The Mayo Clinic and federal tax authorities are fighting in federal court about whether the Mayo Clinic is primarily a clinic.
While it's obvious the Mayo Clinic is a health care provider, it's not at all obvious that this is the best way to describe it. So never mind what happens to Mayo's relatively small tax refund, this technical little tax lawsuit has Mayo arguing about its core identity. That's what makes this worth paying some attention to.
This litigation has been grinding along since 2016 and started with an Internal Revenue Service audit of tax years 2005 and 2006. A trial won't take place at least until March of next year. The sparring between sides in the news recently has been over what material should be ruled in bounds as both sides seek to prepare.
Among other things, the clinic is trying to keep Mayo CEO John Noseworthy — a neurologist by background, not a tax lawyer — from being forced to answer questions from the government's lawyers in the pretrial phase.
The fight is over $11.5 million Mayo wants back as refunds for several tax years going back 15 years. That much money is not chicken feed, but neither is it going to be missed, given Mayo's $16.3 billion balance sheet as of the end of March.
It may seem odd that the nonprofit Mayo Clinic, based in Rochester, even has an income tax hassle at all. Yet nonprofits can have taxable subsidiaries and also get taxed for what's called unrelated business income, a principle in tax law that makes sense. If a nonprofit makes money at a regular activity not really related to its core nonprofit purpose, it could be fair to see it treated the same as taxable companies.
The dispute with the IRS arose over how to treat unrelated business income from debt-financed real estate investments, so this one's pretty deep in the weeds of tax law.
Based on my layman's understanding of the law, how this income was earned wouldn't matter if Mayo were the right kind of "qualified organization." One of the ways to get that status is to be an "educational organization."