Im waiting on my paperwork to show up as I have just bought my first can. I know I have heard that a person is supposed to set up a seperate account to pay for the can. Is that meant for purchasing the can or paying for the trust? And does this actually have to be done or is this just what they suggest you do?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Suppressors check
- Thread starter backy33
- Start date
Re: check
What the fuck is up with so much bad NFA info? You can use your personal checking account. Uncle Sugar does not care how he gets paid. They will electronically cash your check.
What the fuck is up with so much bad NFA info? You can use your personal checking account. Uncle Sugar does not care how he gets paid. They will electronically cash your check.
Re: check
the check is cashed within 2-4 weeks. just write a check like you would for the power bill or car note. you can start a second account if you really want but seems like a waste of time.
the check is cashed within 2-4 weeks. just write a check like you would for the power bill or car note. you can start a second account if you really want but seems like a waste of time.
Re: check
I just looked back and it is for the trust that we are setting up. In the email I received it states all the paperwork that needs to sent back and then in parentheses it say "trust should be paid out of a bank account set up for the trust". Anyone that has gone through trust done this or been informed to?
I just looked back and it is for the trust that we are setting up. In the email I received it states all the paperwork that needs to sent back and then in parentheses it say "trust should be paid out of a bank account set up for the trust". Anyone that has gone through trust done this or been informed to?
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jback</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just looked back and it is for the trust that we are setting up. In the email I received it states all the paperwork that needs to sent back and then in parentheses it say "trust should be paid out of a bank account set up for the trust". Anyone that has gone through trust done this or been informed to? </div></div>I use a trust and have had no issues with a personal check.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jback</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just looked back and it is for the trust that we are setting up. In the email I received it states all the paperwork that needs to sent back and then in parentheses it say "trust should be paid out of a bank account set up for the trust". Anyone that has gone through trust done this or been informed to? </div></div>I use a trust and have had no issues with a personal check.
Re: check
I set up a separate checking account for the trust also. It probably doesn't matter one bit, but in my mind, since the trust "owns" the can, the trust should pay the tax stamp.
I set up a separate checking account for the trust also. It probably doesn't matter one bit, but in my mind, since the trust "owns" the can, the trust should pay the tax stamp.
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo1312</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I set up a separate checking account for the trust also. It probably doesn't matter one bit, but in my mind, since the trust "owns" the can, the trust should pay the tax stamp. </div></div>
Indeed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo1312</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I set up a separate checking account for the trust also. It probably doesn't matter one bit, but in my mind, since the trust "owns" the can, the trust should pay the tax stamp. </div></div>
Indeed.
Re: check
Meh. Not many people do that, and their transfers go fine. As the grantor you are empowered to make transactions on the trust's behalf.
Meh. Not many people do that, and their transfers go fine. As the grantor you are empowered to make transactions on the trust's behalf.
Re: check
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
Will BATF cash a check from an individual that wants to pretend that they have a clue when it comes to TRUSTS? Yes, they will.
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
Will BATF cash a check from an individual that wants to pretend that they have a clue when it comes to TRUSTS? Yes, they will.
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
Will BATF cash a check from an individual that wants to pretend that they have a clue when it comes to TRUSTS? Yes, they will.
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it. </div></div>
According to the Apple Law Firm that is not true. The grantor and trustee can pay for the items going into the trust they control and have ownership of. I asked this very question when my trust was being written, and asked it again of my local NFA specific lawyer.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
Will BATF cash a check from an individual that wants to pretend that they have a clue when it comes to TRUSTS? Yes, they will.
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it. </div></div>
According to the Apple Law Firm that is not true. The grantor and trustee can pay for the items going into the trust they control and have ownership of. I asked this very question when my trust was being written, and asked it again of my local NFA specific lawyer.
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: windermike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My dealer always writes my checks. </div></div>
The last can I got, the dealer did the same thing. Just threw it on a card for the points.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: windermike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My dealer always writes my checks. </div></div>
The last can I got, the dealer did the same thing. Just threw it on a card for the points.
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
Will BATF cash a check from an individual that wants to pretend that they have a clue when it comes to TRUSTS? Yes, they will.
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.</div></div>
If the ATF is taking personal checks, then it is an ACCEPTED method.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
Will BATF cash a check from an individual that wants to pretend that they have a clue when it comes to TRUSTS? Yes, they will.
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.</div></div>
If the ATF is taking personal checks, then it is an ACCEPTED method.
Re: check
Do not look for the BATF to correct TRUST errors. They won't.
Example...
"This week I have received two trusts from potential clients who sent them in for review that were invalid. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Even if ATF approved a Form 1 or Form 4 transfer to these trusts, anyone in possession of the TItle II firearms would be illegally in possession of them. Once person already had 3 items in their possession and 2 more on the way. </span></span>
Both trusts claimed to be gun trusts but were obviously not intended for firearms much less those subject to the NFA and contained many of the traditional language found in a trust designed for managing financial assets.
While in some ways the language seemed to be slightly better than a Quicken trust (except for the fatal flaws that made them defective) they only briefly mentioned the NFA or guns in the trust and gave no guidance based on state or federal restrictions of firearms based on the geography of the transfer or the legal status of the people involved with the trust or whether the beneficiary was legally able to be in possession of the firearms based on the unknown circumstances of the future. "
Again, the right way to do an NFA TRUST is to have a separate TRUST checking account and to buy ANYTHING that is going into TRUST with.....TRUST funds.
Do not look for the BATF to correct TRUST errors. They won't.
Example...
"This week I have received two trusts from potential clients who sent them in for review that were invalid. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Even if ATF approved a Form 1 or Form 4 transfer to these trusts, anyone in possession of the TItle II firearms would be illegally in possession of them. Once person already had 3 items in their possession and 2 more on the way. </span></span>
Both trusts claimed to be gun trusts but were obviously not intended for firearms much less those subject to the NFA and contained many of the traditional language found in a trust designed for managing financial assets.
While in some ways the language seemed to be slightly better than a Quicken trust (except for the fatal flaws that made them defective) they only briefly mentioned the NFA or guns in the trust and gave no guidance based on state or federal restrictions of firearms based on the geography of the transfer or the legal status of the people involved with the trust or whether the beneficiary was legally able to be in possession of the firearms based on the unknown circumstances of the future. "
Again, the right way to do an NFA TRUST is to have a separate TRUST checking account and to buy ANYTHING that is going into TRUST with.....TRUST funds.
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do not look for the BATF to correct TRUST errors. They won't.
Example...
"This week I have received two trusts from potential clients who sent them in for review that were invalid. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Even if ATF approved a Form 1 or Form 4 transfer to these trusts, anyone in possession of the TItle II firearms would be illegally in possession of them. Once person already had 3 items in their possession and 2 more on the way. </span></span>
Both trusts claimed to be gun trusts but were obviously not intended for firearms much less those subject to the NFA and contained many of the traditional language found in a trust designed for managing financial assets.
While in some ways the language seemed to be slightly better than a Quicken trust (except for the fatal flaws that made them defective) they only briefly mentioned the NFA or guns in the trust and gave no guidance based on state or federal restrictions of firearms based on the geography of the transfer or the legal status of the people involved with the trust or whether the beneficiary was legally able to be in possession of the firearms based on the unknown circumstances of the future. "
Again, the right way to do an NFA TRUST is to have a separate TRUST checking account and to buy ANYTHING that is going into TRUST with.....TRUST funds. </div></div>
Do you practice law?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do not look for the BATF to correct TRUST errors. They won't.
Example...
"This week I have received two trusts from potential clients who sent them in for review that were invalid. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Even if ATF approved a Form 1 or Form 4 transfer to these trusts, anyone in possession of the TItle II firearms would be illegally in possession of them. Once person already had 3 items in their possession and 2 more on the way. </span></span>
Both trusts claimed to be gun trusts but were obviously not intended for firearms much less those subject to the NFA and contained many of the traditional language found in a trust designed for managing financial assets.
While in some ways the language seemed to be slightly better than a Quicken trust (except for the fatal flaws that made them defective) they only briefly mentioned the NFA or guns in the trust and gave no guidance based on state or federal restrictions of firearms based on the geography of the transfer or the legal status of the people involved with the trust or whether the beneficiary was legally able to be in possession of the firearms based on the unknown circumstances of the future. "
Again, the right way to do an NFA TRUST is to have a separate TRUST checking account and to buy ANYTHING that is going into TRUST with.....TRUST funds. </div></div>
Do you practice law?
Re: check
A trust doesn't have to mention guns to be legally valid, it just needs to be a valid living revocable trust. There aren't many ways to screw up a basic trust. Making yourself both the grantor and the beneficiary is probably the number one screwup. If you do a little research and fill out the info properly, a Willmaker trust (while basic) should be pretty bulletproof for NFA ownership.
A trust doesn't have to mention guns to be legally valid, it just needs to be a valid living revocable trust. There aren't many ways to screw up a basic trust. Making yourself both the grantor and the beneficiary is probably the number one screwup. If you do a little research and fill out the info properly, a Willmaker trust (while basic) should be pretty bulletproof for NFA ownership.
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
Will BATF cash a check from an individual that wants to pretend that they have a clue when it comes to TRUSTS? Yes, they will.
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it. </div></div>
According to the Apple Law Firm that is not true. The grantor and trustee can pay for the items going into the trust they control and have ownership of. I asked this very question when my trust was being written, and asked it again of my local NFA specific lawyer. </div></div>
The attorney who does our trusts for class three stuff says it does NOT have to come from the trusts bank account as well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it.
Will BATF cash a check from an individual that wants to pretend that they have a clue when it comes to TRUSTS? Yes, they will.
TRUST buying a suppressor? The TRUST needs to pay for it. </div></div>
According to the Apple Law Firm that is not true. The grantor and trustee can pay for the items going into the trust they control and have ownership of. I asked this very question when my trust was being written, and asked it again of my local NFA specific lawyer. </div></div>
The attorney who does our trusts for class three stuff says it does NOT have to come from the trusts bank account as well.
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A trust doesn't have to mention guns to be legally valid, it just needs to be a valid living revocable trust. There aren't many ways to screw up a basic trust. Making yourself both the grantor and the beneficiary is probably the number one screwup. If you do a little research and fill out the info properly, a Willmaker trust (while basic) should be pretty bulletproof for NFA ownership. </div></div>
i've heard this both ways but why is making yourself beneficairy a screw up. this is from quicken...
"Beneficiaries: the people who will receive the benefit of the trust's assets. The Grantor (you) is the original beneficiary, and those who receive benefits after your passing are known as "remainder beneficiaries".
just curious
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A trust doesn't have to mention guns to be legally valid, it just needs to be a valid living revocable trust. There aren't many ways to screw up a basic trust. Making yourself both the grantor and the beneficiary is probably the number one screwup. If you do a little research and fill out the info properly, a Willmaker trust (while basic) should be pretty bulletproof for NFA ownership. </div></div>
i've heard this both ways but why is making yourself beneficairy a screw up. this is from quicken...
"Beneficiaries: the people who will receive the benefit of the trust's assets. The Grantor (you) is the original beneficiary, and those who receive benefits after your passing are known as "remainder beneficiaries".
just curious
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A trust doesn't have to mention guns to be legally valid, it just needs to be a valid living revocable trust. There aren't many ways to screw up a basic trust. Making yourself both the grantor and the beneficiary is probably the number one screwup. If you do a little research and fill out the info properly, a Willmaker trust (while basic) should be pretty bulletproof for NFA ownership. </div></div>
That's is not entirely true.... While it will work for you. It is not bulletproof. The language is not NFA specific and can make for a sticky situation when it comes time to change Grantors. Its been hashed out before, with some research you can locate it debate.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A trust doesn't have to mention guns to be legally valid, it just needs to be a valid living revocable trust. There aren't many ways to screw up a basic trust. Making yourself both the grantor and the beneficiary is probably the number one screwup. If you do a little research and fill out the info properly, a Willmaker trust (while basic) should be pretty bulletproof for NFA ownership. </div></div>
That's is not entirely true.... While it will work for you. It is not bulletproof. The language is not NFA specific and can make for a sticky situation when it comes time to change Grantors. Its been hashed out before, with some research you can locate it debate.
Re: check
That's only if you wish to change grantors, ie, continue the trust in perpetuity. If you wish to leave your cans, say, to your son, you can just make him the beneficiary, and the cans will transfer from the trust to him on a Form 5 when you die, and then the trust will cease to exist, since there is no grantor and no assets. It's the same way the transfer of any other asset works from a trust works; again no specific NFA language is really required IMO. You just have to make sure your beneficiary knows that a Form 5 will be required for each item upon your death, with the Trust as the transferror and your beneficiary as the transferee. I have yet to see any reliable legal source contradict this (other than nebulous "you ought to do it" statements from self-interested attorneys who will be happy to write you a trust for a few hundred dollars).
That's only if you wish to change grantors, ie, continue the trust in perpetuity. If you wish to leave your cans, say, to your son, you can just make him the beneficiary, and the cans will transfer from the trust to him on a Form 5 when you die, and then the trust will cease to exist, since there is no grantor and no assets. It's the same way the transfer of any other asset works from a trust works; again no specific NFA language is really required IMO. You just have to make sure your beneficiary knows that a Form 5 will be required for each item upon your death, with the Trust as the transferror and your beneficiary as the transferee. I have yet to see any reliable legal source contradict this (other than nebulous "you ought to do it" statements from self-interested attorneys who will be happy to write you a trust for a few hundred dollars).
Re: check
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch engage</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i've heard this both ways but why is making yourself beneficairy a screw up. this is from quicken...
"Beneficiaries: the people who will receive the benefit of the trust's assets. The Grantor (you) is the original beneficiary, and those who receive benefits after your passing are known as "remainder beneficiaries".
just curious </div></div>
In this context, "beneficiary" is most commonly understood to mean "the person who will receive the assets upon your death" (ie, the remainder beneficiary). You can't receive items when you are dead, so putting your own name in the Beneficiary box when making a Willmaker trust is a good way to make your trust invalid. Of the people I've seen post specific examples of bad trusts, that seems to have been the most common problem (stemming, I think, from people just wanting to get NFA items without the Cleo signature and not really pausing to remember that the trust is an estate planning entity).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch engage</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i've heard this both ways but why is making yourself beneficairy a screw up. this is from quicken...
"Beneficiaries: the people who will receive the benefit of the trust's assets. The Grantor (you) is the original beneficiary, and those who receive benefits after your passing are known as "remainder beneficiaries".
just curious </div></div>
In this context, "beneficiary" is most commonly understood to mean "the person who will receive the assets upon your death" (ie, the remainder beneficiary). You can't receive items when you are dead, so putting your own name in the Beneficiary box when making a Willmaker trust is a good way to make your trust invalid. Of the people I've seen post specific examples of bad trusts, that seems to have been the most common problem (stemming, I think, from people just wanting to get NFA items without the Cleo signature and not really pausing to remember that the trust is an estate planning entity).
Re: check
Agree with you but I don't believe it to be a deal breaker on getting the trust approved. Do you?
Agree with you but I don't believe it to be a deal breaker on getting the trust approved. Do you?
Re: check
It has been for other people, as I indicated. An invalid trust cannot legally own anything.
It has been for other people, as I indicated. An invalid trust cannot legally own anything.
Re: check
A gun trust doesn't need a bank account unless it is going to engage in many transactions making an account practicable. I have purchased most of my suppressors with a personal credit card for use in corporations and gun trusts which I have set up.
Marty Seidler
San Antonio Arms Company
www.guntrustlawyer.net
A gun trust doesn't need a bank account unless it is going to engage in many transactions making an account practicable. I have purchased most of my suppressors with a personal credit card for use in corporations and gun trusts which I have set up.
Marty Seidler
San Antonio Arms Company
www.guntrustlawyer.net
