The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of the Internal Revenue Service, saying that medical residents are full-time employees who are subject to payroll taxes and don’t qualify for the student exemption.

The case, Mayo Foundation et al v. U.S., involved the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and a hospital operated by the University of Minnesota.  In late 2004, the IRS made a rule change and said that medical residents, as doctors in training, no longer qualified for the student exemption from paying Social Security and Medicare FICA taxes.

The judges, in an 8-0 decision, from which the newest justice, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, recused herself, decided in favor of the IRS change, which will apply to residents’ stipends paid after April 1, 2005. The IRS has already decided to exempt medical student wages paid prior to April 2005.

The Treasury will earn an estimated $700 million a year in future revenue as a result of the change, according to SCOTUSblog.

Mayo residents generally spend the bulk of their time—typically 50 to 80 hours a week—caring for patients, the court noted. Mayo pays its residents annual stipends of over $40,000 and also provides them with health insurance, malpractice insurance and paid vacation time.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the hospitals are engaged in education, but he rejected the hospitals’ argument that the students should be taxed on a case-by-case basis.

He upheld an appeals court ruling, citing precedents in cases involving the National Muffler Dealers Association v. United States and Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

"We do not doubt that Mayo’s residents are engaged in a valuable educational pursuit or that they are students of their craft,” he wrote. “The question whether they are 'students' for purposes of Section 3121, however, is a different matter. Because it is one to which Congress has not directly spoken, and because the Treasury Department’s rule is a reasonable construction of what Congress has said, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed."

Another former Solicitor General, Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who represented Mayo and the University of Minnesota before the Supreme Court, issued the following statement, according to local station KIMT:

"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court decided to uphold the Treasury Department's exclusion of medical residents from the scope of the Student Exemption enacted by Congress. As the Court itself acknowledged, medical residents are engaged in a formal and structured educational program that is an indispensable component of their medical training. The Treasury Department's regulation overlooks the important educational pursuits in which residents are engaged."


Cohn writes for Accounting Today, a SourceMedia publication.
Follow EBN on: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Podcasts

Register or login for access to this item and much more

All Employee Benefit News becomes archived within a week of it being published

Community members receive:
  • All recent and archived articles
  • Conference offers and updates
  • A full menu of enewsletter options
  • Web seminars, white papers, ebooks

Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access