---

Office of the Circuit Executive

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Name: REDLANDS SURGICAL SERVICES V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Case Number:	Date Filed:
99-71253	03/15/01

OR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REDLANDS SURGICAL SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellant,                                 No. 99-71253

v.                                                    Tax Court No.
                                                     11025-97x
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,                                              OPINION
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Argued and Submitted
March 5, 2001--Pasadena, California

Filed March 15, 2001

Before: James R. Browning, Melvin Brunetti, and
Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

_________________________________________________________________


COUNSEL

Douglas M. Mancino, James L. Malone III, Robert C.
Louthian III, McDermott, Will & Emery, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, for the petitioner-appellant.

Paula M. Junghans, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Gary
R. Allen, Teresa E. McLaughlin, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent-appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

                               3251
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We deny the petition for review on the grounds stated by
the tax court in Redlands Surgical Servs. v. C.I.R, 113 T.C. 47
(1999). Specifically, we adopt the tax court's holding that
appellant Redlands Surgical Services "has ceded effective
control over the operations of the partnerships and the surgery
center to private parties, conferring impermissible private
benefit. [Redlands Surgical Services] is therefore not operated
exclusively for exempt purposes within the meaning of sec.
501(c)(3), I.R.C. 1986." Id. at 47. We also affirm the tax
court's conclusion that the benefit conferred on private parties
by the surgery center's operations prevents Redlands Surgical
Services from attaining tax exempt status under the integral
part doctrine.

Petition for Review DENIED.

                               3252


Go to top