Case Name: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Petitioner, v. The GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1957-03-21
Citations: 243 F.2d 246
Docket Number: Nos. 13386, 13389
Parties: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Petitioner, v. The GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 243
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Petitioner, v. The GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Respondent.
Nos. 13386, 13389.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 25, 1957.
Decided March 21, 1957.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied April 11, 1957.
Mr. Henry E. Wixon, Asst. Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, for petitioner. Messrs. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel at the time brief was filed, and Chester H. Gray, Corporation Counsel, and George C. Up-degraff, Asst. Corporation Counsel, were on the brief for petitioner.
Mr. Cary M. Euwer, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and WILBUR K. MILLER and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In February 1955 we held that automobile parking spaces belonging to George Washington University, and used without fee by members of its faculty and staff, were "reasonably required and actually used for carrying on of the ac tivities" of the University, within the meaning of an Act of Congress creating tax exemptions. 56 Stat. 1090, § 1, Par. (r) (1), D.C.Code 1951, § 47-801a(r) (1). We said: "in the congested areas where they are located these lots, though not absolutely necessary, are 'reasonably required'."
We also said: "Though the amount of taxation directly involved is small the District complains that the aggregate amount of exempt property in the District is large, and that this is burdensome. But such considerations are not for the courts but for Congress." District of Columbia v. George Washington University, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 214, 215, 221 F.2d 87, 88. Congress has not amended the law.
We now agree with the Tax Court of the District of Columbia that the principle of the previous case applies to parking spaces owned by the University and rented to students for a nominal fee of 20 cents a half-day. This is not shown to exceed the cost of operation. .The record does not show, and we do not .think it material, how many spaces the University provides.
Affirmed.