Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
United States v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided March 25, 2009No. Docket 07-0926-cv(L), 07-0949-cv(Con)Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTrager, District Judge
Although I agree that payments made to residents cannot qualify as scholarships, I respectfully dissent from the panel’s construction of the student exception from FICA taxes. My colleagues find that the text of 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(10) unambiguously adopts a case-by-case approach for determining whether a medical resident qualifies for the student exception. Unlike my colleagues, I find the statutory text ambiguous and resort to legislative history appropriate. And here Congress unambiguously expressed its intent that residents are categorically ineligible for the student exception when it…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- United States v. TurketteSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet ServicesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.