Case Name: REDLANDS SURGICAL SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-15
Citations: 242 F.3d 904
Docket Number: No. 99-71253
Parties: REDLANDS SURGICAL SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: JAMES R. BROWNING, BRUNETTI and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 242
Pages: 904–905

Head Matter:
REDLANDS SURGICAL SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 99-71253.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2001
Filed March 15, 2001
Douglas M. Mancino, James L. Malone III, Robert C. Louthian III, McDermott, Will & Emery, Los Angeles, California, 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.
Before: JAMES R. BROWNING, BRUNETTI and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

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 WL 513862 (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 § 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.