AARC & RRCA merge

Let's be honest here.....without acting as a middleman for the insurance company, the RRCA would be of zero value to the running community. To call themselves a running organization is a scam and a joke. The AARC is exactly the same thing...in fact it's nothing but old RRCA members who like to think they are important.

Any running club could obtain 501c3 non-profit status on their own from the IRS without going thru the RRCA, AARC or any other such umbrella organization.

If USATF ever got their shit together they could put the RRCA and the AARC out of business in a heartbeat. Why they don't is a mystery to me. Hell, the RRCA "national office" consists of one full time employee!!!!

As a tax attorney, I can only comment on my experience and review of relevant guidance and case law. It is clear, to me at least, that the clubs do not meet the "supervision and control" rules -- that means that parent (the RRCA) needs to control the subordinate (the clubs). This is usually achieved through ownership/Board seats (the hospital and hospital foundation example) or through conforming by-laws, etc. of the subordniate (the National Heart Association and each state chapter).

Other rules involving accounting periods and annual reporting will likely trip up the RRCA's "one person office" (per another poster). My client's engage in annual corespondence with each subordinate and direct communication with the IRS with a roster of each and every subordinate (club) listing name, address, EIN, 990 classification, etc.

I will admit that the IRS is not actively pursuing the control and supervision rules in the areas of churches and schools - and probably does not even know the RRCA exists. That being said, there is relatively case law on similar organizations (garden clubs as one example), but those are not 100% on point as the case also involved the nature of the subordinate's activities (charitable or not).

I suspect this is not a real issue for most clubs. They are likely not exposed on "income tax" but may have minor exposure if the use the improper exemption to not pay stta sales tax. Further, donations to clubs, esp dues and user fees are clearly not deductible. This is especially true for "donors" that donate travel money to relatives or friends via the clubs - and claim a tax deductible donation (that is not deductible, even if the club was properly determind as exempt).

Just my two cents. If CPA wants to put his clients at risk, so be it. I am just stating the facts and possibly being too anal.

Actually wrote:

Here are list of CT RRCA clubs:

Shenipsit Striders Coventry CT

Hartford Track Club Inc Farmington CT

Club Connecticut Georgetown CT

Hartford Marathon Foundation Glastonbury CT

Silk City Striders Marlborough CT

River Valley Runners Old Saybrook CT

Stamford Running Club Stamford CT

Old Goat Running Club Suffield CT

Willimantic Athletic Club Willimantic CT

I would say these clubs are responsible for more than a few races in CT and any of those races are probably under the RRCA umbrella. The organization is much more omnipresent than most realize.

You obviously don't know much about the CT running scene. Yes, it is well known that Hartford Marathon is an RRCA event. In fact, they neglected to be USATF sanctioned in one of their first years and then scrambled to make excuses and point the finger when it came time to hand out prize money. But of the sum total, they only put on a handful of the 300+ races in this small state each year.

Club CT does put on a greater number of races, but does not use the RRCA membership for that purpose. In fact the president is the USATF sanction chair and uses that insurance for his races. The other clubs listed put on an average of 1-2 races each. When we got our RRCA membership, it was because it was a minimal fee, provided us with the groundwork for setting up tax exempt status and our by laws and seemed worth of our support. (Club CT)

I stand by my statement that the clubs listed put on about 5% of the races in CT.

I should not have spoken for New England, but I do know that the vast majority of their races are USATF sanctioned and like any good business, those races shop to see who can provide them with the best deal re: insurance. Being aware that they can opt not to purchase the insurance from usatf and still be sanctioned, I'm not sure how many choose to go that route. Perhaps Steve Vaitones, who visits these boards on occasion, can chime in to let us know the facts.

IRS ? let?s go point by point on your argument regarding the improper application of the RRCA group exemption status for member clubs. First, you incorrectly state that clubs must ?meet the ?supervision and control? rules?. IRS Publication 557, regarding group exemptions, states that subordinate entities are subject to ?general supervision or control?. This may seem minor, but there is a significant difference between your statement and what the IRS has actually said (the use of ?and? vs. ?or?/ the ommission of "general"). You are correct in saying this could be achieved through ?conforming by-laws,? which is exactly how the RRCA, and its clubs that request to be covered under its group exemption, comply with this requirement. I know this because our club was required to change its by-laws in order to be eligible for the group exemption. Point of fact is that not all subordinate clubs choose to apply for the group exemption and not all clubs are covered.

Second, to obtain a group exemption for its member clubs an organization must apply for a determination letter directly from the IRS. Therefore, the IRS is well aware that the RRCA exists and actually, most likely, signed off on the status of the group exemption because, I assume the RRCA has obtained such a determination letter. As I?m sure you know, determination letters carry a great deal of weight with the IRS.

As for your comments regarding the great lengths to which ?your? clients go to comply with the group exemption, this is a moot point. All you did was list the items listed as ?Information Required Annually? to maintain a group exemption. Your clients are doing no more than anyone else, and no more than is required by the IRS.

Sorry, but I?m just as anal. And please let me know if I erred in my assessment.

Sorry that should have read 600+ races per year.

Keith Stone wrote:

You can get similar insurance through USATF, anyone who's gone through the sanction paperwork knows it's a pain the the ass and something that has to be repeated for every event, not at a group level like RRCA's. Also, from a cost standpoint, private insurance is often cheaper than USATF.

I have been getting my insurance via the USATF sanction process for years and can say the paperwork is a no brainer now. Wasn't always this way but have noticed improvements lately as evidenced by the number of events shown as sanctioned on the USATF calendar.

Sanction paperwork has been streamlined down to a one-page application and then a supplemental form for getting a sponsor or other entity added on to the policy. All forms can be downloaded and mailed into your association. My association (Florida) does a great job at moving the paperwork along and my sponsors receive their certificates of coverage in a very timely manner.

I agree. Get your coverage thru USATF and not the RRCA or AARC. Support the national governing body of our sport. At least the USATF does something other than offer insurance, the other two don't.

You're missing a major issue with the insurance. USATF insurance covers just an event, not all of a club's activities. RRCA insurance covers our club's track workouts, our club socials, our group runs and all our races. It is much easier and cheaper than USATF. There is a purpose for the RRCA beyond what the USATF provides. The USATF has a different mission and that is fine.

It's not that easy to just go with USATF insurance.

If you're a running club, then the RRCA insurance covers your races for the year. So an active running club that puts on weekly races, small races, etc. throughout the year is well advised to buy a policy that covers all events.

If however, the event is not a club event, then the alternative is RRCA through a club or USATF. Either decision costs bucks. USATF is going to require a sanction to get the USATF insurance. Sanction costs additional bucks.

Both RRCA and USATF provide a valuable service. In RRCA's case, the insurance is the primary reason it even exists, but if you're a Race director, then deciding between them is a financial decision not a question of loyalties.

If you are a sanctioned club, USATF insurance does cover your club workouts. Contact Andy Martin at the national office to get more info. I think it is just a matter of registering your workout sites.

True. USATF insurance covers workouts of member clubs so long as you fill out the paperwork, and receive the permission of the facility you're using.

A usatf sanction may cover a series or an individual event. Much the same way as a sanction/insurance with USATF covers the 5km, 20km, and childrens races at New Haven, or the entire New Canaan Cross Country series.

But you need a "Certified Coach" present at all workouts - that is a pain. Also, the cost of the D&O insurance alone is more expensive than all our RRCA fees combined.

I don't believe USATF covers "individuals" involved in events the way the RRCA does. Each club member would have to become a member of the USATF to receive equivalent coverage. This changes the cost structure even more.

Both orgs. provide a good service, but neither is right for all.

What if the AARP (American Asoc. of Retired Persons) and RRCA merged...?

In 2002 there was no 'certified coach' requirement.

Has this changed? The application for coverage was and is free, but only asked (again back in 2002) for the qualifications of the coach who would run the workout.

Club President wrote:

But you need a "Certified Coach" present at all workouts - that is a pain. Also, the cost of the D&O insurance alone is more expensive than all our RRCA fees combined.

I don't believe USATF covers "individuals" involved in events the way the RRCA does. Each club member would have to become a member of the USATF to receive equivalent coverage. This changes the cost structure even more.

Both orgs. provide a good service, but neither is right for all.

I think you are right on all points. As a member of usatf you are covered individually in all USATF sanctioned events. I don't think the actual coverage in any of these cases (RRCA or USATF) is anything to write home about, but it may help some.

I have used USAT&F to get my race courses certified. Otherwise, I have no use for them. I guess they do nice work with kids though. RRCA on the other hand, has made my life easier. I wouldn?t want to put on our races or do many other of my clubs functions without their protection and help.

We tried to get insurance through USAT&F for our clubs fun runs, they told us ?we can?t insure you when your running willy nilly through the street?!

I forgot about that is true. You're correct, your "practice" must be in a "venue" not on the street to be covered by USATF.

Our Vermont club has always been a USATF member club and tried RRCA for a couple years. It was easier to get insurance without all the separate forms, but in the end RRCA cost much more and the whole organization seemed unstable. RRCA all sounded good but in the end didn't add much value to our club. We have gone back to USATF and are very happy. We put on 12 races per year plus weekly workouts and USATF is great to work with. They are there for the runner and clubs and each year also put on great events like their New England grand prix series, track meets, and cross country races. I don't mind spending one hour each December filling out all the insurance forms for each of the following year's races and workout type.