legislation
We’ve talked about data centers extensively over the past few months. We’ve shared numerous blog posts, and data centers were our topic for our last Farm Office Live Ag Law & Policy Roundtable. If you missed that discussion, it is available to watch here. When we hosted that discussion, the Ohio House was signaling that it might come back to consider House Bill 646, which appears to be main vehicle for data center legislation. That did not come to pass, and now both chambers of the General Assembly are on recess until November. How would the current version of H.B. 646 address data centers?
House Bill 646
H.B. 646, available here in its current form, has gone through many changes since it was first introduced in January by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Deeter (R-Norwalk). Its first iteration, which we discussed here, would have created a Data Center Commission with 13 appointed members. The Commission would have been tasked with looking at the impacts of data centers and submitting its findings to the Governor and the General Assembly. However, that version of the bill was scrapped in May when the Select Committee on Data Centers, with members from both chambers, was created. After the Committee held hearings in May and June, a new version of H.B. 646 was introduced. The current version of H.B. 646 would place restrictions on data centers built and operated in Ohio.
Electric use
One of the main focuses of the bill is electric use by data centers. It requires any data centers with a monthly maximum electricity demand of 250 megawatts or greater to supply its electricity using sources that offset its consumption from the electrical grid. Furthermore, it requires all direct costs for retail electric services be paid by the data center operators and prohibits other Ohio customers from paying for these costs. Further, the bill would create a separate electric rate class for data centers.
Water use
The amount of water used and discharged by data centers is often cited among those worried about the environmental impacts of the tech hubs. H.B. 646 would require data center owners or utilities that solely supply power to data centers to measure and report the data center’s consumptive use of water. The bill also requires data centers to implement best industry practices for water conservation and water-use efficiency in the design, construction, and operation of the facility. Data centers would also have to report their water usage annually to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and their water quality measurements quarterly to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). ODNR and OEPA, in turn, would be required to file an annual report on data center water usage and quality to the legislature.
Nondisclosure agreements
H.B. 646 contains language that would make nondisclosure agreements subject to public records requests. Thus, it would allow citizens to look up nondisclosure agreements made between data centers and individuals, local governments, etc.
Tax incentives
Finally, the most recent version of H.B. 646 would address tax breaks for data centers. The bill limits property tax exemptions for data centers in certain situations, and requires local governments granting property tax exemptions to obtain a security in the form of a surety bond or cash, certificates of deposit, or government securities from data center developers. The bill also excludes data centers from qualifying for megaproject tax incentives.
Most notably, the bill would also limit sales tax breaks for data centers. Governor DeWine did pause the 100% sales tax break for data centers in May, and H.B. 646 would change it to 50%. This 50% sales tax break appears to be one of the reasons that the General Assembly did not pass H.B. 646 before the legislative recess. Reportedly, some lawmakers wanted the tax break eliminated altogether. As a result, the bill remains in the Senate Energy Committee until lawmakers return to Columbus in November. We will have to wait until then to see if there are any changes made to the bill, including the 50% sales tax break.
Other data center bills
H.B. 646 was fast tracked by the legislature and seems as though it is the data center legislation most poised to pass when they return in November. With that being said, there are several other bills addressing data centers that we have been following. It appears some ideas from these bills have found their way into the newest version of H.B. 646. It’s possible additional pieces of these bills could be incorporated into H.B. 646 when the General Assembly returns, or that they could pass on their own.
House Bill 695—While this bill, sponsored by Representatives Bird (R-New Richmond) Stewart (R-Ashville) does not address data centers directly, it does target local elected officials who could have knowledge of such developments. The bill would prohibit county commissioners, township trustees, and village mayors and council members from knowingly entering into nondisclosure agreements that prohibit “disclosing, discussing, describing, or commenting on” matters related to official duties, a repeated complaint of citizens. Note that H.B. 646 would address nondisclosure agreements regarding data centers in a different way—by making them subject to public records requests. H.B. 695 had its third hearing in the House Local Government Committee on June 3.
House Bill 706—H.B. 706, sponsored by Representatives Rader (D-Lakewood) and Thomas (R-Jefferson) focuses on the infrastructure impacts of data centers. The bill aims to “ensure costs of new infrastructure and grid upgrades needed to serve these facilities are not shifted onto existing Ohio ratepayers.” The bill would require long-term service agreements of at least 12 years with electric utilities for data center customers, require the Public Utilities Commission to create standards for interconnection practices, load study deposits, and milestone requirements. It would also prohibit utilities from recovering data center costs from other customer classes, set minimum billing standards, and require financial assurance prior to facility construction. H.B. 706 had its third hearing in House Energy on June 3.
House Bill 784—Sponsored by Representatives Cockley (D-Columbus) and Lett (D-Columbus), H.B. 784 would require any data center that withdraws from waters of the state to submit monthly and annual data center water consumption reports to the Division of Water Resources. The bill also contains non-disclosure prohibitions similar to H.B. 695. H.B. 784 was referred to the House Energy Committee in March.
Senate Bill 381—Introduced by Senator Weinstein (D-Hudson), S.B. 381 would require interconnection approval from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio prior to connecting a data center with a monthly maximum demand of more than 25,000 kilowatt hours. The bill was referred to the Senate Public Utilities Commission in March.
We will continue to closely monitor data center legislation in Ohio when the General Assembly returns this fall!
Throughout the first half of this year, we have reported on the rising costs of fertilizer and other inputs here on the Ag Law Blog. We talked about the introduction of the Lowering Input Costs for American Farmers Act here, we’ve discussed the class action lawsuits making price fixing allegations against fertilizer companies here, we’ve shared a blog post about the Iran conflict and its contribution to rising costs here, and we’ve discussed the issue on Farm Office live (you can view our previous videos and upcoming schedule here). The problem of rising input costs is certainly top of mind for many producers this Spring. It also appears to be on the mind of members of Congress. In addition to the Lowering Input Costs for American Farmers Act, the Homegrown Fertilizer Act was also introduced in March with the aim of increasing domestic fertilizer production and thus lowering fertilizer costs. The bill is bipartisan and co-sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Thune (R-SD) and Roger Marshall (R-KS).
How would the bill boost domestic fertilizer production?
If passed, the Homegrown Fertilizer Act would provide USDA grants and direct or guaranteed loans to “assist eligible entities in increasing or expanding the manufacturing, processing, and storage of fertilizer and nutrient alternatives in the United States.” An “eligible entity” must be located in the U.S. and must be one of the following: an independently owned and operated business, a nonprofit organization, a producer-owned cooperative or corporation, a certified benefit corporation, an Indian Tribe, or a State or local government. In an effort to increase competition, the bill expressly bars fertilizer manufacturers, processors, and distributors above a certain market share from receiving funds.
Under the bill, USDA grants of up to $100,000,000, could be awarded to eligible entities. However, those businesses, nonprofits, governments, Tribes, and cooperatives who are awarded grant money would also be responsible for procuring non-federal matching funds equal to the amount of the grant they receive. The bill prioritizes projects that improve fertilizer production methods, efficiency, and competition within the ag nutrient market, increase the number of fertilizer products available, reduce prices for farmers, and benefit agricultural commodity production in the United States. Fertilizer and nutrient businesses, nonprofits, cooperatives, etc. eligible for grants would be able to use the money for the following purposes:
- Building a new facility, buying an existing facility, or purchasing land for a facility;
- Covering predevelopment costs, such as engineering and other professional fees;
- Providing working capital to expand capacity or increase outputs;
- Modernizing or expanding an existing facility, including making updates to existing buildings or constructing new buildings on site;
- Purchasing or modernizing processing and manufacturing equipment;
- Developing, customizing, and installing equipment, devices, and technology to improve processing functions, worker conditions, or safety;
- Installing or updating equipment that reduces emissions, increases fertilizer use efficiency, or improves air and water quality;
- Ensuring legal compliance with packaging and labeling requirements, such as sealing, boxing, labeling, and conveying;
- Confirming legal compliance with occupational and safety regulations;
- Engaging in workforce recruitment, training, apprenticeships, and retention to ensure expansion projects are adequately staffed;
- Increasing domestic storage of fertilizer or nutrient alternatives; and
- Such other activities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
The hope of the sponsors is that USDA grants and loans used for the above purposes would bolster domestic fertilizer production, creating a more competitive marketplace for fertilizer, resulting in lower prices for farmers. You can read full text of the bill here. We will continue to follow this important issue for our readers.
Tags: fertilizer, Congressional legislation, legislation, USDA funding, USDA loans, USDA
Comments: 0
The Lowering Input Costs for American Farmers Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, April 28, 2026. Sponsored by Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), and co-sponsored by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), and Ernst (R-Iowa), the bill would eliminate tariffs on phosphate fertilizer and related products coming from Morocco. We have previously discussed the rising costs of fertilizer and other inputs both on Farm Office Live (upcoming schedule and previous videos available here) and in this blog post which examined the conflict in Iran and its contribution to rising prices.
What steps would the bill take to lower costs?
As mentioned above, the bill would eliminate tariffs on phosphate fertilizer and related products imported from the Kingdom of Morocco. Eliminating these tariffs would be significant, since Morocco is the leading exporter of phosphate fertilizers, holding about 70% of the world’s phosphate rock reserves. Since the Trump Administration took office in 2025, baseline tariffs on Moroccan goods have reached up to 10%. If the bill is enacted, the elimination of any tariffs on phosphate fertilizer and related products would take place within 7 days of enactment.
Secondly, if passed, the bill would revoke countervailing duty orders on imports from Morocco within 4 business days. These countervailing duties were first imposed in March of 2021, after Mosaic, a U.S. fertilizer producer, filed a complaint against the OCP Group, a phosphate exporter owned by the Moroccan government. According to congress.gov, a countervailing duty (CVD) is an additional tax or tariff placed on imported goods to offset certain kinds of subsidies provided by an exporting country. (If you’d like to learn more about CVDs, congress.gov has a longer explanation available here). Here, the U.S. (the importer) placed an additional tax on phosphate fertilizer and other related products coming from Morocco (the exporter), because the U.S. felt that the Moroccan government was unfairly subsidizing its phosphate industry. Research conducted by the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University asserts that CVDs on phosphorus fertilizers have cost U.S. producers $6.9 billion from 2021 to 2025. Thus, revoking the CVDs on phosphate products from Morocco would likely mean a substantial price cut for producers buying phosphate fertilizer.
Both the tariffs and the countervailing duties on phosphate from Morocco have contributed to higher prices for U.S. producers. By eliminating these tariffs, the bill would lower the price of phosphate fertilizers for American farmers. The text of the Lowering Input Costs for American Farmers Act is available here. For additional reading, a press release from Senator Marshall’s office about the bill is available here. We will be sure to keep you updated as the bill progresses through Congress.
Tags: legislation, Congressional legislation, phosphate fertilizers, fertilizer, tariffs
Comments: 0
Governor DeWine signed H.B. 96, the two-year state operating budget, into law on June 30. Over the last few months, we have reported on provisions in the biennial budget related to agriculture. In this week’s installment, we will examine the changes the bill makes to what is permissible in the practice of veterinary medicine in the state of Ohio.
In the beginning of June, we reported on S.B. 60, which would allow veterinarians to practice telehealth in Ohio. You can find our previous post here. Instead of being passed as a stand-alone bill, the provisions about veterinary telehealth were included in the state operating budget, H.B. 96. Looking broadly at the provisions included in H.B. 96, there are four main changes to veterinary law. The language in the budget bill:
- Allows the use of veterinary telehealth services;
- Allows a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) to be established via a telehealth visit in some cases;
- Creates special requirements for the use of telehealth services for livestock animals; and
- Allows veterinarians to prescribe medication via telehealth visit with certain exceptions.
Telehealth services for veterinary care permitted
During the Covid-19 pandemic and in the years following, most of us have become familiar with visiting our doctors via telehealth appointments using a computer or smartphone. H.B. 96 allows this appointment method to also be used in veterinary care in the state of Ohio.
Under the budget bill, a licensed veterinarian may conduct the practice of veterinary medicine via telehealth services if all the following apply:
- The veterinarian obtains the informed consent from the client, including an acknowledgement that the standards of care required by Ohio law equally apply to in-person and telehealth visits. The veterinarian shall maintain documentation of the consent for at least three years after receiving the informed consent.
- The veterinarian provides the client with the veterinarian's name and contact information and secures an alternate means of contacting the client if the telehealth visit is interrupted. Following the telehealth visit, the veterinarian shall make available to the client an electronic or written record of the visit. The electronic or written record shall include the veterinarian's license number.
- Before conducting an evaluation of a patient via a telehealth visit, the veterinarian advises the client of all the following:
- The veterinarian may ultimately recommend an in-person visit with the veterinarian or another licensed veterinarian;
- The veterinarian is prohibited under federal law from prescribing certain drugs or medications based only on a telehealth visit;
- The appointment for a telehealth visit may be terminated at any time.
- A licensed veterinarian may prescribe drugs or medications after establishing a veterinary-client patient relationship via telehealth services within certain parameters and with certain exceptions (see the “Prescribing medication via telehealth visit” heading below).
Once the veterinarian shares all of this information with their client, and if the rules for prescribing drugs are followed, a telehealth veterinary visit is legally permitted in the state of Ohio under the language of H.B. 96.
Changes to veterinary-client-patient relationships
Much like a doctor-patient relationship takes place between a doctor and a person who is their patient, a veterinary-client-patient relationship takes place between a veterinarian, their client (the animal’s owner), and the patient (the animal). According to Ohio law, a VCPR relationship exists when the following conditions have been met:
- A veterinarian assumes responsibility for making clinical judgments regarding the health of a patient and the need for medical treatment, medical services, or both for the patient, and the client has agreed to follow the veterinarian's instructions regarding the patient.
- The veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of the patient to initiate at least a general or preliminary diagnosis of the medical condition of the patient. In order to demonstrate that the veterinarian has sufficient knowledge, the veterinarian must have seen the patient recently, and must be personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the patient by doing any of the following:
- Making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the patient is kept;
- Examining the patient in person; or
- Under the new provisions of H.B. 96, by examining the patient in real time via telehealth.
- The veterinarian is readily available for a follow-up evaluation, or has arranged for emergency coverage, in the event the patient suffers adverse reactions to the treatment regimen, or the treatment regimen fails.
H.B. 96 keeps previous Ohio law concerning the establishment of a VCPR intact, but it also broadens the law by allowing for “sufficient knowledge” of a patient to be gained by a telehealth examination. However, as we will discuss below, this is not the case when it comes to livestock animals.
Telehealth for livestock
Up until now, we have discussed requirements for veterinary telehealth broadly. When a telehealth visit includes a client who raises livestock for human food consumption, the new language is a bit more strict. In the case of livestock, a VCPR must be established in person prior to the use of telehealth services. While a VCPR for non-livestock animals may be established via a telehealth appointment, VCPRs involving livestock must first include that in-person meeting. This means that a veterinarian may not treat or diagnose an injury or illness in a livestock animal using telehealth if the veterinarian has not previously established an in-person VCPR with the patient and client. Once an in-person VCPR is established with respect to the livestock, the veterinarian may subsequently treat the livestock via telehealth appointment.
That being said, the language in H.B. 96 allows veterinarian may give tele-advice to a client raising livestock prior to establishing a VCPR in person. Tele-advice means a veterinarian giving “health information, opinion, or guidance that is not intended to diagnose, treat, issue certificates of veterinary inspection, or issue prognoses of the physical or behavioral illness or injury of an animal.” According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, tele-advice can consist of broad recommendations via phone, text, or internet. Examples include recommendations that animals receive annual wellness checks, or that animals should receive preventive medicine to prevent worms or other pests. Under the new language, a veterinarian may give these kinds of general tele-advice regarding livestock, but they may not specifically treat or diagnose a livestock animal using telehealth without first establishing a VCPR in-person.
Prescribing medication via telehealth visit
Is a veterinarian permitted to prescribe medication for an animal via a telehealth visit under the new language? The answer is yes, but certain rules apply. After a VCPR relationship is established, a veterinarian may issue a prescription lasting up to fourteen days for the patient via tele-health visit. The veterinarian may additionally issue one refill of the medication for up to fourteen days if another tele-health visit with the patient and client occurs. However, for additional refills, the veterinarian must see the patient in person. Remember that for livestock animals, the VCPR must be established in person before a veterinarian may prescribe drugs. Further, a veterinarian may not prescribe a controlled substance (see the list of controlled substances in section 3719.01 of the Ohio Revised Code) to a patient unless a physical examination takes place in person.
With the passage of this language in H.B. 96, Ohio becomes the eighth state to allow the practice of veterinary medicine via telehealth. Other states include Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Jersey, Vermont, and Virginia. Proponents of the language cite that it will make veterinary care more accessible in the state, and that it will lessen the stress caused to animals by transporting them to and from a vet’s office H.B. 96 becomes effective on September 30, 2025. To read the budget bill in its entirety, click here.
Tags: Ohio legislation, legislation, Animals, livestock, veterinary telehealth, veterinarians
Comments: 0
Welcome to our third installment in our continuing series on provisions affecting agriculture in the recently passed State Operating Budget, or House Bill 96. Our previous blog posts in this series focused on changes to ag permits and licensing and to pesticide application laws, which you can find here and here. This week, our focus will be on the effects of H.B. 96 on apiaries throughout the state of Ohio.
Adjustments and additions to definitions
Under current Ohio law, an “apiary” is defined as “any place where one or more colonies or nuclei of bees are kept,” and “queen rearing apiaries” are defined as “any apiary in which queen bees are reared for sale or gift.” H.B. 96 changes the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to “any apiary in which queens are raised or purchased for sale, trade, or gift; or otherwise distributed or used to create, for sale, trade or gift, nucs, packages or colonies.” Thus, the budget bill expands the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to not only include apiaries where queens are raised for distribution, but also apiaries where queens are purchased for distribution in order to create bee colonies.
H.B. 96 also adds a definition to the law governing apiaries. In the budget bill, “nuc” is defined as a small colony of bees in a hive box to which all of the following applies:
- The hive box contains three to five frames.
- The hive box contains a laying queen bee and the queen’s progeny in egg, larval, pupa, and adult stages.
- The small colony has honey and a viable population sufficient enough to develop into a full-sized economy.
These changes to definitions under the apiary law appear to have been made to increase the number of apiaries ODA has the authority to regulate, as you will see in the next section. The ultimate goal of these changes seems to be for ODA to have more oversight over the health and safety of apiaries in Ohio.
Compliance, registrations, certification
Ohio apiarists should also be aware that H.B. 96 makes changes to compliance requirements under the apiary law. New language in H.B. 96 requires any person engaged in the rearing of queen bees to have a written compliance agreement with ODA. Under the agreement, the person must agree to comply with the requirements stipulated by ODA.
Furthermore, new language states that each person intending to sell, trade, gift, or otherwise distribute queen bees, packaged bees, nucs, or colonies will now be required to request that ODA certify all of a person’s queen rearing apiaries. A certification fee of fifty dollars or another amount specified by ODA in rulemaking is also created. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the introduction of this $50 fee will bring in approximately $41,000 annually to benefit the Plant Pest Program Fund.
H.B. 96 authorizes ODA to require all queen rearing apiaries to be inspected as specified in rules at least annually, whereas the previous language required inspections once each year with no authority to alter inspection frequency. This change would seemingly give ODA the ability to inspect apiaries more frequently, and as a result, they could keep a better eye on any problems with individual apiaries. Previously, if such an inspection found that there was a serious bee disease or that Africanized honey bees were present, bee owners were subject to certain rules. The new language also includes the finding of bee “pests” to trigger these rules, which appears to give ODA another tool to keep bee populations throughout the state safe. Once disease or pest problem is resolved, ODA can issue an official certificate attesting to this. Producers must include a copy of this certificate with each queen, nuc, or colony they distribute. Such a certificate will expire on May 31st of the following year and may be renewed annually. H.B. 96 also outlaws the distribution of bees, honeycombs, or used beekeeping equipment that contains a serious bee disease or pest.
Ohio law requires any person owning or possessing bees to register with ODA, and H.B. 96 makes some tweaks to this registration process. Under the new language, a person must apply for registration on or before the first day of June each year, or thereafter within thirty days after owning or possessing the bees or moving bees into Ohio from another state. Previously, an owner had ten days to apply for registration, so the new language gives people a bit more time. New language also requires owners to register each of their apiaries, regardless of whether the apiary is located at their place of residence or elsewhere. H.B. 96 also eliminates the five dollar registration fee.
H.B. 96 also gives the director of ODA the power to suspend any apiary registration, certificate, permit, or compliance agreement for cause.
When will these changes become effective?
The budget bill becomes effective on September 30, 2025. The Ohio State Beekeepers Association (OSBA) has been working with ODA throughout the month of July to get more clarity about what the language changes mean for beekeepers, and how regulations will be carried out under the new law. OSBA’s page dedicated to information about H.B. 96 is available here. ODA’s website on apiaries is located here.
As always, H.B. 96 is available in its entirety here. Stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for more updates on the State Budget and its effect on agriculture.
After months of deliberation, the General Assembly delivered H.B. 96, the two-year state operating budget, to Governor Mike DeWine. Governor DeWine signed the bill into law on June 30, vetoing several provisions. DeWine issued a number of line-item vetoes, and the General Assembly plans to hold a session on July 21 to override the vetoes related to property tax provisions in the bill. There is also a chance that the General Assembly may override additional vetoes unrelated to property tax in the fall. While we will certainly keep an eye on these possible veto overrides, the provisions of the budget bill affecting agriculture remain mostly intact. This is the second in our continuing series of blog posts about the newly passed state operating budget and its implications for agriculture in Ohio. In today’s installment, we will be looking into how H.B. 96 modifies Ohio’s pesticide application statutes.
Pesticide-related licensing, registration, and permitting
If you sell or distribute pesticides, apply pesticides, or hire someone to do so on your farm, H.B. 96 puts some changes in motion that you should be aware of. The first affects distributors of pesticide products. The cost to register each pesticide product they distribute has increased from $150 to $250, with a late fee of $125 if registration renewal is filed after the deadline. Another change affects pesticide businesses. Under the new law, a pesticide business must obtain a license for every location that is owned by the business. Furthermore, a copy of the license must be displayed at each business location.
Turning to pesticide applicators, the examination for those applying to become licensed pesticide applicators was previously free, but the new language creates a $30 examination fee in addition to the existing $30 licensing fee. In another notable change, H.B. 96 increases the amount of time the Ohio Department of Agriculture can suspend any pesticide license, permit, or registration without a hearing from 10 days to 30 days.
New limits for restricted use pesticides
The most significant change in the law is to who may legally apply restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Under H.B. 96, a state or federally listed RUP may only be used by licensed applicators, whether they apply privately or commercially. Previously, if you were a trained serviceperson acting under direct supervision of a commercial pesticide applicator, or immediate family members and subordinate employees acting under the direct supervision of a private applicator, you would have been permitted to apply RUPs. The new language does not permit any “use” of RUPs by anybody other than a licensed applicator. The definition of “using” a RUP includes the following:
- Performing pre-application activities involving mixing and loading the pesticide;
- Applying the pesticide;
- Performing other pesticide-related activities, including transporting or storing pesticide containers that have been opened, cleaning equipment, and disposing of excess pesticides, spray mix, equipment wash waters, pesticide containers, and other pesticide-containing materials.
When does this all become effective?
One question many will have is when the language regarding who may legally use RUPs will actually go into effect. While most legislation becomes effective 90 days after it is signed into law, these changes are very technical and will likely have to go through a lengthy administrative rulemaking process. According to the Ohio Agribusiness Association, the Ohio Department of Agriculture “has committed to several months’ notice to applicators before any changes go into effect.”
We plan to follow the developing regulations on the use of RUPs very closely and will keep you updated when the new provisions of the law become effective. In the meantime, if you’d like to look into H.B. 96 yourself, it is available here. We will be back next week to discuss more agricultural implications in the budget bill!
Tags: Ohio legislation, legislation, pesticide registration, restricted use pesticides, pesticides
Comments: 0
The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has issued its decision concerning the nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and its beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting requirements.
On Thursday, January 23, 2025, SCOTUS ruled to allow the Government to enforce the CTA, which requires millions of businesses to file BOI reports. The justices stayed, or lifted, the nationwide injunction that had been blocking the CTA's enforcement. This decision permits the government to proceed with implementing the CTA while its merits are reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is scheduled to hold oral arguments on March 25.
What does this all mean?
Although this decision lifted the injunction against the CTA, there is another lawsuit that has placed the CTA reporting requirements on hold. See our post on the Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury for more information. As of the time of this publication, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the U.S. Department of Treasury has updated their website to confirm that businesses are not currently under any obligation to file BOI reports. Business owners are encouraged to visit the FinCEN website regularly to stay informed about the latest reporting requirements and deadlines.
The push to repeal the CTA goes beyond the court system.
While multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the CTA, there has also been legislative activity aimed at repealing it. Representative Warren Davidson and Senator Tommy Tubervillehave reintroduced legislation in their respective chambers of Congress to repeal the CTA. These proposals were introduced in the previous congressional session but did not advance. With the new administration and a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress, it will be interesting to see how these efforts progress.
How do I file a BOI report?
Business owners can still voluntarily complete all BOI reporting by visiting the FinCEN website. There is no cost to file a BOI report. However, if a business engages a tax professional, attorney, or other third party to file a BOI report on its behalf, the business will be responsible for covering any professional fees associated with the preparation and submission of the report.
Reporting companies will need the following information: (1) the reporting company’s legal name, (2) tax identification number, (3) jurisdiction of formation, and (4) current U.S. address. For their beneficial owners, reporting companies will need the following information: (1) full legal name, (2) residential address, (3) a form of identification, which must be either a state issued driver’s license, a state/local/tribe-issued ID, a U.S. passport, or a foreign passport, and (4) an image of the identification used in number (3). See our law bulletin for more details on reporting requirements.
Conclusion.
For now, businesses are not required to file BOI reports with FinCEN. However, should the Government appeal the decision in the Smith case, things could change. As always, we will try our best to keep you informed of the latest developments.
Tags: Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, BOI, CTA, corporate transparency act, beneficial ownership information, BOI Reporting, FinCEN, injunction, stay, legislation, Business, Business Owners, beneficial owners
Comments: 0
The holiday season isn't distracting the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee from considering three legislative proposals concerning scenic rivers, small beer brewers, and state agriculture day designations. On December 12, the committee will hear testimony on all three bills. Here’s a summary of the proposals.
S.B. 156 - Designation of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. Senators Bill Reineke (R-Tiffin) and Bob Hackett (R-London) introduced this legislation to revise portions of the Ohio Scenic Rivers Program that were raising concerns from private property owners. The committee will hold its fourth hearing on the bill on December 12. The proposal makes the following changes to the Ohio Scenic River Law:
- Clarifies that the designation of a Wild, Scenic or Recreational River does not grant authority to oversee private activities on private property or enter private land within the river area to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), which administers the program.
- States that the agency has management and oversight of lands along a designated river only for those lands the state owns.
- Requires ODNR to adopt rules to govern the use, visitation, and protection of scenic river lands and to establish facilities and improvements within the areas necessary for visitation, use, restoration, and protection of the lands.
- Clarifies that certain public entities must obtain approval from the ODNR Director to perform certain construction activities within 1,000 feet of a wild, scenic, or recreational river.
- Extends the public comment period following the announcement of intent to designate a new river from 30 days to 60 days.
S.B. 138 – Alcohol Franchise Law exemption for small brewers. This bill introduced by Senator Andrew Brenner (R-Delaware) aims to help small brewers who annually manufacture less than 250,000 barrels (7.75 million gallons) of beer. The bill exempts small brewers from Ohio’s Alcohol Franchise Law, which requires a beer or wine manufacturer to enter into a franchise agreement with a distributor and lays out requirements for the franchise agreement. The exemption would allow small brewers to establish agreements with distributors under their own negotiated terms rather than the state-required terms. S.B. 138 will see its second committee hearing on December 12.
H.B. 162 – Agriculture Appreciation Act. The House of Representatives passed H.B. 162 in October, and it will have its second hearing on December 12. Proposed by Reps. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville), the bill designates the following federal agriculture days as state days in Ohio:
- March 21 of each year as “Agriculture day”;
- The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of each February through the last Saturday in February as "FFA Week";
- October 12 of each year as “Farmer’s Day”;
- The week ending with the second Saturday of March as “4-H Week.”
Keep up with the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee’s activity on the Ohio Senate’s website at https://ohiosenate.gov/committees/agriculture-and-natural-resources.
Tags: legislation, scenic rivers, breweries, 4-H, FFA, agriculture appreciation
Comments: 0
[This is a corrected version of our earlier post, which had the Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program in the wrong place in the blog. That Pilot Program was approved in the budget bill and was not vetoed by the Governor--apologies!]
While Ohio’s “budget bill” is important for funding our agencies and programs, it always contain many provisions that aren’t at all related to the state’s budget. The budget bill provides an opportunity for legislators to throw in interests of all sorts, which tends to add challenges to reaching consensus. Though many worried about having the current budget approved in time, Ohio lawmakers did pass the two-year budget bill, H.B. 33, just ahead of its deadline on June 30.
We’ve been digging through the bill’s 6,000+ pages of budget and non-budget provisions and the Governor’s 44-item veto. Some of the provisions are proposals we’ve seen in other legislation that made their way into the budget bill. Not included in the final package were Senate-approved changes to the Current Agricultural Use Valuation law that would have adjusted reappraisals in 2023, 2024, and 2025. Here’s a summary of items we found of relevance to Ohio agriculture, not including the agency funding allocations. We also summarize three vetoes by the Governor that pulled items from the budget bill.
Township zoning referenda – ORC 519.12 and 519.25
There is now a higher requirement for the number of signatures needed on a petition to subject a township zoning amendment to referendum by placing it on the ballot for a public vote. The bill increased the number of signatures from 8% to 15% of the total vote cast in the township for all candidates for governor in the most recent general election for governor.
Legume inoculators – ORC 907.27 and 907.32
The bill eliminated Ohio’s annual Legume Inoculator’s License requirement for businesses and individuals that apply inoculants to seed. All other requirements for legume inoculants remain unchanged.
Agricultural commodity handlers--Grain Indemnity Fund – ORC 926.18
Ohio’s agricultural commodity handlers law provides reimbursement to a grain depositor if there is a bankruptcy or failure of the grain elevator. The bill revises several parts of the law that provide a depositor with 100% coverage of a grain deposit when there’s a failure:
- If a commodity handler’s license is suspended and the handler failed to pay for the commodities by the date suspension occurred, the new law increases the number of days by which the commodities had to be priced prior to the suspension-- from 30 to 45 days.
- If a commodity handler’s license is suspended and there is a deferred payment agreement between the depositor and the handler, the new law:
- Requires that the deferred payment agreement must be signed by both parties.
- Increases the number of days by which the commodities had to be priced prior to the suspension -- from 90 to 365 days; and
- Increases the number of days by which payment for the commodity must be made pursuant to the deferred payment agreement -- from 90 days to 365 days following the date of delivery.
- Requiring 100% coverage when commodities were delivered and marketed under a delayed price agreement up to two years prior to a handler’s license suspension. The delivery date marked on the receipt tickets determine the two-year period. The bill also states that the Grain Indemnity Fund has no liability if the delayed price agreement was entered into more than two years prior to the commodity handler’s license suspension.
Two circumstances for 100% of loss coverage from the Grain Indemnity Fund remain unchanged by the bill: when the commodities were stored under a bailment agreement and when payment was tendered but subsequently denied. For all other losses, the new law will reduce the fund payment to 75% of the loss. Current law covers 100% of the first $10,000 of the loss and 80% of the remaining dollar value of that loss.
Office of the Migrant Agricultural Ombudsperson – ORC 3733
Current law establishes an Office of the Migrant Agricultural Ombudsperson under the authority of the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS), but the new law eliminates the Ombudsperson. Instead, a currently existing State Monitor Advocate in ODJFS will be responsible for migrant issues and needs, such as collecting and reviewing data on living and working conditions, receiving complaints and alleged violations, conducting on-site reviews, monitoring the provisions of employment services, and connecting job seekers to employers through the Agricultural Recruitment System.
Commercial driver’s license waiver for farm-related service industries – ORC 4506.24
The bill increases the validity period for the CDL waiver for farm-related service industries. Current law limits the total number of days a person may operate under the farm-related service industries waiver to 180, and the bill extends that period to 210 days per calendar year. The bill also allows online renewal of CDL licenses, revises several requirements for third-party CDL skills test examiners, and establishes several prohibitions and penalties for fraudulent acts related to CDL testing.
Income tax – ORC 5747.02
The law includes changes to Ohio’s income tax tables. For the 2023 taxable year, the bill combines the two lowest tax brackets into one and reduces the marginal tax rates. For tax year 2024, the bill further combines tax brackets and reduces the highest tax rate. The Legislative Service Commission provides this chart that summarizes the changes:
Drainage assessment fund – ORC 6133.15
A designated fund for holding funding from the legislature to cover the state’s share of any assessments for drainage improvement projects will be abolished. The change removes only the fund and does not remove the duty of the state to pay its share of any drainage improvement assessments.
Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program
A new Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program will provide relevant programming and support on farming and agriculture to youth living in urban areas. The bill directs the Chancellor of Higher Education to collaborate with Ohio State University Extension and Central State University Extension to offer programming in two to four Ohio counties and to partner with local entities. Funds may also be used to expand programming to urban youth by existing agricultural organizations.
Vetoes by Governor DeWine
The Governor vetoed the following three ag-related items and offered explanations of his reasoning for the vetoes.
Save our Farmland and Protect our National Security Act
The Governor removed a provision that required the Secretary of State to compile a registry of individuals, business, organizations, and governments that constitute a threat to the agricultural production or military defense of Ohio or the U.S. and prohibited anyone on the registry from acquiring agricultural land or acquiring real property located within 25 miles of a military base or land under the jurisdiction of the armed forces. The Act also required property acquired in violation of the bill to escheat to the state, to be sold at public auction. The Governor stated that while “restricting ownership of Ohio farmland protects Ohio’s rich agricultural tradition from adverse interests,” the bill could create unintended economic development consequences by including other non-agricultural property in the foreign ownership restriction.
Auctioneer laws
Governor DeWine vetoed several revisions to Ohio auctioneer law, stating that the revisions removed consumer protections recently enacted in HB 321, which went into effect in 2022. The primary purpose of the revisions was to further exempt internet auctions, including auctions that involve sales of real or personal property through an auction mediation company platform.
Commercial Activity Tax exclusions
The budget bill would have increased the $150,000 threshold for filers subject to the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) to $3 million in 2024 and $6 million in 2025. The Governor pointed out that the language in the bill was unclear, stating that “a technical veto is needed to clarify that the stated excluded amounts represent yearly tax periods,” and also noted that the veto would close an unintended potential loophole, open to exploitation through tax planning.
Visit this page on the Ohio General Assembly’s website for more information on the budget bill, HB 33.
Despite the arrival of summer and continuing disagreements over the state budget, Ohio legislators have been working on several pieces of legislation relevant to Ohio agriculture. All of the proposals are at the committee level but may see action before the Senate and House after the budget bill process ends. Here’s a summary of the ag related proposals currently under consideration.
Senate Bill 111 – Urban Agriculture
Senator Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo) targets barriers for farmers in urban settings in SB 111, which has had three hearings before the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. OSU Extension, the Ohio Municipal League, and several farmers have testified in support of the proposal, which contains three components:
- Establishes an Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program to provide youth between the ages of six and eighteen living in urban areas with programming and support for farming and agriculture. The bill would appropriate $250,000 over 2024 and 2025 for the pilot, to be administered by OSU Extension and Central State Extension.
- Exempts temporary greenhouses, such as hoop houses, from the Ohio Building Code, consistent with Ohio law’s treatment of other agricultural buildings and structures.
- Codifies the Department of Taxation’s current treatment of separate smaller parcels of agricultural land under the same farming operation, which allows the acreages to be combined to meet the 10 acre eligibility requirement for Current Agricultural Use Valuation.
House Bill 64 – Eminent Domain
A proposal to make Ohio’s eminent domain laws more favorable to landowners remains on hold in the House Civil Justice Committee. HB 64 is receiving more opposition than support, with dozens of parties testifying against it in its fourth hearing on May 23. Read more about the proposal in our previous blog post.
House Bill 162 - Agriculture Appreciation Act
Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville) introduced HB 162 on May 1 and the bill received quick and unanimous approval from the House Agriculture Committee on May 16. The proposal would make several designations under Ohio law already recognized by federal law:
- March 21 as "Agriculture Day."
- October 12 as "Farmer's Day."
- The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of February as "FFA Week."
- The week ending with the second Saturday of March as "4-H Week."
House Bill 166 – Temporary Agricultural Workers
A bill addressing municipal income taxes for H2-A agricultural workers has met opposition in the House Ways and Means Committee. HB 166, sponsored by Rep. Dick Stein (R-Norwalk) would subject foreign agricultural workers’ income to municipal income taxes. The current municipal tax base in Ohio is based on federal tax laws that exclude foreign agricultural worker pay from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the workers cannot use those programs, and HB 166 would remove that exclusion and add H2-A income to the municipal tax base. The bill would also require employers to withhold the taxes for the municipality of the workers’ residences. While municipal interests support the bill, Ohio Farm Bureau and other agricultural interests testified against it in its third hearing on June 13. Opponents argue that H2-A workers are not residents because they are “temporary,” that the proposal would have many potential adverse effects on how Ohio handles the H2-A program, and would hamper the ability of agricultural employers to use the H2-A program to hire employees.
House Bill 193 – Biosolid and biodigestion facilities
Biosolid lagoons and biodigestion facilities would have new legal requirements and be subject to local regulation under a proposal sponsored by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark) and Rep. Brian Lampton (R-Beavercreek). HB 193 would grant county and township zoning authority over the lagoons and facilities, require a public meeting and county approval prior to seeking a facility permit from the Ohio EPA, require the Ohio EPA to develop rules requiring covers on new biosolid lagoons, and modify feedstock requirements for biodigestion facilities to qualify for Current Agricultural Use Valuation property tax assessment. HB 193 had its first hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on June 13.
House Bill 197 – Community Solar Development
A “community solar” proposal that did not make it through the last legislative session is back in a revised form. HB 197 proposes to define and encourage the development of “community solar facilities,” smaller scale solar facilities that are directly connected to an electric distribution utility’s distribution system and that create electricity only for at least three “subscribers.” The bill would establish incentives for placing such facilities on distressed sites and Appalachian region sites through a “Community Solar Pilot Program” and a “Solar Development Program.” Rep. James Hoops (R-Napoleon) and Sharon Ray (R-Wadsworth) introduced the bill on June 6, and it received its first hearing before the House Public Utilities Committee on June 21. “The goal of this legislation is to create a small-scale solar program that seeks to be a part of the solution to Ohio’s energy generation and aging infrastructure need,” stated sponsor Hoops.
House Bill 212 – Foreign ownership of property
Ohio joins a movement of states attempting to limit foreign ownership of property with the introduction of HB 212, the Ohio Property Protection Act. Sponsored by Representatives Angela King (R-Celina) and Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland), the proposal would prohibit foreign adversaries and certain businesses from owning real property in Ohio. The bill was introduced in the House on June 13 and has not yet been referred to a committee for review.
Tags: legislation, urban agriculture, eminent domain, employment, H2-A, tax law, Income Tax, cauv, biosolids, bioenergy, Zoning, solar, foreign ownership
Comments: 0
Pages
