Parkmed Associates v. New York State Tax Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parkmed Associates v. New York State Tax Commission

112 A.D.2d 526, 491 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55893

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 11, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 526 (Parkmed Associates v. New York State Tax Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parkmed Associates v. New York State Tax Commission, 112 A.D.2d 526, 491 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Main, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which sustained the imposition of an unincorporated business tax assessment against petitioners pursuant to Tax Law article 23.

After the Court of Appeals reversed our judgment confirming respondent’s determination that sustained an assessment under the unincorporated business tax (60 NY2d 935, revg 94 AD2d 341), we remitted the matter to respondent for the "determination of the single issue of whether petitioners were, during the years in question, engaged in the practice of medicine” (101 AD2d 632). Respondent then held further proceedings and, by a split decision dated March 15, 1985, determined that petitioners were not engaged in the practice of medicine and, thus, were subject to the tax as assessed. Petitioners challenge this determination and claim that they were engaged in the practice of medicine and, thus, subject to the professional exemption from the unincorporated business tax provided by Tax Law § 703 (c).

Although we find most objectionable the overly commercialized and profit-oriented manner in which petitioners conduct their business, we are compelled to conclude that respondent’s determination must be annulled. Respondent found as fact, and the record fully supports the finding, that petitioners "owned and operated an abortion clinic in New York City” By owning and operating such a clinic, petitioners unquestionably were providing medical services, which makes the conclusion that petitioners were, during the years at issue, engaged in the practice of medicine undeniable. Respondent’s determination to the contrary is, thus, unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious.

Determination annulled, and petition granted, without costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Main, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which sustained the imposition of an unincorporated business tax assessment against petitioners pursuant to Tax Law article 23.

After the Court of Appeals reversed our judgment confirming respondent’s determination that sustained an assessment under the unincorporated business tax (60 NY2d 935, revg 94 AD2d 341), we remitted the matter to respondent for the "determination of the single issue of whether petitioners were, during the years in question, engaged in the practice of medicine” (101 AD2d 632). Respondent then held further proceedings and, by a split decision dated March 15, 1985, determined that petitioners were not engaged in the practice of medicine and, thus, were subject to the tax as assessed. Petitioners challenge this determination and claim that they were engaged in the practice of medicine and, thus, subject to the professional exemption from the unincorporated business tax provided by Tax Law § 703 (c).

Although we find most objectionable the overly commercialized and profit-oriented manner in which petitioners conduct their business, we are compelled to conclude that respondent’s determination must be annulled. Respondent found as fact, and the record fully supports the finding, that petitioners "owned and operated an abortion clinic in New York City” By owning and operating such a clinic, petitioners unquestionably were providing medical services, which makes the conclusion that petitioners were, during the years at issue, engaged in the practice of medicine undeniable. Respondent’s determination to the contrary is, thus, unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious.

Determination annulled, and petition granted, without costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 526, 491 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkmed-associates-v-new-york-state-tax-commission-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack