the “Ruling”) (attached as Exhibit A), declaring that the term
“amusement” as defined by Chi. Mun. Code 4-156-010 would now include “charges
paid for the privilege to witness, view or participate in amusements that are

delivered electronically” (emphasis in original).
17.

According to the Ruling, “charges paid for the privilege of watching

electronically delivered television shows, movies or videos are subject to the

4

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 4 of 17

 amusement tax, if the shows, movies or videos are delivered to a patron (i.e.,
customer) in the City.”
18.

Further, the Ruling states that “charges paid for the privilege of listening

to electronically delivered music are subject to the amusement tax, if the music is
delivered to a customer in the City.”
19.

The Ruling also states that “charges paid for the privilege of participating

in games, on-line or otherwise, are subject to the amusement tax if the games are
delivered to a customer in the City.”
20.

According to the Ruling, “[t]he amusement tax does not apply to sales of

shows, movies, videos, music or games (normally accomplished by a ‘permanent’
download). It applies only to rentals (normally accomplished by streaming or a
‘temporary’ download). The charges paid for such rentals may be subscription fees,
per-event fees or otherwise.”
21.

The Ruling states that providers that receive charges for electronically

delivered amusements are considered owners or operators and are required to
collect the City’s Amusement Tax from their Chicago customers.
22.

The Amusement Tax applies to any customer whose residential street

address or primary business street address is in Chicago, as reflected by his or her
credit card billing address, zip code or other reliable information. The determination
of sourcing made by the City of Chicago Department of Finance is based on rules set
forth in the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Conformity Act, 35 ILCS 638/1 et
seq.

5

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 5 of 17

 23.

The Ruling states that where a charge is “bundled” by including both

taxable and non-taxable elements, the Department of Finance applies the rules set
forth in Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax Ruling #3 (June 1, 2004). Thus,
the amount of Amusement Tax is based on the amount paid for any amusement, but
excludes any separately-stated charges not for amusements. However, if an
operator fails to separate the amusement portion of the price from the nonamusement portion, the entire price charged shall be deemed taxable, unless it is
clearly proven that at least 50% of the price is not for amusements.
24.

The Effective Date of the Ruling is July 1, 2015, but the Ruling states that

“the Department will limit the effect of this ruling to periods on and after
September 1, 2015.”
Harm to Plaintiffs

25.

Plaintiffs are subscribers to various services that provide media delivered

electronically, including Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Xbox Live, and Amazon Prime.
26.

Netflix is a provider of an on-demand Internet streaming media service,

which allows subscribers to watch video content online, and of a flat-rate video-by
mail service, which allows subscribers to borrow DVIJ and Blu-ray video discs and
return them in prepaid mailers. Hulu provides a similar video-streaming service
but does not offer video-by-mail service.
27.

Spotifr is a music streaming service, which allows consumers access to a

large library of recorded music without commercial interruptions for a subscription

6

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 6 of 17

 fee. Similar streaming music services are offered by Pandora, Apple Music, and
Google Play.
28.

Xbox Live Gold is an online multiplayer gaming and digital media

delivery service created and operated by Microsoft, which for a fee, allows users to
play games with others on an online network. Xbox Live Gold also provides paid
members with the following features: matchmaking/smartmatch, private chat,
party chat and in-game voice communication, game recording, media sharing,
broadcasting one’s gameplay via the Twitch live streaming application, access to
free-to-play titles, “cloud” storage for gaming files, and early or exclusive access to
betas, special offers, Games with Gold, and Video Kinect.
29.

Amazon Prime is a membership service that provides members with

certain benefits provided by Amazon.com, including free two-day shipping and
discounts on certain items sold on its website, but also provides access to streaming
movies, and music, cloud photo storage, and the ability to borrow e-books.
30.

Plaintiffs Rose, Jackson-Green, and Michael Labell, as paid subscribers to

Netflix streaming video service, are harmed because they must pay the tax on
Internet-based video-streaming services, which increases the cost of subscribing to
Netflix by nine percent.
31.

Plaintiff Rose, as paid a subscriber to Hulu streaming video service, is

harmed because she must pay the tax on Internet-based video-streaming services,
which increases the cost of subscribing to Hulu by nine percent.

7

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 7 of 17

 32.

Plaintiffs Bezek, Jackson-Green, and Michael Labell, as paid subscribers

to Spotify’s streaming music service, are harmed because they must pay the tax on
Internet-based streaming music services, which increases the cost of subscribing to
Spotify by nine percent.
33.

Plaintiff Pepple, as paid a subscriber to Xbox Live Gold Internet-based

gaming service, is harmed because he must pay the tax on Internet-based gaming
services, which increases the cost of subscribing to Xbox Live Gold by nine percent.
34.

Plaintiffs Rose, Jackson-Green, Jared Labell, and Michael Labell, as paid

Amazon Prime members, are harmed because they must pay the tax on Internetbased video and music services portion of the price of their membership, but if
Amazon does not separate the price of these services from its non-taxable services,
then they must paid the Amusement Tax on the full price of their Amazon Prime
membership, either of which will increase the cost of subscribing to Amazon Prime.
Count I
The City of Chicago Comptroller has exceeded his authority by adopting
Amusement Tax Ruling #5 and by extending the City’s Amusement Tax to
Internet-based streaming video services
35.

Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though

fully set forth herein.
36.

The Chicago Municipal Code authorizes the Comptroller to “adopt,

promulgate and enforce rules and regulations pertaining to the interpretation,
administration and enforcement” of Chicago’s Amusement Tax.

8

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 8 of 17

 37.

The Municipal Code does not, however, authorize the Comptroller to

impose new taxes that the City Council has not authorized through a city
ordinance.
38.

The Comptroller may not use his rulemaking power to adopt a rule that is

inconsistent with or exceeds the specific language in the ordinance that authorizes
his rulemaking.
39.

Rules that are inconsistent with the ordinance under which they are

adopted are invalid.
40.

Here, the Amusement Tax’s definition of “amusement” does not include

video services streamed from the Internet and provided to a customer on a
computer, mobile device, or other electronic device.
41.

Nor does the ordinance’s imposition of a tax on amusements “within the

city” authorize a tax on video services streamed from the Internet, which may be
provided anywhere, to customers with residency or billing address in the City of
Chicago who might use those services, partially or entirely, outside of the City.
42.

The Comptroller has exceeded his authority under the ordinance by

issuing a rule that imposes a new tax that the City Council did not authorize in
enacting the Amusement Tax.
43.

In addition, the imposition of the Amusement Tax on Amazon Prime is a

tax on a membership fee which covers a wide variety of both amusement and
nonamusement activities. In addition to access to streaming movies and music,
Amazon Prime provides paid members with free two-day shipping, discounts on

9

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 9 of 17

 certain items sold on its website, cloud photo storage, and the ability to borrow e
books.
44.

A tax on the membership fee of Amazon Prime is not a tax on

“amusements” or “places of amusements” pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-42-5.
45.

Therefore Defendants have exceeded their authority in imposing the

Amusement Tax on membership fees for Amazon Prime.
46.

The imposition of a tax of nine percent on streaming video services injures

the Plaintiffs because their costs for these services have increased, or will
imminently increase, by nine percent.
47.

Plaintiffs Michael Labell, Jared Labell, Rose, and Jackson-Green have a

right to enjoin the unlawful taxation of streaming video services.
48.

Plaintiffs Michael Labell, Jared Labell, Rose, and Jackson-Green have no

adequate administrative remedy.
49.

The injury to Plaintiffs Michael Labell, Jared Labell, Rose, and Jackson-

Green is irreparable.
50.

Plaintiffs Michael Labell, Jared Labell, Rose, and Jackson-Green have no

adequate remedy at law.
Count II
The City of Chicago Comptroller has exceeded his authority by adopting
Amusement Tax Ruling #5 and by extending the City’s Amusement Tax to
Internet-based streaming audio services
51.

Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though

fully set forth herein.

10

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 10 of 17

 52.

The Amusement Tax’s definition of “amusement” does not include audio

services streamed from the Internet and provided to a customer on a computer,
mobile device, or other electronic device.
53.

Nor does the ordinance’s imposition of a tax on amusements “within the

city” authorize a tax on audio services streamed from the Internet, which may be
provided anywhere, to customers with residency or billing address in the City of
Chicago who might use those services, partially or entirely, outside of the City.
54.

The Comptroller has exceeded his authority under the ordinance by

issuing a rule that imposes a new tax that the City Council did not authorize in
enacting the Amusement Tax.
55.

In addition, the imposition of the Amusement Tax on Amazon Prime is a

tax on a membership fee which covers a wide variety of both amusement and
nonamusement activities. In addition to access to streaming movies and music,
Amazon Prime provides paid members with free two-day shipping, discounts on
certain items sold on its website, cloud photo storage, and the ability to borrow e
books.
56.

A tax on the membership fee of Amazon Prime is not a tax on

“amusements” or “places of amusements” pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-42-5.
57.

Therefore Defendants have exceeded their authority in imposing the

Amusement Tax on membership fees for Amazon Prime.

11

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 11 of 17

 58.

The imposition of a tax of nine percent on streaming audio services injures

the Plaintiffs because their costs for these services have increased, or will
imminently increase, by nine percent.
59.

Plaintiffs Michael Labell, Jared Labell, Rose, Bezek, and Jackson-Green

have a right to enjoin the unlawful taxation of streaming media services.
60.

Plaintiffs Michael Labell, Jared Labell, Rose, Bezek, and Jackson-Green

have no adequate administrative remedy.
61.

The injury to Plaintiffs Michael Labell, Jared Labell, Rose, Bezek, and

Jackson-Green is irreparable.
62.

Plaintiffs Michael Labell, Jared Labell, Rose, Bezek, and Jackson-Green

have no adequate remedy at law.
Count III
The City of Chicago Comptroller has exceeded his authority by adopting
Amusement Tax Ruling #5 and by extending the City’s Amusement Tax to
Internet-based streaming gaming services
63.

Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though

fully set forth herein.
64.

The Amusement Tax’s definition of “amusement” does not include gaming

services streamed from the Internet and provided to a customer on a computer,
mobile device, or other electronic device.
65.

Nor does the ordinance’s imposition of a tax on amusements “within the

city” authorize a tax on gaming services streamed from the Internet, which may be
provided anywhere, to customers with residency or billing address in the City of
Chicago who might use those services, partially or entirely, outside of the City.
12

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 12 of 17

 66.

The Comptroller has exceeded his authority under the ordinance by

issuing a rule that imposes a new tax that the City Council did not contemplate or
authorize in enacting the Amusement Tax.
67.

In addition, the imposition of the Amusement Tax on Xbox Live Gold is a

tax on a membership fee which covers a wide variety of both amusement and
nonamusement activities. In addition to the ability to play games with others on an
online network, Xbox Live Gold provides paid members with
matchmaking/smartmatch, private chat, party chat and in-game voice
communication, game recording, media sharing, broadcasting one’s gameplay via
the Twitch live streaming application, access to free-to-play titles, “cloud” storage
for gaming files, and early or exclusive access to beta versions of software, special
offers, “Games with Gold,” and “Video Kinect.”
68.

A tax on the membership fee of Xbox Live Gold is not a tax on

“amusements” or “places of amusements” pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/11-42-5.
69.

Therefore Defendants have exceeded their authority in imposing the

Amusement Tax on membership fees for Xbox Live Gold.
70.

The imposition of a tax of nine percent on the membership fee for Xbox

Live Gold injures Plaintiff Pepple because the costs for these services have
increased, or will imminently increase, by nine percent.
71.

Plaintiff Pepple has a right to enjoin the unlawful taxation of streaming

media services.
Plaintiff Pepple has no adequate administrative remedy.

13

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 13 of 17

72.

 73.

Plaintiffs Pepple’s injury is irreparable.

74.

Plaintiff Pepple has no adequate remedy at law.

Count W
Amusement Tax Ruling #5’s tax on streaming services violates the Internet
Tax Freedom Act, 47 U.S.C. § 151 note (2015).

75.

Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though

fully set forth herein.
76.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act (“Act”), which is set forth in a note to 47

U.S.C. § 151, provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may impose
multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.
77.

The Act defines discriminatory tax, in part, as “any tax imposed by a State

or political subdivision thereof on electronic commerce” that:
(i) is not generally imposed and legally collectible by such
State or such political subdivision on transactions
involving similar property, goods, services, or information
accomplished through other means;
(ii) is not generally imposed and legally collectible at the
same rate by such State or such political subdivision on
transactions involving similar property, goods, services, or
information accomplished through other means, unless
the rate is lower as part of a phase-out of the tax over not
more than a 5-year period; [or]
(iii) imposes an obligation to collect or pay the tax on a
different person or entity than in the case of transactions
involving similar property, goods, services, or information
accomplished through other means.
.

Act § 1105(2)(A).
78.

The Act defines “electronic commerce” as “any transaction conducted over

the Internet or through Internet access, comprising the sale, lease, license, offer, or
14

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 14 of 17

 delivery of property, goods, services, or information, whether or not for
consideration, and includes the provision of Internet access.” § 1105(3).
79.

The term “tax” under the Act includes those “for the purpose of generating

revenues for governmental purposes” and those imposed on “a seller of an obligation
to collect and to remit to a governmental entity any sales or use tax imposed on a
buyer by a governmental entity.” § 1105(8).
80.

Chicago Municipal Code 4-156-020, as interpreted and applied by the

Comptroller through Amusement Tax Ruling #5, imposes an unlawful
discriminatory tax on electronic commerce because it applies to Netflix’s video
streaming service but does not apply to Netflix’s video-by-mail service.
81.

The Amusement Tax, as interpreted and applied by the Ruling, also

unlawfully discriminates against electronic commerce because it imposes a higher
tax rate on theatrical, musical, and cultural performances that are delivered
through an online streaming service than it imposes on those same performances if
they are consumed in person.
82.

The Amusement Tax provides an exemption for in-person live theatrical,

live musical or other live cultural performances that take place in any auditorium,
theater or other space in the city whose maximum capacity, including all balconies
and other sections, is not more than 750 persons. Section 4-156-020(D)(1).
83.

The Amusement Tax provides a reduced rate of five percent for in-person

live theatrical, live musical or other live cultural performances that take place in
any auditorium, theater or other space in the city whose maximum capacity,

15

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 15 of 17

 including all balconies and other sections, is more than 750 persons. Section 4-156020(E).
However, electronically delivered audio or video of the same performances

84.

is taxed at nine percent.
Thus, performances consumed in person are subject to an Amusement Tax

85.

of either 0% or 5%, depending on the capacity of the venue at which they are
performed, but streaming audio or video of such performances is subject to an
Amusement Tax of 9%.
86.

The Ruling thus forces Plaintiffs to pay a higher tax rate if they choose to

consume a musical, theatrical, or cultural performance through a streaming media
service than if they choose to attend a performance in person. In this way, the
Amusement Tax, as interpreted and applied by the Ruling, imposes an unlawful
discriminatory tax on electronic commerce.
Relief Requested
A.

Declare that Defendant Comptroller Dan Widawsky has exceeded his

authority by adopting Amusement Tax Ruling #5, which purportedly authorizes the
City of Chicago to tax Internet-based streaming services for video, audio, and
gaming.
B.

Declare that the Amusement Tax, as interpreted by Amusement Tax

Ruling #5 and applied by the Comptroller, violates the Internet Tax Freedom Act,
47 U.S.C. § 151 note (2015) because it taxes Internet-based streaming services for

16

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 16 of 17

 video and audio while exempting or not taxing other services for video and audio not
delivered via the Internet.
C. Enjoin Comptroller Dan Widawsky and the City of Chicago from enforcing
Amusement Tax Ruling #5’s application of the Amusement Tax on Internet-based
streaming services for video, audio, and gaming.
D. Enjoin Comptroller Dan Widawsky and the City of Chicago from enforcing
Amusement Tax Ruling #5’s application of the Amusement Tax on Internet-based
streaming services for video and audio where similar services not delivered via the
Internet are not taxed or taxed at a lower rate.
E. Award Plaintiffs damages for the amount of Amusement Tax paid on
Internet-based streaming services for video, audio, and gaming.
F. Award Plaintiffs any additional relief the Court deems reasonable and
proper.
Dated: September 9, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

By:___________
One of eir attorneys
Jacob H. Huebert (#6305339)
Jeffrey M. Schwab (#62907 10)
Liberty Justice Center (#49098)
190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone (312) 263-7668
Facsimile (312) 263-7702
jhuebert@libertyjusticecenter.org
j schwab@libertyjusticecenter.org
17

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 17 of 17

 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
CALENDAR: 04
PAGE 1 of 5
CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
CHANCERY DIVISION
CLERK DOROTHY BROWN

Exhibit A

 CITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
AMUSEMENT TAX RULING
Pursuant to Sections 2-32-080, 2-32-096, 3-4-030, 3-4-150 and 4-156-034 ofthe Municipal Code
of Chicago, the City of Chicago hereby adopts and promulgates Amusement Tax Ruling #5,
effective July 1, 2015..
Dated: Tune 9, 201 S
Dan V~ida~;v;
~c~n~ptroll~r
Amusement Tax Ruling #S
Subject: Electronically Delivered Arnuscxn~nts

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 2 of 5

Effective Date: July 1, 2015
.Ordinance Provisions.
Section 4-156-020(A)of the Municipal Code of Chicago ("Code")states, in
pertinent part:
Except as otherwise provided by this article, an amusement tax is imposed upon the
patrons of every amusement within the city.
2.

Code Section 4-156-010 states, in pertinent part:

"Amusement" means:(1)any exhibition, performance, presentation o~ showfor
entertainmentpurposes, including, but not limited to, any theatrical, dramatic, musical or
spectacular performance, promotional show, motion picture show,flower, poultzy ox
animal show,aninnal act, circus, rodeo, athletic contest, sport, game or similar exhibition
such as boxing, wrestling, skating, dancing, swimming,racing, or riding on animals or
vehicles, baseball, basketball, softball, football, tennis, golf, hockey, track and field
games, bowling or billiard or pool games;(2)any entertainrrtent or recreational activity
gffereclfvr public participation ar on a membership or other basis including, but not
limited to, carnivals, amusement park rides and games, bowling, billiards and pool
games, dancing, tennis, racquetball, swimming, weightlifting, bodybuilding or sinnilar
activities; or(3)any paid television programming, whether transmitted by wire, cable,
fibex optics, laser, microwave,radio, satellite or similar means. (emphasis added).

 3.

Code Section 4-156-030(A) states in pertinent part:

It shall be thejoint and several duty ofevery owner, manager o~ operator of an
amusement or of a place where an amusement is being held, and of every reseller to
securefrom each patron or buyer the tax imposed by Section 4-156-020 ofthis article
and to remit the tax to the department offinance not later than the 15th day of each
calendar month for all admission fees or other charges received during the immediately
preceding calendar month ... (emphasis added).

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 3 of 5

4.

Code Section 4-156-010 states in pertinent part:

"Owner" means:(1) with respect to the owner of a place where an amusement is being
held, any person with an ownership or leasehold interest in a building, structure, vehicle,
boat, area or other place who presents, conducts or operates an amusement in such place
or who allows, by agreement or otherwise, another person to present, conduct or operate
an amusement in such place;(2) with respect to the owner ofan amusement, any person
which has an ownership or leasehold interest in such amusement or any person who has
a proprietary interest in the amusement so as to entitle such person to all or a portion of
the proceeds, after payment of reasonable expenses,from the operation, conduct or
presentation of such amusement, excluding proceeds from nonamusement services and
from sales oftangible personal property;(3) with any person operating a community
antenna television system or wireless cable television system, or any person receiving
considerationfrom the patronforfurnishing, transmitting, or otherwise providing access
to paid television programming. (emphasis added).
5.

Code Section 4-156-010 states in pertinent part:

"Operator" means any person who sells or resells a ticket or other license to an
amusement for consideration or who, directly or indirectly, receives or collects the
charges paidfor the sale or resale ofa ticket or other license to an amusement. The term
includes, but is not limited to, persons engaged in the business of selling or reselling
tickets or other licenses to amusements, whether on-line, in person or otherwise. The term
also includes persons engaged in the business of facilitating the sale or resale oftickets or
other licenses to amusements, whether on-line, in person or otherwise. (emphasis added).
6.

Code Section.4-156-010 states in pertinent part:

"License" means a ticket or other license granting the privilege to enter, to witness, to
view or to participate in an amusement, or the opportunity to obtain the privilege to enter,
to witness, to view or to participate in an amusement, and includes but is not limited to a
permanent seat license. (emphasis added).

2

 7.

Code Section 4-156-010 states in pertinent part:

"Ticket" means the privilege to enter, to witness, to view or to participate in an
amusement, whether or not expressed in a tangible form.
Taxability
The amusement tax applies to charges paid for the privilege to witness, view or
8.
participate in an amusement. This includes not only charges paid for the privilege to witness,
view or participate in amusements in person but also charges paid for the privilege to witness,
view or participate in amusements that are delivered electronically. Thus:
chaxges paid for the privilege of watching electronically delivered television
a.
shows, movies or videos are subject to the amusement tax, if the shows, movies or videos
are delivered to a patron (i.e., customer) in the City (see paragraph 13 below);

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 4 of 5

charges paid for the privilege oflistening to electronically delivered music are
b.
subject to the amusement tax, if the music is delivered to a customer in the City; and
chaxges paid for the privilege of participating in games, on-line or otherwise, are
c.
subject to the amusement tax if the games are delivered to a customer in the City.
The customer will normally receive the provider's electronic communications at a television,
radio, computer, tablet, cell phone or other device belonging to the customer.
Providers who receive charges for electronically delivered amusements are owners
9.
or operators and are required to collect the City's amusement tax from their Chicago customers.
See paragraphs 13 and 14 below. As of the date ofthis ruling, the rate ofthe tax is 9% ofthe
charges paid.
The amusement tax does not apply to sales of shows, movies, videos, music or
10.
games(normally accomplished by a "permanent" download). It applies only to rentals(normally
accomplished by streaming or a "temporary" download). The charges paid for such rentals may
be subscription fees, per-event fees or otherwise.
Charges that are not subject to the amusement tax may be subject to another tax
11.
(such as the City's personal property lease transaction tax, Code Chapter 3-32), but this ruling
concerns only the amusement tax.
Bundled Charges
Where a charge is "bundled" by including both taxable and non-taxable elements
12.
(either non-taxable in the first instance or exempt), the Department ofFinance ("Department")
will apply the same rules that are set forth in Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax Ruling #3
(June 1, 2004). That ruling states, among other things, that "[i]f the lessor fails to separate the
3

 lease or rental portion ofthe price from the non-lease or non-rental portion, the entire price
charged shall be deemed taxable, unless it is clearly proven that at least 50% of the price is not
for the use of any personal property." See also Code Section 4-156-020(H)(providing that the
taxable "admission fees or other charges" do not include charges that are not for amusements, but
only if those charges are separately stated and optional). Therefore, if a bundled charge is
primarily for the privilege to enter, to witness, to view or to participate in an amusement,then the
entire charge is taxable.
Sourcing
The Department will utilize the rules set forth in the Mobile Telecommunications
13.
Sourcing Conformity Act, 35 ILCS 638,to determine sourcing for the amusement tax. In
general, this means that the amusement tax will apply to customers whose residential street
address or primary business street address is in Chicago, as reflected by their credit card billing
address, zip code or other reliable information.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/9/2015 3:14 PM
2015-CH-13399
PAGE 5 of 5

Nexus

Because the amusement tax is imposed on the patron, and applies only to activity
14.
(i.e., the amusement)that takes place within Chicago,there is no question that the tax applies
whenever the amusement takes place in Chicago. The issue of nexus arises, at most, with regard
to the question of whether a given provider has an obligation to collect the tax from its customer.
That issue is beyond the scope ofthis ruling, and any provider with a question about that topic
should consult its attorneys. In addition, a provider may request a private letter ruling from the
Department, pursuant to Uniform Revenue Procedures Ordinance Ruling #3(June 1, 2004).
Implementation
In order to allow affected businesses sufficient time to make required system
15.
changes, the Department will limit the effect ofthis ruling to periods on and after September 1,
2015. This paragraph does not release or otherwise affect the liability of any business that failed
to comply with existing law before the effective date ofthis ruling.

4