Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Government regulation of Trust Funds

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 11:46:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The government seems to dislike people with trust funds.

In 2010 they passed new ex post facto regulations, which effects trusts established a decade prior to the law. These regulations prohibited people from closing their trust funds.

Since than many new regulations were passed, restricting the use of the funds. Just recently new regulations were passed restricting reimbursement of family members, and the manner of payment required to be reimbursed.

First the government prohibited the liquidation of a trust fund, now they are whittling away at what it can be used for. Pretty soon people would be unable to use their trust funds at all. If you ask me, it is theft.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 4:12:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well....

theft: a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Since the restrictions are lawful, not theft it is.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 4:17:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 11:46:43 AM, DanT wrote:
The government seems to dislike people with trust funds.

In 2010 they passed new ex post facto regulations, which effects trusts established a decade prior to the law. These regulations prohibited people from closing their trust funds.

Since than many new regulations were passed, restricting the use of the funds. Just recently new regulations were passed restricting reimbursement of family members, and the manner of payment required to be reimbursed.

First the government prohibited the liquidation of a trust fund, now they are whittling away at what it can be used for. Pretty soon people would be unable to use their trust funds at all. If you ask me, it is theft.

Why is that act by the government theft, but not taxation?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 7:47:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 4:17:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/3/2012 11:46:43 AM, DanT wrote:
The government seems to dislike people with trust funds.

In 2010 they passed new ex post facto regulations, which effects trusts established a decade prior to the law. These regulations prohibited people from closing their trust funds.

Since than many new regulations were passed, restricting the use of the funds. Just recently new regulations were passed restricting reimbursement of family members, and the manner of payment required to be reimbursed.

First the government prohibited the liquidation of a trust fund, now they are whittling away at what it can be used for. Pretty soon people would be unable to use their trust funds at all. If you ask me, it is theft.

Why is that act by the government theft, but not taxation?

Because they are not taxing me they are prohibiting me from using and liquidating my trust. By depriving me of access to my investment, they have taken my investment away from me; thus it is theft.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 7:49:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 4:12:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....

theft: a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Since the restrictions are lawful, not theft it is.

What they did is unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful. The legislature must follow the law too. Just because legislation is passed does not make it lawful.

theft: Unlawful taking of money, securities, or other property to the deprivation of the insured.
http://wps.prenhall.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 8:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 8:27:19 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
What did they do, specifically?

See original post
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 10:19:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 8:34:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:27:19 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
What did they do, specifically?

See original post

I did, and you were vague. Regulation this, and reimbursement that.

You did not specifically state what the changes were, only gave a summary of their effects. Nor did you provide a link that might disclose said changes.

So, I am forced to form an opinion on a matter with zero evidence, only your analysis. There are plenty of times on DDO that analyses were wrong, most notably, GeoLaurate8's claim that the U.N. was after our guns.

For example, could the regulations you cite simply be a reversal back to the way they were, like part of the Bush tax cut legislation that sunsetted?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 11:46:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 10:19:57 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:34:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:27:19 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
What did they do, specifically?

See original post

I did, and you were vague. Regulation this, and reimbursement that.

You did not specifically state what the changes were, only gave a summary of their effects. Nor did you provide a link that might disclose said changes.

I said they are constantly limiting what people can use their trust for. They are continuing to narrow down the list of what people can use their trusts for (impairing the Oobligation of Contracts). Allot of what my contract (from 2010) says I can use my trust for I can no longer use my trust for.
They also past ex post facto laws (unconstitutional), prohibiting the liquidation of trusts established up to a decade prior to the establishment of the new law (regardless of what the contract says).
So, I am forced to form an opinion on a matter with zero evidence, only your analysis. There are plenty of times on DDO that analyses were wrong, most notably, GeoLaurate8's claim that the U.N. was after our guns.

I have already provided photos of a letter from my lawyer, in my other thread, regarding the ex post facto laws. It's past midnight, I don't feel like uploading the letters informing me of the new regulatory restrictions. I don't lie, and I don't make sh!t up. You can take my word for it, my reputation is clean. The actions of one individual should not disgrace the entire community.
For example, could the regulations you cite simply be a reversal back to the way they were, like part of the Bush tax cut legislation that sunsetted?

It's not tax cuts. They are regulations impairing the obligations of the contract I signed.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 3:04:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 11:46:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 10:19:57 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:34:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:27:19 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
What did they do, specifically?

See original post

I did, and you were vague. Regulation this, and reimbursement that.

You did not specifically state what the changes were, only gave a summary of their effects. Nor did you provide a link that might disclose said changes.

I said they are constantly limiting what people can use their trust for. They are continuing to narrow down the list of what people can use their trusts for (impairing the Oobligation of Contracts). Allot of what my contract (from 2010) says I can use my trust for I can no longer use my trust for.
They also past ex post facto laws (unconstitutional), prohibiting the liquidation of trusts established up to a decade prior to the establishment of the new law (regardless of what the contract says).
So, I am forced to form an opinion on a matter with zero evidence, only your analysis. There are plenty of times on DDO that analyses were wrong, most notably, GeoLaurate8's claim that the U.N. was after our guns.

I have already provided photos of a letter from my lawyer, in my other thread, regarding the ex post facto laws. It's past midnight, I don't feel like uploading the letters informing me of the new regulatory restrictions. I don't lie, and I don't make sh!t up.

I never said you did, only that I have no knowledge of what you are stating, and you could be accidently misguided, or are accidently misleading others.

You can take my word for it, my reputation is clean. The actions of one individual should not disgrace the entire community.

It is not just one person, nor is it wise to simply assume people know what they're talking about, especially with legal matters.

For example, could the regulations you cite simply be a reversal back to the way they were, like part of the Bush tax cut legislation that sunsetted?

It's not tax cuts. They are regulations impairing the obligations of the contract I signed.

It was an example of how something can be affected retroactively. I know you're not talking about tax cuts, but there are always other laws in other bills.

I apologize if I offended you, that was not my intent. I had no idea this was affecting you directly, nor did I know you had started a thread about this August 23. In my defense, you were not specific in this thread, and you weren't too specific in the other one, either; you gave a summary.

However, using your lawyer's letter, it appears that this ex post facto law affects special needs trusts and pooled trusts that are established under the SSA provision given. This does not mean ALL trusts are affected, as you imply with your original post. So, it appears I was right to withhold comment...

However, you say sense then, there have been new regulations. Does this mean on these types of trusts, or all trusts? I hope my confusion is clear. And I am not saying you meant to deceive, only that you succeeded by accident (as you seem to be a legit person). Again, this is why I asked for specifics.

As far as ex post facto, it appears to be a violation of the constitution. However, I do not know if regulations count as laws. Does the government have to honor a contract made one year ago, when under new law, it is null and void? I think of treaties as a counter-example.
And, as far as I can tell, it appears the government is in control, to some degree, of this trust, given the SSA provision.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 3:44:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/3/2012 7:47:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 4:17:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/3/2012 11:46:43 AM, DanT wrote:
The government seems to dislike people with trust funds.

In 2010 they passed new ex post facto regulations, which effects trusts established a decade prior to the law. These regulations prohibited people from closing their trust funds.

Since than many new regulations were passed, restricting the use of the funds. Just recently new regulations were passed restricting reimbursement of family members, and the manner of payment required to be reimbursed.

First the government prohibited the liquidation of a trust fund, now they are whittling away at what it can be used for. Pretty soon people would be unable to use their trust funds at all. If you ask me, it is theft.

Why is that act by the government theft, but not taxation?

Because they are not taxing me they are prohibiting me from using and liquidating my trust. By depriving me of access to my investment, they have taken my investment away from me; thus it is theft.

They have taken your revenue from you using taxation; thus, it is theft. You can't get around double standards, Dan. That's the reason for social's question. If you think people with guns taking money from you in this circumstance, you necessarily have to apply it to taxation, which more readily fits the definition of theft.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 1:48:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 3:44:25 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/3/2012 7:47:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 4:17:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/3/2012 11:46:43 AM, DanT wrote:
The government seems to dislike people with trust funds.

In 2010 they passed new ex post facto regulations, which effects trusts established a decade prior to the law. These regulations prohibited people from closing their trust funds.

Since than many new regulations were passed, restricting the use of the funds. Just recently new regulations were passed restricting reimbursement of family members, and the manner of payment required to be reimbursed.

First the government prohibited the liquidation of a trust fund, now they are whittling away at what it can be used for. Pretty soon people would be unable to use their trust funds at all. If you ask me, it is theft.

Why is that act by the government theft, but not taxation?

Because they are not taxing me they are prohibiting me from using and liquidating my trust. By depriving me of access to my investment, they have taken my investment away from me; thus it is theft.

They have taken your revenue from you using taxation; thus, it is theft.
We are not talking about taxation.
You can't get around double standards, Dan. That's the reason for social's question. If you think people with guns taking money from you in this circumstance, you necessarily have to apply it to taxation, which more readily fits the definition of theft.

This topic is not about taxation, it's about regulation. If you want to discuss taxation being theft start another thread. I would agree with you in regards to unconstitutional forms of taxation, but taxation is not the topic of discussion.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 2:38:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 3:04:22 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 11:46:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 10:19:57 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:34:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:27:19 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
What did they do, specifically?

See original post

I did, and you were vague. Regulation this, and reimbursement that.

You did not specifically state what the changes were, only gave a summary of their effects. Nor did you provide a link that might disclose said changes.

I said they are constantly limiting what people can use their trust for. They are continuing to narrow down the list of what people can use their trusts for (impairing the Oobligation of Contracts). Allot of what my contract (from 2010) says I can use my trust for I can no longer use my trust for.
They also past ex post facto laws (unconstitutional), prohibiting the liquidation of trusts established up to a decade prior to the establishment of the new law (regardless of what the contract says).
So, I am forced to form an opinion on a matter with zero evidence, only your analysis. There are plenty of times on DDO that analyses were wrong, most notably, GeoLaurate8's claim that the U.N. was after our guns.

I have already provided photos of a letter from my lawyer, in my other thread, regarding the ex post facto laws. It's past midnight, I don't feel like uploading the letters informing me of the new regulatory restrictions. I don't lie, and I don't make sh!t up.

I never said you did, only that I have no knowledge of what you are stating, and you could be accidently misguided, or are accidently misleading others.

You can take my word for it, my reputation is clean. The actions of one individual should not disgrace the entire community.

It is not just one person, nor is it wise to simply assume people know what they're talking about, especially with legal matters.

Letter from the ex assistant attorney general of NH informing me of the new Ex post facto laws which he says " will surprisingly apply retrospectively to existing trusts established on or after January 1, 2000". Letter dated September 27, 2010
http://debate.org...

Here is a recent letter informing me of new restrictions, on how a trust can be used. It is one of many regulations impairing the obligations of my contract.
http://debate.org...
http://debate.org...

For example, could the regulations you cite simply be a reversal back to the way they were, like part of the Bush tax cut legislation that sunsetted?

It's not tax cuts. They are regulations impairing the obligations of the contract I signed.

It was an example of how something can be affected retroactively. I know you're not talking about tax cuts, but there are always other laws in other bills.

I apologize if I offended you, that was not my intent. I had no idea this was affecting you directly, nor did I know you had started a thread about this August 23. In my defense, you were not specific in this thread, and you weren't too specific in the other one, either; you gave a summary.

That's because there is a long list of regulations that are constantly being passed.
However, using your lawyer's letter, it appears that this ex post facto law affects special needs trusts and pooled trusts that are established under the SSA provision given. This does not mean ALL trusts are affected, as you imply with your original post. So, it appears I was right to withhold comment...

The trust I set up was for people on SSID. I am no longer on SSID, since I don't meet the adult qualifications. Simply because these regulations only effect trusts regarding people on SSID does not mean there are not similar trust regulations for other people. I hate the fact my mother put me on SSID, as the government used SSID to strip me of my rights. Another reason to despise the totalitarian welfare state.
However, you say sense then, there have been new regulations. Does this mean on these types of trusts, or all trusts? I hope my confusion is clear. And I am not saying you meant to deceive, only that you succeeded by accident (as you seem to be a legit person). Again, this is why I asked for specifics.

As far as ex post facto, it appears to be a violation of the constitution. However, I do not know if regulations count as laws. Does the government have to honor a contract made one year ago, when under new law, it is null and void? I think of treaties as a counter-example.
And, as far as I can tell, it appears the government is in control, to some degree, of this trust, given the SSA provision.

No it is a private company that controls the trust. It is through government regulations that specific details of the contract I signed has become void.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 4:29:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 2:38:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/4/2012 3:04:22 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 11:46:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 10:19:57 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:34:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:27:19 PM, Chaos88 wrote:

Letter from the ex assistant attorney general of NH informing me of the new Ex post facto laws which he says " will surprisingly apply retrospectively to existing trusts established on or after January 1, 2000". Letter dated September 27, 2010
http://debate.org...

Here is a recent letter informing me of new restrictions, on how a trust can be used. It is one of many regulations impairing the obligations of my contract.
http://debate.org...
http://debate.org...

Thank you for this information.

However, using your lawyer's letter, it appears that this ex post facto law affects special needs trusts and pooled trusts that are established under the SSA provision given. This does not mean ALL trusts are affected, as you imply with your original post. So, it appears I was right to withhold comment...

The trust I set up was for people on SSID. I am no longer on SSID, since I don't meet the adult qualifications. Simply because these regulations only effect trusts regarding people on SSID does not mean there are not similar trust regulations for other people. I hate the fact my mother put me on SSID, as the government used SSID to strip me of my rights. Another reason to despise the totalitarian welfare state.

I doubt there are regulations (except tax) that affect most trusts. Why would the government insert itself (except for taxation) if I gave you money to manage, until a certain event occurred (no longer president, child reaches certain age, etc)?

These regulations do not strip you of your rights, they strip the rights of those taking care of you. After all, the trust is a special needs trust, which means the money is to be used to take care of you. Since that money is used to take care of you, and SSID has the same purpose, there are regulations to minimize fraud. I doubt if your mother had gotten a "regular" trust this would be an issue for you. But, if she got a "regular" trust, you may not have received SSID, there may have been tax issues, or who knows what else. (I hope there was a reason for this trust over a regular one)
For example, if SSID is based on need (i.e. personal wealth), a trust is an asset, so the payment may be lowered.

Furthermore regulation =/= laws, so the Constitution has no perview. If I set up a bank account today, and it is insured for $100K by the FDIC, and tomorrow they do away with the insurance, is that ex post facto? Yes. Is it unconstitutional? No. Will I be angry that I may now need to buy insurance? Probably.

You are upset that the SSA, who allowed you to set up a trust to take care of you, changed their rules in how your trust expenses things to take care of you. Understandable, but don't make blanket statements regarding anti-trust regulations. Also, most people on SSID are permenently disabled I would assume, so you are the exception to the rule (unless you were crippled in the accident), and the regulations are to protect YOUR money so YOU are taken care of.

I think in your old post you mentioned you were trying to get an apartment. Perhaps you could have the trust pay your rent, as shelter is a legitimate expense. You can't cash it out at once, anymore, but it doesn't mean you can't get the money. (I hope...)

Also, if you are no longer on SSID, the affect of no longer receiving Medicaid and SSID is moot (as long as it isn't a lifetime ban), so it sounds like you may be able to dissolve the trust. Just sign something stating you acknowledge the ramifications.

And, as far as I can tell, it appears the government is in control, to some degree, of this trust, given the SSA provision.

No it is a private company that controls the trust. It is through government regulations that specific details of the contract I signed has become void.

No, it is a private company who set up a trust within the parameters of the SSA, due to SSI; therefore, SSA regulations govern this trust. When I said control, I was referring to the rules that govern it, not who physically has the money or who makes financial decisions.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 5:24:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 4:29:29 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/4/2012 2:38:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/4/2012 3:04:22 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 11:46:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 10:19:57 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:34:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/3/2012 8:27:19 PM, Chaos88 wrote:

Letter from the ex assistant attorney general of NH informing me of the new Ex post facto laws which he says " will surprisingly apply retrospectively to existing trusts established on or after January 1, 2000". Letter dated September 27, 2010
http://debate.org...

Here is a recent letter informing me of new restrictions, on how a trust can be used. It is one of many regulations impairing the obligations of my contract.
http://debate.org...
http://debate.org...

Thank you for this information.

However, using your lawyer's letter, it appears that this ex post facto law affects special needs trusts and pooled trusts that are established under the SSA provision given. This does not mean ALL trusts are affected, as you imply with your original post. So, it appears I was right to withhold comment...

The trust I set up was for people on SSID. I am no longer on SSID, since I don't meet the adult qualifications. Simply because these regulations only effect trusts regarding people on SSID does not mean there are not similar trust regulations for other people. I hate the fact my mother put me on SSID, as the government used SSID to strip me of my rights. Another reason to despise the totalitarian welfare state.

I doubt there are regulations (except tax) that affect most trusts. Why would the government insert itself (except for taxation) if I gave you money to manage, until a certain event occurred (no longer president, child reaches certain age, etc)?

These regulations do not strip you of your rights, they strip the rights of those taking care of you. After all, the trust is a special needs trust, which means the money is to be used to take care of you. Since that money is used to take care of you, and SSID has the same purpose, there are regulations to minimize fraud.

I no longer have SSID, and because I was in the process of losing my SSID when I set up my trust, I had an clause saying I could terminate the trust. The government than stepped in and said, "even if you no longer qualify for SSID, you can't close the trust". If I closed the trust while I still had SSID than I would lose my SSID because I would have too much money in my bank account.

My contract already said I can't use my trust for things SSID was for. The new regulations went beyond the purpose of SSID.

I doubt if your mother had gotten a "regular" trust this would be an issue for you.
I am the one who set up the trust, not my mother. My mother just talked me into it, because she was afraid of losing the money from SSID. The lawyer also backed my mom up, because he was making money off the trust.

But, if she got a "regular" trust, you may not have received SSID, there may have been tax issues, or who knows what else. (I hope there was a reason for this trust over a regular one)

Yeah there was a reason, I got a tax exempt settlement from a car crash, and my mom didn't want to lose my SSID money.

For example, if SSID is based on need (i.e. personal wealth), a trust is an asset, so the payment may be lowered.


Furthermore regulation =/= laws, so the Constitution has no perview.
regulation is a type of law. When a regulatory bill is signed it becomes a law.
If I set up a bank account today, and it is insured for $100K by the FDIC, and tomorrow they do away with the insurance, is that ex post facto? Yes. Is it unconstitutional? No. Will I be angry that I may now need to buy insurance? Probably.

You are upset that the SSA, who allowed you to set up a trust to take care of you, changed their rules in how your trust expenses things to take care of you.
I'm angry they are not allowing me access to my money when I don't have SSID.

Understandable, but don't make blanket statements regarding anti-trust regulations. Also, most people on SSID are permenently disabled I would assume, so you are the exception to the rule (unless you were crippled in the accident), and the regulations are to protect YOUR money so YOU are taken care of.

I think in your old post you mentioned you were trying to get an apartment. Perhaps you could have the trust pay your rent, as shelter is a legitimate expense. You can't cash it out at once, anymore, but it doesn't mean you can't get the money. (I hope...)

I can't. The contract said I could, new regulations say I can't.
Also, if you are no longer on SSID, the affect of no longer receiving Medicaid and SSID is moot (as long as it isn't a lifetime ban), so it sounds like you may be able to dissolve the trust. Just sign something stating you acknowledge the ramifications.

No I can't dissolve the trust, because of new regulations.

And, as far as I can tell, it appears the government is in control, to some degree, of this trust, given the SSA provision.

No it is a private company that controls the trust. It is through government regulations that specific details of the contract I signed has become void.

No, it is a private company who set up a trust within the parameters of the SSA, due to SSI; therefore, SSA regulations govern this trust. When I said control, I was referring to the rules that govern it, not who physically has the money or who makes financial decisions.

The government can also govern regular trusts as well. Trusts are usually tax exempt, so by that logic the IRS controls trusts.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle