| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#15
September 13th 04, 05:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ... From: "D. Stussy" Date: 8/30/2004 6:05 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org... On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote: a nobody wrote: 26 USC 6104(d) says otherwise. Read it. You still have no right to just demand that he just give his books to you. You obviously didn't follow Dieter's suggestion to read the Code. I'll make it easy for you; it's pasted below. All Dieter needs to do is walk into their office and demand to inspect the documentation. And to make it really easy for you, I capitalized the relevant phrase. When it comes to tax law, Dieter knows what he's talking about. Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. He hasn't told us of his knowledge of where Bill Pasternak's operation falls under all of those "ifs" and "exceptions". You'd think if the issue is important to him, he'd act. He hasn't and my belief is that he won't. His frequent posts on the matter read like the rantings of a guy wearing an aluminum foil cap. You don't think that I shall? Well, tell me then why I have the following information (and now make public here - from the electronic version of IRS Publication 78): AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE INC 28197 ROBIN AVE SAUGUS, CA 91350 EIN: 95-4867766 Did I merely look that up for "my health?" I bet you've looked up more than one skirt in your life too, Dieter, but it doesn't make you a gynecologist, either. We'll see what you "do" with it. First of all, I seriously doubt you "do" anything. And even if you do, I seriously doubt that anything will ever come of it. We'll see. Well, I will say this: No one here was able to provide anything that directly refuted my conclusion. Sure we have. You have said that Bill's not using the funds appropriately. I (and others) have pointed out that Bill's "service" routinely and reliably puts it's reports out. Ergo he's obvioulsy spending the money on the work he claimed he wanted the funds for. The "burden of proof" for anything else is on YOUR shoulders. You're making these fanciful assertions, so it's up to YOU to prove it. The last time I did this (or anything like it) was to a local repeater coordinating body which was acting "less than responsibly" (i.e. no meeting, no acknowledgements for RFC's nor any OTHER responses to coordination requests, etc.). Were they soliciting funds AS a charitable organization? Did they alledge to have 503(c) status? At the time, yes, they were soliciting funds and stated that they were non-profit, but they had not stated whether or not they were a qualified charity for which such solicitations would be deductible. However, even if they weren't such, just the fact that they claimed non-profit status would have been enough for them to have an IRS Form 1024 (instead of form 1023) filing and the IRS computer would then show WHICH paragraph of IRC 501(c) their exempt purpose fell under (only if it were paragraph (3) would donations be deductible as charity by the donor). And who is Dieter Stussy to decide what's "responsible" in the actions of any entity? An interested member of the public - that's all I have to be. They WEREN'T listed in the IRS's public charity database, and I verified that when I filed an IRS form 4506-A to get a copy of their last 990-series return. That request came back "entity does not exist" (IRS response dated April 11, 1996). [That also means that they NEVER filed for non-profit status ever.] I then challenged their coordinator status before the NFCC (during its first year of existence: FY 96/97). I could have equally complained to the IRS also at that point, but decided to defer that for the time an appeal of the NFCC decision regarding my complaint to the FCC would be appropriate; the government doesn't like to get involved except as a last resort. Why would they? Ask them. Guess what? That frequency/repeater coordinator group now has [annually] held general meetings on a regular schedule since 1997, has cleaned up its act by issuing acknowledgement postcards to every piece of mail sent to its P.O. Box (not just RFC's), and timely responds to RFC's and other issues, ...; i.e. it is now acting "responsibly." I will grant you that my actions on their situation may not have been 100% responsible for this as there was a period where a competing coordinating group was set up (the "440 FCA" of San Dimas, CA), but my actions were probably at least 33% contributing. [BTW, the group in question was SCRRBA - not TASMA, which also had a competing coordinating group in the 1990's for about 2 years.] And I am sure they just jump to the microphone any time you sign on the repeater. Which repeater is that? Be careful of what you wish for (or push others into doing) - you might get it. Consider yourself pushed, Dieter. I still say you're barking up the wrong tree. Do you really think that I would dare publicly make such an accusation if I lacked a reasonable basis for doing so? Considering THIS forum, absolutely! So far your "reasonable basis" has been "I hate Bill Paternak" and nothing else. Not a single shred of verifyable, attestable fact. Another moronic comment. My reasonable basis has been that his expenses, as AR Newsline and he describe them, appear excessive as compared against the activity that generates them. All you would rather do is fight with me over my conclusion WITHOUT introducing a reasonable, alternative explanation. [No one else has suggested one either.] I am "fighting" with your assinine whinigns about Newsline publishing it's releases in a forum ABOUT Amateur Radio...You're the one who keeps whining about ARN's alleged abuses of it's solicitations. I can SEE and HEAR the results of thier solicitations, Dieter. All AR Newsline has to do is to voluntarily disclose, and if they do so and have a reasonable explanation which is publicly acceptable, the issue goes away. However, if my conclusion were correct (it hasn't been proven so - yet), they can't disclose, even if I choose to compel disclosure under the federal statute previously cited. I still say you're going to do nothing but create hate and discontent for no other reason but to salve your wonded ego over some absolutely assinine local issue that peripherially involved Bill Paternak. But you go right ahead. If you're right, I'll most gladly render a sincere "I stand corrected". However when it goes the way I think it will, I would expect YOU to do the same. Try offering an argument that explains the problem. Simply saying that I am wrong without such will get you nowhere. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
