Detailed NFA Trust Information

[Maryland_Shooter]

Thanks. Did you give him a heads up some a$$ is gonna call with questions?

I'd really like to have a civil conversation and maybe learn something if indeed there is something to be learned.

 

[boatbod]

So instead of finding a MD statute on lexis (free) you grab a quick Google search and make "About" your Trust expert

No need to shoot the messenger - I support your viewpoint, but didn't have the time back then to go digging around in lexis.

I may be wrong, but I see no such MD requirement, so I call BS until such time as someone can show me a MD case, statute or rule supporting this claim. It's simply not true AFAIK.

Well, a trust has to own something tangible for it to exist. Says so right here:

§ 14-404. Creation of trust.

(a) Written transfer.- A person may create a trust by transferring property in writing to another person if the document transfers property in a legally recognized manner and:

(1) Identifies the recipient of the property as the trustee;
(2) Identifies the beneficiary of the trust; and
(3) Identifies the property as being transferred under the Maryland Discretionary Trust Act.

(b) Written declaration.- A person may create a trust by written declaration if the written declaration is executed in a legally recognized manner and:

(1) Identifies the property to be held in trust;
(2) Identifies the beneficiary of the trust;
(3) Identifies the declarant as trustee and title holder; and
(4) Identifies the property as being held in trust under the Maryland Discretionary Trust Act.

Of course, there is nothing stated that trusts can only aquire property through their own bank accounts, but there is a requirement to keep all trust property separately identifiable.

(e) Duty to keep property separate; tenancies in common; recorded property.-

(1) A trustee shall at all times keep trust property separate and distinct from all other property in a manner sufficient to identify it clearly as trust property.

(2) Trust property consisting of an undivided interest is so identified if the trustee's interest is held as a tenant in common.

(3) Trust property subject to recordation is so identified if it is recorded, registered, or held in an account designated in the name of the trustee, followed by the words, "As trustee for __________ (name of beneficiary) under the Maryland Discretionary Trust Act", or similar words.

To my way of thinking, a serialized NFA toy is separately identifiable, so irrespective of how it may have been paid for, one assigned to the trust it meets the requirements for being identifiable trust property.

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

No need to shoot the messenger - I support your viewpoint, but didn't have the time back then to go digging around in lexis.



Well, a trust has to own something tangible for it to exist. Says so right here:



Of course, there is nothing stated that trusts can only aquire property through their own bank accounts, but there is a requirement to keep all trust property separately identifiable.


To my way of thinking, a serialized NFA toy is separately identifiable, so irrespective of how it may have been paid for, one assigned to the trust it meets the requirements for being identifiable trust property.

A person may create a trust by transferring property

You surely realize the legal difference between "shall" and "may."

"Well, a trust has to own something tangible for it to exist. Says so right here" is 100% wrong on two counts. First it DOES NOT say that at all and second, you ignore the rest of the statute

Sorry = not trying to shoot the messenger, just rubs me the wrong way when make claims - especially legal claims that are patently unsupported by a single thing.

Statutes are like quilts - made to be viewed as a whole, so you can't extract (A) while ignoring (C) and that section clearly contradicts these claims because it allows for a Trust to be created with NO TRUST PROPERTY AT ALL:

(c) Conditioned upon occurrence of a future event.- A person having the right to transfer property upon a future event may create a trust upon the occurrence of the future event by:

[snip]

So I say many here are guilty of selective reading.

So wouldn't a future even be something like - oh say - an approved ATF form fill the bill? Yeah - I think it fits very well, so Bam-Bam - the Trust must be funded argument is not only NOT stated (may/shall), but clearly contradicted by both (B) - more detailed and (C).

You did however clear up the nonsense about this mental gynastics of Trust Accounts required to buy Trust property. I think I stood that idea on it's head previously, but thanks for contributing to the clarity of this entirely too complicated process - made so by - what is IMHO - just bad advice based on nothing but a guy with a JD saying it's so.

 

[boatbod]

The MD trust statute appears to offer 6+ ways to create a trust, and all but one of those requires immediate transfer of property to the trust.

The only gray area appears to be part "(c) Conditioned upon occurrence of a future event.", which it says "may create a trust upon the occurrence of the future event". So I'm no lawyer, but to me that reads as if the trust doesn't exist until the future event happens.

(c) Conditioned upon occurrence of a future event.- A person having the right to transfer property upon a future event may create a trust upon the occurrence of the future event by:
(1) Designating:
(i) The event;
(ii) The property;
(iii) The beneficiary; and
(iv) The trustee or mechanism for selecting the trustee; and
(2) Creating the trust by:
(i) Making the designation in a will, a trust, a deed, an insurance policy, an instrument exercising a power of appointment, or a writing designating a beneficiary of contractual rights; or
(ii) Registering the designation with or delivering it to the fiduciary, payor, issuer, or obligor of the future right.

Legal mumbo-jumbo aside, how many people actually write their NFA trust to take account of part (c) just to avoid having to assign an item of property to the Schedule A before sending the paperwork in to BATF? Maybe Goldman does, but I sure know that Quicken doesn't. Of course it doesn't make a Quicken trust any less valid overall, but you would need to make sure it had property assigned from the outset.

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

The MD trust statute appears to offer 6+ ways to create a trust, and all but one of those requires immediate transfer of property to the trust.

The only gray area appears to be part "(c) Conditioned upon occurrence of a future event.", which it says "may create a trust upon the occurrence of the future event". So I'm no lawyer, but to me that reads as if the trust doesn't exist until the future event happens.



Legal mumbo-jumbo aside, how many people actually write their NFA trust to take account of part (c) just to avoid having to assign an item of property to the Schedule A before sending the paperwork in to BATF? Maybe Goldman does, but I sure know that Quicken doesn't. Of course it doesn't make a Quicken trust any less valid overall, but you would need to make sure it had property assigned from the outset.

I have to agree - you are no lawyer - not to be a wise-ass, but your comprehension of legal language is woefully short.

You have to read what it says, not what you think it says. Apply plain meanings to the words, not suble connotations derived from your perspective.

You initially failed to do that by citing (A) and leaving out (B) and (C). Statues simply can not be read that way as I have pointed out more than once - yet folks persist in doing so.

Again - I do thank you for confirming the nonsensical Trust Account myth is exactly that - a myth. Fashioned from whole cloth by well-meaning attorneys, it simple doesn't exist - except in the minds of the ill-informed.

Bottom line: I offer a Trust that I used to acquire 3 NFA items for nothing. Many people have also used it to acquire NFA items.

I would be willing to bet 100 folks have used it without a single issue. It doesn't matter to me if folks use it, or they don't. I am making nothing either way, so I have zero financial stake. Lawyers can't make that same claim.

It's posted at AR15 in General Class III, tacked and locked (at my request), so I feel that speaks for itself.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=17&t=334067

You wanna know what I really think is behind all the "voodoo" IMHO?

I believe that folks simply think - it can't possibly be this simple and that drives their need to make it ever more complex and involved.

Occam's razor gentlemen - learn it, use it, free yourselves from the anchor of minutiae.

Ok - and to the poster who claims NFA/Trust Horror Stories - you have been called out, and your claims are 100% false - a product of gun shop babble.

This place needs the BS Flag

No offense meant, I am a plain-spoken person, so if you are offended - I apologize in advance.

Prove me wrong and I'll be happy to admit it, but keep making unsubstantiated claims and I'll keep proving them wrong.

Just becaise a guy with a JD says crap smells like roses does not make it true. The idea that any expert can be relied upon 100% and is omnipotent by virtue of a piece of paper is simply folly.

Show me a statute (the entire one), some case law or something, otherwise we are locked in a debate where one side has made claims with zero to back it up. Silly really.

 

[boatbod]

There is also a template for a trust included in the MD Code that deals with Estates & Trusts. Fill in the blanks and you're good to go, much like something out of Quicken or any of the other templates found out on the 'net.

At this point I'm doubting the worth of continuing this thread since it appears to be degenerating into a simple critique of my reading & comprehension skills. I will agree with one point though, maryland_shooter you certainly don't pull any punches when it comes to speaking your mind. No offense taken so far, but don't push you luck. I'm an engineer not an english major, so frankly it's surprising I know how to read anything more advanced than x86 assembler.

 

[Balnk]

A Trust is a seperate legal entity. If it wishes to purchase a NFA item, that item should be purchased with Trust funds. If the NFA item is given to the Trust, which is fine, then a transfer fee is to be paid. That's not what the Trust funding issue is about.

I think the devil is in the details. If a person who is legally allowed to purchase an NFA item does so with his own personal money. We all know there is nothing wrong with this. Then they start a Trust and moves ownership of the NFA item into the Trust, they would pay the transfer fee with the NFA for a new tax stamp. All this is normal.

The funding issue is over if a person pays for an NFA item with personal funds, but ownership of the NFA item is registered as property of the Trust. The FFL is selling the NFA item to the private person, not the Trust. The private person is the one paying. Yes, I know it is a very small techicality, but it creates enough of a liability that lawyers are concerned about it. Laywers jobs are to limit liability and that's all that is trying to be done with the funding issue.

Setting up a FREE savings account is SUPER EASY and eliminates the issue.

Quick question Maryland Shooter. Are you a Maryland lawyer? I don't think you are, but I could be wrong as I haven't read every word you have posted. I think you should continue doing whatever it is you're doing with your Trust and let everyone else do whatever they wish for their Trusts. You are coming off way too strong over an issue that is personal.

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

There is also a template for a trust included in the MD Code that deals with Estates & Trusts. Fill in the blanks and you're good to go, much like something out of Quicken or any of the other templates found out on the 'net.

At this point I'm doubting the worth of continuing this thread since it appears to be degenerating into a simple critique of my reading & comprehension skills. I will agree with one point though, maryland_shooter you certainly don't pull any punches when it comes to speaking your mind. No offense taken so far, but don't push you luck. I'm an engineer not an english major, so frankly it's surprising I know how to read anything more advanced than x86 assembler.

I have to agree, so if folks would stop making claims without a basis in fact, I'd shut up. No offense, but reading legal "mumbo jumbo" requires a certain aptitude and approach. Like I said you can't read (A) while ignoring (C) as they work in unison to create a web of - 'er crap I guess.

Hey - I can't read assembler, so you got me there,

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

A Trust is a seperate legal entity. If it wishes to purchase a NFA item, that item should be purchased with Trust funds. If the NFA item is given to the Trust, which is fine, then a transfer fee is to be paid. That's not what the Trust funding issue is about.

I think the devil is in the details. If a person who is legally allowed to purchase an NFA item does so with his own personal money. We all know there is nothing wrong with this. Then they start a Trust and moves ownership of the NFA item into the Trust, they would pay the transfer fee with the NFA for a new tax stamp. All this is normal.

The funding issue is over if a person pays for an NFA item with personal funds, but ownership of the NFA item is registered as property of the Trust. The FFL is selling the NFA item to the private person, not the Trust. The private person is the one paying. Yes, I know it is a very small techicality, but it creates enough of a liability that lawyers are concerned about it. Laywers jobs are to limit liability and that's all that is trying to be done with the funding issue.

Setting up a FREE savings account is SUPER EASY and eliminates the issue.

Quick question Maryland Shooter. Are you a Maryland lawyer? I don't think you are, but I could be wrong as I haven't read every word you have posted. I think you should continue doing whatever it is you're doing with your Trust and let everyone else do whatever they wish for their Trusts. You are coming off way too strong over an issue that is personal.

You most certainly have no read every word and likely any words I posted.

I am more than happy to let people do whatever they wish; however when you say:

A Trust is a seperate legal entity. If it wishes to purchase a NFA item, that item should be purchased with Trust funds. If the NFA item is given to the Trust, which is fine, then a transfer fee is to be paid. That's not what the Trust funding issue is about.

​

You are dead, 100% wrong and are basing your statement on say-so of who knows who, so unless you have something to back up the (false) claim - I'll gainsay it till the end of time.

Your statement is wrong, mis-informed and wholly unsupported by any legal citation, statute or legal authority yet you continue to state it as if it's a universal fact. We have addressed this and no one has been able to produce any such citation for a very simple reason: because none exists.

I buy a Porsche, decide 1 year later to transfer it to a Trust. By your reasoning that's not legally viable. Plainly you have no concept of Trusts. Try actually reading the thread before posting nonsense.

Any all the jabber about you MUST be a lawyer to understand the law is simply a falacy. So then you'd need to be an FFL to understand gun law, or in order to write Obits, you'd need to be dead

Surely you see the problem with that sort of reasoning.

Can you read? Follow logic? They don't pass out a Rosetta stone at Law School graduation that makes law magically crystal clear.

If you'd take 15-20 minutes and read the thread, you'll see the entire approach and why some claims made and unsupported by any fact.

 

[Balnk]

Maryland Shooter,

I am not dead. I am not 100% wrong. You have your opinion and others, lots of them, have a different one.

I think everyone here understands your point of view. NO need to type a response to this stating, yet again and again, how you feel lawyers are ripping people off because no one but you has seen to look up the law.

ohhh and yeah, no offense here (as you like to say over and over) but, Get over yourself.

 

[Mega]

You have your opinion and others, lots of them, have a different one.

ohhh and yeah, no offense here (as you like to say over and over) but, Get over yourself.

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

Maryland Shooter,

I am not dead. I am not 100% wrong. You have your opinion and others, lots of them, have a different one.

I think everyone here understands your point of view. NO need to type a response to this stating, yet again and again, how you feel lawyers are ripping people off because no one but you has seen to look up the law.

ohhh and yeah, no offense here (as you like to say over and over) but, Get over yourself.

100% wrong - yes indeed you are. My "opinion" is based in facts and statutes. Yours, on the other hand is based on - uh - nothing.

Yet you all love to make WILD claims you simply can not back up. Yeah - I can see how someone insisting something is true, but being unable to offer proof is frustrating, but relax - you are free to do what you care to, no matter how completely wrong it happens to be

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

No proof, simply emotional nonsense - reminds me of the Brady Bunch

 

[Mega]

No proof, simply emotional nonsense - reminds me of the Brady Bunch

Speaking of the Brady Bunch, did you ever make that call?
You have the number... or you can continue to troll. Your choice.

 

[Norton]

guys, I don't have time to play cop today.

Tone it down please....

 

[cobracutter]

I am of the firm belief that this whole "you need an attorney to do a trust" is complete and utter ********. It's there because there is a financial stake in it. I worked for a law office as a legal secretary while in college. Lawyers (bloodsuckers as we called em), are always looking for an easy buck. Hell some poor sap came in to get his annuity liquidated so we happily took our 20%. You know what the attorney did? He called JG Wentworth, I shit you not. Did nothing more than make the phone call, fax some documents, and have the sap sign where I put the sticky.

There is a ton of BS in the shooting industry, go to any gun shop and you will see this. Even respected and good shops spew some BS to sell their products. I have never seen a dealer who is 100% honest. It’s because they have financial stake in what you buy.

I can sympathize with MD shooter. No matter how plainly you show some people the facts, they refuse to dig their head out of the sand. I think it would be great to help people with doing their own trusts. I am sure 30 years ago a dealer would discourage you from building your own AR, because only a professional can do it right. Don’t want to take any risks now do we?

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

I am of the firm belief that this whole "you need an attorney to do a trust" is complete and utter ********. It's there because there is a financial stake in it. I worked for a law office as a legal secretary while in college. Lawyers (bloodsuckers as we called em), are always looking for an easy buck. Hell some poor sap came in to get his annuity liquidated so we happily took our 20%. You know what the attorney did? He called JG Wentworth, I shit you not. Did nothing more than make the phone call, fax some documents, and have the sap sign where I put the sticky.

There is a ton of BS in the shooting industry, go to any gun shop and you will see this. Even respected and good shops spew some BS to sell their products. I have never seen a dealer who is 100% honest. It’s because they have financial stake in what you buy.

I can sympathize with MD shooter. No matter how plainly you show some people the facts, they refuse to dig their head out of the sand. I think it would be great to help people with doing their own trusts. I am sure 30 years ago a dealer would discourage you from building your own AR, because only a professional can do it right. Don’t want to take any risks now do we?

Well I think for some people, doing a Trust or building an AR is a bad idea; however, your point is well-taken and that is: it's not that damned hard, people are making it WAY more complex than it needs to be and you do have that choice.

JeepDriver used a Trust, I have as have countless others - so that said, we have zero evidence to support many wild claims made here and elsewhere.

No one - AFAIK - has had any issues with NFA items and a Trust, though I always hear claims to the contrary.

I'm interested in facts, not supposition, rumor, gun-store jabber and speculation. The law is there for free, so read it as written. Don't apply meanings it doesn't have.

IMHO - I think people really can't believe it's as easy as it actually is, ergo they want to attach some ritualistic, convoluted, talismanic incantation bordering on voodoo to the process to satisfy their urge to make it complex and then overcome the compllexity of their own making.

Anyway - thanks Cobra - nice to know reason and logic are still alive here. Exactly right - we can't have mere mortals doing legal work or carrying a weapon in MD - that sort of thing is best left to professionals

 

[2SAM22]

I'm not trying to start the whole "Do it Yourself" vs. "Have an attorney do it" argument, but if anyone is looking for an attorney to do their trust, I'd highly recommend the following.

(Norton already posted this a while back too, so I am just giving a +1)

Lawyer by the Bay - Holland C. Brownley, Attorney at Law
Phone: (410) 643-4727
Fax: (410) 643-4728
lawyerbythebay@gmail.com
http://www.lawyerbythebay.com

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

I'm not trying to start the whole "Do it Yourself" vs. "Have an attorney do it" argument, but if anyone is looking for an attorney to do their trust, I'd highly recommend the following.

(Norton already posted this a while back too, so I am just giving a +1)

Lawyer by the Bay - Holland C. Brownley, Attorney at Law
Phone: (410) 643-4727
Fax: (410) 643-4728
lawyerbythebay@gmail.com
http://www.lawyerbythebay.com

How much?

 

[Darkknight]

How much?

$400