Blog Post

Do the Math Before You Vote in the Illinois Primary

Kelly A. Anderson and Gabriel Kokoszka • Feb 27, 2024

Understanding the Referendum: “Amending the Real Estate Transfer Tax”


Chicago residents participating in the March 19th primary will walk into the voting booths expecting to make consequential decisions about their nominees for President and States Attorney. But, the typical voter may find themselves slightly confused and overwhelmed when they reach a lengthy referendum at the end of their ballot, entitled “Amending the Real Estate Transfer Tax.” This referendum is four entire paragraphs of tax jargon and financial chatter, informing the reader about a ballot measure on a local tax change. 


In fact, this is a highly consequential ballot referendum on a proposed change to the local real estate transfer tax, and it’s essential to understand what the referendum means before primary day. Read on, and we’ll break it down for you. 


Flat Tax No More: Changes to Chicago Real Estate Transfer Tax


The current real estate transfer tax rate in Chicago is 0.75 percent of the sales price of the subject property, regardless of what the price is. This means that no matter what type of property you sell in the city of Chicago, big or small, the city takes a 0.75 percent slice of the total sale price. 


This proposed ballot referendum would change that. If passed, the transfer tax on properties sold for more than $1 million would increase from 0.75 percent to 2 percent, more than doubling the existing rate, but would only apply to the amount of the sale greater than $1 million. Basically, every dollar over $1 million would be taxed at that higher rate. 


In addition, properties sold for more than $1.5 million would be taxed at an increased rate of 3 percent, with the increase, once again, only applying to every dollar in the sale price over $1.5 million.


And finally, the transfer tax on properties sold for less than $1 million, would receive a tax decrease from that original rate of 0.75 percent to 0.60 percent.


The referendum requires that the increased revenue generated from the tax must “be used for the purpose of addressing homelessness, including providing permanent affordable housing and the services necessary to obtain and maintain permanent housing.” 


Critics have attacked the city’s lack of specifics for how the funds must be used, and insist that while many properties that sell for less than $1 million will receive a tax cut, the tax increases on the sales above $1 million will chill commercial investment in Chicago at a time when downtown is struggling with post-pandemic work culture, and this could also result in residential and commercial renters seeing increased transfer tax costs passed on to them by landlords.


Meanwhile, proponents of the referendum insist that the above arguments amount to fearmongering over a relatively minor tax change, and emphasize Chicagoan’s shared interests in not seeing homelessness go unabated—both from a standpoint of human compassion and due to the blight and decreased livability that cities can experience if homelessness is not addressed.


Possibly a Moot Point?


At this time, interestingly, the ballot referendum has been declared invalid and will not be counted in response to a February 23rd ruling from a Cook County judge, who decided in part that the ballot measure was an illegal, textbook example of “logrolling,” or putting politically-unpopular proposals with popular ones on a ballot, and asking voters or legislators to decide on them in a single vote. In this case, the ballot referendum frames the single proposal as both a tax cut for some, and two types of tax increases for others, amounting to three separate tax decisions at once.


So, although the question will remain physically on the ballot, the results will not be tallied and reported unless the judge’s decision is overturned on appeal. However, an appellate court decision could make this ballot measure binding again in the blink of an eye. And even if the ballot language remains stricken, proponents of the tax change will likely rephrase the referendum and work to get it on the next citywide ballot. If you rent, own, or are looking to own property in the city of Chicago, this referendum could ultimately impact you, and you should walk into the voting booth with a clear understanding of that impact.


For questions about this and other real estate tax issues or any legal needs, Lavelle Law offers free consultations. Please contact Attorney Kelly Anderson at (847) 241-1786 or kanderson@lavellelaw.com and we can set up your appointment!


More News & Resources

Lavelle Law News and Events

At a minimum, parents with minor children should prepare wills with guardianship provisions.
By Jackie R. Luthringshausen 12 May, 2024
Special congratulations to all “new moms” who recently celebrated the birth of their first child and to “experienced moms” who recently expanded their family with the birth of a new child! Whether you are a “brand new mom” or an “experienced mom,” now is the time to think about preparing estate plan documents to protect your new or growing family.
When a Taxpayer Should File an Amended Federal Tax Return
By Timothy M. Hughes 10 May, 2024
When a taxpayer realizes that their federal tax return has a math error, missing income, or other mistake, they should file an amended tax return. If you need to amend your Form 1040, 1040-SR, 1040-NR, or 1040-SS/PR for the current or two prior tax periods, you can amend these forms electronically using available tax software products. Any amended Form 1040, 1040-SR, 1040-NR or 1040-SS/PR returns older than the current or prior two tax periods cannot be amended electronically. Amended returns for those earlier tax years must be filed by paper. Also, if the originally filed return was via paper during the current processing year, then the amended return must also be filed on paper.
Understanding the FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Noncompete Agreements
By Steven A. Migala 03 May, 2024
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), in a 3-2 vote, issued its final Non-Compete Clause Rule (“Rule”) which prohibits noncompete clauses in agreements between employees and their workers. This highly anticipated Rule follows a substantially similar proposed rule from the FTC released on January 19, 2023. The Rule will not become effective until 120 days after publication in the Federal Register, and covered employers will be required to comply with the Rule by that effective date, which could come as early as August of this year. By the FTC’s estimate, this ban could affect up to one in five American workers.
Divorces that involve small and medium businesses have unique concerns and considerations.
By Joseph A. Olszowka 02 May, 2024
When determining how to distribute the marital assets between parties to a divorce, the division of an interest in a small or medium business owned by one or both of the parties is more complex and requires a careful examination of the value of the business or business interests. The Court must determine the value of the business interest in order to determine how to equitably divide all marital assets in which the parties have an interest. The Court will regularly rely on the valuation reports of the parties' experts regarding the value of the business. The business valuation expert will utilize a number of different methods in determining the value of a business. The professional appraiser will examine and assess the value of the business and provide expert testimony and reports to the parties and the Court.
Vehicle dealerships need to navigate the complex terrain of adhering to BIPA to avoid lawsuits.
By Sarah J. Reusché and Nathan Toy 30 Apr, 2024
Vehicle dealerships particularly have recently found themselves needing to navigate the complex terrain of adhering to the BIPA’s stringent requirements to avoid being targeted through lawsuits. There has been a recent noticeable uptick in class action lawsuits under the BIPA, serving as a critical wake-up call for the automotive retail industry, highlighting the need for dealerships to review and enhance their practices if they are using biometric technology.
Learn the complexities of Illinois commercial leases and avoid common pitfalls.
By Lavelle Law 29 Apr, 2024
Join us for this seminar as Lavelle Law attorneys Kelly Anderson and Chance Badertscher will unpack the complexities of Illinois commercial leases in order to prepare you for strong leasing relationships.
An essential part of a good contract is often overlooked. Learn about fee shifting provisions.
By Joseph O. Upchurch and MaryAllison Mahacek 23 Apr, 2024
Between the state of Illinois and federal courts, there are well over 200 statutes that deal with fee shifting provisions. They lay out ways in which legal fees may become the responsibility of one party in a lawsuit. In this video, Lavelle Law Associates Jodie Upchurch and MaryAllison Mahacek discuss ways that these provisions should be included in contracts and how they can be used advantageously.
Great advice on what to expect on your final walkthrough.
By Chance W. Badertscher 22 Apr, 2024
Lavelle Law real estate attorney, Chance Badertscher, recently participated in a Straight Up Chicago Investor Podcast and shared his expertise on what to expect on the final walkthrough before your real estate closing. He breaks it down and shares tips for both the buyer and the seller.
An essential part of a good contract is often overlooked. Learn about fee shifting provisions.
By Joseph O. Upchurch and MaryAllison Mahacek 18 Apr, 2024
Between the state of Illinois and federal courts, there are well over 200 statutes which deal with fee shifting provisions. They lay out ways in which legal fees may become the responsibility of one party in a lawsuit. Lavelle Law Associates Jodie Upchurch and MaryAllison Mahacek discuss ways that these provisions should be included in contracts and how they can be used advantageously.
Emergency Estate Tax Savings - a Lavelle Law Success Story
By Estate Planning and Administration 16 Apr, 2024
Our team worked very quickly (in a matter of just a few days) to establish temporary guardianship of the client, and – most importantly – successfully argued for the judge to authorize the guardian to execute and finalize the estate plan documents on the client’s behalf. Finalizing the estate planning documents in advance of the client’s death saved the estate and the client’s family nearly $500,000 in estate taxes.
More Posts
Share by: