Business and Financial

When does the business of hosting weddings on a farm qualify as “agritourism” under Ohio law?  That was the question faced by Ohio’s Second District Court of Appeals in a legal battle between Caesarscreek Township and the owners of a farm property in Greene County.  The answer to the question is important because local zoning can’t prohibit the hosting of weddings and similar events if they fall under Ohio’s definition of “agritourism.”  Those that don’t qualify as “agritourism” are subject to local zoning prohibitions and regulations.  According to the court’s recent decision, the determination depends largely upon the facts of the situation, but merely taking place on an agricultural property does not automatically qualify a wedding or event as “agritourism.”

The case regards the Lusardis, who own a 13.5 acre property in Caesarscreek Township containing a pole barn and outbuilding, a one-acre pond, several acres of woods, and an eight acre hayfield on which the Lusardis had produced hay for several years.  Their plan was to offer corn mazes, hayrides and celebratory events like weddings and receptions on the property.  To do so, the Lusardis had to demonstrate to the township’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) that their activities fit within Ohio’s definition of “agritourism” and thus must be allowed according to Ohio law.   That definition in ORC 901.80 states:

“Agritourism means an agriculturally related educational, entertainment, historical, cultural, or recreational activity, including you-pick operations or farm markets, conducted on a farm that allows or invites members of the general public to observe, participate in or enjoy that activity.”

In applying the definition of agritourism to its local zoning, Caesarscreek Township requires an agritourism provider to explain how the “educational, entertainment, historical, cultural or recreational” activities it plans to offer are “agriculturally related” to the property and the surrounding agricultural community.  In their agritourism application with the township, the Lusardis explained that guests could use the property to celebrate an agriculturally themed event, enjoy the scenery, hay fields and woods, learn about plants and wildlife, have bonfires, play corn hole, fish, and get married outside, in the woods, or in the hayfield.  The township zoning inspector, however, testified to the BZA that he did not see a relationship between weddings and receptions and the Lusardi property itself.  A wedding or reception would not have a “basic relationship” to the existing agricultural use of the property or the surrounding area and the agricultural use of the property was incidental, at best, to the wedding and reception business, argued the zoning inspector.

The township BZA agreed with the zoning inspector.  It determined that the Lusardi’s corn maze and hayride activities qualified as agritourism, but held that any celebratory events such as weddings would not be “agriculturally related” to the property and thus did not fit within the definition of agritourism and could not take place on the property.  The Lusardis appealed the BZA’s decision to the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, whose duty under Ohio law was to determine whether the BZA’s conclusion was “unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record.”  The common pleas court found the BZA’s conclusion reasonable and upheld the decision.  The BZA’s determination that weddings don’t bear a general relevance to agriculture was understandable, whereas corn mazes and hay rides do bear a reasonable relationship to agriculture, the court stated.

The Lusardis appealed the common pleas court decision to the Ohio Court of Appeals.  Its duty in reviewing the case was to determine whether the common pleas court had abused its discretion by making a judgment on a question of law that is “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.”  The appellate court concluded that the common pleas court had not abused its discretion by affirming the BZA decision.  Agreeing that it was reasonable for the BZA to conclude that the celebratory events were not sufficiently related to the agricultural property, the court stated that “just because an activity is on agricultural property does not make it “agritourism” and is not, by itself, enough to make the activity “agriculturally related.” 

The “what does ‘agriculturally related’ mean?” question is one we’ve pondered since the Ohio legislature created the definition of agritourism in 2016.   An important rule to draw from this case is that the answer must be made on a case-by-case basis.  The Lusardis asked the court of appeals to decide whether any celebratory event on an agricultural property would be agriculturally related and would therefore constitute “agritourism” as a matter of law, but the court refused to do so.  “Whether a particular activity constitutes “agritourism” is an issue that shades to gray quite quickly,” stated the court.  “Given the great variety of factual situations, we decline to rule on whether celebratory events constitute “agritourism” as a matter of law.”

Also noteworthy is the court’s attention to the BZA’s analysis of the activities that were to take place on the Lusardi property.  The BZA pointed to a lack of evidence that any crops or flowers grown on the property would be used in the events.  Also remiss was evidence that the only agricultural crop grown on the property—hay—was somehow connected to the celebratory events that would take place.  The court observed that these evidentiary flaws supported the BZA’s conclusion that the Lusardis were proposing an event venue with an incidental theme rather than an agricultural activity with an incidental event. 

Wedding barn issues have been a cause of controversy in recent years.  The Lusardi v. Caesarscreek Township decision follows an Ohio Supreme Court case earlier this year regarding whether a wedding barn fit within the agricultural exemption from zoning for buildings and structures used “primarily for vinting and selling wine.”  In that case, the Supreme Court determined that making and selling wine was the primary use of the barn and that weddings and events were incidental, yet were related to the production because event guests had to purchase the wine produced at the farm.  Taken together, these cases illustrate the importance Ohio’s agricultural zoning exemption places on production activities.  Where agricultural goods are being produced and sold, additional incidental activities such as celebratory events that are related to agricultural production will likely fall under the agricultural exemption.  But as the Lusardi case illustrates, local zoning may prohibit celebratory events that don’t have a clear connection to agricultural production and instead appear to be the primary rather than incidental use of the property.

Read the case of Lusardi v. Caesarscreek Township Board of Zoning Appeals here.

It took five months of negotiation, but the Ohio General Assembly has enacted a controversial bill that grants immunity from civil liability for coronavirus injuries, deaths, or losses. Governor DeWine signed House Bill 606 on September 14, stating that it strikes a balance between reopening the economy and keeping Ohioans safe.  The bill will be effective in 90 days. 

The bill’s statement of findings and declaration of intent illustrate why it faced disagreement within the General Assembly.  After stating its findings that business owners are unsure of the tort liability they may face when reopening after COVID-19, that businesses need certainty because recommendations on how to avoid COVID-19 change frequently, that individuals who decide to go out in public places should bear responsibility for taking steps to avoid exposure to COVID-19, that nothing in existing Ohio law established duties on business and premise owners to prevent exposure to airborne germs and viruses, and that the legislature has not delegated authority to Ohio’s Executive Branch to create new legal duties for business and premises owners, the General Assembly made a clear declaration of intent in the bill:  “Orders and recommendations from the Executive Branch, from counties and local municipalities, from boards of health and other agencies, and from any federal government agency do not create any new legal duties for purposes of tort liability” and “are presumed to be irrelevant to the issue of the existence of a duty or breach of a duty….and inadmissible at trial to establish proof of a duty or breach of a duty in tort actions.”

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Diane Grendell (R-Chesterland), refers to it as the “Good Samaritan Expansion Bill.”  That name relates to one of the two types of immunity in the bill, a temporary qualified immunity for coronavirus-based claims against health care providers.  In its original version of H.B. 606, the House of Representatives included only the health care immunity provisions.  Of interest to farms and other businesses are the bill’s general immunity provisions, however, added to the final legislation by the Senate.   

General immunity from coronavirus claims

The new law will prohibit a person from bringing a civil action that seeks damages for injury, death or loss to a person or property allegedly caused by exposure to or transmission of coronavirus, with one exception.  The civil immunity does not apply if the exposure to or transmission of coronavirus resulted from a defendant’s “reckless conduct,” “intentional misconduct,” or “willful or wanton misconduct.”  “Reckless conduct” means disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that conduct or circumstances are likely to cause exposure to or transmission of coronavirus and having “heedless indifference” to the consequences.

Government guidelines don’t create legal duties

Consistent with the bill’s stated intent, the new law clarifies that a claimant cannot assert liability based on a failure to follow government guidelines for coronavirus.  The law states that any government order, recommendation or guideline for coronavirus does not create a duty of care that can be enforced through a civil cause of action.  A person may not admit such orders and guidelines as evidence of a legal right, duty of care or new legal cause of action. 

No class actions

Another provision in the new law also prohibits a class action that alleges liability for coronavirus exposure or transmission if the law’s general immunity provisions do not apply.

Time period covered

The general immunity provisions apply only to a specified period of time:  from March 9, 2020, when the Governor declared a state of emergency due to COVID-19, until September 30, 2021.

Workers compensation not addressed

An earlier version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives would have classified coronavirus as an “occupational disease” and would have allowed food workers, first responders and corrections officers to receive workers’ compensation benefits for the disease.  However, the Senate removed the workers’ compensation provisions from the final bill based on its belief that the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation is already covering 85% of such claims.

What does H.B. 606 mean for agricultural businesses?

The new law provides certainty that agricultural businesses won’t be assailed by lawsuits seeking damages for COVID-19.  A person claiming harm from exposure to COVID-19 at an agricultural business will only be successful upon a showing that the business acted recklessly and with intentional disregard or indifference to the possibility of COVID-19.  That’s a high evidentiary standard and burden of proof for a claimant. 

As is often the case when an immunity bill is enacted, however, there are several reasons why businesses should not let down their guards because of the new law.   Note that while the law rejects government guidelines and orders about COVID-19 as a basis for placing legal duties upon businesses, following such guidelines and recommendations can counter an allegation of reckless or indifferent behavior about COVID-19 exposure or transmission.  And there can be consequences from COVID-19 other than litigation, such as impacts on customer and employee health and safety, workers’ compensation claims, and negative publicity from an alleged COVID-19 outbreak.  Continuing to take reasonable actions to manage COVID-19 and documenting actions taken can enhance the certainty offered by Ohio’s new COVID-19 immunity law.

Read H.B. 606 here.

Farming has always been an unpredictable way to make a living, and that unpredictability can lead to financial stress.  Whether caused by down markets, weather impacts, rising input costs, high land values, poor decision making,  medical issues or a host of other unforeseen circumstances, serious financial stress can be a reality a farmer must face. 

Filing bankruptcy can be one way to address farm financial stress.  But because of its consequences, bankruptcy is not a decision to take lightly and might not be the best option.  Our newest resources target farmers who are dealing with financial challenges and considering bankruptcy.   Facing Farm Financial Stress:  An Overview of the Bankruptcy Option offers a seven part series of law bulletins and infographics focused on bankruptcy issues for farmers.  The series covers:

• Assessing the bankruptcy option.  Steps to take and considerations to make when dealing with financial stress, including alternatives to bankruptcy and farmer to farmer advice from families that have been through the bankruptcy process.
• An overview of bankruptcy law.  We explain and visualize the legal process, people, institutions and legal terms involved in bankrptcy with a focus on Chapter 12, the law reserved for qualifying farmers and fishermen.
• Thriving after a farm bankruptcy.  Ideas for setting a course to attain farm financial stability and reestablish relationships after filing bankruptcy, including farmer to farmer advice from those who've survived bankruptcy.

Our team of authors, which included myself along with OSU's David Marrison, Hannah Scott and Chris Zoller--created the resources with support from the USDA's National Agriculture Library and in partnership with the National Agricultural Law Center (NALC).  The series is available on our Farm Office site here or on NALC's site here.

Written by Barry Ward, Director, OSU Income Tax Schools

Significant tax related changes as a result of the new legislation passed in response to COVID-19 have created some questions and perhaps consternation over the past few months.  Taxpayers and tax professionals alike are wrestling with how these changes may affect tax returns this year and beyond.  OSU Income Tax Schools is offering a Summer Update to address these issues and other important information for tax professionals and taxpayers.

The OSU Income Tax Schools Summer Update: Federal Income Tax & Financial Update Webinar is scheduled for August 13, 2020 and will be presented as a webinar using the Zoom platform.

Webinar content

• New tax provisions implemented by the CARES Act and Families First Coronavirus Response Act and how to account for them such as the new net operating loss rules, the payroll tax credit, etc.
• Paycheck Protection Program Loan Issues: loan applications, forgiveness issues and the IRS ruling on loan expenditures that are forgiven under PPP are not tax deductible and how to account for them in preparing a return, etc.
• Dealing with the IRS in these difficult times.  Also, what it means to the practitioner as to “dos” and don’ts” regarding the announcement that beginning this summer the IRS will allow the electronic filing of amended returns.
• The “Hot IRS Audit Issues – Pitfalls for S Corporations and Partnerships."  Basis of entities as to the rules and related rulings, how to track basis in these entities, creation of basis where none had been computed in prior tax years, losses in excess of basis and when they are not allowed, definition of an excess distribution, taxation of excess distributions, distribution of appreciated property,  conversion of C corporations to S corporations - do and don'ts, computation of the Built-In Gains Tax, inference and imputation of a reasonable wage for purposes of the computation of the qualified business income deduction, etc.
• Other rulings, developments, and cases.

Webinar personnel

• John Lawrence, CPA, John M. Lawrence & Associates: Instructor
• Barry Ward, Director, OSU Income Tax Schools: Co-Host & Question Wrangler
• Julie Strawser, Program Assistant, OSU Income Tax Schools: Co-Host and Webinar Manager

Details

• August 13^th, 2020:  10 am – 3:30 pm (lunch break: noon – 12:50 pm)
• Cost: $150
• Registration information and link to the registration page is at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/osu-income-tax-schools
• This workshop is designed to be interactive with questions from the audience encouraged.

Continuing education offered

• Accountancy Board of Ohio (5 hours)
• IRS Office of Professional Responsibility (5 hours)
• Continuing Legal Education, Ohio Supreme Court (4.5 hours)