Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. United States
2011 U.S. LEXIS 609, 178 L. Ed. 2d 588, 562 U.S. 44 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Chevron deference framework fully applies to Treasury Department regulations interpreting ambiguous provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, including those issued under the Department's general rulemaking authority (26 U.S.C. § 7805(a)), thereby superseding prior, less deferential standards of review for tax regulations.
Facts:
- Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, and the Regents of the University of Minnesota (collectively Mayo) offer medical residency programs.
- Medical residents at Mayo spend between 50 and 80 hours per week caring for patients, performing duties such as examining, diagnosing, prescribing medication, and performing procedures.
- In 2005, Mayo paid its residents annual stipends ranging from $41,000 to $56,000 and provided them with health insurance, malpractice insurance, and paid vacation time.
- Residents also participate in a formal educational program involving textbooks, journal articles, weekly lectures, conferences, and written exams, but the majority of their time is dedicated to patient care.
- The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes remuneration for employment, but includes an exemption for "service performed in the employ of...a school, college, or university...if such service is performed by a student who is enrolled and regularly attending classes at such school, college, or university" (26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(10)).
- From 1951 until 2005, the Treasury Department used a case-by-case analysis to determine if work was "incident to" studies for the student exemption, while the Social Security Administration (SSA) consistently held that resident physicians were not students.
- After an Eighth Circuit decision in 1998 that challenged the SSA's categorical exclusion of residents and subsequent claims for FICA tax refunds, the Treasury Department began a process to clarify the term "student."
- On December 21, 2004, the Treasury Department adopted an amended rule (Treas. Reg. § 31.3121(b)(10)-2(d)(3)(iii)) which states that an employee's service is "incident to" studies only when the educational aspect predominates, and categorically excludes "full-time employees" (defined as those normally scheduled to work 40 or more hours per week) from the student exemption, explicitly using a medical resident as an example of a non-exempt employee.
Procedural Posture:
- Mayo filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking a refund of FICA taxes withheld and paid on its residents' stipends during the second quarter of 2005, arguing the residents were exempt and the Treasury Department's full-time employee rule was invalid.
- The District Court granted Mayo's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the full-time employee rule was inconsistent with § 3121 and invalid under the National Muffler factors.
- The Government appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, applying Chevron deference and concluding that the statute was ambiguous, and the Treasury Department's amended regulation was a permissible interpretation of the statute.
- The Supreme Court granted Mayo's petition for certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Chevron deference framework apply to Treasury Department regulations interpreting ambiguous provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, including those issued under the Department's general rulemaking authority (26 U.S.C. § 7805(a)), or should a less deferential standard be used?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes, the Chevron deference framework applies to Treasury Department regulations interpreting ambiguous provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, including those issued under the Department's general rulemaking authority (26 U.S.C. § 7805(a)). The Court first determined that Congress has not "directly addressed the precise question at issue" regarding whether medical residents are "students" for FICA tax exemption purposes under 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(10). The statute does not define "student" and offers no clear guidance on working professionals, and other provisions specifically exclude medical residents from other exemptions, casting doubt on a general intent to insulate them from FICA. The Court then explicitly held that Chevron deference, rather than the less deferential National Muffler multifactor analysis or the Rowan/Vogel Fertilizer distinction between general and specific rulemaking authority, provides the appropriate framework for evaluating Treasury Department regulations. The Court reasoned that Chevron's principles, which recognize an agency's necessary policy formulation and expertise in filling statutory gaps, apply with full force in the tax context. The Treasury Department's general authority under § 7805(a) to "prescribe all needful rules and regulations" constitutes an express congressional authorization to engage in rulemaking, particularly when coupled with notice-and-comment procedures, thus meriting Chevron deference under United States v. Mead Corp. Finally, the Court found that the Treasury Department's full-time employee rule is a "reasonable interpretation" under Chevron's second step. The rule provides a sensible means to distinguish between "workers who study and students who work" by focusing on hours worked, improves administrability by avoiding case-by-case litigation, and aligns with the broad coverage purpose of the Social Security Act and the principle that tax exemptions should be construed narrowly. Furthermore, it ensures residents contribute to and benefit from Social Security.
Analysis:
This case significantly altered the landscape of administrative law, particularly concerning tax regulations. By unequivocally applying Chevron deference to Treasury Department regulations, even those promulgated under general rulemaking authority, the Supreme Court effectively streamlined judicial review and granted substantial deference to the agency's expertise. This unification of standards provides greater predictability for the Treasury Department in interpreting ambiguous tax statutes, making it more challenging for litigants to overturn such regulations based on factors like agency inconsistency or timing of promulgation, as might have been possible under National Muffler or Rowan. The decision reinforces the idea that tax law, with its inherent complexity, benefits from the specialized knowledge of the administering agency.
