Recent Blog Posts
The Farm Office team invites you to join us for the next Farm Office Live webinar, a free, live program focused on timely farm management, agricultural law, and tax issues affecting Ohio farmers and agribusinesses.
Webinar Details
- Date: January 16, 2026
- Time: 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (Noon)
- Format: Live webinar broadcast from the Farm Science Review
Topics for January 2026
- Farmer Bridge Assistance
- Federal Farm Program Update
- Management Focus for 2026
- Mediation and Arbitration Clauses for Contracts
- 1099 Tax Updates
- Common Balance Sheet Errors
- Winter Program Updates
Featured Speakers
- Bruce Clevenger
- Ellen Essman
- Peggy Hall
- Jeff Lewis
- David Marrison
- Robert Moore
- Eric Richer
- Clint Schroeder
- Barry Ward
Registration Information
- Registration is free, and one registration allows you to receive links for future Farm Office Live programs.
- Register today at: go.osu.edu/farmofficelive
- Can’t attend live? Recordings of each program are available to watch later using the same link.
Farm Office Live is part of OSU Extension’s ongoing commitment to provide farmers with timely, relevant, and research-based information to support informed decision-making. We hope you will join us on January 16. For more farm management and agricultural law resources, visit farmoffice.osu.edu.
By: David L. Marrison, Field Specialist, Farm Management, Barry Ward, Director of the OSU Income Tax Schools and Jeff Lewis, Attorney and Program Coordinator- OSU Extension.
It is tax season! With tax returns set to be accepted by the IRS starting January 26 it is crucial for individuals and businesses to stay on top of important tax reporting deadlines. This is especially important this year due to the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) last July. This legislation significantly affects federal taxes, credits and deductions. Some of these provisions took effect in 2025 while others in 2026.
One of the important tax reporting areas to review in January are the guidelines and deadlines for 1099 forms. These 1099 forms, which report various types of non-wage income, need to be furnished to taxpayers by January 31. Additionally, copies also need to be sent to the IRS by the January 31st deadline (with a few exceptions) to avoid penalties and to ensure timely processing of tax returns.
This article will provide an overview of 1099 forms, highlighting the specifics of the 1099-NEC, 1099-MISC, and 1099-K forms. Additionally, we will share reporting deadlines, penalties for non-reporting, provide resource links from the IRS, and changes to the 1099 forms due to OBBBA. So, let’s dive in!
What is a 1099 Information Return?
A 1099 form is an information return used by businesses, financial institutions, and other organizations to report various types of income paid to individuals who are not employees. These forms are typically issued to independent contractors, freelancers, and vendors to report payments made for services rendered, interest earned, dividends, and other income types.
These returns help ensure that individuals and entities report income correctly on their tax returns. There are over 20 different 1099 forms. The major forms which farm families may issue or receive include:
- 1099-NEC Non-employee compensation
- 1099-MISC Miscellaneous income
- 1099-K Third party payment network transactions
- 1099-G Government programs (i.e. ARC/PLC, disaster payment)
- 1099-INT Interest income
- 1099-DIV Dividends and distributions
- 1099-PATR Cooperative distributions
- 1099-S Real estate transaction proceeds
Before Issuing a Form 1099
Before issuing any Form 1099, businesses should first collect a completed Form W‑9 from every vendor, contractor, or service provider they pay in the course of their trade or business. The W‑9 provides essential information such as the vendor’s legal name, business entity type, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN), all of which are required for accurate 1099 reporting. Ideally, the W‑9 should be obtained before making any payment to ensure the information is correct and to avoid delays during tax season. If a vendor refuses to provide a W‑9 or provides an invalid TIN, the business is required to begin backup withholding, which means withholding 24% of the payment and remitting it to the IRS. Maintaining W‑9s on file for all vendors not only ensures compliance but also protects the business from penalties related to incorrect or missing taxpayer information.
1099-NEC
One of the most common 1099 forms used is the 1099-NEC, which reports payments to non-employees. The form is required to be issued when compensation totaling more than $600 per year is paid to a nonemployee for certain services performed for your business. The $600 amount will increase to $2,000 for payments made after December 31, 2025 (tax year 2026) due to OBBBA. This amount will also be adjusted annually for inflation.
If the following four conditions are met, you must generally report payment for non-employee compensation on Form 1099-NEC:
- You made the payment to someone who is not your employee.
- You made the payment for services for your trade or business (including government agencies and nonprofit organizations).
- You made the payment to an individual, partnership, estate, or in some cases, a corporation.
- You made payments to the payee of at least $600 during the year (or $2,000 beginning in 2026).
Examples of “nonemployee compensation” could include hiring a neighboring farmer to harvest, spray, or plant your crops or independent contractors such as crop consultants, mechanics, accountants, and veterinarians. Payment for parts or materials used to perform the service (if the supplying of the parts or materials was incidental to providing the service) is included in the amount reported as non-employee compensation.
Reporting is needed for payments made to unincorporated businesses (i.e. sole proprietorship or an LLC that has elected to be taxed as a sole proprietor or partnership) for compensation of $600 or greater. Generally, payments to a corporation, or an LLC which has elected to be taxed as a corporation, do not require a 1099-NEC to be issued. Two exceptions, which should be noted, are payments of $600 or greater to an attorney or veterinarian, regardless of business entity (corporation or unincorporated), these payments need to be reported on Form 1099-NEC.
If you are required to file a Form 1099-NEC, you must furnish a statement to the recipient and to the IRS by January 31 of each year or the next business day, if the due date is on a weekend or holiday. For the tax reporting year of 2025, the form is due January 31, 2026.
A form 1099-NEC can be issued even if the payment is below the reporting threshold ($600 for 2025) or is to a party that you are in doubt as to whether you are required to issue this informational return. There are no prohibitions or penalties for doing this.
Previously, business owners would file Form 1099-MISC to report non-employee compensation. As a historical note, Form 1099-NEC was re-introduced in 2020. It was previously used by the IRS until 1982 when the IRS added box 7 to Form 1099-MISC and discontinued the 1099-NEC form. Now, this compensation is listed in Box 1 on Form 1099-NEC.
A reminder that greater scrutiny has been given to the improper classification of an employee as an independent contractor. It is your duty to make sure that you have classified properly. For tax purposes, the IRS provides guidance on making this determination through behavior control, financial control, and the relationship of the parties. Details can be found in IRS publication 1779 located at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1779.pdf
Form 1099-MISC
The Form 1099-MISC is used to report a variety of income payments made to others from your trade or business (not personal). These include, but are not limited to:
- At least $10 in royalties (box 2)
- At least $600 in:
- Rents (box 1)
- Prizes and awards (box 3)
- Medical and health care payments (box 6)
- Crop Insurance proceeds (box 9)
A reminder that the $600 amount will increase to $2,000 for payments made after December 31, 2025 (tax year 2026) due to OBBBA. This amount will also be adjusted annually for inflation. Reporting is needed for payments made to unincorporated businesses (i.e. sole proprietorship or an LLC that has elected to be taxed as a sole proprietor or partnership) for compensation for each reporting threshold ($600 or greater for rents or $10 for royalties). Generally, payments to a corporation, or an LLC which has elected to be taxed as a corporation, do not require 1099-MISC forms to be issued. However, there are exceptions as noted previously.
One question, we receive from farmers is “do I need to issue a 1099 to the landowners which I rent ground from?” As a farmer, if you made payment for services for your trade or business (i.e. your farm business), then you will need to issue a 1099-MISC to landowners who receive $600 or more in land rental payments (in aggregate).
The reporting deadlines for the 1099-MISC forms are a little different than the 1099-NEC. The 1099-MISC must be to the recipient by January 31 (like 1099-NEC) but are not due to the IRS until February 28 for paper copies or March 31 for e-filed returns.
1099-K
The 1099-K form may be a new form for some of our farm managers. Form 1099-K tracks income made from selling goods or providing services via payment apps and online marketplaces. Examples include (but are not limited to) PayPal, Venmo, Square, and eBay.
When such reporting was originally enacted, these third-party payment network transactions only needed to be reported for payees with more than 200 transactions and $20,000 in aggregated payments. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the transaction requirement entirely and reduced the reporting threshold to $600, with these changes intended to take effect in 2022. The IRS delayed implementation of these changes, most recently stating that it would impose a $2,500 threshold for 2025. OBBA, however, reinstates the $20,000 and 200 transactions thresholds for required reporting, retroactive to 2022. It should be noted that the 1099-K thresholds will not be indexed for inflation.
Payment card companies, payment apps, and online marketplaces are required to fill out Form 1099-K and send it to the taxpayer and to the IRS by January 31. You will receive 1099-K if:
- You take direct payment by credit or bank card for selling goods or providing services. If customers pay directly by credit, debit or gift card, you will receive a Form 1099-K from the payment processor or payment settlement entity, no matter how many payments received or how much they were for.
- A payment app or online marketplace is required to send you a Form 1099-K if the payments received for goods or services total more than 200 transactions and $20,000 in aggregated payments (per OBBBA).
Whether or not you receive a Form 1099-K, you must still report any income from these types of transactions on your tax return. If you accept payments on different platforms, you could get more than one Form 1099-K. Personal payments from family and friends should not be reported on Form 1099-K because they are not payments for goods or services.
Penalties
If you fail to file the correct information return by the due date (to the IRS and/or taxpayer) and cannot show reasonable cause, you may be subject to a penalty. Penalties are changed for each information return which isn’t filed to the IRS on time and to each payee (a penalty for each). These penalties can range from $60 to $660 depending on the number of days on which the filing is late. Additional penalties can also be assessed for intentional disregard. Interest is also charged. More details can be obtained at: https://www.irs.gov/payments/information-return-penalties
Additional Information
A few additional pointers about 1099 information returns include:
- A crucial point to remember is that all income received for goods and services is still considered taxable income and must be reported on your tax return, even if you don't receive a 1099 form.
- Starting in tax year 2023, if you have 10 or more information returns, you must file them electronically. Electronic copies can be submitted through the IRIS Taxpayer Portal at http://irs.gov/iris or through a third-party software provider.
- For authoritative guidance, individuals and businesses should consult the IRS website or a qualified tax professional to ensure proper compliance.
IRS Resources:
The following resources are available from the IRS with regard to the information returns discussed in this article.
Publication 1220: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1220.pdf
1099-NEC: https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-1099-nec
1099-MISC: https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-1099-misc
1099-K: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/understanding-your-form-1099-k
1099 Penalties: https://www.irs.gov/payments/information-return-penalties
Disclaimer:
The information provided in this article is for educational purposes. This article was designed to provide accurate tax education information. Farm managers are encouraged to seek the assistance of qualified tax professionals with the completion of their taxes.
A recent decision from the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals involves a farm estate and a lawsuit. The facts are complex, but at its core, the case involves parents who owned and operated a sizeable farming operation and left their assets to their son and daughter. The court’s written analysis makes clear that the siblings do not get along, a factor that likely contributed significantly to their dispute. The case reflects a combination of complex estate planning, family tension, and the parents’ desire to exert control over assets after death. Any one of these factors can increase the risk of estate litigation; taken together, they make a lawsuit far more likely.
The parents’ estate plan, and the litigation that followed, involved all of the following:
- Multiple trusts
- Several LLCs holding farm assets
- Farm leases between entities and family members
- Trustees and trust protectors
- Allegations of self-dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and lack of cooperation
This list illustrates both the complexity of the parents’ estate plan and the level of conflict between the heirs. While this was an uncommonly complicated plan, it may have been necessary given the parents’ assets, goals, and family circumstances. However, when estate plans become more complex, the potential for misunderstandings, administrative difficulties, and conflict also increases.
There are at least three lessons to be learned from this court case. First, estate plans of this level of complexity are sometimes necessary, particularly for large farming operations or families with unique goals. However, this case serves as a reminder that complexity comes at a cost. When multiple planning strategies and conditions are used with an already strained family relationship, the result can be confusion, administrative difficulties, and litigation. In some situations, a simpler estate plan may better serve both the family and the farm.
Second, complex estate plans can outrun the understanding of the families tasked with implementing them. In other words, does the family truly understand the plan and how it is intended to work over time? As with most things, simpler plans are generally easier to understand and administer. In some cases, attorneys may design technically sound plans that are not fully understood by their clients, increasing the risk of mistakes and conflict after the parents are gone.
The next lesson involves consideration for the non-farming heir. Before her death, the mother changed their estate plan to give the son, the farming heir, significant control over land the daughter was due to inherit. If the relationship between the siblings was already strained, placing one sibling in control of the other’s assets without notification was almost certain to magnify that tension.
Many farm transition plans give the farming heir disproportionate control over assets out of necessity. However, it is critical to consider the impact of that control on the non-farming heir. Was the non-farming heir informed of the extent of the farming heir’s control? In this case, it appears that the son was given control over the daughter’s assets as the result of a trust change that was not disclosed to the daughter, an omission that only added fuel to an already volatile situation. Additionally, if a non-farming heir’s assets are overly restricted within a trust or LLC, their practical value and usefulness can be greatly diminished.
The third lesson is closely related to the first: control from the grave has consequences. In this case, the parents clearly wanted to ensure that the farming heir continued the family farming operation—a common and understandable goal for farm families. To achieve that goal, however, their estate plan allowed little or no control for the daughter over the land she was to inherit.
During their lifetimes, parents are often able to referee disputes between children and maintain at least a measure of peace within the family. When the parents are gone, so too is the referee. Without their presence, the control that parents once exercised directly can manifest very differently after death. In this case, the parents’ attempt to control the operation and use of assets from beyond the grave appears to have caused the daughter significant distress and frustration, ultimately resulting in litigation.
As noted above, complex estate plans are sometimes necessary, and that may have been true in this case. However, whenever possible, farm transition plans should be designed with as much simplicity as circumstances allow. Planners should carefully consider the impact on non-farming heirs and recognize that post-death control mechanisms may not function as intended once the parents are no longer present. Families should ensure that they understand how their plan will work, that it minimizes the potential for family conflict, and that any post-death control is likely to be accepted by the heirs.
Working with an experienced attorney who regularly assists farm families is an important first step in reducing the risk of conflict in an estate or transition plan. A knowledgeable attorney can help design a plan that achieves the family’s goals while minimizing administrative difficulties and the potential for litigation. While no estate plan can completely eliminate the risk of conflict, careful planning and thoughtful design can significantly reduce it.
You can read the relevant court case here.
By: David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management
OSU Extension and the Ohio Farm Transition Network are pleased to be hosting the International Farm Transition Network’s (IFTN) Certified Farm Succession Coordinator Training on April 20-22 in Wooster, Ohio.
Succession planning is not only about the transfer of assets, but also about the transfer of labor, skills, and decision making. It requires financial analysis to ensure the business can support the goals of all the members and requires planning and communication skills. Many farm businesses are realizing the importance of creating a succession plan and the value of a skilled facilitator to lead the process of clarifying their goals and ideas, exploring options, and coordinating communication. A facilitated process can lead to better informed business planning and estate planning decisions. This training will help equip professionals with the tools to work with farm families to strategically plan for the transition of their farm's assets and management.
Training Details
This 20-hour training will offer participants insight into the barriers to farm succession, strategies for working with families, facilitation tools to guide the process, and opportunities to consider real-life examples of farm transfer conflicts. Upon completion of the training, registrants are eligible to complete a certification exam to become a Certified IFTN Farm Succession Coordinator.
The training will be held at the Secrest Arboretum Welcome and Education Center in Wooster, Ohio on Monday, April 20 (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.), Tuesday, April 21 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and Wednesday, April 22 (8 a.m. to 12 p.m.). Lunch will be provided each day as well as dinner on Monday. Tuesday evening dinner is on your own.
Instructors for this training include Joy Kirkpatrick (Farm Succession Outreach Specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), Kiley Fleming (Executive Director of the Iowa Mediation Service), and David Marrison (OSU Extension Field Specialist in Farm Management). All have been farm succession instructors for over a decade and have extensive experience in human resources, facilitation, and mediation.
The early-bird registration fee is $900 per person before February 1 and $999 thereafter. The class is limited to the first 30 professionals registered. Pre-registration is required by March 15. The fee covers program materials, lunch each day, dinner on Monday evening, and a complimentary one-year membership to the International Farm Transition Network. Registration can be made at go.osu.edu/IFTN.
Hotel Block
A hotel block has been secured at the Hilton Garden Inn located at 959 Dover Road in Wooster, Ohio for $138/night (plus applicable taxes). Reservations can be made at: group.hiltongardeninn.com/emmmkw or by calling 330-202-7701 using the group code: IFTN.
Sponsors
Sponsors of this event include OSU Extension, Nationwide, Ohio Corn Checkoff, Ohio Small Grains Checkoff, Ohio Soybean Council, Ag Credit, Farm Credit Mid-America, Ohio Farm Bureau and OSU's Farm Financial Management and Policy Institute.
Registration
Click here for Registration and program details can be found at: go.osu.edu/IFTN
Location
Secrest Arboretum Welcome and Education Center 2122 Williams Road Wooster, Ohio
For More Information
More information can be obtained by contacting David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management at 740-722-6073 or marrison.2@osu.edu
We're wishing you a happy holiday season and a great start to the new year!
Since the year is winding down and the holidays are upon us, we're pausing the Ohio Ag Law and Farm Office Blog. We'll resume our work in January, and we look forward to serving your agricultural law and farm managment information needs in 2026!
Happy Holidays,
The OSU Farm Office Team
Robert Moore, Clint Schroeder, Jeff Lewis, Peggy Hall, Barry Ward, Eric Richer, David Marrison, Bruce Clevenger
Absent: Ellen Essman
Tags:
Comments: 0
The Ohio General Assembly wrapped up its legislative session for the year last week, with much of the late-session energy given to property tax relief. The legislature focused on strategies for reducing Ohio property taxes in five bills it just sent to the Governor (see our earlier post). None of the bills addressed farmland taxation, however. But a bill the legislature might consider when it returns in 2026 does propose changes to Ohio’s Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) Program for farmland property taxes. H.B. 575, introduced by Rep. David Thomas (R-Jefferson) and Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) proposes a number of revisions to the CAUV program.
H.B. 575 doesn’t propose reductions to CAUV taxes, however. Instead, the bill contains changes to how the CAUV program works. The bill is consistent with plans in Ohio’s House for continuing to address property taxes. Rep. Bill Roemer (R-Richfield), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee where H.B. 575 now sits, stated that the five recently passed bills represented most of the “big structural changes” to property taxation and that the legislature’s future focus will be on “fairness and efficiency.” Sponsor Rep. Thomas agreed, stating that “the changes that need to happen now are about the process, helping taxpayers through the process and transparency.” Process and transparency are two themes in H.B. 575’s revisions. Here’s what the bill proposes to change about Ohio’s CAUV program.
Process changes:
- Removes the annual renewal requirement for CAUV. A landowner would not have to submit a renewal each year after initial approval to enroll in the CAUV program.
- Requires county auditors to provide for electronic filing of CAUV enrollment applications.
- Allows a single operation with non-contiguous land in two or more counties to file one application for all parcels in the county where a majority of the land exists.
- Requires that property tax bills separately state the “CAUV savings” for the parcel.
- Mandates that a county auditor must provide notice of the soil types and CAUV values to landowners in reappraisal and update years.
- Allows the county auditor to value residential property and wasteland below the CAUV value.
Eligibility changes:
- Authorizes continued CAUV eligibility for tracts or portions lying idle or fallow in the previous year due to state or federal disaster or state of emergency declarations.
- Allows CAUV eligibility for contiguous land that is incidental to the primary use of the land for agricultural purposes, including areas for driveways, access roads, staging, barns, and farm markets.
- States that the CAUV minimum acreage requirement can include non-contiguous tracts that are part of a single operation within one or multiple counties.
While the proposed changes won’t affect the CAUV formula or reduce CAUV taxes, the revisions in H.B. 575 do solve many of the fairness and efficiency problems we see with Ohio’s CAUV program. But it may take legislators a while to get to the CAUV bill. It’s one of dozens of bills waiting for consideration by the House Ways & Means Committee. Even so, let’s hope 2026 brings changes to CAUV in the New Year.
Read H.B. 575 on the Ohio General Assembly’s website.
Every year, OSU Extension brings farm families together to tackle one of the most important, and often most difficult, tasks in agriculture: planning for the future of the family farm. Our “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” workshops help families navigate farm succession, estate planning, and strategies for ensuring that the farm continues across generations.
For 2025–2026, OSU Extension is offering three learning formats to meet the needs of busy farm families:
- A new asynchronous online course (work at your own pace)
- A live Zoom webinar series in March 2026
- In-person workshops across Ohio in 2025 & 2026
Whether you are beginning the planning process or fine-tuning an existing transition strategy, these programs provide critical information, tools, and structure to help families move forward.
Why Attend?
Transition planning is more than paperwork, it’s a family conversation about goals, legacy, and the future of the business. Our workshops challenge families to think strategically and communicate openly about succession, while providing the legal and financial tools necessary to make informed decisions.
Teaching the program are:
- David Marrison, OSU Extension Farm Management Field Specialist
- Robert Moore, Attorney/Research Specialist , OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
Topics Covered
Throughout the workshop series and online course, participants will learn how to:
- Develop estate and succession planning goals
- Plan for the transition of management and control
- Communicate effectively and manage family conflict
- Understand legal tools and strategies for farm transition
- Build a professional advisory team
- Get personal and business affairs organized
Schedule and Registration
Registration for the online on-demand program is available here. Full access to the course videos and materials is $149.
The four-part live webinar series will take place on four evenings in March:
March 2, 9, 16 & 23, 2026
6:00–8:00 p.m. via Zoom
Cost: $99 per family
Register for the webinar series at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/PFF-workshops.
The times and locations of the in-person programs are:
- December 11 & 17, 2025 - Lorain County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- January 14 & 21, 2026 - Logan County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- February 9 & 16, 2026 - Muskingum County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- March 3 & 17, 2026 - Washington County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- March 18 & 26, 2026 - Morrow County (5:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- December 1 & 8, 2026 - Madison County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
Registration information for the in person workshops is at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/PFF-workshops
For more information or questions, contact David Marrison at Marrison.2@osu.edu or Robert Moore at moore.301@osu.edu.
Tags: planning for the future of your farm
Comments: 0
The holiday season often leaves us short on time, but we hope you’ll have the time to devote to December’s Farm Office Live webinar this Friday, December 12 at 10 a.m. The agenda includes two special guests: Joshua Strine with Purdue’s Center for Commercial Agriculture, who will explain Purdue’s web-based Crop Basis Tool that provides access to corn and soybean basis data for local market regions in the eastern corn belt and Dr. Robert Mullen with Heritage Cooperative, who’ll share his knowledge of fertilizer market information and prices. The Farm Office's Peggy Hall and Barry Ward will also cover legislative and tax updates, and the Farm Office team will overview upcoming winter programs you won’t want to miss.
Attending is a gift of education you can give yourself during this busy time, and one that will keep giving through the coming year. Here’s the complete December Farm Office Live line up:
- Purdue’s Crop Basis Tool with Joshua Strine of Purdue’s Center for Commercial Agriculture.
- Legislative Update from Peggy Hall of OSU’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program.
- Fertilizer Market Info and Historical Fertilizer Prices with Robert Mullen, Vice President of Agricultural Technology for Heritage Cooperative.
- Year End Tax Update from Barry Ward, OSU Income Tax Schools.
- Winter Programs and Classes – Highlighting information on the Farm Office team’s Basics of Grain Marketing course, Planning for the Future of Your Farm Workshops, Food Business Central course, Organic Grains Conference, and Farm On course.
If you’re not already registered for Farm Office Live, follow this link to register for the webinar series: go.osu.edu/farmofficelive. Use the same link to access replays of all of our Farm Office Live webinars.
On November 20 of this year, the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers submitted a proposed rule which would once again redefine the term “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, under the federal Clean Water Act.
WOTUS woes
In 1972, Congress passed amendments to existing water pollution law, resulting in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Ever since the CWA’s passage in the 1970s, there has been debate over which waters fall under the definition of “waters of the United States” and are subject to federal regulation. The classification of WOTUS is controversial because if a body of water is defined as a water of the United States, the farmers, ranchers, businesses, and other property owners who own the land where the water is located are subject to additional regulations meant to keep the water clean. The fight over the definition of WOTUS eventually made it to the Supreme Court in the early 2000s, and the Court issued tests for determining whether certain bodies of water fell under WOTUS. This was followed by rulemaking from the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The Obama administration took a broad view of which waters the federal government had jurisdiction over, whereas the first Trump administration significantly narrowed the definition. The Biden administration proposed a rule that fell somewhere in between the previous administrations’ definitions of WOTUS. In 2023, the Supreme Court once again took up the issue in the case Sackett v. EPA, limiting the number of wetlands that qualify as WOTUS. The newly proposed rule is the latest in the on-going back and forth between court rulings and presidential administrations on how to tackle the definition of WOTUS. For more background on the WOTUS saga, see our numerous blog posts on the topic, available here.
Newly proposed rule open for public comment
The Trump administration’s newly proposed WOTUS rule was published in the Federal Register late last month. The text of the rule is available here, with the discussion of the revised definition beginning on page 52514 of the Federal Register, or page 6 of the linked PDF document. As with the rule submitted in the first Trump administration, the proposed rule would narrow the definition of WOTUS, resulting in fewer waters being subject to the CWA.
The public has the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule through January 5, 2026. To submit a comment, go to the Federal Register site for the proposed rule, available here, and click on the “Submit A Public Comment” button, highlighted in green near the top right-hand side of the page.
Providing relief for rising property taxes has been top of mind in the General Assembly this past year. Two weeks ago, the legislature passed four bills meant to tackle this issue. The bills, which each take different approaches to lowering property taxes, are now awaiting consideration by Governor DeWine. But how would each bill address property taxes?
House Bill 129—School District Millage
House Bill 129, available here, was introduced by Representative David Thomas (R, Jefferson). In Ohio, we collect property taxes in units of measure called “mills.” Each mill is equivalent to one-tenth of a cent. In the late 1970s, the Ohio General Assembly passed the “20 mill floor” for school districts, which was meant to guarantee districts a baseline of funding.
However, under current law, not all school district levies count toward the 20-mill floor, which can result in higher property taxes. H.B. 129 would change this by including emergency, substitute, incremental growth, conversion levies, and the property tax portion of combined levies when calculating the 20-mill floor for school districts. The thought is that including more types of levies in the 20-mill floor will reduce property tax rates in school districts with these additional levies. For some more background on school districts and the 20-mill floor, Ohio’s Legislative Service Commission (LSC) has a brief on the subject, available here.
House Bill 186—School District Revenue
House Bill 186, sponsored by Representatives James Hoops (R, Napoleon) and David Thomas (R, Jefferson) also focuses on the 20-mill floor for school districts. The bill, available here, would create a tax credit which would prevent increases in school district property taxes from exceeding the rate of inflation. This would only apply to property owners in a school district on the 20-mill floor. LSC’s analysis of the bill, available here, includes helpful examples of how the tax credit would work.
H.B. 186 also modifies property tax “rollbacks” for residential property, which would ultimately increase the total rollback, or savings, for owner-occupied homes, while eliminating the rollbacks for all other residential property.
House Bill 309—County Budget Commissions
House Bill 309 takes a slightly different approach to lowering property taxes by revising the authority and rules for county budget commissions. Sponsored by Representative David Thomas (R, Jefferson), the bill’s text is available here.
County budget commissions are made up of the auditor, treasurer, and either the prosecuting attorney or tax commissioner in each county. If passed, H.B. 309 would allow county budget commissions to reduce millage on any voter-approved levy if the commission deems the revenue is “unnecessary” or “excessive.” This authority to reduce millage on levies would not include debt levies. Further, county budget commissions would not be permitted to reduce a school district’s operating levy below the 20-mill floor, or to reduce any levy collected below the previous year’s revenue unless they are able to offset the reduction using reserve balances, nonexpendable trust funds, or carryover amounts.
House Bill 335—Property Tax Overhaul
Finally, House Bill 335 was also introduced by Representative David Thomas (R, Jefferson). H.B. 335, available here, would limit inside millage collections to the rate of inflation. This would be accomplished by requiring county budget commissions to adjust the rate of each inside millage levy during the reappraisal of all real property performed every six years under Ohio law, or during the update, which occurs every three years. To see some examples of this language in action, see the LSC’s analysis of the bill, available here.
What’s next?
Each of these four bills aimed at lessening the burden of property taxes have been delivered to Governor DeWine, and await his signature before they can become law. We will certainly keep you updated on what happens with each bill. In the meantime, if you’d like more information about property taxes in Ohio, the Ohio Department of Taxation has a great informational guide here.