The statement from the club is factually incorrect. A 501(c)(3) is NOT “explicitly barred” from activities that “generate political or other such influence.” The IRS explanation supports this notion where it states that a “501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.” [URL: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying ] Short version is that lobbying is categorized into two areas. Direct lobbying is for expenditures designed to influence legislation directly. Grassroots lobbying is aimed at influencing public opinion with respect to legislation. The IRS webpage noted above states that legislation does NOT include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies (which is why much of our activity with respect to the FCC does not fall under these rules). As an aside, and not to get too technical… “Lobbying expenditures” are defined in Code Section 501(h)(2) as “expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911(d)).” The text in 4911(d) is consistent with what I have said above. It also provides considerable support to the notion that most of our work with the FCC does not fall under lobbying rules, particularly 4911(d)(1) and (2). Even if this activity qualified as lobbying (and it does not), we can still expend funds, but there are some limits. [these limits are not “safe harbor” limits, but how “close” we are to the limits can give an indication as to whether we might have a concern.] The 990 that was just distributed a few days ago discloses the limits in our case. See Schedule C, in particular page 32. In 2019, our limit for direct lobbying is $791,313 and we spent $57,248. Our 2019 limit for grassroots lobbying is $197,828 and we spent $20,539. It is clear to me from these numbers (and the general scope of our normal activities), that we do not devote a “substantial part” of our work to activities designed to influence legislation. This activity is a very low risk activity primarily because it is not aimed at legislation and does not count as lobbying. Our HOA-related activities to influence legislation are aimed at legislation but, again, our spending on such activities is far under the Schedule C limitation amounts. For the legal beagles in the room, in this reply I am not practicing law. I am providing my reading of the Internal Revenue Code as a CPA. Rick, K7GM Frederick (Rick) Niswander, PhD, CPA, CGMA Professor of Accounting East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27858 From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of Phil Temples Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 8:09 AM Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:31194] Re: FCC Proposed Fees on Radio Amateurs This email originated from outside ECU. I also want to add my thanks to Dave, K3ZJ, for this excellent document. Question: an ARRL affiliated club in my area to whom I forwarded a slightly customized version responded to me, saying, "as a 501(c)3 non-profit we are explicitly barred from engaging in anything that may appear to be designed to generate political or other such influence. This would be close enough to the line that I don't think we should do it. Sorry." Dave, et al: what's the best response to this? 73, Phil Temples, K9HI Vice Director, New England Division On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:57 PM Dale Williams <dale.wms1@frontier.com<mailto:dale.wms1@frontier.com>> wrote: Thanks Dave, A number of my constituents have been waiting for this. I customized it for the Great Lakes Division members and it is on its way to them. 73, -- Dale WA8EFK On 10/15/2020 4:47 PM, david davidsiddall-law.com<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdavidsiddall-law.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cniswanderf%40ecu.edu%7C6b6c822e7aa3408e911c08d8735e9ed2%7C17143cbb385c4c45a36ac65b72e3eae8%7C1%7C1%7C637386197533927431%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=lD%2F6mg4WrYb91EVBLVai%2F6DwYaYVKZAYgBhTjwY6KPo%3D&reserved=0> wrote: ODV, The fees Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in this morning’s Federal Register (https://tinyurl.com/yyk8f2yp<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2Fyyk8f2yp&data=04%7C01%7Cniswanderf%40ecu.edu%7C6b6c822e7aa3408e911c08d8735e9ed2%7C17143cbb385c4c45a36ac65b72e3eae8%7C1%7C1%7C637386197533937425%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=BdbiDQ0Jp8J7wZ8tpg6GsyN%2FLc%2BxdubgwYjDL9GmfFk%3D&reserved=0>). The deadline for comments is November 16, and the Reply comment deadline is November 30. As you discuss this with your constituents, or write articles for your newsletters, you might find the following suggestions of mine helpful. Take what you like, ignore what you don’t (or something like that). (Good) Arguments Against FCC Fees for Radio Amateurs 1. Amateurs contribute to the public good. In many areas they provide an emergency communications backbone capability at no taxpayer cost. Consistently we have witnessed storms and natural disasters completely wipe out internet, cellular, and other means of communication. Radio amateurs often fill that void on an unmatched, flexible basis when needed. One recent example is the California wildfires. 1. Unlike operators in other FCC licensed services, Amateur Radio operators by law – domestic and international -- must eschew using their license for any pecuniary interest. Amateurs are prohibited from earning or charging any money for any communications activity. The expenses for their equipment and activities come out of their own pockets, with no opportunity for reimbursement or payment of any kind. 1. The United States is experiencing a severe lack of RF engineers and expertise at the very time it is needed by the burgeoning wireless industries. Amateur radio is helping to meet the deficit, but much more is needed and youngsters (High School and College-aged) are least able to afford licensing fees. RF knowledge and related digital expertise is needed to maintain U.S. leadership in wireless industries. At a minimum, young people (below the age of 26) should be exempt from the proposed license fees. 1. Amateur radio is self-regulating. (a) Amateur examinations are written and administered by radio amateur volunteers. (b) Examination results and paperwork most often are submitted electronically to the FCC. Electronic submission could be required if there would be a cost savings to the Commission. (c) Amateur radio educational classes are conducted by volunteers who by-and-large do not charge fees or tuition for teaching. (d) The amateur service, in cooperation with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, has a volunteer corp that monitors the amateur airwaves and has programs that try to prevent their misuse before FCC involvement might be needed. The amateurs also observe non-amateur signals both within amateur spectrum and outside it, and report unusual or suspicious signals. 1. Amateur radio continues to be a source of significant technological innovation that should be encouraged, not discouraged. Some Suggestions * I do not recommend arguing that the $50. fee every 10 years, which amounts to $5.00 a year, will “kill” amateur radio, even though as proposed this is for each covered application, which includes upgrade applications. Tech-General-Extra could be $150. if exams taken at different sessions, a substantial amount. But it “rings” the wrong way to say the whole service turns on $5./year for each licensee. If that’s all it would take …. * The Commission argues that the charges are required by the statute. The word used is “shall”, which is mandatory, not optional. But the statute does not set the amount, nor does it prohibit reasonable exceptions – evidenced by the Commission’s proposal to exempt from fees administrative update applications based on policy grounds. * This is not “aimed at amateur radio to kill it.” There is a long history and precedent on charging fees for the licensing service involved, just as there is for passports, green cards, drivers licenses (issued by states), etc. Better to make pertinent arguments on why the fees would impair the public benefits of the amateur radio service than argue that the whole service might die as a result of a fee that, in fact, is less than the fee many of us paid in the 1960’s and 1970’s, including myself as a struggling high school and college student (if adjusted for inflation). * For background: this proceeding is being handled by staff unfamiliar with amateur radio. It is being handled in the FCC’s Office of Managing Director (OMD), not in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau where the amateur-specific Part 97 matters are handled. The focus of OMD is accounting – budgets and the like for the entire Commission. The fee proposals cover every FCC license and service across the board and the consideration was directed by Congress. I recommend keeping “ham jargon” out of comments, it won’t be understood by the intended recipients. 73, Dave K3ZJ David R. Siddall Managing Partner DS Law, PLLC 1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 direct: +1 202 559 4690 Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited. This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you. _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freflector.arrl.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Farrl-odv&data=04%7C01%7Cniswanderf%40ecu.edu%7C6b6c822e7aa3408e911c08d8735e9ed2%7C17143cbb385c4c45a36ac65b72e3eae8%7C1%7C1%7C637386197533937425%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=TLq02hN72eRWMABNPlEOh1cSuIOGtVceAxGI4V3TZlQ%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freflector.arrl.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Farrl-odv&data=04%7C01%7Cniswanderf%40ecu.edu%7C6b6c822e7aa3408e911c08d8735e9ed2%7C17143cbb385c4c45a36ac65b72e3eae8%7C1%7C1%7C637386197533947418%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=c9dNXwwh8vcUlAq3QdBbyYIYC%2BAd5ecRbnQIO3hRZK8%3D&reserved=0> -- Phil Temples <phil@temples.com<mailto:phil@temples.com>>
