I need some help understanding the ownership of shares of a company by immediate family members as pertains to Reg O.

The definition of a principal shareholder states that the shares owned by an immediate family member are attributed to a person for determining if there is sufficient ownership to deem an individual a principal shareholder.

In the definition of "control of a company or bank" there is no language stating that the shares of an immediate family member must be considered in measuring for adequate ownership interest triggering control. Can I conclude that the absence of this language in this definition must have been intentional, and that shares of an immediate family member would not be included for "control" purposes?

Also, there is an opinion from the Fed that states, "The interests of an immediate family member are not taken into account when determining control or presumed control of a member bank." I note that it does not say "control of a company", however the definition of "control" in Reg O lumps together "company and bank."

Way back in my memory is a distinction between immediate family living in the Reg O officer's household and adult immeidate family members not living in the household. Therefore, minors living in the home of the Reg O officer had to be counted, but not grown children living on their own. Whew, don't take this as gospel because it has been so long ago. It sounds like you may need legal advice or the advice of your regulator on this one.