Reversionary Interest is over the usufruct

Reversionary Interest is over the usufruct for it would have to revert along with all its profits upon "return of the decedent"

The usufruct is already in place in the public, but is still "incomplete" because the "infant" or "decedent" can "return and make claim".... once that occurs, the usufruct and all its "profits" revert back to the estate ... assign THAT interest, and the estate now completely vests within the State and is "protected"

According to 26 USCS § 2037 (b ) the term "reversionary interest" includes a possibility that property transferred by the decedent:

(1) may return to him or his estate, or

(2) may be subject to a power of disposition by him,

but such term does not include a possibility that the income alone from such property may return to him or become subject to a power of disposition by him.

includes a possibility…..just the "possibility" creates the "interest"

We are "de facto nominee" over the "executorship of the estate" by the virtue we can obtain the "certificate" (security certificate) absent "adverse claim" (ie: obtain a court order) and "give value" ... thus "protected purchaser" of that "interest"

so, once we "assign" THAT interest, "reversionary interest" in the “financial asset” only, over to or over the account of the State, we should no longer be a "party of interest" to any "action on account" concerning NAME …

26 USC § 673 - Reversionary interests

(a ) General rule

The grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust in which he has a reversionary interest in either the corpus or the income therefrom, if, as of the inception of that portion of the trust, the value of such interest exceeds 5 percent of the value of such portion.

trust = contract
corpus = object of contract
income = value of exchange
beneficiary = one who should receive either corpus or income
trustee = one who should have gotten paid or representative of such
grantor = owner of contract because the "rights" revert to the "estate" from which they originated

so, the "reversionary interest" would be the "right to pay the debt" to "release the value" to the beneficiary(s)

“the trust” this is all operating under is "usufruct" and whomever is the "beneficiary" owes the "tax" but if the "reversionary interest" remains vested in the estate, the entirety of the usufruct comes due back to the estate upon return of the decedent, including settling taxes and claims as they arise, which are "de facto" maritime liens against the estate to be settled upon "death" of the "owner" of the "estate" ... which would be the "grantor" or the "user of NAME" …. the user of NAME is "protected purchaser" of those "interests" which until now, has been held under a conservatorship trust on behalf of the “presumed dead infant”.

and since 12 USC 95a (2) implies that an assignment of any interest to or for the account of the United States serves as "de facto" acquittance and discharge of obligation of that "person" and no "person" can be held liable in any court for reliance upon that statue ... what do you all think should occur?

“Protected Purchaser” of the "interest in property" or "estate", who is also then “Appropriate Person” to issue orders and give commands to the "security intermediary" on behalf of the "entitlement holder" or "PERSON" upon the "assignment" of the "reversionary interest" in the "financial asset only" to or for the account of United States, thus acquitting and discharging obligation of the PERSON and no one can hold PERSON liable in any court for any reliance upon the corresponding statute (12 USC 95a(2)) for anything done or omitted in good faith.


Click here to go back


Creative Commons License
All works herein are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.