Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
  4. Medicolegal News
  5. Volume 6
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Medicolegal News, Volume 6 - Summer 1978

Contents

Page 2 of 3

Other

Washington Report

ASLM Programs Medicolegal Meeting Calendar

Book Review Section

Article

  • A Practical Guide to Assist Hospitals and Physicians Obtain Fellowship Tax Exclusion

  • William W. Stuart
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 January 2021, pp. 14-15

  • This article concerns the exclusion from taxable income of scholarship and fellowship grants received by residents and research assistants under Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code. As is often the case, frequent litigation has resulted in confusion, and it has become difficult for the individual physician or institution to determine the extent and scope of exclusions that are possibly available.

    The enactment of Section 117 in 1954 was intended by Congress to provide an exclusion from taxable income to students for all scholarship and fellowship income received. However, the courts, which had to interpret the intended meaning of “scholarship” and “fellowship” income, developed three often inconclusive and contradictory tests — the primary purpose, compensation, and control tests. 1969, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bingler v. Johnson, synthesized these three tests into a single standard, the quid pro quo test. The Court held that the meaning of “scholarship” and “fellowship” intended by Congress comported with the ordinary understanding of the terms, that is, as relatively disinterested, “no-strings” educational grants, with no requirement of any substantial quid pro quo from the recipient.

Other

News from the Society

  • Minutes of the ASLM Annual Business Meeting June 6, 1978

  • Michael D. Jusell
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 January 2021, p. 21
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Book Review Section

Conference Report

Medicolegal Meeting Calendar

  • Other Organizations

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 January 2021, p. 17
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Calendar

  • Medicolegal Meeting Calendar

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 January 2021, p. 20
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Book Review

Conference Report

Medicolegal Meeting Calendar

  • National Conference on Health Care Facility Labor Law

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 January 2021, pp. 18-19
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Other

Book Review

Page 2 of 3