Ohio Sales Tax
We are back with another edition of the Ag Law Harvest, where we bring you rulings, laws, and regulations that affect the agricultural industry. This month's Ag Law Harvest is bringing the heat with H-2A wage rule injunctions, cultivated meat ban challenges, sales and use tax issues, and an emergency order from the EPA.
Federal Judge in Georgia Blocks H-2A Wage Rule for Named Plaintiffs. A Georgia federal judge has limited the U.S. Department of Labor's enforcement of a rule titled "Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States" (the “Final Rule”). This rule, challenged by 17 states led by Kansas and Georgia, as well as by Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association (the “Plaintiffs”), is claimed to be unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs argued that the Final Rule violates the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by granting H-2A farmworkers greater organizing and collective bargaining rights than those afforded to U.S. citizen agricultural workers, effectively bypassing the Act. The U.S. District Court in Georgia sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the Department of Labor's Final Rule improperly creates a right that Congress did not intend and did not create by statute. The court emphasized that administrative agencies, including the DOL, cannot create laws or rights that Congress has not established. The court criticized the DOL for overstepping its authority, stating that while the DOL can assist Congress, it cannot assume the role of Congress. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DOL from enforcing the Final Rule, but only for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the preliminary injunction will only apply in Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The injunction will also apply to Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. We will keep you updated as the case goes up on appeal and how this ruling affects other H-2A lawsuits across the country.
Florida Cultivated Meat Ban Challenged. A California business has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Florida, challenging a law that bans the sale of cultivated meat. The company argues that Florida's prohibition is unconstitutional, claiming it violates their right to engage in interstate commerce by restricting their ability to sell their products across state lines. Upside Foods, Inc., the California based company, alleges that Florida Senate Bill 1084 (“SB 1084”), which bans the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cultivated meat, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause because SB 1084 “is expressly preempted by federal laws regulating meat and poultry products.” Furthermore, Upside Foods alleges that SB 1084 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause because SB 1084 “was enacted with the express purpose of insulating Florida agricultural businesses from innovative, out-of-state competition like UPSIDE.” Upside Foods has asked the district court in Florida to declare SB 1084 unconstitutional and to issue an injunction preventing SB 1084’s enforcement. Proponents of SB 1084 argue that the law protects Floridians, however, Upside Foods alleges that the Florida ban isn’t meant to protect the public, rather it was passed to “protect in-state agricultural interests from out-of-state competition.”
Board of Tax Appeals Finds Utility Vehicle Not Exempt Under Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. Claugus Family Farm LP (CFF), an Ohio timber farm, purchased a 2015 Mercedes-Benz utility vehicle and claimed it was exempt from sales tax under Ohio’s Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. After an audit, the Ohio Department of Taxation assessed the sales tax on the vehicle. CFF petitioned for reassessment, but the Ohio Tax Commissioner determined that CFF did not provide enough evidence to prove the vehicle was primarily used for farming as required by law. CFF then appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, arguing that the vehicle was mainly used for farming operations, such as transporting people around the farm, monitoring tree health, applying pesticides, maintaining equipment, and carrying supplies. CFF claimed the vehicle was used 95% of the time on farming activities. Upon review, the Board of Tax Appeals noted that “the use of vehicles for transportation around a farm, as well as general uses such as delivering parts and cutting and hauling of wood and brush, do not constitute direct farming activities.” The Board held that the vehicle was used primarily for these purposes and not directly in farming and thus found the vehicle to be subject to Ohio’s sales and use tax.
EPA Emergency Order Suspends Use of Pesticide DCPA/Dacthal. On August 7, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued an Emergency Order immediately suspending the registration and use of all pesticides containing dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (“DCPA” or “Dacthal”). The EPA cited the danger the substance poses to pregnant women and unborn babies. The agency determined that the continued sale, distribution, or use of DCPA products during the cancellation process would present an imminent hazard, justifying the emergency suspension without a prior hearing. Despite efforts by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole registrant of DCPA products, to address these concerns, the EPA concluded that no practicable mitigations could make the use of DCPA safe.
Tags: ag law harvest, H-2A, pesticides, EPA, Cultivated Meat, U.S. Constitution, Ohio Sales Tax, Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption, Ag Law, Farm Law
Comments: 0
With just over a week left until echoes of “Hang on Sloopy” and chants of “O-H” and “I-O” can be heard from Buckeye faithful across the nation, we thought we would provide you with some light reading to hold you over until that long awaited 3:30 kick off. In this edition of our Ag Law Harvest, we focus on three recent Ohio Supreme Court cases that could potentially impact business owners, Northern Ohio landowners, and Ohio taxpayers.
Assault and Battery: Is it Covered Under an Insurance Policy?
A victim of a stabbing at an Ohio adult care facility is unable to collect judgment from the facility’s insurance company after a recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. The victim was living at the facility when another resident stabbed him. The perpetrator was later indicted on criminal charges but found not guilty by reason of insanity.
The victim then filed a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator and the facility to recover for damages resulting from the stabbing injuries. The victim ultimately dropped his lawsuit against the perpetrator and entered into a settlement agreement with the facility. As part of the settlement agreement, the victim agreed not to pursue the judgment against the facility, and instead, sought to collect his judgment from the facility’s insurance company.
At the time of the stabbing, the adult care facility had a commercial general liability policy. When the victim sought judgment from the facility’s insurance company, the insurance company refused to provide coverage. The insurance company explained that the insurance policy contained a provision that specifically excluded coverage for any bodily injury resulting from an assault or battery. The specific provision at issue stated:
The victim argued that because the perpetrator was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity in the criminal trial, the exclusion provision was nullified because the perpetrator lacked the subjective intent to commit any assault or battery.
The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed. The Court explained that the plain language of the exclusion provision of the insurance policy at issue is clear – there is no intent requirement included in the exclusion language. Therefore, the Court held that coverage did not exist for the willful assault on the victim. The Court sympathized with the victim but ultimately could not interpret the insurance policy language to include a subjective intent requirement where none existed.
This case demonstrates the importance of reading and understanding your business insurance policy. Insurance policies are, at the core, contracts between two parties and the language contained within the policy will usually govern that contractual relationship. What you assume is covered under your policy may not necessarily be the case. Furthermore, not all insurance policies are the same. We have seen Ohio cases where an insurance policy does require the presence of some subjective intent in order for an assault and battery exclusion to apply. Speak with your insurance agent and/or attorney to make sure you understand when and where coverage exists, knowing this can be critical to protecting you, your farm, and/or your business.
Ohio Supreme Court Approves Northern Ohio Wind Farm.
Residents of Huron and Erie Counties along with Black Swamp Bird Conservatory (the “Plaintiffs”) recently lost their battle in court to prevent the construction of a new wind farm in Northern Ohio. The Plaintiffs argued that the Ohio Power Siting Board (the “Board”) failed to satisfy Ohio law before granting the new wind farm its certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert that the wind farm could “disrupt the area’s water supply, create excessive noise and ‘shadow flicker’ for residents near the wind farm, and kill bald eagles and migrating birds.”
The Ohio Supreme Court found otherwise. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the Board’s granting of the certificate was unlawful or unreasonable. As approved, the new wind farm will consist of up to 71 turbines and cover 32,000 acres of leased land. To read more about the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision visit: In re Application of Firelands Winds, L.L.C.
Ohio Supreme Court Sets New Precedent on Interpreting Ohio Tax Law.
In Ohio, most retail sales are subject to sales tax unless a certain exemption applies. Ohio law does have a sales tax exemption for equipment used directly in the production of oil and gas. A fracking business recently challenged a decision by Ohio’s Tax Commissioner and Board of Tax Appeals that levied the sales tax on certain equipment purchased by the business. The fracking equipment at issue included: a data van, blenders, sand kings, t-belts, hydration units, and chemical-additive units.
The Tax Commissioner concluded that the fracking equipment was not used directly in the extraction of oil and gas, only indirectly, and therefore, did not qualify for the tax exemption. The Ohio Supreme Court felt differently.
The Court found that all the equipment, except the data van, is used in unison to expose the oil and gas. Because the equipment is used to expose the oil and gas – a necessary part of fracking – the Court had little difficulty concluding that the equipment is being used directly in the production of oil and gas.
In addition to the equipment’s direct use in the production of oil and gas, the Court also recognized that the fracking equipment may also have a storage or delivery function/purpose. However, the Court reasoned that a piece of equipment’s function must be viewed through the “primary purpose” lens. For example, the Court held that although the blender equipment in this case performs a holding function, the primary use of the blender is to mix “the critical ingredients in the fracking recipe seconds before the mixture is inserted into the well.” Therefore, the Court found that the blender’s holding function did not disqualify it from Ohio’s sales tax exemption.
Additionally, in this case, the Court also issued an opinion on how Ohio courts should interpret tax law moving forward. Normally, courts use the ever-important legal principal of stare decisis to help it decide on new cases. Stare decisis is the principal that courts and judges should honor the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases when ruling on new cases. Here, the Court took its opportunity to acknowledge that in the past the Court interpreted tax exemptions against the taxpayer, favoring tax collection. But the Court made clear that from here on out, the Court “will apply the same rules of construction to tax statutes that [it applies] to all other statutes” without a slant toward one side or the other. The Court concluded that its task “is not to make tax policy but to provide a fair reading of what the legislature has enacted: one that is based on the plain language of the [law].”
To read the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision visit: Stingray Pressure Pumping, L.L.C. v. Harris
Tags: Ohio Supreme Court, Ohio Sales Tax, Ohio Sales Tax Exemption, Insurance, Commercial General Liability Policy, Wind Farm, Stare Decisis
Comments: 0
