income is included in “unrelated business income.” It would be subject to tax, however, only if the income arises from property acquired or improved with borrowed funds and the production of the income is unrelated to the educational, charitable, religious, or other purpose constituting the basis of the organization’s tax exemption. Id. at 46, reprinted in 1969 U.S.S.C.A.N. at 1691. While some courts of appeals, including the Eighth Circuit in Clarence LaBelle, have concluded that eliminating unfair competition was one purpose among many that motivated Congress to enact the UBIT, other courts of appeals have concluded that eliminating unfair competition was Congress’s “primary” purpose. See Louisiana Credit Union League v. United States, 693 F.2d 525, 540-41 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); see, e.g., Julius M. Israel Lodge of B’nai
holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is applicable to the states and therefore the us supreme courts interpretation of the provision is binding upon this court holding that the language of the statute and the courts duty to apply the statute as written requires the court to interpret the statute to apply when the prisoner is sentenced without regard to the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated after the sentencing holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it recognizing two lines of authority one where courts find prevention of unfair competition to be primary purpose and other where courts prescribed a broader interpretation of the statute focusing on the multiple objectives of congress in enacting the unrelated business income tax and concluding that a study of the statute the regulations the legislative history and the cases inclines us toward the latter view