Split ownership of firearm

[Aguila Blanca]

Us laymen are still conflating possession and ownership. The 4473 form doesn't actually transfer ownership, title, or whatever you want to call who the Class A thing-a-ma-jig belongs to. Very very few firearms laws refer to ownership. To be honest other than a passing reference to inheritance I can't think of any. Every firearms law I've seen has dealt with possession.

I understand, in general, the distinction between ownership and possession. If I lend my hedge trimmer to my neighbor, he has possession but I am still the owner. Got it.

So how do you get around question 11.a on the 4473 where it asks "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?" Yes, I see that the question might be interpreted to make a distinction between ownership and possession, but then the question is followed by this statement (which is in bold-face type on the 4473:

Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

If I am the buyer, I become the owner upon the completion of the transaction. If I am NOT the buyer, then I am taking possession on behalf of someone else, and the bold-face sentence on the 4473 says we can't do that.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

....If I am the buyer, I become the owner upon the completion of the transaction. If I am NOT the buyer, then I am taking possession on behalf of someone else, and the bold-face sentence on the 4473 says we can't do that.

Yes, that is another complicating factor.

I guess what this comes down to is (1) in theory there can be joint ownership of a firearm; but (2) federal and state firearm transfer and possession laws make things complicated. So with regard to the OP's original question:

Originally Posted by militant

...You can have two peoples names on the title of a car or house ect.... Why not a firearm? if this was so, it may take care of some of the transfer laws in some states.

joint ownership doesn't necessarily resolve difficulties caused by state transfer laws.

[JimDandy]

So how do you get around question 11.a on the 4473 where it asks

Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

Well the rest of the description of the question, for one, isn't getting around it. It deals with it. "You are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself"

When I borrow my brother's 460, I'm not borrowing it for anyone else, I'm borrowing it for myself, so I can (according to the State of Washington- so far) answer yes on the 4473. I'm not buying it, but, I'm the actual transferee. The single sentence you quoted appears to be one of the few places the form does not / both buyer and transferee.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Well the rest of the description of the question, for one, isn't getting around it. It deals with it. "You are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself"

When I borrow my brother's 460, I'm not borrowing it for anyone else, I'm borrowing it for myself, so I can (according to the State of Washington- so far) answer yes on the 4473. I'm not buying it, but, I'm the actual transferee. The single sentence you quoted appears to be one of the few places the form does not / both buyer and transferee.

But the two bits you quoted were asked in response to Frank's post regarding a distinction between "possession" and "ownership." Even if you go by the instructions for question 11.a, it's simply not legal for someone other than the owner to take possession of a firearm from an FFL through a 4473 transfer. (With one exception, which does not entail a loan.)

It seems to me that the new Washington state law requiring formal transfers for even short-term loans just muddies the waters further.

The full text of the instruction for question 11.a reads as follows:

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. §922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

I understand where you're going, but I don't agree that the language of the instruction gets you there. The examples of being a legitimate transferee all deal with situations in which the transferee is the owner. Loans, of any duration, are not mentioned and almost certainly weren't contemplated when the 4473 was created.

It appears that the only exception is the one at the end, under which one party may pick up a repaired firearm for another person ... in which case the instruction says not to answer question 11.a.

Form 4473 is a federal BATFE form. The State of Washington has zero authority to make or issue any interpretations of it or issue any directives as to what should or shouldn't be answered.

[johnwilliamson062]

I am trustee of a trust.
Why do they need EINs if they aren't legal entities? Why would the IRS issue EINs to something that doesn't legally exist?
Can I claim the assets of the trust on a investment/commercial loan application if the assets of the trust are actually owned by me in trust of the beneficiaries?
I think that would be a good way to end up in jail.

Seems more grey than black and white to me.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

I am trustee of a trust.
Why do they need EINs if they aren't legal entities? Why would the IRS issue EINs to something that doesn't legally exist?....

Talk to your lawyer if you have questions about the trust for which you're trustee. You've seen the legal authority published here.

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

....Can I claim the assets of the trust on a investment/commercial loan application if the assets of the trust are actually owned by me in trust of the beneficiaries?
I think that would be a good way to end up in jail...

And no you can't. You don't have beneficial use of those assets. You hold them as a fiduciary, in trust, for the benefit of someone else.

But further discussion of the fine points of trust law is off topic for this thread.

[johnwilliamson062]

I'm just trying to provide examples where a trust is treated like a legal entity by federal agencies. The IRS clearly treats an irrevocable trust the same as a corporation. As a result, US DOE and USCIS also treat trusts as assets owned by the beneficiaries, not the trustee, even if beneficiary access is limited. Three federal agencies that pretty clearly treat a trust as a separate legal entity or the beneficiaries as the owner of trust assets.
I am not so certain ATFE, another federal agency, would not consider the beneficiaries of a trust holding a firearm with access to said firearm to be, effectively, owners of that firearm in regard to federal law governing the ownership of firearms.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

I am trustee of a trust.
Why do they need EINs if they aren't legal entities? Why would the IRS issue EINs to something that doesn't legally exist?....

On reflection this deserves a better answer, but let's not get sidetracked into an in depth discussion of the law of trusts.

The IRS is interested in collecting taxes; and where there are assets, especially assets that appreciate or general investment income (usually assets held in trust are invested), the IRS will want to get its cut. That should come as no surprise.

But the IRS has a conundrum when dealing with assets held in trust. The trustee is legal owner, but he doesn't have beneficial use of the assets. And as a fiduciary, it would be improper for the trustee to commingle assets he holds in trust with his personal assets. So investment gains, losses, income and expenses with regard to trust assets need to be accounted for separately from the trustee's personal gains, losses, income and expenses.

To facilitate this, the IRS will issue a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN, not really an EIN) so the trustee can report and file tax returns separately with regard to trust assets and expenses. In effect, the IRS looks at a trust for tax purposes as it if were an entity. But as outlined in several posts, a trust is not an entity. This IRS fiction for tax purposes does not change the nature of a trust as outlined in this thread already.

Note also that not all trusts file taxes in this way. In some case, depending on how a trust has been set up, trust income is taxable as the assets of the grantor.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

I'm just trying to provide examples where a trust is treated like a legal entity by federal agencies....

Which does not change the nature, character of legal reality of a trust.

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

...The IRS clearly treats an irrevocable trust the same as a corporation. As a result, US DOE and USCIS also treat trusts as assets owned by the beneficiaries, not the trustee, even if beneficiary access is limited...

I've discussed the tax issue above. And it's possible that for administrative convenience various fictions may be resorted to with regard to trusts.

But trusts are what they are.

[Buzzcook]

If a company such as a rifle range can own guns and a corporation such as a security firm can own guns; I suspect that their is a legal method for private individuals to share ownership of guns.

I suspect it doesn't have to be that complicated. For example I have two grandsons, both over eighteen. I could gift one rifle to the both of them for their shared enjoyment. The only documentation would be the card I send with the gift stating that they're supposed to share.

That is as long as there is no inter state transfer.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

If a company such as a rifle range can own guns and a corporation such as a security firm can own guns; I suspect that their is a legal method for private individuals to share ownership of guns....

That doesn't necessarily follow.

I believe that in general ranges that rent guns also have an FFL. Every range renting guns that I personally know of either is also a gun store or at least does transfers.

A corporation is a legal entity and is thus functionally a single individual.

[Buzzcook]

Frank is the FFL possessed by an individual or the company.

Yes a corporation is an individual in some ways, it is also a group of individuals.

If you remember back in the 70's and 80's there was a rush of people incorporating themselves for tax purposes.
While I think it is absurdly extreme a group of individuals could incorporate in order to share ownership of firearms.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

Frank is the FFL possessed by an individual or the company...

I believe that the license is held by an individual. If the business is conducted by a corporation, the license is held by an officer who is responsible for the proper conduct of the business.

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

....Yes a corporation is an individual in some ways, it is also a group of individuals....

No, legally a corporation is not a group of individuals. Although a group of individuals form a corporation and would be the directors and officers responsible for the operation of the corporation, the corporation itself has a legal existence and identity separate and distinct from the individuals who run (and own) it.

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

...If you remember back in the 70's and 80's there was a rush of people incorporating themselves for tax purposes...

No, I don't remember that. Please provide some details and documentation.

Forming and operating as a corporation is not something to be taken lightly:

• You pay a lawyer $300.00 to $500.00 an hour to form a corporation, including making the various governmental filings necessary (in the State of incorporation and in any State the corporation is qualified in).
  
  
• You pay the filing fees.
  
  
• You fund the corporation to preserve the corporate identity.
  
  
• You make, or pay someone to make, the periodic governmental filings required to maintain the corporation in good standing (in the State of incorporation and in any State the corporation is qualified in) and pay the required fees.

Do might want to do some research into what's involved in forming and maintaining a corporation -- here for example. All that folderol might be worthwhile if you're operating a business. It hardly seems worth it just to own a gun.

[colbad]

Ownership arrangements between two parties do not serve to modify Federal Law concerning the 4473. You most certainly can be co-owners and draw up a document as such for anything you want.

[JimDandy]

No, I don't remember that. Please provide some details and documentation.

I couldn't do that either, but I remember seeing the fad mentioned on a Barney Miller episode. So while I doubt it was "everybody", I took the pop culture reference to mean that there was some unusual blip level of population who tried to "work the system" by doing so during that time period.

[Buzzcook]

It hardly seems worth it just to own a gun.

And that is what I said in my post.

While I think it is absurdly extreme a group of individuals could incorporate in order to share ownership of firearms.

Here's a brief article about tax avoidance in the 70's
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readin...3?OpenDocument

Heck it was even featured in an episode of Barney Miller.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

...And that is what I said in my post....

Yes, but you also posted bad information about corporations generally.

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

...Here's a brief article about tax avoidance in the 70's
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readin...3?OpenDocument....

Yes, and if you had read the article you would have read:

1. ....Their written tax opinions legitimized questionable schemes, protected investors from fraud penalties, and encouraged taxpayers to participate in transactions that were likely to be disallowed if challenged....

   and
   
   

2. ...The Tax Reform Act of 1976¹⁹ curtailed many of the known tax shelters with a suite of antishelter provisions, including enactment of the at-risk rules,²⁰ significant tightening of the depreciation recapture rules,²¹...

   and
   
   

3. ...Treasury released proposed amendments to Circular 230 setting practice standards for legal opinions used in the promotion of tax shelters and outlining harsh disciplinary rules for practitioners failing to meet the new standards.⁶²...

In any case, these tax shelter issues did not involve:

....back in the 70's and 80's there was a rush of people incorporating themselves for tax purposes...

These tax shelters were not corporations. They were generally organized as limited partnerships or similar forms of business organizations.

[Buzzcook]

Frank, you're good at making a tangential point the main thesis of an argument.

Your right no one has ever formed a corporation for tax avoidance. The 70's was a long time ago and the changes in tax code in 76 and 80 didn't say anything about corporations.
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/vi...40&context=elr

The at-risk provisions substantially limit the use of these methods by individuals and small corporations, thus precluding the pass-through of tax losses to individuals.

I did read the article I posted. I didn't go into further detail because google wasn't interested in things that happened in the 70's and it is a diversion from the topic. As you have conceded incorporation in order to share ownership of firearms is possible, if not cost effective.

Which brings us back to the topic. Do my grandsons share ownership of the firearm I gave them and which each is legally able to own?

[TDL]

In some jurisdictions not only is there no such thing as joint ownership, there is no such thing as joint registration, making it illegal for a otherwise qualified spouse to simply transport the firearm to the range where the possession and use is legal, but also to even dry fire the firearm at home, both of which are recommended best practice safety and proficiency exercises.

These "common sense" "strong gun control" laws force a household with both spouses, qualified by lack of criminal records or exclusions, and even with training if required, to purchase and maintain two guns at home when they may only wish to have one.

In DC this is the case.