City of Pittsburgh v. UPMC: Necessary lawsuits
UPMC was quick to spin the City of Pittsburgh's legal challenge of its tax-exempt status as a vendetta fueled by politicians doing the bidding of organized labor and business interests. It's a smokescreen, of course. And rationalizations of such grand conspiracies can't hide the fact the “nonprofit” claims of this $10 billion worldwide hospital behemoth are ripe for vetting in a court of law.
In separate legal actions on Wednesday, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who is not seeking re-election, filed suit to eliminate UPMC's city payroll tax exemption. A separate filing challenges the tax-exempt status of UPMC's 150 city properties. Those exemptions are valued at as much as $20 million annually for the city and $200 million annually statewide.
The profit-motive looms large at UPMC, the city claims, citing service reductions or closures in poorer neighborhoods, lavish executive salaries and perks and an ever-expanding worldwide footprint. The nub of the lawsuits' rub is that UPMC fails to meet the state's definition of a “purely public charity,” as defined in a 2012 state Supreme Court ruling.
UPMC, Pennsylvania's largest private employer, counters that its charitable giving and uncompensated care more than offset those tax bills. And even as a nonprofit, it must compete for revenues to enable it to serve its health-care mission, revenues that are reinvested in its operations, UPMC says.
Some will argue that the cost of these lawsuits, certain to be expensive, aren't worth it. But it's past time to settle a matter that's been festering for decades and to finally define what “nonprofit” and “charity” really mean.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Thou shalt not parse the First: The Connellsville Ten Commandments decision
- The DHS crackdown
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The Kane case: Distractions mount
- Trumpeting ObamaCare: The Medicaid factor
- Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Ford City facts: Blaming the messenger