Why we don't use importance sampling in tabular Q-Learning? Why don't we use an importance sampling ratio in Q-Learning, even though Q-Learning is an off-policy method? 

Importance sampling is used to calculate expectation of a random variable by using data not drawn from the distribution. Consider taking a Monte Carlo average to calculate $\mathbb{E}[X]$. 

Mathematically an expectation is defined as 
$$\mathbb{E}_{x \sim p(x)}[X] = \sum_{x = \infty}^\infty x p(x)\;;$$
where $p(x)$ denotes our probability mass function, and we can approximate this by
$$\mathbb{E}_{x \sim p(x)}[X] \approx \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^nx_i\;;$$
where $x_i$ were simulated from $p(x)$. 

Now, we can re-write the expectation from earlier as 

$$\mathbb{E}_{x \sim p(x)}[X] = \sum_{x = \infty}^\infty x p(x) = \sum_{x = \infty}^\infty x \frac{p(x)}{q(x)} q(x) = \mathbb{E}_{x\sim q(x)}\left[ X\frac{p(X)}{q(X)}\right]\;;$$
and so we can calculate the expectation using Monte Carlo averaging 
$$\mathbb{E}_{x \sim p(x)}[X] \approx \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^nx_i \frac{p(x)}{q(x)}\;;$$
where the data $x_i$ are now simulated from $q(x)$. 

Typically importance sampling is used in RL when we use off-policy methods, i.e. the policy we use to calculate our actions is different from the policy we want to evaluate. Thus, I wonder why we don't use the importance sampling ratio in Q-learning, even though it is considered to be an off-policy method?
In Tabular Q-learning the update is as follows 

$$Q(s,a) = Q(s,a) + \alpha \left[R_{t+1} + \gamma \max_aQ(s',a) - Q(s,a) \right]\;.$$

Now, as we are interested in learning about the optimal policy, this would correspond to the $\max_aQ(s',a)$ term in the TD target because that is how the optimal policy chooses its actions - i.e. $\pi_*(a|s) = \arg\max_aQ_*(s,a)$, so eventually the greedy TD update would be greedy with respect to the optimal state-action value function due to the guaranteed convergence of Q-learning. 

The action $a$ in the update rule, i.e. the action we chose in state $s$ to receive the reward $R_{t+1}$, was chosen according to some non-optimal policy, e.g. $\epsilon$-greedy. However, as the $Q$ function is defined as the expected returns assuming we are in state $s$ and have taken action $a$ -- we thus don't need an importance sampling ratio for the $R_{t+1}$ term, even though it was generated from an action that the optimal policy might not have taken, because we are only updating the $Q$ function for state $s$ and action $a$, and by the definition of a $Q$ function it is assumed that we have taken action $a$ as we condition on this.