Wrobleski v. Bingler

161 F. Supp. 901, 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1987, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3360
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 19, 1958
DocketCiv. 16106
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 161 F. Supp. 901 (Wrobleski v. Bingler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wrobleski v. Bingler, 161 F. Supp. 901, 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1987, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3360 (W.D. Pa. 1958).

Opinion

JOHN L. MILLER, District Judge.

In this action, tried before the court without a jury, the plaintiff, a physician, seeks to recover an alleged overpayment of income tax for the calendar year 1956. The only question presented is whether an amount paid to the plaintiff in that year by the University of Pittsburgh constituted a fellowship grant excludable from gross income under Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S..C.A. § 117, subject to the limitations of .§ 117(b) (2), or whether that amount represented compensation for services taxable under applicable Regulations. The facts are found specially in accordance with Rule 52, F.R.C.P. 28 U.S.C.A.

Findings of Fact.

1. Harry F. Wrobleski, a Pittsburgh resident, was accepted on July 1, 1955, as a participating graduate physician in a training program in psychiatry at the Western State Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in the City of Pittsburgh.

2. While engaged in the training program in psychiatry during 1956, the plaintiff received a stipend of approximately $3,400 from the University of Pittsburgh.

3. On or before April 15, 1957, the plaintiff filed his individual income tax return for the year 1956 with the District Director at Pittsburgh. On his return, plaintiff claimed a refund of income tax in the amount of $488.40 which had been withheld by the University of Pittsburgh from the stipend paid him and remitted to the defendant.

4. Upon examination of the plaintiff's income tax return, the District Director notified him, on July 8, 1957, that the amount paid him by the University of Pittsburgh did not qualify as a fellowship grant within the meaning of Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 but rather constituted compensation for services rendered since the plaintiff “gave his skill and experience in consideration for monies received.”

5. The University of Pittsburgh is an organization within the description of organizations exempt from tax under Sections 501(a) and 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

6. The Western State Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, established by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and leased to the University of Pittsburgh for the sum of $1 a year, was designed to serve primarily as a center for research and education of students and specialists in the field of emotional illness and health. The use and some of the purposes of the Institute have been defined by statute which provides, in part, as follows:

“The Western State Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, located in Allegheny County, shall be used for study and research into the causes, treatment, prevention and cure of the various types of nervous disorders and mental diseases. This institute shall also provide training and teaching both at the undergraduate and at the graduate level of students who, upon graduation, will enter the practice of general medicine, with a technical background of training in mental illness, as well as for the purpose of taking up the great gap between the number of qualified psychiatrists and the number who are needed as a result of the constantly mounting number of persons needing attention for mental disorders.” 1949, May 20, P.L. 1643, § 1, 50 P.S.Pa. § 575.1.

Other purposes, described by the statute, are the provision of courses of study for *903 personnel of the various mental hospitals throughout the Commonwealth, the pursuit of studies for the prevention of mental and nervous disorders of children, the training and teaching of nurses and other personnel needed in the treatment, care and prevention of mental disorders and the study of problems of administration to the end of developing an effective, humane and economical policy for the care of mental illness in Pennsylvania.

7. Graduate physicians, graduate nurses, student nurses and medical students receive training in psychiatry at the Institute. Physicians, like the plaintiff, pursuing the training program in psychiatry are referred to by the Institute as fellows.

8. The fellows are not candidates for degrees and their object is to secure certification in Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc.

9. The training program in psychiatry for physicians continues for three years. During the program those physicians accepted for participation are required to devote their full time and attention to the program for its full duration and are not permitted to be employed by another institution or to engage in the private practice of medicine.

10. The program of study includes extensive classroom and seminar activity, supervised participation in the treatment of in-patients and out-patients, experience in teaching and in administrative matters.

11. Contacts with patients commence in the first year of training with each fellow being assigned a number of patients admitted to the hospital. His work with these patients is under continuous individual supervision. In the second year treatment of patients not in need of hospitalization is emphasized. Regular conferences between the trainee and the chief of the out-patient section are utilized for supervision of therapy and supervision is given by other staff psychiatrists.

12. A fellow’s suggestions as to diagnosis or indicated therapy of an individual patient are considered and may play a part in the care of the patient. However responsibility for the diagnosis and control of the care and treatment of the patients at the Institute rests solely with the clinical director and the senior or supervising staffs.

13. Because it is not primarily a service organization, the Institute has fewer patients than the ordinary state mental hospital. Its patients are carefully selected, in part, from persons already confined to state mental hospitals and, in part, from persons with mental or emotional disturbances who volunteer for admission to the Institute.

14. The admission of selected patients is designed to bring into the Institute a cross-section of the types of cases the staff believes necessary for teaching, research and training, including the training of the fellows in the training program in psychiatry.

15. The Institute employs a full time staff of 17 psychiatrists; in addition it enjoys the services of the psychiatric staff of the Medical School of the University of Pittsburgh, of which it is a part. The fellows do not replace personnel who would otherwise have to be employed by the Institute to care for patients.

16. In addition to participation in the care and treatment of patients, fellows in the training program in psychiatry are required to serve as instructors for nurses and medical students. Such instruction is closely supervised and is intended primarily to improve the ability of those in the training program to transmit knowledge of complex subject matters of their field as well as to aid in their own learning and investigations’

17. As part of the third year of ths training program, the fellows continue clinical activities and are given the op7 portunity to engage in several of nume.-- *904

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

Related

Rockswold v. United States
471 F. Supp. 1385 (D. Minnesota, 1979)
Arthur v. Commissioner
1978 T.C. Memo. 396 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
Wills Eye Hospital v. Commonwealth
328 A.2d 539 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
McEntire v. Commissioner
1974 T.C. Memo. 181 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Weissfisch v. Comm'r
1974 T.C. Memo. 74 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Kaufman v. Commissioner
1973 T.C. Memo. 121 (U.S. Tax Court, 1973)
Bergeron v. Commissioner
1972 T.C. Memo. 248 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Phillips v. Commissioner
57 T.C. 420 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Birnbaum v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 231 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Fisher v. Commissioner
56 T.C. 1201 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Rundell v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 40 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Dimants v. Commissioner
1970 T.C. Memo. 257 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Arnaud v. Commissioner
1968 T.C. Memo. 290 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Johnson v. Bingler
396 F.2d 258 (Third Circuit, 1968)
Zolnay v. Commissioner
49 T.C. 389 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Straumfjord v. Commission
3 Or. Tax 69 (Oregon Tax Court, 1967)
Reese v. Commissioner
45 T.C. 407 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
Woddail v. Commissioner
1962 T.C. Memo. 232 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F. Supp. 901, 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1987, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wrobleski-v-bingler-pawd-1958.