On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:10:50 -0700, AMHAM73 wrote:
Hate to say I told you so -- but I will.

That was the answer knowlegeable folks here came up with from the
very beginning.

Best get an answer from the horse's mouth and ignore OPINIONS.

You would be surprised at the list of WRONG replies from the
Commission that has been assembled over the years, primarily caused
by the person who replied not understanding what the answer should
have been to a legal or technical question because s/he was neither
a lawyer nor an engineer.

And the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that in spite of what
oral or written advice one gets from a government office, if the
law is otherwise, the oral or written advice is of no value and
cannot be relied upon.

Actually, there are limits on this. If one has relied upon incorrect WRITTEN
advice from a federal agency which enforces the subject matter of the advice,
then that is sufficient to defeat civil penalties (at least it is in the
Internal Revenue Code - 26 USC 6662(d)(2)(B)(i) - as such advice is
"substantial authority"). [Be careful of generalized statements....]

The moral of the story: ask the right question and know the answer
before you ask it.

Then why ask? :-)

But then OPINIONS cost nothing and worth about as much

I'll be glad to charge you for legal and technical opinions which
will hold up under all professsional scrutiny, then.

Others get it for free under the ARRL member assistance program.

Dumb looks are free also.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:20:56 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

Actually, there are limits on this. If one has relied upon incorrect
WRITTEN advice from a federal agency which enforces the subject matter
of the advice, then that is sufficient to defeat civil penalties (at
least it is in the Internal Revenue Code - 26 USC 6662(d)(2)(B)(i) -
as such advice is "substantial authority"). [Be careful of
generalized statements....]

IIRC the IRC gives the IRS specific authority to waive penalties for
reliance on incorrect IRS written responses. Charlie Richmond didn't
have that benefit, however, and neither do most other folks who deal
with the Federal government.

Read _Richmond v Office of Personnel Management_, one of my
favorite SCOTUS decisions of recent times. The only one who had
any sense of compasssion in that decision was Thurgood Marshall, J.,
who suggested in dicta that Charlie Richmond seek reclamation of the
withheld payments by means of a private bill in The Congress, which
he did and was successful.

The moral of the story: ask the right question and know the answer
before you ask it.

Then why ask? :-)

To get it on the record. Any lawyer worth his/her salt does not ask
a question without knowing what the answer will be.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane