ILCS » Chapter 35 · Act 200
Illinois Compiled Statutes

35 ILCS 200/23-20 (2026)

Effect of protested payments; refunds

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(35 ILCS 200/23-20)
    Sec. 23-20. Effect of protested payments; refunds. No protest shall prevent or be a cause of delay in the distribution of tax collections to the taxing districts of any taxes collected which were not paid under protest. If the final order of the Property Tax Appeal Board or of a court results in a refund to the taxpayer, refunds shall be made by the collector from funds remaining in the Protest Fund until such funds are exhausted and thereafter from the next funds collected after entry of the final order until full payment of the refund and interest thereon has been made. Interest from the date of payment, regardless of whether the payment was made before the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1997, or from the date payment is due, whichever is later, to the date of refund shall also be paid to the taxpayer at the annual rate of the lesser of (i) 5% or (ii) the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers during the 12-month calendar year preceding the levy year for which the refund was made, as published by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    A claim for a refund resulting from a final order of the Property Tax Appeal Board shall not be allowed unless the claim is filed within 20 years from the date the right to a refund arose; provided, however, that the aggregate total of refunded taxes and interest shall not exceed $5,000,000 in any calendar year for claims filed more than 7 years after the right to the refund arose. If the payment of a claim for a refund would cause the aggregate total of taxes and interest to exceed $5,000,000 in any year, the refund shall be paid in the next succeeding year.
    The changes made to this Section by this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly apply to matters concerning refund claims filed on or after the first day of the first month following the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly.
(Source: P.A. 103-655, eff. 7-19-24.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 2007–2017 · leading case: Madison Two Assocs. v. Pappas, 884 N.E.2d 142 (Ill. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Madison Two Assocs. v. Pappas, 884 N.E.2d 142 (Ill. 2008). “If the circuit court ultimately determines that the plaintiffs' properties are overassessed, it may direct the county collector to distribute a refund to plaintiffs, and any refund "shall be made * * * from the next funds collected after entry of the final order until full…”
Moenning v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 101866 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “35 ILCS 200/23-20 (West 2006). At the time the taxes were paid, section 23-20 provided for a 5% interest rate on tax refunds.”
The Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Pappas, 2016 IL App (1st) 151802 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 3× “See 35 ILCS 200/23-20 (West 2012). ¶ 11 After paying these refunds out of the Class A fund, the Treasurer sought reimbursement from the Village.”
Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Pappas, 2016 IL App (1st) 151802 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 35 ILCS 200/23-20 (West 2012). ¶ 11 After paying these refunds out of the Class A fund, the Treasurer sought reimbursement from the Village.”
Madison Two Assocs. v. Pappas, 862 N.E.2d 1184 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “" If the trial court ultimately concludes that the plaintiffs' properties have been overassessed, it will have the ability to direct the collector to distribute a refund to plaintiffs, and such a refund "shall be made * * * from the next funds collected after entry of the final…”
In re Application of the Cnty. Collector, 2017 IL App (2d) 160483 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 35 ILCS 200/23-20 (West 2014). It appears that there was enough money in the Protest Fund to issue the refunds first, or that the Treasurer had other funds available to pay the refunds first.”
MOENNING v. Union Pac. R. Co., 966 N.E.2d 443 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “35 ILCS 200/23-20 (West 2006). At the time the taxes were paid, section 23-20 provided for a 5% interest rate on tax refunds.”
In re Application of the Cnty. Collector, 2017 IL App (2d) 160483 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 35 ILCS 200/23-20 (West 2014). Section 20-175(a-1) provided that the Treasurer could deduct funds for erroneous assessments or overpayments “pro rata, from the moneys due to taxing bodies which received the taxes erroneously paid.”
Bd. of Trs. of Illinois Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 513 v. Putnam Cnty., 2014 IL App (3d) 130344 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “See 35 ILCS 200/23-20 (West 2012). The intent of the statute is to facilitate the collection of taxes and protect taxpayers from overtaxation.”
In re Application of the Cnty. Collector, 2017 IL App (2d) 160483 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “Section 23-20 provided that the Treasurer was to pay refunds for successful property tax objections “from the next funds collected after entry of the final order until full payment of the refund and interest thereon has been made.”
Madison Two Assoc v. Pappas (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “” 35 ILCS 200/23-20 (West 2002). 14 1-04-0911 However, this fact - that the trial court could potentially enter an order requiring the tax collector to use future funds she collects to pay a refund - does not provide a sufficient basis to demonstrate that petitioners will be…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.