period between the Rowan case and Congress's subsequent 1983 changes in the Code.
Despite the creativity of plaintiff's argument, it has met with little success. The precise issue presented in this case has been decided in favor of the government by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Canisius College v. United States, 799 F.2d 18 (2d Cir. 1986), and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case of Temple University v. United States, 595 F. Supp. 94 (E.D. Pa. 1984); aff'd 769 F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1182, 54 U.S.L.W. 3823, 91 L. Ed. 2d 544, 106 S. Ct. 2914 (1986). In addition, a number of District Courts have also decided the issue in favor of the United States. See e.g., Xavier University v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 15 (S.D. Ohio 1986), appeal pending, No. 86-3328 (6th Cir. 1986); New England Baptist Hospital v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 810 (D. Mass. 1986); Trustees of Mease Hospital, Inc. v. United States, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P 9588, 58 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 5660 (M.D. Fla. 1986).
After having thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, I likewise choose to decide the case in favor of the United States. I am particularly persuaded by the reasoning of Judge Rosenn in the Temple University case, supra. Additionally, I think it is important to note that to accept the plaintiff's position would result in the taking away of at least partial social security coverage from certain of plaintiff's employees, a result I am not anxious to reach.
Accordingly, the United States's motion for summary judgment will be granted and the motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff will be denied. An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
Upon consideration of the motions for summary judgment, the oppositions thereto, oral argument on the motions, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that the defendant United States's motion for summary judgment be granted and that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.