- How can the Greater Anchorage (Alaska) and Barnes Hospital (Missouri) courts take two nearly identical tax laws, apply them to situations with virtually identical facts, and arrive at opposite conclusions? Are their decisions fair?
- Which of the two interpretations do you find more persuasive?
- Would Barnes Hospital have been decided differently if property in question had been owned by a for-profit company but leased to the hospital for the same purposes?
- What if a parking garage with daily or hourly fees and used by employees, patients, families, and visitors were located on a parcel of land owned by and adjacent to the hospital property? Would that use be exempt in Alaska or Missouri? Would it matter who accrued the revenue from the parking garage or what fees were charged? Does your answer change if the garage could also be used by patrons of local businesses that are not related to the hospital?
Sample Solution
