Wichita Center for Graduate Medical Education, Inc. et al v. USA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 37 government's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 40 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 12/7/2017. (mam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
WICHITA CENTER FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL
EDUCATION, ET AL.,
Case No. 16-1054-JTM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Resolving a long-standing disagreement with taxpayers, the IRS in 2010 agreed that
medical students were not subject to FICA taxes. Following this determination, the IRS
refunded prior FICA tax payments, including some $5.4 million in overpaid employerportion FICA taxes to plaintiff Wichita Center for Graduate Medical Education (WCGME),
from tax periods from 1997 to 2005.
The IRS and WCGME dispute the appropriate interest which plaintiff should receive
for the overpayment. The IRS originally remitted $4.7 in interest to WCGME, but later
determined that it had paid WCGME interest at an overly generous rate, and demanded
repayment of $2.3 million in interest. WCGME repaid this amount, and filed the present
action seeking its recovery.
WCGME and the IRS have essentially stipulated to all relevant facts, and both
parties have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons provided herein, the court
grants summary judgment in favor of the United States.
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the
court must examine all evidence in a light most favorable to the opposing party. McKenzie
v. Mercy Hospital, 854 F.2d 365, 367 (10th Cir. 1988). The party moving for summary
judgment must demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment beyond a reasonable
doubt. Ellis v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 754 F.2d 884, 885 (10th Cir. 1985). The moving party
need not disprove plaintiff’s claim; it need only establish that the factual allegations have
no legal significance. Dayton Hudson Corp. v. Macerich Real Estate Co., 812 F.2d 1319, 1323
(10th Cir. 1987).
In resisting a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party may not rely upon
mere allegations or denials contained in its pleadings or briefs. Rather, the nonmoving
party must come forward with specific facts showing the presence of a genuine issue of
material fact for trial and significant probative evidence supporting the allegation.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). Once the moving party has carried
its burden under Rule 56(c), the party opposing summary judgment must do more than
simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. “In the language
of the Rule, the nonmoving party must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)) (emphasis in Matsushita). One of the
principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually
unsupported claims or defenses, and the rule should be interpreted in a way that allows
it to accomplish this purpose. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).
A taxpayer is entitled to interest on overpayments at the rate established by 26
U.S.C. § 6621. See 26 U.S.C. § 6611(a). Section 6621 sets forth the procedures for the
determination of interest rates, with subsection (a) defining the different appropriate
interest rates to be paid by the government (in the case of an overpayment), or for the
taxpayer (in the case of underpayment).
(1) Overpayment rate.--The overpayment rate established under this section
shall be the sum of–
(A) the Federal short-term rate determined under subsection (b), plus
(B) 3 percentage points (2 percentage points in the case of a corporation).
To the extent that an overpayment of tax by a corporation for any taxable
period (as defined in subsection (c)(3), applied by substituting
“overpayment” for “underpayment”) exceeds $10,000, subparagraph (B)
shall be applied by substituting “0.5 percentage point” for “2 percentage
(2) Underpayment rate.--The underpayment rate established under this
section shall be the sum of–
(A) the Federal short-term rate determined under subsection (b),
(B) 3 percentage points.
26 U.S.C. § 6621(a) (emphasized headings in original). The statute thus not only creates
different interest rates for overpayments versus underpayments, it also provides for
different rates as to individuals and corporations. Individuals receive interest at 3% over
the Federal short-term rate, while corporations receive 2%. And if a corporation has
overpaid by more than $10,000, it will receive only 0.5% interest.
The stipulated facts establish that plaintiff WCGME is a non-stock, not-for-profit
corporation organized under Kansas law, exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. §§ 501(a)
and (c)(3). The present action rests on WCGME’s contention that, as a nonprofit
corporation, it should receive interest on its overpayment at the rate otherwise provided
to individuals. WCGME advances an in pari materia construction of § 6621, under which
“corporation” should be taken to mean only for-profit C corporations.
The plaintiff’s argument focuses on § 6621(c)(1), which provides for a special interest
rate of the Federal short-term rate plus 5% in the case of “any large corporate
underpayment.” Under § 6621(c)(3), a large corporate underpayment “means any
underpayment of a tax by a C corporation for any taxable period if the amount of such
underpayment for such period exceeds $100,000.”
The court rejects the plaintiff’s arguments, including the in pari materia argument
grounded on subsection (c), and finds that subsection (a) unambiguously provides the
governing interest rate for the plaintiff.
As a general matter, ordinarily a court will not resort to in pari materia where a
statute is clear on its face. See United States v. Warren, 820 F.3d 406, 408 (11th Cir. 2016);
(“courts generally apply in pari materia only when a legal text is ambiguous”); Martin v.
United States, 389 F.2d 895, 897 n. 5 (5th Cir.1968) (where statute was “neither patently nor
latently ambiguous ... there is no need to resort to in pari materia constructions”).
Under the doctrine of in pari materia, the court is not restricted to “reading a single
statute in isolation, but ... consider[s] other statutes dealing with the same subject matter.”
United States v. Arciga-Bustamante, 276 F. App’x 716, 721 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Planned
Parenthood of Rocky Mountains v. Owens, 287 F.3d 910, 923 n. 13 (10th Cir.2002)). The
doctrine recognizes that “‘[a] provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often
clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme.’” Id. (quoting United Sav. Ass’n of Tex.
v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988)).
“It is a well established law of statutory construction that, absent ambiguity or irrational
result, the literal language of a statute controls.” Edwards v. Valdez, 789 F.2d 1477, 1481 (10th
Cir.1986) (citations omitted).
Even if the court were to apply the doctrine here, the plaintiff’s argument is
misplaced because § 6621(a)(1) and (c)(3) do not use the same terms (the former uses the
general term “corporation,” while only the latter references the term “C corporation”) and
do not deal with the same subject matter. Subsection (a)(1) explicitly sets the
“Overpayment rate,” while Subsection (c) provides a special rule in certain cases for large
Accordingly, whether considered in isolation or in pari materia, the court finds no
ambiguity in § 6621(a)(1). The interest rate set forth in the statute is applicable to an entity
that is a “corporation,” without regard to its profit or nonprofit status.
Under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(3) the term “corporation” as used in the Internal Revenue
Code “includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.” The Tenth
Circuit has recognized that this provision “extends, rather than limits, the ordinary
meaning thereof,” and thus “includes ‘associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance
companies,’ as well as entities organized as corporations.” United States v. Empey, 406 F.2d
157, 166 (10th Cir. 1969). “[A] corporation created under state law is a corporation within
the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(3).” O’Neill v. United States, 410 F.2d 888, 899 (6th Cir.
1969). See also Empey, 406 F.2d at 169 (noting “the long followed administrative practice of
treating a corporation organized and chartered under state law as a corporation for federal
income tax purposes,” which Congress “tacitly approved” by repeatedly reenacting §
7701(a)). The plaintiff is organized as a corporation under Kansas law, and is subject to the
overpayment rate provisions of § 6621(a)(1).
Courts have previously addressed claims by nonprofit corporations that they should
not be subjected to the lower corporate interest rate for tax overpayments authorized by
Section 6621(a). In Maimonides Medical Center v. United States, 54 F.Supp.3d 194, 205
(E.D.N.Y. 2014), aff’d, 809 F.3d 85 (2nd Cir. 2015) the court held that the general definition
of “corporation” in § 7701(a)(3) was applicable to § 6621(a)(1), “which ... means that income
tax-exempt not-for-profit corporations like plaintiff are subject to § 6621(a)(1)’s corporate
interest rate.” Although the district court concluded that the plaintiff should be treated as
a corporation in light of IRS regulations implementing § 7701, see 26 C.F.R. § 301.7701, the
court also acknowledged precedent—including O’Neill, supra— that the language of the
statute itself “requires all incorporated entities to be classified as ‘corporations’ for federal
tax purposes.” Id. at 201 (emphasis in original).
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed this conclusion, noting both the meaning of
the term “corporation” in ordinary usage, and in the context of the Code § 7701(a). As to
the former, the court observed that “the word ‘corporation,’ standing alone, ordinarily
refers to both for-profit and nonprofit entities without distinction.” 809 F.3d at 87 (citing
Webster’s THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 510 (1993) and OXFORD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY (2d ed. online version 2015). The court also noted that in legal treatises, “[a]
profit-seeking motive does not appear on the list of distinguishing characteristics of a
corporation.” Id. (citing 1 William Meade Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 5).
Section 7701(a), which provides simply that the term corporation “includes” certain
entities without providing any characteristics of the underlying term, was not a traditional
It does, however, serve to expand the federal tax law meaning of
“corporation” beyond entities that would ordinarily fall under that term; it
offers no hint that Congress intended to contract the ordinary meaning of the
term in any way. The statutory definition thus strongly suggests that, at a
minimum, all entities covered by the core definition of “corporation” are also
included. Section 7701(a)(3) does not provide that core definition itself, but
because the ordinary meaning of “corporation” includes nonprofit entities
that take the corporate form, the same should be true of the core term as used
in § 7701(a)(3). That core definition most plausibly encompasses any entity
upon which state law has conferred the rights and duties characteristic of a
“corporation” as defined in the sources quoted above.
Id. at 88. That Congress intended such an interpretation of the term “corporation” was also
supported by other provisions in the Code. Thus, sections 501(a) & (c)(3) of the Code
exempt from taxation “[c]orporations ... organized and operated exclusively for ...
charitable ... purposes.” If the underlying term “corporation” was restricted to for-profit
companies, these provisions “would be self-contradictory.” Id. at 89.
The court also rejected various arguments made by the plaintiff that § 6621(a) should
be construed so that the reduced interest rate provisions applied only to for-profit
corporations, including an in pari materia construction argument based on § 6621(c).
MMC complains that the government’s reading of § 6621 fails to give the
words “corporation” and “corporate” a consistent meaning throughout that
section. But it is mistaken: the word “corporation,” standing alone, has only
one meaning throughout § 6621—namely, the meaning derived from §
7701(a)(3). It has the meaning “C corporation” only where it is preceded by
the qualifier “C.” By asking us to read “C” into subsection (a)(1), MMC seeks
to have the rule of in pari materia (insofar as it applies at all) override another
canon of interpretation, namely, the rule that “[w]here Congress includes
particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section
of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and
purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Russello v. United States,
464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983).
Id. at 92-93.
The Sixth Circuit addressed the same issue in United States v. Detroit Medical Center,
833 F.3d 671, 675 (6th Cir. 2016), and agreed that “corporations,” as traditionally
understood, “includes nonprofit entities,” and noted the “[m]any ... examples” appearing
“throughout the Internal Revenue Code,”which showed that Congress intended to
incorporate that generic understanding of the term. Id. at 676. See also id. at 679
(acknowledging the “thoughtful opinion by Judge Lynch” in Maimonides).
This usage, the court found, “puts the Detroit Medical Center at the bottom of a
steep hill when it comes to showing that the term ‘corporation’ in § 6621 of the Code refers
only to for-profit corporations.” Id. at 677. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to
show that, for § 6621(a), the term should receive a different construction. With respect to
plaintiff’s in pari materia argument, the court wrote:
In English, the canon says that words dealing with the same matter in the
same statute should be given the same meaning. Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs.,
508 U.S. 248, 260, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993). The Center inverts
the canon in invoking it here. It asks us to treat the same matters throughout
the Internal Revenue Code differently and different matters within one
section the same. It implores us to treat the use of the word “corporation” in
§ 6621(a)(1) differently from uses of the same word in other sections of the
Internal Revenue Code, such as § 501(c)(3). And it implores us to treat the use
of the generic word “corporation” in § 6621(a)(1) the same as the specific
term “C corporation” in § 6621(c)(3). The canon in truth leads to the opposite
conclusion: that the word “corporation,” standing alone, and the word
“corporation,” preceded by the qualifier “C,” should be given different
Id. at 678-79.
Finally, in Medical Col. of Wisconsin Aff. Hosp. v. United States, 854 F.3d 930 (7th Cir.
2017), the Seventh Circuit rejected a similar in pari materia construction argument, as
recognized in authorities such as Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, Reading Law, Canon 25
(2012). The court observed that, in its application to § 6621, there are “[a]t least two things
... wrong with this line of argument.” Id. at 933. First, the doctrine in fact pointed in the
opposite direction: “the distinction between ‘corporation’ in subsection (a) and ‘C
corporation’ in subparagraph (c)(3)(A) implies a different meaning. A presumption that a
single word means the same thing throughout a statute goes together with a presumption
that different words mean different things.” Id.
Second, any such in pari materia reading was precluded by other language in §
[P]aragraph (c)(3) tells us how far its definitions extend. It begins “[f]or
purposes of this subsection”—in other words, subsection (c), the only part of
§ 6621 in which “large corporate underpayment” plays a role. What Scalia
and Garner call the presumption of consistent usage is just that: a
presumption. It is overcome by other indicators, such as a provision that a
definition covers just one subsection. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh,
543 U.S. 50, 125 S.Ct. 460, 160 L.Ed.2d 389 (2004), is among many decisions
showing that the Justices take seriously the way statutory subdivisions refer
to each other. Subsection (a) likewise tells us exactly how much of paragraph
(c)(3) is borrowed: its definition of “taxable period”. The rest of paragraph
(c)(3) pertains to subsection (c) alone.
This court concurs with the reasoning in Maimonides Medical Center, Detroit Medical
Center, and Medical College of Wisconsin, and concludes that not-for-profit corporations are
subject to the reduced interest rate provisions of § 6621(a) applicable to all corporate tax
overpayments.1 Because the court reaches this conclusion based on the unambiguous
statutory usage relating to “corporations” in the Code, including § 6621, the court need not
address the potential application of the IRS check-the-box regulations. Similarly, the court
The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Medical College of Wisconsin is briefer than the earlier
decisions, the court adding that “[t]o the extent we have skipped over any of Medical College’s
arguments, it is enough to say that we agree with our colleagues in the Second and Sixth Circuits.”
854 F.3d at 933. This court agrees with Judge Easterbrook’s conclusion, and finds that the reasoning
in the three cited decisions requires denial of the various arguments advanced by WCGME.
need not address the government’s alternative argument (Dkt. 38, at 14-17) that, even if the
court agreed with plaintiff’s in pari materia argument and concluded that the reduced
interest rate of § 6621(a) only applied to C corporations, WCGME should still be considered
a “corporation” for purposes of the statute.
Nor is this understanding of the language of §§ 7701(a)(3) and 6621(a) “manifestly
incompatible with the intent of the Code,” thereby precluding such a construction. See 26
U.S.C. § 7701(a). There is nothing in the legislative history of § 6621(a) which shows any
intention to distinguish between types of corporations. Certainly, as plaintiff argues, notfor-profit corporations do important and valuable work in society. But such arguments are
properly addressed to Congress, rather than the courts.
As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged in Detroit Medical Center,
it is strange that Congress reduced the interest rate on overpayments for all
corporations, whether for profit or not. We have considerable sympathy for
the Medical Center on this score. Congress has created a regime in which a
nonprofit hospital receives a lower interest rate on its FICA tax
overpayments than Warren Buffett does on his individual tax returns.
Perhaps Congress did not think about the point. Nonprofit corporations after
all do not pay income tax, and most tax overpayment issues usually arise in
the context of income taxes, as opposed to the automatic withdrawal regime
associated with FICA taxes. And perhaps if Congress thinks about the point,
it will alter the rule. But for now, we have a statute that by any conventional
method of interpretation does not provide relief for the Detroit Medical
833 F.3d at 671.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 7th day of December, 2017, that the
government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 37) is granted; that of the plaintiff (Dkt.
40) is denied.
___s/ J. Thomas Marten______
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?