Business and Financial

The Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents study was conducted earlier this year from January through April. This opinion-based study surveyed professionals with a knowledge of Ohio’s cropland values and rental rates. Professionals surveyed were rural appraisers, agricultural lenders, professional farm managers, ag business professionals, OSU Extension educators, farmers, landowners, and Farm Service Agency personnel. The study results are based on 131 surveys.

Respondents were asked to group their estimates based on three land quality classes: average, top, and bottom. Within each land-quality class, respondents were asked to estimate average corn and soybean yields for a five-year period based on typical farming practices. Survey respondents were also asked to estimate current bare cropland values and cash rents negotiated in the current or recent year for each land-quality class. Survey results are summarized below for western Ohio with regional summaries (subsets of western Ohio) for northwest Ohio and southwest Ohio.

Results from the Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey show cropland values in western Ohio are expected to increase in 2024 by 3.3 to 5.8 percent depending on the region and land class. Cash rents are expected to increase from 3.2 to 3.8 percent in 2024 depending on the region and land class. Decreasing profit margins have competed with relatively strong farm equity positions and increasing property taxes to direct values and rents so far in 2024. Cropland values and cash rents are expected to increase although they are projected to be smaller increases than the past two years.

Factors Important to Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents

The primary factors affecting these values and rents are land productivity and potential crop return, and the variability of those crop returns. Soils, fertility and drainage/irrigation capabilities are primary factors that most influence land productivity, crop return and variability of those crop returns.

Other factors impacting land values and cash rents may include field size and shape, field accessibility, market access, local market prices, field perimeter characteristics and potential for wildlife damage, buildings and grain storage, previous tillage system and crops, tolerant/resistant weed populations, USDA Program Yields, population density, and competition for the cropland in a region. Factors specific to cash rental rates may include services provided by the operator, property taxes and specific conditions of the lease. This fact sheet summarizes the survey research data collected for western Ohio cropland values and cash rents:

https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management-tools/farm-management-publications/cash-rents

Projected Estimates of Land Values and Cash Rents

Survey respondents were asked to give their best estimates for long-term land value and cash rent change. The average estimate of cropland value change in the next five years for western Ohio is an increase of 3.6 percent (for the entire five-year period). Responses for the five-year cropland value change ranged from an increase of 50 percent to a decrease of 50 percent.

The average estimate of cash rent change in the next five years is an increase of 2.7 percent. The cash rent change also had a large range, with responses ranging from an increase of 25 percent to a decrease of 50 percent.

Interest Rates

Survey respondents were also asked to estimate 2024 interest rates for two borrowing terms: 20 year fixed-rate mortgage and operating loan. The average estimate, according to survey respondents, of 20 year fixed-rate mortgage borrowing is 7.1 percent. According to the same respondents, the average estimate of operating loan interest rates is 8.3 percent.

The full survey research summary can be found at the Farm Office website: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management-tools/farm-management-publications/cash-rents

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has specific guidelines for determining whether a farming activity is considered a business or a hobby. This distinction is crucial because it affects how expenses and losses are treated for tax purposes. Farmers who engage in agricultural activities must understand these guidelines to ensure they comply with tax laws and maximize their deductions.

Defining Hobby Farms vs. Business Farms

The IRS considers several factors to determine if a farming operation is a for-profit business or merely a hobby. A farm classified as a hobby cannot deduct losses against other income, whereas a business farm can. The primary difference lies in the intent to make a profit.

The 3-out-of-5-Years Rule

One of the key benchmarks used by the IRS is the "3-out-of-5-years" rule. According to this rule, a farming activity is presumed to be for-profit if it has made a profit in at least three of the last five tax years. For horse breeding, training, showing, or racing, this period extends to two out of seven years. If the farm meets this criterion, the IRS assumes the activity is profit-oriented unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Factors Considered by the IRS

Even if a farm does not meet the 3-out-of-5-years rule, it can still be considered a business based on other factors. The IRS evaluates the following criteria to assess the profit motive:

• Manner of Operation: Is the farm run in a businesslike manner? This includes maintaining accurate books and records, having a separate bank account, and implementing strategies to improve profitability.
• Expertise: Does the taxpayer have expertise or consult with experts to make the farming operation profitable? This factor looks at the knowledge and experience of the farmer or their reliance on professional advice.
• Time and Effort: How much time and effort does the taxpayer put into the farming activity? Significant personal involvement can indicate a profit motive.
• Asset Appreciation: Does the value of the farming assets (such as land and equipment) increase over time? Appreciation can suggest a profit intent, even if the farm incurs losses.
• History of Income or Losses: What is the history of income and losses in the farming activity? Occasional profits or a trend towards profitability can support the profit motive.
• Financial Status: Does the taxpayer have substantial income from other sources? If the taxpayer relies on farming as their primary income, it is more likely to be seen as a business.
• Elements of Personal Pleasure: Does the taxpayer derive personal pleasure or recreation from the farming activity? While enjoyment does not automatically classify an activity as a hobby, it can be a contributing factor.

Tax Deductions and Hobby Farms

If the IRS deems a farm a hobby, the taxpayer can only deduct expenses up to the amount of income generated by the hobby. This means that hobby farms cannot use losses to offset other income. Conversely, a business farm can deduct all ordinary and necessary expenses related to the farming activity, even if they exceed income, potentially reducing overall taxable income.

Record Keeping and Documentation

Maintaining meticulous records is essential for farmers to substantiate their profit motive. This includes keeping receipts, invoices, and detailed logs of farming activities. Proper documentation helps demonstrate the businesslike operation of the farm and supports the claim of profitability.

Conclusion

Understanding how the IRS views hobby farms versus business farms is critical for farmers to manage their tax obligations effectively. The 3-out-of-5-years rule provides a clear benchmark, but other factors also play a significant role in determining the nature of the farming activity. By operating in a businesslike manner and keeping thorough records, farmers can maximize their tax deductions and ensure compliance with IRS regulations.

Those familiar with serving as an executor or navigating probate understand the daunting nature of the task. The process often entails numerous filings and can extend over several months or even years. Consequently, seeking legal counsel is frequently necessary to navigate this complex procedure and ensure the estate is managed appropriately. One common question concerning the engagement of attorneys for probate concerns their fees: what are their charges?

The Ohio Revised Code allows attorneys to receive "reasonable fees" for their services in aiding with estate matters. However, Ohio law doesn't offer a specific definition of what constitutes reasonable fees, nor does it prescribe a straightforward formula for determining them. Ultimately, it falls upon the county probate judge to decide whether an attorney's fees are reasonable for overseeing estate administration. Given the potentially burdensome task of assessing fees for each estate, many county probate courts set standardized rates that estate attorneys can charge, thereby streamlining the process.

The probate rates vary from county to county but generally range from 1% - 5% of the total value of the estate.  As an example, the following are the probate rates for Brown County, Ohio:

            For all personal property:

                        5.5% on the first $50,0000;

                        4.5% for $50,000 - $100,000;

                        3.5% for $100,000 - $400,000;

                        2.0% above $400,000.

            For real estate:

                        1% for all real estate transferred to a spouse;

                        2% on the first $200,000 transferred to a non-spouse;

                        1% over $200,000 transferred to a non-spouse.

Let's examine the potential probate fees for a medium-sized farm located in Brown County. This farm comprises $1,000,000 worth of real estate, $500,000 of machinery, $300,000 in crops/livestock, and $200,000 in savings/investments. Under these circumstances, an attorney could charge up to $37,500 in legal fees, which would be automatically approved by the probate court.

Probate fees work well for smaller/simpler estates. In fact, attorneys are sometimes justified in asking for more than the county rates to cover their fees. However, for farm estates, especially with significant real estate, the county probate rates can cause permissible legal fees to become very high.  For example, a large farm estate in Brown County with $5 million of land and $2 million of equipment/crops/livestock would result in permissible legal fees of $97,500.

To tackle the issue of high legal fees in farm estates, two strategies can be employed. Firstly, opting out of using the county rates to determine legal fees can be beneficial. The county rates represent the maximum fees that the court will approve but are not obligatory for attorneys to charge. For farm estates, billing on an hourly basis often leads to substantially lower legal fees compared to using the county rates. Therefore, when engaging an attorney for estate assistance, inquire about their estimated fees based on both the county rates and an hourly basis. If the hourly rate proves to be less expensive than the county rates, simply proceed with hiring the attorney based on their hourly rate. It's crucial to recognize that you always retain the option to request an attorney to bill on an hourly basis instead of using the county rates.

The second option is to avoid probate.  The same $5 million dollars of land that can cost $50,000 to probate can be transferred for a few hundred dollars using a transfer on death affidavit.  It is relatively easy to transfer any titled asset outside of probate.  Bank accounts, investments, vehicles and business entities can all be transferred using transfer on death or payable on death designations.  Especially for financial accounts, an attorney may not even be needed to transfer the asset to the beneficiaries.  Let’s consider this point using an example:

Farmer owns $5 million of land and $2 million of equipment and crops in Brown County, Ohio.  As already provided above, county probate rates would allow legal fees for probating the estate to be up to $97,500.  Before death, Farmer executes a transfer on death affidavit transferring his land at death to his children.  Farmer also sets up a single-member LLC for his farming operation and transfers his equipment and crops into the LLC.  He then makes his LLC ownership transfer on death to his children.  Now, when Farmer dies, his $7 million of assets can be transferred outside of probate with only a minimal amount of paperwork needed. 

By spending perhaps a few thousand dollars on a transfer on death affidavit, an LLC and minor paperwork at death, Farmer can save his heirs up to $97,500.  Avoiding probate is a great way to minimize legal fees for an estate. For more information on avoiding probate, see the Legal Tools for Avoiding Probate bulletin available at farmoffice.osu.edu.

Farm estates are not obligated to adhere to the county probate rates. In fact, it's possible to title many, if not all, assets in a manner that bypasses probate altogether. For assets that do undergo probate, it's advisable to inquire with the estate attorney about the fees based on both the county rates and an hourly rate. While some extensive and intricate farm estates may still incur substantial legal fees even if probate is avoided and hourly rates are applied, for many farm estates, the legal fees could be significantly lower than those dictated by the county rates.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA) is asking the agricultural community to weigh in on a new program aimed at the voluntary carbon market in the U.S.  The agency has published a Request for Information seeking input on what the agency should consider in developing rules for the new “Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Program.”  The purpose of the new program, created by the passage of the Growing Climate Solutions Act last year, is to facilitate farmer, rancher, and private forest landowner participation in voluntary carbon markets by: (1) publishing a list of widely accepted protocols designed to ensure consistency, reliability, effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency of voluntary credit markets; (2) publishing descriptions of widely accepted qualifications possessed by covered entities that provide technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners; (3) publishing a list of qualified technical assistance providers and third-party verifiers; and (4) providing information to assist farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners in accessing voluntary credit markets.

Farmers haven’t engaged in the voluntary carbon market to the extent some predicted several years ago, when “carbon agreements” began circulating through the agricultural community.  A carbon agreement is a private  contract that compensates a farmer for adopting practices that sequester carbon, with one ton of sequestered carbon creating a “carbon credit.”  Those who pay farmers for the carbon credits can retain the credits or trade the credits through a carbon market.  The owner of the carbon credits can use the credits to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of reducing their “carbon footprint.”

According to USDA Secretary Vilsack, “high-integrity voluntary carbon markets offer a promising tool to create new revenue streams for producers and achieve greenhouse gas reductions from the agriculture and forest sectors.  However, a variety of barriers have hindered agriculture’s participation in voluntary carbon markets and we are seeking to change that by establishing a new Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Program.”  In its Request for Information, the agency seeks responses to eight questions:

Question 1: How should USDA define the terms “consistency,” “reliability,” “effectiveness,” “efficiency,” and “transparency” (see 7 U.S.C. 6712(c)(1)(A)) for use in protocol evaluation?

Question 2: What metrics or standards should USDA use to evaluate a protocol's alignment with each of the five criteria to be defined in Question 1? What should USDA consider as minimum criteria for a protocol to qualify for listing under the Program?

Question 3: In general, after a new protocol is published, how long does it take for a project to use the protocol and be issued credits ( i.e., what is the lag time between protocol publication and first credit generation)?

Question 4: Which protocol(s) for generating voluntary carbon credits from agriculture and forestry projects should USDA evaluate for listing through the Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Program?

Question 5: Additional information for any protocol(s) identified under Question 4.

Question 6: How should USDA evaluate technical assistance providers (TAP)? What should be the minimum qualifications, certifications, and/or expertise for a TAP to qualify for listing under the Program?

Question 7: Should the qualifications and/or registration process be different for entities and individuals that seek to register as a TAP?

Question 8: What should be the minimum qualifications and expertise for a third-party verifier to qualify for registration under the Program?

The agency will accept comments on the questions until June 28, 2024.

Part of a broader policy initiative

USDA announced the Request for Information on the same day that Secretary Vilsack, Energy Secretary Granholm, and Treasury Secretary Yellen, published a Joint Statement of Policy and Principles for Voluntary Carbon Markets, which outlines seven principles for the government’s approach to advancing “high-integrity voluntary credit markets,” summarized in a White House Fact Sheet:

1. Carbon credits and the activities that generate them should meet credible atmospheric integrity standards and represent real decarbonization.
2. Credit-generating activities should avoid environmental and social harm and should, where applicable, support co-benefits and transparent and inclusive benefits-sharing.
3. Corporate buyers that use credits should prioritize measurable emissions reductions within their own value chains.
4. Credit users should publicly disclose the nature of purchased and retired credits.
5. Public claims by credit users should accurately reflect the climate impact of retired credits and should only rely on credits that meet high integrity standards.
6. Market participants should contribute to efforts that improve market integrity.
7. Policymakers and market participants should facilitate efficient market participation and seek to lower transaction costs.

The recent USDA announcements once again suggest that there are many issues for farmers considering engaging in the carbon market.  Caution is usually warranted when dealing with a new, developing market.  For farmers who do want to enter into the carbon market, be sure to refer to our posts on Carbon as a commodity for agriculture? and Considering carbon farming? Take time to understand carbon agreements.  The Farmers Legal Action Group also has an excellent publication on Farmers Guide to Carbon Market Contracts in Minnesota, also useful for Ohio farmers.