tax

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

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. 

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. 

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.