male case from the supreme court where as you know i spend a great deal of time tracking why it took from the one thousand nine hundred and thirty s when the social security act was formed really until to the until the st century for the for that five billion dollars issue to arise and there was an act there was a clear answer and it made a big difference understand it now i'm tired now you're telling me that then that spark that needs to be the primary function the forty nine percent that realizes the hypothetical is how the other i don't understand i don't understand the tax break it is so badly described and in these briefs and that's all i've done  to debt finance investment in real property not personal property well the whole eleven million dollars is related to the real property is related to grow property that's you know an income that unrelated to and in this case as we pointed out many of those schools have been separately incorporated as their own organization there's no question that that organization would be an educational organization within the meeting in section sevent  so so now how do we find out whether how they how the iris applying the word principle as a means to the one percent or does it mean eighty three percent or what and how are they finding incidental an exemption for organizations that operate school as one of its activities not its primary activity it's done this in a number of the excise tax exemptions that we've cited on page forty seven of our brief did not do you looked that case just at the tax now only it appeared to imply that the court looked broader the context the language and said that it did not and it buys this is a principle it can't be you have applied the chemical and the key context because that is the only difference between those two phrases here it's educational organization versus organization that has a particular principal purpose there are different ways to demonstrate primacy of activity mind requires them to show at least two things st that there is an implicit primary purpose requirement embedded in the statutory phrase educational organization and nd that mail cannot meet that requirement  because its principal purpose as a hospital is necessarily health care and not education both arguments are proven wrong by the very next subsection of the statute romanesque three roman at three both provides an explicit primary purpose requirement showing th congress was fully aware of how to add such a thing when it wanted one and it showed that congress believe that a hospital principal purpose could be medical education that's because roman at three exams donations to organizations whose quote principal purpose or function and quote is among other things and i'm quoting here medical education and that only applies quote if the organization is a hospital in the quote or a hospital's affiliated research organization that's necessarily congress has contemplated that a hospital could have a primary purpose of medical education and medical aid station is a form of education the usa doesn't argue otherwise and the usa has conceded that male meets roman faculty curriculum students place requirements so the fact that medical education can be a hospital primary purpose according to congress really is case dispositive here even if you accept the government's primary purpose argument with respect to  sorry educational organization the usa tries to get around this reality through a series of mental gymnastics but what gets lost in those arguments is the actual text of section one hundred and seventy four as i'd like to walk of people or students in attendance at a place where its educational activities are regularly carried up the again because the usa has conceded that we need the faculty curriculum students place requirements the only way that there's any room for argument in this case is if the term educational organization in another self implicitly contains a primary purpose requirement and it does it for a few reasons one of the male argued previously before the district court that the term which in the statute is premises gets shifted in the government's argument and i'd like to take a moment to point that out to the court mail is not arguing that you can be incidentally an educational organization and qualify for a to be an educational organization in other words if your purposes only incidentally educational we agree that that number not be determined whether it's only incidental and that brings in a requirement of the promise that brings me to the nd part of my question and the district court answer as well which is the faculty curriculum students place requirements those are choir hands are designed to make sure that you know you can't just call yourself educational without being educational now the district court ruled that there might be some room for regulation among what some of those terms mean in the faculty curriculum students place requirements so if it's not considered definitional you know maybe you could talk about what exactly is faculty what exactly is regular but normal what  normally a name right you could regulate around that right but in this case that's not an issue because they have conceded that mail meets all of those things so really the only issue in this case is is that the phrase educational organization that requires you be at least fifty one percent as as judge will come was sort of questioning about or however you define it educational and our answer is no the statute said you have to look at the whole subsection and it says educational organization which which as you pointed out judge smith is either a definition or and there when term so which at least narrows educational organization so educational organization admin those that meet those requirements plus right if it's not a definition it's either just the things that meet those requirements or the things that meet those requirements plus a few but here again either way male qualifies because it's been conceded that we meet the faculty curriculum students place requirements and the u s a s argument to the contrary is essentially a dictionary definition of a different phrase in black's law dictionary educational institution i would point out that just yesterday in preparation for the argument i went on black's law dictionary on on the west law and i believe in the twenty one thousand dollars version which is cited but because it's not one hundred percent positive but anyway the version on left when you pull it up today of that institution actually says all college university or other educational facility so even that definition in my view isn't particularly helpful to them it's not helpful at all in my view  and even the usa itself couldn't agree among itself why the term educational organisation is still limited here because below the focus was on the word organisation and the argument was if you read the summary judgment reading below the usa his argument was organisation has to have one primary purpose it has to have one overarching purpose by nature of being an organisation and perhaps realising some of the you know pragmatic difficulties with that argument here the government has focused more on the adjective noun construction and again that argument is the one that i think depends on shifting premises it starts with the idea that he can't be just insult incidentally educational and call yourself an educational organization that's not something that we would dispute honestly you know if if you're if you happen to have you know a certain class that someone says meets the faculty curriculum student's place requirements but it happens once a year with your faculty that seems incredibly unlikely to me but even if it were true you know that maybe the usa might have an argument there maybe i don't think that could possibly be true given the to go back to the district court for monday i don't think so your honor and the reason is a couple fold st of all the usa never argued below that if primary is read to be somehow substantial as as we have argued if you choose to harmonize the regulation as opposed to say that it conflicts with the statute we said well then primary must mean some form of substantial and we cited the supreme court's agnew case in support of that proposition we raised that below and the government offered no response to that in replying never argued that we wouldn't meet the substantial requirement and in fact just continued pressing know it has to be primary it has to be you know essentially the sole purpose is is how they argue that below and here you guys are health care and you can argue that you're that and look at the facts are undisputed that show that mayo is an educational organization we have one of the i think the  top resident largest residency program by number of specialties or in the top five by number of residents there is a graduate school there's a medical college that continues school of education one of the refund years educated out one hundred thousand over one hundred are for however labelling undercharged recent expenditures would what she's shown and this is the point that i'm trying to make and i'm sorry that seems not responsive but i'm genuinely trying to respond to your question so we medical education requires patient care so you can't just look at what bucket it's put in to on say for example a tax return which is literally the only thing that the government relied on below and say oh well then that's not for education so patient care we would say is an educational expense it would cost less to treat these patients if we were providing education and that the patient treatment as for example the minnesota supreme court has it not this court has acknowledged is in ted rall to our medical education so we would say patient care expenses are medical education expenses and that was never really disputed below so i'm trying to answer your question but i'm trying to answer it fairly which is for example on the tax form there's a line item for support services right those support services include things like the buildings that we pay for and you know we pay faculty salaries there's a lot of things that are you know we would say are all educational he was there research is educational for those ph d students and the residents and things like that so there's well there's record evidence of some expenses it's a little unclear on exactly which goes into which bucket and even if it were crystal clear you know we say one hundred percent of that most a lot of it anyway is for education i don't have a precise number for you but all of those things go toward education and that brings me to the problem of particularly in the educational context talking about a primary purpose because i think of universities right universities have a substantial research function and the united states here has taken the position that you know research wouldn't count toward educational my alma mater perfect example there is a experiment i went to the university of illinois there is an experimental cornfield in the middle of the university that's one hundred years old as heard of their land grant status they felt it was critical to the university so critical that they built the undergraduate library underground so they didn't throw shade on that corn field and kill that experimental research corn fields and so you could look at that and say well the university of illinois priority clearly is research and not formal instruction this is going to create a real problem for all kinds of institutions that even the i r s would acknowledge in its own regulation fall under you know what were intended to fall under the regulation  the dicta and in particularly the sportsbike the case it's very clear that mail has an educational purpose in this court has already brought that so i guess the direct legal issue to my knowledge is an issue of st impression but i organization one final thing i'd like to point out in response to the government's argument the government has pointed to sort of the corporate form of mail as somehow being dispositive here st of all that ignores  briefs because that was not the focus of the u s things argument below they were not saying below that it's just how you're organized and that's why you're not educational the clear thrust of their argument below was that the that ma is not primarily educational because it's focused on health care and so i would just ask the court to review that but to the extent it matters that mail is operating on all of these schools and again all of these things are explicitly intertwined they're paying you know tens of millions of dollars in furtherance of education so the idea that somehow mail has an incidentally educational function is absolutely not supported by this record on page twenty one of the government open grief where we've set up the sites that support the mail on its own tax returns down to its patient care since educational expenses so is that in recent years its total revenue for educational question so thank you counsel both of you for your providing argument to the court this morning in our virtual for we appreciate also the briefing that's been submitted in this case it's a fascinating and