tax

Combine in the field.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Friday, October 27th, 2023

Agricultural & Natural Resources Income Tax Issues Webinar
Barry Ward, Director, Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University
Jeff Lewis, Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University

Tax practitioners, farmers, and farmland owners are encouraged to connect to the Agricultural and Natural Resources Income Tax Issues Webinar (via Zoom) on December 13 from 8:45 a.m. to 3:20 p.m. The event is sponsored by Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University.

The webinar focuses on issues specific to farm tax returns related to agriculture and natural resources and will highlight timely topics and new regulations.

The program is an intermediate-level course for tax preparers whose clients include farmers and rural landowners. Farmers who prepare and file their own taxes will also benefit from the webinar.

Tentative topics to be covered during the Ag Tax Issues webinar include:

  • Timely Tax Issues Facing Agricultural Producers
    • Employee vs Independent Contractor
    • Cost-Sharing Exclusion
    • Farm Trade or Business
    • Farming S Corporations
    • Timber Taxation
  • Legislative and Regulatory Update
  • Form 1099s Requirements for Farmers and Ranchers
  • Tax Schemes Targeting the Farm 
  • Tax Issues Arriving at the Death of a Farmer
  • Ohio Tax Update

Other chapters included in the workbook not included in the webinar includes: Material Participation Rules for Farmers, Ranchers and Landowners, Livestock Tax Issues, Depreciating and Expensing Farm Assets, Sale and Exchange of Farm Property, Sample Tax Return.

The cost for the one-day school is $180 if registered by November 29th. After November 29th, the registration increases to $230. Additionally, the course has been approved for the following continuing education credits:

•          Accountancy Board of Ohio, CPAs (6 hours)

•          Office of Professional Responsibility, IRS (6 hours)

•          Supreme Court of Ohio, Attorneys (5 hours)

Registration includes the Agricultural Tax Issues Workbook. Early registration (at least two weeks prior to the webinar) guarantees that you’ll receive a workbook prior to the webinar. 

The live webinar will also feature options for interaction and the ability to ask questions about the presented material.

More information on the workshop, including how to register, can be found at: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/tax/2023-ag-tax-issues-webinar

Contact Barry Ward at ward.8@osu.edu or Jeff Lewis at lewis.1459@osu.edu

The word "taxes" laid in grain.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Friday, October 20th, 2023

Income Tax Schools 2023
OSU Extension Announces Two-Day Tax Schools for Tax Practitioners &
Agricultural & Natural Resources Income Tax Issues Webinar 
Barry Ward & Jeff Lewis, OSU Income Tax Schools

Tax provisions related to new legislation as well as issues related to trusts and estates, retirement, sales of business property, and income for both individuals and businesses are among the topics to be discussed during the upcoming Tax School workshop series offered throughout Ohio in October, November, and December.

The annual series is designed to help tax preparers learn about federal tax law changes and updates for this year as well as learn more about issues they may encounter when filing individual and small business 2023 tax returns.

The tax schools are intermediate-level courses that focus on interpreting tax regulations and changes in tax law to help tax preparers, accountants, financial planners and attorneys advise their clients. The schools offer continuing education credit for certified public accountants, enrolled agents, attorneys, annual filing season preparers and certified financial planners.

Our instructors are what make the difference in our program. Most have been teaching OSU tax schools for over 20 years and make themselves available long after the class to make sure attendees get through the tax filing season.

Attendees also receive a class workbook that alone is an extremely valuable reference as it offers over 600 pages of material including helpful tables and examples that will be valuable to practitioners. Summaries of the chapters in this year’s workbook can be viewed by visiting: 
2023 National Income Tax Workbook Topics

A sample chapter from a past workbook can be found at: 
https://taxworkbook.com/about-the-tax-workbook/

This year, OSU Income Tax Schools will offer both in-person schools and an online virtual school presented over the course of four afternoons.

In-person schools:
October 26-27, Ole Zim’s Wagon Shed, Gibsonburg/Fremont
October 30-31, Presidential Banquet Center, Kettering/Dayton
November 2-3, Old Barn Restaurant & Grill, Lima
November 7-8, Muskingum County Conference and Welcome Center, Zanesville
November 16-17, Hartville Kitchen, Hartville
November 20-21, Ashland University, John C. Meyers Convocation Center, Ashland
November 28-29, Nationwide & Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center, Columbus

Virtual On-Line School presented via Zoom:
December 1, 4, 6, & 8, 12:30 – 4:45 p.m.

Register two weeks prior to the school date and receive the two-day tax school early-bird registration fee of $425.  This includes all materials, lunches, and refreshments. The deadline to enroll is 10 business days prior to the date of each school. After the school deadline, the fee increases to $475. 

Additionally, the 2023 Checkpoint Federal Tax Handbook is available to purchase by participants for a discounted fee of $70 each. Registration information and the online registration portal can be found online at: https://go.osu.edu/tax2023

In addition to the tax schools, the program offers a separate, two-hour ethics webinar that will broadcast Monday, December 11th at 1 p.m. The webinar is $25 for school attendees and $50 for non-attendees and is approved by the IRS and the Ohio Accountancy Board for continuing education credit.

A webinar on Ag Tax Issues will be held Wednesday, December 13th from 8:45 a.m. to 3:20 p.m. If you are a tax practitioner that represents farmers or rural landowners or are a farmer or farmland owner that prepares your own taxes, this five-hour webinar is for you. It will focus on key topics and new legislation related specifically to those income tax returns.

Registration, which includes the Ag Tax Issues workbook, is $180 if registered at least two weeks prior to the webinar. After November 29, registration is $230. Register by visiting: https://go.osu.edu/tax2023.

NEW! Introduction to Tax Preparation Course. 
New this year, we are offering an introduction to tax preparation course. Our instructors are highly qualified tax professionals presenting a real-world approach to tax preparation. This course is designed for professionals with 0-5 years of experience and seeks to help build a foundation for which all tax professionals can continue to build off of. To read more about our introductory course and the topics covered visit, https://farmoffice.osu.edu/tax/new-introduction-tax-preparation-course.

The introductory course will be held on November 13th and 14th at the Der Dutchman in Bellville, Ohio. The course has been approved for continuing education credits by the IRS, the Ohio Accountancy Board, and the Ohio Supreme Court. Registration is $425 prior to October 30th. Registration fees increase to $475 beginning November 1st. Registration includes a 300+ page workbook created by our instructors to help you throughout the beginning of your career! 

Contact Barry Ward at 614-688-3959, ward.8@osu.edu or Jeff Lewis at 614-247-1720, lewis.1459@osu.edu for more information.

Posted In: Legal Education, Tax
Tags: tax, Tax Preparation, Tax Professional
Comments: 0
Sunset over farmland.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Friday, October 06th, 2023

Two separate, but very similar, pieces of legislation are working their way through the Ohio Legislature and could end up affecting your farmland’s current agricultural use value (“CAUV”). House Bill 187 (“HB 187”) and Senate Bill 153 (“SB 153”) both seek to adjust how property values are assessed in Ohio and some of those proposed changes specifically affect CAUV. 

Both proposed bills aim to make temporary adjustments to CAUV for farmland. These changes will impact farmland that undergo reappraisal or triennial updates in 2023, 2024, or 2025. The adjustment does not alter the CAUV formula itself but rather calculates a farm's CAUV at its next reappraisal or update as the average between the CAUV for that year and the CAUV it would have if it were in a county that had reappraisals or updates in the two previous years.

The Ohio Legislature has provided the following example: “[C]onsider a farm located in a county that undergoes a reappraisal in 2023. If the formula were applied for that year, the farm’s CAUV would be $200 per acre. However, if the farm had been reappraised in 2022, its value would have been $190 per acre, and if it had been reappraised in 2021, its value would have been $180 per acre. Under the bill, the farm’s reappraisal value will be $190 per acre (the average of $180, $190, and $200).” 

Again, these proposals for CAUV adjustments are only temporary, and the current valuation rules will be reinstated starting in 2026. For example, if the farm mentioned above undergoes a triennial update in 2026, its value will be determined without averaging, following the currently existing rules. Furthermore, if the 2023 CAUV tables, which prescribe the per-acre value of each soil type, have already been published before the proposed legislation takes effect, the Ohio Department of Taxation must update these tables within 15 days after the bill becomes effective to reflect the changes introduced by the Legislature.

As of the morning of October 5, 2023, HB 187 has gone through committee and is ready to be voted on by the House. The Ohio Senate had its third hearing on SB 153 on October 3, 2023, but has yet to report the bill to the floor for a vote. Some County Auditors have come out in “indirect opposition” to both bills, arguing that the proposed legislation would create a logistical nightmare for tax billing purposes. Lastly, there are some differences between the two pieces of legislation - unrelated to CAUV - that would have to be worked out between the House and Senate before we have a final bill that could take effect. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep you up to date on any changes. 

Posted In: Property, Tax
Tags: Farmland, cauv, tax, property tax
Comments: 0
Tractor with stacks of coins behind it.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Wednesday, October 04th, 2023

By Wm. Bruce Clevenger, Frank Becker, Shelby Tedrow, Grant Davis, and Ken Ford

Ag lenders are keeping farm businesses moving forward.  Agriculture is a capital intense industry.  Land, buildings, livestock, and equipment are the largest assets on the balance sheet.  Additionally, the cash flow needs of seed, chemicals, fertilizers, feed, and supplies are cumulative to the number of dollars needed to operate the business.

Ohio State University Extension has scheduled four seminars in Ohio for Agricultural Lenders. The dates are Tuesday, October 17th in Ottawa, Ohio; Wednesday, October 18th in Wooster, Ohio; Thursday, October 19th in both Washington Court House, OH, and Urbana, OH.  Registration deadlines are October 10, 11 and 12, for Ottawa, Wooster, and Washington Court House/Urbana, respectively.

These seminars are excellent professional development opportunities for Lenders, Farm Service Agency personnel, county Extension Educators and others to learn about critical agricultural topics facing the industry across the state and nation such as farm policy, risk management, market outlook, and business analysis.

Featured topic and speaker at all locations in 2023…

Farm Bill 2023 Update: Direct from Washington D.C. by: John Newton, Ph.D., Chief Economist to Senator John Boozman, Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry.  Newton: Ohio State University Graduate: Ph.D 2013, M.S. 2012, B.S. 2010.

2023 Topics and Speakers by Location

Ottawa, OH – October 17, 2023

  • Economics of Farm Drainage: Calculating a Payback Period & Lease Terms When Installing Drainage Improvements. – Wm. Bruce Clevenger, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management
  • Farm Bill 2023 Update: Direct from Washington D.C. – John Newton, Ph.D., Chief Economist to Senator John Boozman
  • Farm Insurance Policy: “I think I’m covered if that happens” – Robert Moore, J.D., OSU Extension Attorney, OSU Ag & Natural Resources Law Program
  • USDA – Farm Service Agency Loan Program Update – Kurt Leber, Northwest Ohio FSA, District Director – Farm Loan and Farm Program
  • Commodity Grain Markets: Trends and Prospects – Seungki Lee, Ph.D., Ohio State University, Dept of Ag, Environ, & Development Economics.
  • Farm Business Analysis and Benchmarking Program – Clint Schroeder, OSU Extension, Program Manager
  • Economic View from the Farmgate: Land, Inputs, Margins & Tax Policy – Barry Ward, OSU Extension, Leader, Production Business Management

Wooster, OH – October 18, 2023

  • Tools for Farmland Preservation – Tate Emerson, Killbuck Watershed Land Trust
  • Financing Food and Agriculture – Shoshana Inwood, OSU Community, Food, and Economics Development & Jessica Eikleberry, Farmland Preservation Specialist – Wayne County Planning Office
  • Farm Bill 2023 Update: Direct from Washington D.C. – John Newton, Ph.D., Chief Economist to Senator John Boozman
  • Dairy Market Outlook and Industry Updates – Jason Hartschuh, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Dairy
  • Economic View from the Farmgate: Land, Inputs, Margins & Tax Policy – Barry Ward, OSU Extension, Leader, Production Business Management
  • Farm Insurance Policy: “I think I’m covered if that happens” – Robert Moore, J.D., OSU Extension Attorney, OSU Ag & Natural Resources Law Program

Urbana, OH – October 19, 2023

  • Economic View from the Farmgate: Land, Inputs, Margins & Tax Policy – Barry Ward, OSU Extension, Leader, Production Business Management
  • Farm Bill 2023 Update: Direct from Washington D.C. – John Newton, Ph.D., Chief Economist to Senator John Boozman
  • FarmOn and On Farm Records – Bruce Clevenger, OSU Extension, Field Specialist – Farm Management
  • Livestock Outlook and Update – Garth Ruff, OSU Extension, Field Specialist – Beef Cattle
  • Commodity Grain Markets: Trends and Prospects – Seungki Lee, Ph.D., Ohio State University, Dept of Ag, Environ, & Development Economics

Washington Court House, OH – October 19, 2023

  • Livestock Outlook and Update – Garth Ruff, OSU Extension, Field Specialist – Beef Cattle
  • Farm Bill 2023 Update: Direct from Washington D.C. – John Newton, Ph.D., Chief Economist to Senator John Boozman
  • Commodity Grain Markets: Trends and Prospects – Seungki Lee, Ph.D., Ohio State University, Dept of Ag, Environ, & Development Economics.
  • Economic View from the Farmgate: Land, Inputs, Margins & Tax Policy – Barry Ward, OSU Extension, Leader, Production Business Management
  • FarmOn and On Farm Records – Bruce Clevenger, OSU Extension, Field Specialist – Farm Management

The registration cost to attend one of the Ag Lender Seminars is $75.00 per guest. Payments can be made by credit card online or mail a check. Registration is open online at: https://u.osu.edu/aglenderseminars/

Registration questions can be directed to Wm. Bruce Clevenger, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management, at 419-770-6137 or clevenger.10@osu.edu

OSU Extension conducts the seminars from input from Ag Lenders, County Extension Educators and Extension Specialists.  The seminars are designed to provide information that Ag Lenders will use directly with their customers, indirectly within the lending industry, and as professional development for current issues and trends in production agriculture.  OSU Extension has been offering Ag Lenders Seminars for over 40 years.

Front page of a law bulletin on business entities
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Tuesday, September 12th, 2023

What type of business entity is your farm?  A common answer to that question is unfortunately the wrong answer:  "I don't have a business entity for my farm."  That's not a correct answer because every farm engaged in the business of farming is a business entity in the eyes of the law.  Our new law bulletin series on "Structuring Your Farm Business" explains the different types of business entities available to farm businesses.  The series also addresses tax and liability characteristics of different business entities, how business entities affect Farm Service Agency programs, how to start and manage an entity, and the important role business entities can play in protecting a farming operation for the future.

Supported by funding from the National Agricultural Law Center and USDA National Agricultural Library, the new series includes these bulletins:

  • A Comparison of Business Entities Available to Ohio Farmers
  • Tax Characteristics of Business Entities Available to Ohio Farmers
  • Farm Service Agency Programs and Business Entities
  • Using Business Entities to Manage Farm Liability Risk
  • Using Multiple Business Entities for a Farm Operation
  • Starting, Organizing, and Managing an LLC for a Farm Business

Authors of the Structuring Your Farm Business bulletins are Robert Moore, Attorney and Sr. Research Specialist for the OSU Agricultural Law Program, Zachary Ishee, Law Fellow with the National Agricultural Law Center (now in private practice) and Barry Ward, OSU Extension's Leader of Production Business Management and Income Tax Schools Director. 

The entire Sturcturing Your Farm Business series is now available in the Business Law library on farmoffice.osu.edu

 

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Wednesday, January 18th, 2023

The 2023 Farm Office Live Season kicks off this Friday, January 20, 2023, from 10:00 - 11:30 AM.  Our team of specialists and attorneys will be presenting on: 

  • Federal Program Updates
  • Upcoming Programming
  • Power of Attorney Documents
  • Legislative and Regulatory Documents
  • Crop Inputs and Budget for 2023
  • Timely Tax Issues

The monthly Farm Office Live webinar is always free, and registration is available at go.osu.edu/farmofficelive.  Register once and you'll receive notices of all of our 2023 webinars. The registration site also houses our archive of all Farm Office Live webinar recordings and materials.

Picture of a black howler monkey.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Friday, February 18th, 2022

Did you know that the loudest land animal is the howler monkey?  The howler monkey can produce sounds that reach 140 decibels.  For reference, that is about as loud as a jet engine at take-off, which can rupture your eardrums.  

Like the howler monkey, we are here to make some noise about recent agricultural and resource law updates from across the country.  This edition of the Ag Law Harvest brings you court cases dealing with zoning ordinances, food labeling issues, and even the criminal prosecution of a dairy farm.  We then look at a couple states proposing, or disposing, of legislation related to agriculture.  

A zoning ordinance has Michigan landowners hogtied.  The Michigan Supreme Court recently ruled that Michigan’s 6-year statute of limitations does not prevent a township from suing a landowner for alleged ongoing zoning violations, even if the start of landowner’s alleged wrongdoing occurred outside the statute of limitations period.  

Harvey and Ruth Ann Haney (“Defendants”) own property in a Michigan township that is zoned for commercial use.  Defendants began raising hogs on their property in 2006.  Defendants started with one hog and allegedly grew their herd to about 20 hogs in 2016.  In 2016, Fraser Township (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendants seeking a permanent injunction to enforce its zoning ordinance and to prevent Defendants from raising hogs and other animals that would violate the zoning ordinance on their commercially zoned property.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and argued that Plaintiff’s claims were barred because of Michigan’s 6-year statute of limitations.  A statute of limitations is a law that prevents certain lawsuits from being filed against individuals after a certain amount of time has passed.  In Ohio, for example, if someone were to be injured in a car accident, they would only have 2 years to bring a personal injury claim against the person who caused the accident.  That’s because Ohio has passed a law that mandates most personal injury claims to be brought within 2 years of the date of injury.  

In the Michigan case, Defendants argued that because their first alleged wrongdoing occurred in 2006, Plaintiff could not file their lawsuit against the Defendants in 2016.  A trial court disagreed with Defendants and denied their motion to dismiss.  Defendants took the motion up to the Michigan Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals found that Plaintiff’s claim was barred because of the 6-year statute of limitations.  Plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which overturned the Court of Appeals’ decision and held that Plaintiff’s claim was not barred.  The Michigan Supreme Court reasoned that the presence of the hogs constitutes the alleged unlawful conduct of the Defendants, and that unlawful conduct occurred in 2006 and has occurred almost every day thereafter.  The court concluded that because Defendants unlawful conduct was ongoing after 2006, Plaintiff’s claims were not barred by the statute of limitations.  The case now goes back to the trial court to be tried on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. 

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.  Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (“Family Dollar”) has found itself in a bit of nutty situation.  Plaintiff, Heather Rudy, has filed a class action lawsuit against Family Dollar, alleging that Family Dollar has misled her and other consumers by marketing its Eatz brand Smoked Almonds as “smoked.”  Plaintiff asserts that Family Dollar is being deceptive because its Smoked Almonds are not smoked over an open fire, but instead flavored with a natural smoke flavoring.  Plaintiff’s claims against Family Dollar include violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”); breaches of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability; violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and unjust enrichment.  

Family Dollar filed an early motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted.  A federal district court in Illinois dismissed some of Plaintiff’s claims but ruled that some claims against Family Dollar should be allowed to continue.  Plaintiff’s claims for breaches of warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud were all dismissed by the court.  The court did decide that Plaintiff’s claims under ICFA unjust enrichment should stay.  The court reasoned that Plaintiff’s interpretation that Family Dollar’s almonds would be smoked over an open fire are not unreasonable.  Moreover, the court recognized that nothing on the front label of Family Dollar’s Smoked Almonds would suggest, to consumers, that the term “smoked” refers to a flavoring rather than the process by which the almonds are produced.  The court even pointed out that competitors’ products contain the word “flavored” on the front of similar “smoked” products.  Therefore, the court concluded that Plaintiff’s interpretation of Family Dollar’s Smoked Almonds was not irrational and her claims for violating the ICFA should continue into the discovery phase of litigation, and possibly to trial.  

Undercover investigation leads to criminal prosecution of Pennsylvania dairy farm.  A Pennsylvania Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) recently decided on Animal Outlook’s (“AO”) appeal from a Pennsylvania trial court’s order dismissing AO’s petition to review the decision of the Franklin County District Attorney’s Office (“DA”) to not prosecute a Pennsylvania dairy farm (the “Dairy Farm”) for animal cruelty and neglect.  An undercover agent for AO held employment at the Dairy Farm and captured video of the condition and treatment of animals on the farm, which AO claims constitutes criminal activity under Pennsylvania’s animal cruelty laws.  

AO compiled a report containing evidence and expert reports documenting the Dairy Farm’s alleged animal cruelty and neglect.  AO submitted its report to the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) in 2019.  The PSP conducted its own investigation which lasted for over a year, and in March 2020, issued a press release indicating that the DA would not prosecute the Dairy Farm.  

In response, AO drafted private criminal complaints against the Dairy Farm and submitted those to the local Magisterial District Judge.  The local Magisterial Judge disapproved all of AO’s complaints and concluded that the complaints “lacked merit.”  AO then filed a petition in a Pennsylvania trial court to review the Magisterial Judge’s decision.  The trial court dismissed AO’s petition and concluded that the DA correctly determined “that there was not enough evidence, based upon the law, to initiate prosecution against any of the Defendants alleged in the private criminal complaints.”  AO appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals which ended up reversing the trial court’s decision.    

The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court failed to view the presented evidence through a lens that is favorable to moving forward with prosecution and the trial court failed to consider all reasonable inferences that could be made on the evidence.  The Court of Appeals observed that the trial court made credibility determinations of the evidence by favoring the evidence gathered by PSP over the evidence presented by AO.  The Court of Appeals noted that a trial court’s duty is to determine “whether there was evidence proffered to satisfy each element of an offense, not to make credibility determinations and conduct fact-finding.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not do a complete review of all the evidence and favored the evidenced obtained by PSP over the evidence presented by AO.  The Court of Appeals determined that had the trial court reviewed all the evidence, it would have found that AO provided sufficient evidence to establish prima facie cases of neglect and animal cruelty, which would have provided the legal basis for the DA’s office to prosecute the claims.  

Lastly, the DA argued that no legal basis for prosecution exists because the Dairy Farm is protected by the normal agricultural operations exemption to Pennsylvania’s animal cruelty laws.  However, the Court of Appeals found that the conduct of the Dairy Farm, as alleged, would fall outside the normal agricultural operations exemption because AO’s report demonstrates that the Dairy Farm’s practices were not the dairy industry norm.    

Ultimately the Court of Appeals found that AO’s private criminal complaints did have merit and that the DA had enough evidence and a legal basis to prosecute AO's claims.  The Court of Appeals remanded the trial court’s decision and ordered that the DA to go ahead and prosecute the Dairy Farm on its alleged animal cruelty violations.  

Wyoming fails to pass legislation limiting what can be considered agricultural land.  The Wyoming House of Representatives struck down a recent piece of legislation looking to increase the threshold requirement to allow landowners the ability to classify their land as agricultural, have their land appraised at an agricultural value, and receive the lower tax rate for agricultural land.  Current Wyoming law classifies land as agricultural if: (1) the land is currently being used for an agricultural purpose; (2) the land is not part of a patted subdivision; and (3) the owner of the land derived annual gross revenue of $500 or more from the marketing of agricultural products, or if the land is leased, the lessee derived annual gross revenues of $1,000 or more from the marketing of agricultural products.  

Wyoming House Bill 23 sought to increase the threshold amount of gross revenues derived from the marketing of agricultural products to $5,000 for all producers.  The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation and Wyoming Stock Growers associations supported the bill.  Proponents of the bill argued that the intent of agricultural land appraisals is to support commercial agriculture, not wealthy landowners taking advantage of Wyoming’s tax laws.  Opponents of the bill argued that House Bill 23 hurt small agricultural landowners and that the benefits of the bill did not outweigh the harms.  House Bill 23 died with a vote of 34-25, failing to reach the 2/3 approval for bills to advance.  

Oregon introduces legislation relating to overtime for agricultural workers.  Oregon House Bill 4002 proposes to require agricultural employers to pay all agricultural employees an overtime wage for time worked over 40-hours in a workweek.  House Bill 4002 does propose a gradual phase-in of the overtime pay requirements for agricultural employees.  For the years 2023 and 2024, agricultural employees would be entitled to overtime pay for any time worked over 55 hours in a workweek.  For 2025 and 2026, the overtime pay requirement kicks in after 48 hours.  Then in 2027, and beyond, agricultural employers would be required to pay an overtime pay rate to employees that work more than 40 hours in a workweek.   

Ohio sales tax exemption form
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Tuesday, October 05th, 2021

If you've ever claimed a sales tax exemption on a purchase of farm goods, you may have experienced some confusion over whether you or the good is eligible for the exemption.  That's because Ohio's sales tax law is a bit tedious and complicated.  The law has several agricultural exemptions, but it can be challenging to understand who can claim them and what types of goods and services are exempt.  Those are the reasons for our newest law bulletin, Ohio's Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption Laws.  We walk through the different sales tax exemptions that apply to agriculture, offer examples of goods that do and do not qualify for the exemptions, explain who can claim an exemption and how to claim it, and explain what happens when sales taxes are overpaid or not correctly paid.   We also offer steps a farmer can take to obtain the full benefits of Ohio's agricultural sales tax exemptions.  The bulletin is available in our law library and through this link.

By: Ellen Essman, Tuesday, March 31st, 2020

Hello, readers! We hope you are all staying safe and healthy. Understandably, news related to agricultural law seems to have slowed down a little bit over the last few weeks as both the federal and state governments have focused mainly on addressing the unfolding COVID-19 outbreak.  That being said, there have been a few notable ag law developments you might be interested in.

Federal government extends the tax deadline.  The IRS announced on March 21 that the deadline for filing or paying 2019 federal income taxes will be extended to July 15, 2020. 

Ohio Coronavirus Legislation. The Ohio General Assembly quickly passed House Bill 197 on Wednesday March 25, 2020.  HB 197 originally just involved changes to tax laws, but amendments were added to address the current situation.  Amendments that made it into the final bill include provisions for education—from allowing school districts to use distance learning to make up for instruction time, to waiving state testing.  Other important amendments make it easier to receive unemployment, move the state tax filing deadline to July 15, extend absentee voting, allow recently graduated nurses to obtain temporary licenses, etc. Of particular note to those involved in agriculture, HB 197 extends the deadlines to renew licenses issued by state agencies and political subdivisions.  If you have a state license that is set to expire, you will have 90 days after the state of emergency is lifted to renew the license.  HB 197 is available here. A list of all the amendments related to COVID-19 is available here.

Proposed changes to hunting and fishing permits in Ohio. In non-COVID news, Ohio House Bill 559 was introduced on March 18.  HB 559 would allow grandchildren to hunt or fish on their grandparents’ land without obtaining licenses or permits.  In addition, the bill would give free hunting and fishing licenses or permits to partially disabled veterans.  You can get information on the bill here

EPA simplifies approach to pesticides and endangered species. Earlier this month, the U.S. EPA released its “revised method” for determining whether pesticides should be registered for use.  Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies must consider whether an action (in this case, registration of a pesticide) will negatively impact federally listed endangered species. EPA is authorized to make decisions involving pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The revised method consists of a three-step process.  First, EPA will consider whether use of the pesticide “may affect” or conversely, have no effect on the listed species. If no effect is found, EPA can register the pesticide.  On the other hand, if EPA finds that the pesticide may affect the endangered species, it must examine whether the pesticide is “likely to adversely affect” the species. In this second step, if EPA decides that the pesticide may affect the endangered species, but is not “likely to adversely affect” the species, then the agency may register the pesticide with the blessing of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).  Conversely, if EPA finds that the pesticide is likely to adversely affect the species, it must move on to step three, where it must work with FWS or NMFS to more thoroughly examine whether an adverse effect will “jeopardize” the species’ existence or “destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat.”  The revised method is meant to simplify, streamline, and add clarity to EPA’s decision-making. 

EPA publishes rule on cyazofamid tolerances. Continuing the EPA/pesticide theme, on March 18, EPA released the final rule for tolerances for residues of the fungicide cyazofamid in or on commodities including certain leafy greens, ginseng, and turnips. 

Administration backs off RFS.  In our last edition of the Ag Law Harvest, we mentioned that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had handed a win to biofuels groups by deciding that EPA did not have the authority to grant three waivers to two small refineries in 2017. By granting the waivers, the EPA allowed the refineries to ignore the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and not incorporate biofuels in with their oil-based fuels. The Tenth Circuit decision overturned this action. The Trump administration has long defended EPA’s action, so that’s why it’s so surprising that the administration did not appeal the court’s decision by the March 25 deadline. 

Right to Farm statute protects contract hog operation.  If you’re a regular reader of the blog, you may recall that many nuisance lawsuits have been filed regarding large hog operations in North Carolina. In Lewis v. Murphy Brown, LLC, plaintiff Paul Lewis, who lives near a farm where some of Murphy Brown’s hogs are raised, sued the company for nuisance and negligence, claiming that the defendant’s hogs made it impossible for him to enjoy the outdoors and caused him to suffer from several health issues. Murphy Brown moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the nuisance claim should be disqualified under North Carolina’s Right to Farm Act, and that the negligence claim should be barred by the statute of limitations.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina made quick work of the negligence claim, agreeing with Murphy Brown that the statute of limitations had passed.  North Carolina’s Right to Farm Act requires a plaintiff to show all of the following: that he is the legal possessor of the real property affected by the nuisance, that the real property is located within one-half mile of the source of the activity, and that the action is filed within one year of the establishment of the agricultural operation or within one year of the operation undergoing a fundamental change.  Since the operation was established in 1995 and the suit was not brought until 2019, and no fundamental change occurred, the court determined that Lewis’s claim was barred by the Right to Farm Act.  Since neither negligence or nuisance was found, the court agreed with Murphy Brown and dismissed the case. 

Written by Barry Ward, Production Business Management Leader and OSU Income Tax Schools Director

Soon after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act became law in December of 2017 it became evident that cooperatives had been granted a significant advantage under the new tax law. Sales to cooperatives would be allowed a Qualified Business Income Deduction (QBID) of 20% of gross income and not of net income. Sales to businesses other than cooperatives would be eligible only for the QBID of net income which was a significant disadvantage. Suddenly cooperatives had an advantage that non-cooperative businesses couldn’t match and most of the farm sector scrambled to position themselves to take advantage of this tax advantage. Some farmers directed larger portions of their sales or prospective sales toward cooperatives. Non-cooperative businesses lobbied for a change to this piece of the new tax law while looking for ways to add a cooperative model to their own businesses to stay competitive.

Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 in March of 2018 which eliminated this advantage to cooperatives and replaced it with a new hybrid QBID for sales to cooperatives which offered more tax neutrality between sales to cooperatives and non-cooperatives. While this new legislation leveled the playing field between cooperatives and non-cooperatives, it left many questions unanswered; chief among them was how taxpayers should allocate expenses between sales to cooperatives and non-cooperatives.

One area that was clarified for calculating the QBID for all businesses including cooperatives was how certain deductions should be handled with respect to the Qualified Business Income Deduction (QBID).

For purposes of the QBID (IRC §199A), deductions such as the deductible portion of the tax on self-employment income under § 164(f), the self-employed health insurance deduction under § 162(l), and the deduction for contributions to qualified retirement plans under § 404 are considered attributable to a trade or business (including farm businesses) to the extent that the individual’s gross income from the trade or business is taken into account in calculating the allowable deduction, on a proportionate basis.

Under the final regulations, expenses for half the self-employment (SE) tax, self-employed health insurance, and pension contributions must be subtracted from preliminary QBI figure, before any cooperative reductions are made (if applicable).

While final regulations on the new QBID were published on Jan. 18, 2019, there were still many questions left unanswered as to how the deduction would be handled in relation to cooperatives. As the QBID is calculated differently between the income from sales to cooperatives and non-cooperatives, taxpayers and tax practitioners were left with uncertainty.

A simplified explanation of the steps used to calculate the QBID under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §199A for income attributable to sales to cooperatives is listed here:

Step 1: First, patrons calculate the 20 percent §199A QBID that would apply if they had sold the commodity to a non-cooperative.

Step 2: The patron must then subtract from that initial §199A deduction amount whichever of the following is smaller:

  • 9 percent of the QBI allocable to cooperative sale(s) OR
  • 50 percent of W2 wages paid allocable to income from sales to cooperatives

Step 3: Add the “Domestic Production Activities Deduction (DPAD)-like” deduction (if any) passed through to them by the cooperative pursuant to IRC §199A(g)(2)(A). The determination of the amount of this new “DPAD-like” deduction will generally range from 0 to 9 percent of the cooperative's qualified production activities income (QPAI) attributable to that patron's sales.

Parts of the new tax law do offer some simplification. Calculating the QBID isn’t necessarily one of those parts.

The result of all of these calculations is that income attributable to sales to cooperatives may result in an effective net QBID that is:

  • Possibly greater than 20% if the farmer taxpayer pays no or few W2 wages and coop passes through all or a large portion of the allocable “DPADlike” deduction
  • Approximately equal to 20% if the farmer taxpayer pays enough W2 wages to fully limit their coop sales QBID to 11% and the coop passes through all allocable “DPADlike” deduction
  • Possibly less than 20% if farmer taxpayer pays enough W2 wages to fully limit their coop sales QBID to 11% and the coop passes through less than the allocable “DPADlike” deduction

On June 18th, the IRS released proposed regulations under IRC §199A on the patron deduction and the IRC §199A calculations for cooperatives. The proposed regulations provide that when a taxpayer receives both qualified payments from cooperatives and other income from non-cooperatives, the taxpayer must allocate deductions using a “reasonable method based on all the facts and circumstances.” Different reasonable methods may be used for the different items and related deductions. The chosen reasonable method, however, must be consistently applied from one tax year to another and must clearly reflect the income and expenses of the business.

So what “reasonable methods” might be accepted by the IRS? The final regulations (when they are provided) may give us further guidance or we may be left to choose some “reasonable” method in allocating expenses between the two types of income. Acceptable methods may include allocating expenses on a prorated basis by bushel/cwt or by gross sales attributable to cooperatives and non-cooperatives. Producers may also consider tracing costs on a per field basis and tracking sales of those bushels/cwt to either a cooperative or non-cooperative.

Included in the proposed regulations released in June was a set of rules for “safe harbor”. A taxpayer with taxable income under the QBID threshold ($157,500 Single Filer / $315,000 Joint Filer) may ratably apportion business expenses based on the amount of payments from sales to cooperative and non-cooperatives as they relate to total gross receipts. In other words, expenses may be allocated between cooperative and non-cooperative income based on the respective proportions of gross sales that fall to cooperatives and non-cooperatives.

Some questions that haven’t been answered clearly is how certain other income should be allocated between income from cooperatives and non-cooperatives. Tax reform now requires farmers to report gain on traded-in farm equipment.  In many cases, farm income will be negative and all of the income for the business will be from trading-in farm equipment.  The question is how do we allocate this income (IRC §1245 Gain)?  Some commentators contend that none of these gains should be allocated to cooperative income which would eliminate the issue, however, the depreciation deduction taken on the equipment was likely allocated to cooperative income, thus reducing the effect of the 9% of AGI patron reduction. This would suggest that these gains may have to be allocated between cooperative and non-cooperative income.

How should government payments be allocated?  If a farmer sells all of their commodities to a cooperative and receive a government payment (i.e. ARC or PLC), should that be treated as cooperative income or not. Hopefully, the final regulations will provide some further clarity on these issues.

The information in this article is the opinion of the author and is intended for educational purposes only. You are encouraged to consult professional tax or legal advice in regards to your facts and circumstances regarding the application of the general tax principles cited in this article.

Posted In: Tax
Tags: agricultural tax law, farm tax law, tax, 199A, cooperatives
Comments: 0

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - tax