assistance had been given to the airlines; “Congress [had] made it explicitly clear that [airport] funds [were] to go to airport operators.” Id. at 605, 106 S.Ct. at 2711. An altogether different situation is presented in the case at bar. Here it is Conrail that owns and operates the railroad crossing improvements, and it is Conrail that ultimately receives the money for the improvements. The entity that receives the money, Paralyzed Veterans teaches, is the “recipient.” Id. at 607 n. 11, 106 S.Ct. at 2712 n. 11. It makes no difference, in our view, that the federal funds of which Conrad is the recipient come to it through the State of Michigan rather than being paid to it by the United States directly. See Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 104 S.Ct. 1211, 79 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984) (<HOLDING>). And see 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(f), a Department of
holding that funds paid for undergraduate college tuition for debtors children constituted expenditures for necessities that were therefore not avoidable under the pennsylvania uniform fraudulent transfer act holding that ncaa was not an indirect recipient of federal funds even though it received dues from schools that received federal funds holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds holding that a college was the recipient of federal financial assistance when its students received educational grants for payment of college tuition holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college