These are all questions we don't know the answer to.
My original post notes that, in my opinion, based on the face of the regulation, co-trustees in my trust would not be subject to the 41P requirements. Our trust is written where co-trustees have absolutely no managerial power or authority; thus, they do not meed the requirements of responsible persons. To my knowledge, no other firm writes their trusts in this manner. We have been preparing for this for a long time with the assistance from many sources close to this issue.
As addressed in my post, these subjects will be a hot issue leading up to and after July 1st. No one has the answers. Some law firms may err on the side of caution. They may not have devoted the time and resources we have preparing for 41P. Some firms may simply interpret the regulation differently. The reason why we have courts is because attorney opinions drastically differ.
My firm has spent well over $100,000 on this area of our practice. Literally dozens of attorneys all over the US work with us. I am in contact with the ATF fighting for my clients on a daily basis with issues ranging from felony possession of NFA weapons, to assisting high profile clients with NFA and explosives issues.
When it comes down to it, my clients do not pay me to roll over whenever the ATF, or anyone else for that matter, infringes on their right to bear arms. I am also here to shelter my clients. As this regulation develops, we will keep everyone apprised as to any compliance issues that may arise.
So the real question is... who wants to be the first test case?