Split ownership of firearm

[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/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/CC7054D5ADE17F64852571A20068ED13?OpenDocument

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

 

[Frank Ettin]

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

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

...Here's a brief article about tax avoidance in the 70's
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/CC7054D5ADE17F64852571A20068ED13?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/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&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.