HCSC-Laundry v. United States
United States Supreme Court
450 U.S. 1 (1981)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
HCSC-Laundry (HCSC) (plaintiff) was a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation organized to operate and maintain a laundry and linen-supply program for public and nonprofit hospitals and health facilities. HCSC was formed after the Lehigh Valley Health Planning Council determined that a shared, nonprofit, off-premises laundry would best serve the needs of its member hospitals in terms of quality of service and economies of scale. HCSC provided services to 15 nonprofit hospitals and an ambulance service, each of which was an exempt entity for purposes of § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (code). The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) denied HCSC’s application for exemption under § 501(c)(3), finding that HCSC was a cooperative hospital-service organization and that § 501(e) of the code was the only provision under which such an organization could qualify as tax-exempt. Because § 501(e)(1)(A) did not mention laundry service, the IRS determined that HCSC was not entitled to exemption. HCSC paid its taxes and filed a claim for refund. When the IRS took no action on the claim, HCSC filed suit, and the district court ruled in favor of HCSC. The circuit court reversed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.