The Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations, 2021 Cumulative Supplement. Bruce R. Hopkins

Читать онлайн книгу.

The Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations, 2021 Cumulative Supplement - Bruce R. Hopkins


Скачать книгу
EIGHT Educational Organizations

        § 8.1 Federal Tax Law Definition of Educational

        § 8.3 Educational Institutions (a) Schools, Colleges, and Universities

        § 8.4 Instruction of Individuals

        § 8.5 Instruction of Public

       p. 208. Insert as second complete paragraph:

      (a) Schools, Colleges, and Universities

       p. 212, first complete paragraph, first line. Delete This and insert According to the tax regulations, this.

       p. 212, second complete paragraph, fourth line. Delete tax‐exempt; insert as an educational entity following status.

       p. 212. Insert as third complete paragraph:

       p. 217, note 103. Insert following existing text:

      If this type of activity, however, is or becomes more in the nature of business promotion, however, the private benefit doctrine (see § 20.13) will preclude exemption (e.g., Priv. Ltr. Rul. 201927022).

       p. 222, first complete paragraph. Insert as last sentence:

      1 10.1 Priv. Ltr. Rul. 202019028.

      2 45.1 Mayo Clinic v. United States, 412 F. Supp. 3d 1038, 1057 (D. Minn. 2019).

      3 45.2 Id. at 1047.

      4 45.3 Id.

      5 45.4 See § 7.6(a).

      6 45.5 This is one of the contextual canons used in construing statutes; it is a presumption of consistent usage. See Scalia & Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (Thomson/West, St. Paul, MN: 2012).

      7 45.6 This is the whole‐text canon (Reading Law, supra, note 45.5, at 1167). In this case, the court did not read “all parts of the statute together”; it read only two sections of it (IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii)). The entire statute is IRC § 170(b)(1)(A), where the law provides for nine categories of public charities, eight of which do not contain the primary‐function requirement. It is probable that the statute writers had a reason to insert the requirement only in IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(iii), a point the court did not explore.

      8 45.7 The IRS calculated that the Mayo Clinic's educational activities were only 13 percent of its total activities and that its revenue from educational undertakings was only 6 percent of total revenue (Tech. Adv. Mem. 201407024). The court in this case may have violated another contextual canon: the absurdity doctrine. This canon states that a provision may be judicially corrected where the failure to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve (Reading Law, supra, note 45.5, at 234). Indeed, another contextual canon the court could have applied is the harmonious‐reading canon, pursuant to which the provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory (id., at 180).

      9 161.1 E.g., Priv. Ltr. Rul. 201852020.

        § 9.2 Concept of Research

       p. 231, second paragraph. Insert as last sentence:


Скачать книгу