It’s quite obvious to me, reading the statutes as a whole, that the Lottery is within their duties and obligations to at the very least determine the names and addresses of any trust beneficiary to comply with their duties under the statutes with regard to prohibited persons playing, and obligations regarding garnishments, liens and judgements. You are not going to convince me otherwise.
Beyond that, You raise a whole lot of “”IF”.... You can wish in one hand, and crap in the other - and in reality, you know what you’ve got.
That's your interpretation. And, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise -- I'm just pointing out that your interpretation isn't supported by the law.
The Iowa Lottery's own code effectively says that a "legal entity" like a trust is the same as a person. So, they are obligated to treat it like a person, without imposing any additional requirements. So, as long as the trust isn't on the list of prohibited players or subject to garnishments, then the trust is entitled to the prize.
BTW, you added "judgements" to the potential obligations, which isn't even in the law. And neither is just any "lien": what the law says is that other claimant agencies (which I interpreted as government agencies, but feel free to find otherwise) can provide a list of people to the lottery that owe money to them. Given these outright errors, how should I consider the rest of your interpretation?
Of course, that doesn't exclude the beneficiary from the obligations: as someone noted in the first thread on he subject, the IRS will eventually know who the actual beneficiary is, as will the equivalent agency in Iowa. The income to the trust eventually passes through to the beneficiaries. It will be confidential by law, but if there is evidence a crime was committed, I'd be almost certain they would pursue it.
Beyond that, You raise a whole lot of “”IF”.... You can wish in one hand, and crap in the other - and in reality, you know what you’ve got.
Look, I've tried to be nice to you -- giving you hints about where to look and how other states handle this situation. I've given you plenty of opportunity to provide a citation for your position, and you have come up empty.
But, now you are just acting like an jerk. Do you really want a civil discussion, or do you just want to abuse people that disagree with you?