HallisChalmers
Member
View Rule
Looks like the proposed ruling date on the ATF - NFA Trust Responsible Persons rule is June 2014.
Looks like the proposed ruling date on the ATF - NFA Trust Responsible Persons rule is June 2014.
Doubt it.
They don't care when your trust/corp was formed. Once the rule change happens legal entity transfers will all be treated the same whether your company is 20 years old or a brand new trust.
The big question is whether they'll kick all the stuff already in the pipeline back out or let them go through.
And whether they feel politically/judicially invincible enough to retroactively apply the rule and invalidate all tax stamps issued to entities under the current rules.
Talking to a NFA clerk last week about this; the term "fiasco" came up several times. They said that they expect this to be a complete nightmare, as the folks who have Decreed From On High That This Will Be So have never, ever talked to anyone who actually works or deals with NFA items (on the government side, even) and could not in any way care less about any Americans.
This is one piece of the ongoing punishment for "gunnies" because they did not back The One. And that was what the NFA clerk said...just their opinion, of course, but it was very amusing hearing what sounds like this (and other) board's usual echo chamber of complaints coming from that side of the discussion.
Alex
Doubt it.
They don't care when your trust/corp was formed. Once the rule change happens legal entity transfers will all be treated the same whether your company is 20 years old or a brand new trust.
The big question is whether they'll kick all the stuff already in the pipeline back out or let them go through.
And whether they feel politically/judicially invincible enough to retroactively apply the rule and invalidate all tax stamps issued to entities under the current rules.
That is complete speculation and a total waste of a post. You have absolutely no idea that this would be the case. People like you spread BS posts like this for no reason at all. I am curious as to why you even posted something like this...
If the questions make you all butthurt, don't read them then.
Judging from some of the subsequent posts these same questions have been on other people's minds as well.
MY OPINION is that they'll go with whatever option collects the most taxes, takes away the most freedoms, is the most inefficient and grows their agency.
Just my opinion, but that seems the be the rule rather than the exception.
but rather increase costs with the number of employees to cover the work
Agree with the sentiment. If we look back to the last AWB and the last one they proposed though, the plans were to grandfather what was already out there. The ATF is a poorly run organization as it is, and surely there is some oversight committee that would be monitoring what would have to happen if every outstanding NFA item had to go back through the background check process. You aren't looking at months at that point, you are looking at years to get things approved. Given that this measure would not generate any new revenues, but rather increase costs with the number of employees to cover the work, I find it hard to believe that they would do anything other than grandfather what is currently outstanding. Of course that is just my opinion and thinking...
The sheer volume of NFA items out there is staggering, and would require a massive amount of effort on the behalf of the ATF to send out notices demanding background check info on all current owners. Furthermore, I don't know if that sort of move would stand up to legal challenge. Basically the government would be making a swath of law abiding citizens into criminals over night. While people are saying "That is just what the government would do!", it would generate a large amount of bad press and law suits over night. While "Obama wants to punish the gun owners", he doesn't want to stir the pot enough to create more court cases that could challenge the NFA or the gun control act of 1968.
The ATF did hire more people, but no additional people who can do the final approval (from what I understand at least). The additional warm bodies are there to help plough through the added paperwork.
I am hoping for a TX state law that would require CLEO sign-off within a certain period of time after the local sherif conducted a background check. This check would have a small, set cost assigned to it (similar to the fee we pay when renewing a CHL).