"thomas" writes:

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it clearly on one
IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly based on a response from an IRS
agent, you will not be charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the
right amount later.

The Internal Revenue Code Section 6404(f) gives the IRS the authority to
abate any portion of a penalty or addition to tax caused by erroneous advice
"furnished to you in writing by an officer or employee of the IRS... ."
See Form 843 at
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/page/0,,id%3D10626,00.html
where it says in part:
````begin quote``````
The IRS will abate the penalty or addition to tax only if:

1. You reasonably relied on the written advice,
2. The written advice was in response to a specific written request you
made for advice, and
3. The penalty or addition to tax did not result from your failure to
provide the IRS with adequate or accurate information.
`````end quote```````

Reasonable reliance and provision of adequate or accurate information for
the answer are points the IRS is not willing to concede in all
circumstances.


Applying the same principle here, you **may** be right that I may still need
to pay a license fee if I get caught. But I won't be fined $10000, given
that I have the print-out of the official FCC email.

I think you are correct that you won't be fined the max. Having a print out
of the email _may_ not get you off the hook, though. I don't do FCC work,
so I don't know their procedures for fines. Applying the principles of
abatement of penalties under the IRS to excusing payment of fines under the
FCC is a bad thing.


We need common sense

There is no common sense.

other than "certificates or professionals" on what is
good and bad to do. The legal and policy systems are based on common sense
eventually.

Not in my experience.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:31:42 -0400, "thomas"
wrote:

Hi,

there have been a lot flames about the topic of the license issue of
FRS/GMRS. i don't want to be part of it. hence i opened a new thread.

i have just got a formal response from FCC. quote as follows, fyi ONLY!
==========================================


if you use only the FRS side of the radio, then you would not be required
to obtain a license. On the other hand, if you switch to the GMRS side of
the radio and transmit, you would at that point be in violation of FCC
rules.

Here's what I got from Cobra, first, my question:

Is a GMRS license required when FRS channels 8 - 14
are used on 22 channel radios?

And the Answer:

FCC license is not required for channels 1-7 only.

Mike

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.

This is an interesting, additional question. Unfortunately the answer is
not from FCC. Could you ask FCC ) on this and post its
response?

thomas

"G. M. Alf" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:31:42 -0400, "thomas"
wrote:

Hi,

there have been a lot flames about the topic of the license issue of
FRS/GMRS. i don't want to be part of it. hence i opened a new thread.

i have just got a formal response from FCC. quote as follows, fyi ONLY!
==========================================


if you use only the FRS side of the radio, then you would not be
required
to obtain a license. On the other hand, if you switch to the GMRS side of
the radio and transmit, you would at that point be in violation of FCC
rules.

Here's what I got from Cobra, first, my question:

Is a GMRS license required when FRS channels 8 - 14
are used on 22 channel radios?

And the Answer:

FCC license is not required for channels 1-7 only.

Mike

It would be helpful if you posted the email in its entirity including
the QUESTION to the FCC rep.

Also, why did you "mark out" the reps. number?

"thomas" wrote in message ...
Hi,

there have been a lot flames about the topic of the license issue of
FRS/GMRS. i don't want to be part of it. hence i opened a new thread.

i have just got a formal response from FCC. quote as follows, fyi ONLY!
==========================================


if you use only the FRS side of the radio, then you would not be required
to obtain a license. On the other hand, if you switch to the GMRS side of
the radio and transmit, you would at that point be in violation of FCC
rules.


Representative Number : ????? (marked out)

==========================================
bingo
thomas

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

"thomas" wrote in
:

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it
clearly on one IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly
based on a response from an IRS agent, you will not be
charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the right
amount later.


Which publication? A letter ruling covers you. Nothing
else from the IRS will provide protection. The publications
can be wrong. If it is not a regulation, section of the code,
or some solid legal point based on a case in YOUR circuit,
then you have nothing solid.


Applying the same principle here, you **may** be right that
I may still need to pay a license fee if I get caught. But
I won't be fined $10000, given that I have the print-out of
the official FCC email.

Yes, you would be fined. A google search to unearth this
thread would not help your case, either.

Bill

Ridiculous.

Why are you guys so confident with your interpretation of the law? You are
so confident that you even think I have already bought your theory?!

Did I EVER post in this newsgroup that I agreed with any of you many
'experts' here?

Did I ever post in this newsgroup that I believe the FCC's response is wrong
and you guys are right?

Did I ever post in this newsgroup that I will take your words instead of
FCC's?

Come on, you guys weigh yourselves too much.

Since some people here are really so **stupid**, I would like to reinstate
my position on this whole license issue:

1. I don't believe the interpretations, responses from every single person
who thinks I need a license. I don't believe them from the very beginning.
I have never believed them.

2. I take the official words from FCC as 100% correct. I never doubt them.
And I will follow them. It's funny to see someone simply can't understand
one of my arguments based on an imaginary scenario in order to disprove my
opposite opinion.

3. My original question was my first post in this group. Now I will opt to
leave this group for ever, based the number of ridiculous posts here. I
will find a more intelligent place with more **human** common sense.

4. Although I don't believe the responses from many anonymous, and/or
unauthorized, and/or unofficial, and/or over-confident people here, I really
appreciate your helps. Thank you. Thanks a million.

Tom



"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
.61...
"thomas" wrote in
:

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it
clearly on one IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly
based on a response from an IRS agent, you will not be
charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the right
amount later.


Which publication? A letter ruling covers you. Nothing
else from the IRS will provide protection. The publications
can be wrong. If it is not a regulation, section of the code,
or some solid legal point based on a case in YOUR circuit,
then you have nothing solid.


Applying the same principle here, you **may** be right that
I may still need to pay a license fee if I get caught. But
I won't be fined $10000, given that I have the print-out of
the official FCC email.

Yes, you would be fined. A google search to unearth this
thread would not help your case, either.

Bill

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:33:19 -0400, thomas wrote:

3. My original question was my first post in this group. Now I will opt to
leave this group for ever, based the number of ridiculous posts here. I
will find a more intelligent place with more **human** common sense.

Goodbye, Tom. Remember that if you ever need a communications
attorney to represent you in an FCC case, that's what I do for a
living, whether you "like" or "agree" with my interpretations or
not.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Cant argue with a door, Or someone who wants to argue.
Let him go

Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:33:19 -0400, thomas wrote:


3. My original question was my first post in this group. Now I will opt to
leave this group for ever, based the number of ridiculous posts here. I
will find a more intelligent place with more **human** common sense.


Goodbye, Tom. Remember that if you ever need a communications
attorney to represent you in an FCC case, that's what I do for a
living, whether you "like" or "agree" with my interpretations or
not.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane