Recent Blog Posts
Business entities like LLCs are often promoted by attorneys for their ability to provide liability protection. These structures are designed to shield the owners of a business from personal liability for the activities of the business. This protection helps safeguard existing businesses and encourages entrepreneurship by reducing the risk to owners' personal assets. However, this liability protection is not automatic.
The concept of liability protection hinges on the principle that the law treats the business entity as a separate legal person. Owners of LLCs and corporations are generally not liable for the actions of the entity. To maintain this protection, the business must be operated distinctly from its owner(s). Failing to do so can result in “piercing the corporate veil,” exposing the owners to personal liability.
What is Piercing the Corporate Veil?
Piercing the corporate veil occurs when a court disregards the separation between the business and its owners, holding the owners personally liable for the business’s obligations. This typically happens when the owners fail to treat the business as a separate entity.
One of the most common reasons for piercing the veil is the misuse of business funds. For instance, if an owner consistently uses the business account for personal expenses like meals or groceries, it indicates that the business is not truly independent. A legitimate business entity would not pay for personal expenses unrelated to its operations.
Example Case
Sam is a home builder who sells high-end homes. To run his business, Sam establishes an LLC. One of his buyers, dissatisfied with the quality of a home, sues the LLC for breach of warranty. The buyer also wants to hold Sam personally liable, knowing that he has substantial personal assets.
Initially, Sam would be protected from personal liability because of the LLC’s structure. However, during litigation, it is revealed that Sam used the LLC’s funds to pay for personal expenses such as lunches and other non-business items. The buyer argues that Sam did not treat the LLC as a separate entity, and the court agrees. As a result, the corporate veil is pierced, and Sam is held personally liable for the buyer’s damages.
This example illustrates how failing to maintain proper business practices can lead to personal liability. Had Sam documented a draw of funds from the LLC, deposited it into his personal account, and then used it for personal expenses, the liability shield might have remained intact.
Common Reasons for Piercing the Corporate Veil
Several factors can lead to the piercing of an LLC’s liability veil, including:
- Commingling Funds: Using LLC funds to pay personal expenses or depositing personal income into the LLC’s accounts.
- Lack of Separate Accounts: Failing to maintain a dedicated bank account for the LLC.
- Undercapitalization: Establishing the LLC with insufficient funds to cover foreseeable liabilities or operating expenses.
- Noncompliance with Formalities: Ignoring the operating agreement or failing to adhere to state regulations.
- Fraud or Misrepresentation: Misrepresenting the LLC’s financial condition or ability to meet obligations.
- Informal Agreements: Making undocumented agreements or promises outside the scope of the LLC’s governance.
- Alter Ego Operations: Treating the LLC as an extension of personal activities rather than a separate business entity.
- Poor Record-Keeping: Failing to document contributions, distributions, or significant business decisions.
Best Practices to Avoid Piercing the Corporate Veil
To protect the liability shield of an LLC, follow these best practices:
- Maintain Financial Separation: Open a separate bank account for the LLC and ensure all business transactions go through it. Avoid commingling personal and business funds.
- Ensure Adequate Capitalization: Fund the LLC sufficiently at its inception and provide ongoing capital to meet its operational needs.
- Follow Formalities: Comply with the LLC’s operating agreement and state laws.
- Document All Transactions: Keep detailed records of contracts, invoices, and other business dealings. Record all major decisions, even if formal meetings are not required.
- Avoid Fraud and Misconduct: Operate the LLC ethically and transparently to maintain credibility.
- Use Funds Appropriately: Ensure LLC funds are used exclusively for legitimate business expenses. Document any distributions or payments made to owners.
- Conduct Regular Reviews: Periodically review business practices to ensure compliance with legal and operational standards.
Consult an Attorney
When in doubt, consult an experienced attorney. They can provide guidance on sound business practices and help ensure your LLC maintains its liability protections. By taking proactive steps, you can protect both your business and your personal assets from unnecessary risk.

If you are one of those farm businesses putting off the requirement to file “beneficial ownership information” (BOI) to the federal government under the new Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), you just received an early Christmas present from a federal court in Texas. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the CTA, concluding that the law “appears likely unconstitutional.” The court halted enforcement of the CTA and its regulations (the Reporting Rule) and stayed the January 1, 2025 deadline for BOI reporting.
What is the CTA?
The CTA is a new federal law that requires certain businesses to report the identities of those with “beneficial ownership interests” in the business to the federal Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The CTA’s first reporting deadline was set to be January 1, 2025.
The parties who brought the lawsuit
Six Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the United States -- a private individual, three businesses, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, and the National Federation of Independent Business. The parties claimed that the CTA and its regulations are unconstitutional on several grounds: first, for violating State’s rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; second, for violating the First Amendment by compelling speech and burdening rights of association, and third, for violating the Fourth Amendment by forcing disclosure of private information.
The court’s analysis
Stating that whether the CTA and its rules are absolutely unconstitutional “is a question for another day,” the court instead focused its opinion on its duty to determine whether the Plaintiffs satisfied the proof necessary for being awarded the “extraordinary relief” of an injunction. Doing so required the court to examine the elements a plaintiff must prove to receive an injunction. The court’s opinion consumes 79-pages, but here’s a snapshot of the court’s analysis of the required elements:
- That the CTA and Reporting Rule substantially threaten the plaintiffs with irreparable harm. The Plaintiffs presented two arguments that they would suffer irreparable harm by complying with the CTA reporting requirements. First, Plaintiffs claimed they would have to expend resources, spend time and effort, and incur compliance costs and legal expenses. Second, they argued that their constitutional rights would also be irreparably harmed because the fear of noncompliance and criminal punishment would force them to reveal protected information. The court agreed that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in both the form of compliance costs and substantial threats to their constitutional rights. In doing so, the court rejected the federal government’s argument that reporting costs would be minimal and “not a heavy lift.
- A substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any of their challenges. The lengthiest part of the court’s decision is its analysis of whether the Plaintiffs are likely to be successful in their argument that the CTA is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs raised several constitutional challenges, but the court addressed only the Tenth Amendment claim that Congress exceeded its authority by passing the CTA. The government first argued that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause authorized the CTA, but the court determine that the CTA appears to be a “substantial expansion of commerce power” because it neither regulates economic activity nor non-economic activity among the states, but instead “regulates reporting companies simply because they are registered entities and compels disclosure of information for a law enforcement purpose.” Likewise, the court rejected the government’s second argument, that the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper clause authorized it to enact the CTA as a necessary and proper extension of its power to regulate commerce and foreign affairs and to lay and collect taxes. The court found “no constitutional solace” in any of the government’s arguments, however. The Plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of of proving their claim that the CTA exceeds Congress’ authority and violates the Tenth Amendment, the court concluded.
- That the threatened harm outweighs any damage the injunction might have on the Government and that preliminary injunctive relief will not harm the public. A final question the court deliberated is the “balancing of the equities,” or whether the threatened injury to Plaintiffs by not granting the injunction outweighs any potential harm to the government from issuing the injunction. The court quickly concluded that because the Plaintiffs’ injuries are concrete and because it is in the best interest of the public to prevent a violation of a party’s constitutional right by allowing enforcement of the CTA, the balance of equities favors issuing an injunction.
The extent of the injunction
The court’s final deliberation was whether the injunction should apply nationwide or only to the Plaintiffs, and whether it should also prevent enforcement of the CTA’s Reporting Rule and put the January 1, 2025 compliance deadline on hold. Given that the CTA applies nationwide to nearly 33 million businesses, the court held that the extent of the potential constitutional violations Plaintiffs alleged would be best served through a nationwide injunction of the CTA and its Reporting Rule. Combined with a stay of the compliance date, the nationwide injunction will maintain the status quo and protect the parties from irreparable harm pending further review of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
What does the case mean for farm businesses?
Businesses who haven’t yet filed their BOI information with the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network are not currently required to do so, and the Department of Treasury cannot enforce the law or issue penalties against businesses who do not report. Note that the court case did not address or include any remedies for businesses that have already filed BOI information. But the lawsuit is not over and there will be further legal proceedings on both the constitutional challenges and the issuance of the injunction (UPDATE: The federal government filed an appeal of the court's decision on December 5, 2024). For now, businesses might want to consult with their legal counsel and be prepared to file if the injunction is lifted. If that occurs, there is likely to be advance notice or an extension of time granted for filers to come into compliance.
Expect to hear more from us in the future on the legal status of the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements.
Tags: corporate transparency act, beneficial ownership information, BOI, FinCEN, CTA
Comments: 0
Are you a farmer or farmland owner wanting to learn more about recent tax law changes and proposals? If so, join OSU Extension Educators Barry Ward, Jeff Lewis, Robert Moore and David Marrison on Friday, December 6 at 10 a.m. for a special edition of our Farm Office Live webinar presented by OSU's Income Tax School. The team will discuss tax issues that may affect farmers and farmland owners for the 2024 tax season and beyond.
Topics include:
- Farm Economy and Tax Planning
- Tax Planning in Low Income/Drought Years
- Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) Reporting
- Pending Sunset of Larger Estate Tax Exclusion Amount (Unified Credit)
- Residual Fertility/Fertilizer Deduction
- Clean Fuel Production Credit (I.R.C. § 45Z)
- Current Ag Use Valuation (CAUV) Changes in 2024
- IRC § 45Q - Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration
- Farm Loan Immediate Relief Under Inflation Reduction Act: Income Tax Options Triggered by Corrected 1099s
- Taxability of USDA Discrimination Financial Assistance Awards
- Pending Expiration (Sunsetting) of other Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) Provisions
This two-hour program will be presented in a live webinar format via Zoom. Individuals who operate farms, own property, or are involved with renting farmland are encouraged to participate. Registration is necessary and if you're a regular Farm Office Live attendee, you're already registered for the webinar. For others, register at https://go.osu.edu/farmofficelive.
Tags: tax, Ag Tax, Farm Tax, Income Tax, cauv, IRC
Comments: 0

Our Agricultural & Resource Law Program team is excited to be part of the new Northeast Ohio Ag Innovation Center (NEO-AIC), a center that targets farm-based value-added businesses in Northeast Ohio. Based at OSU's campus in Wooster, Ohio, the center offers individual assessment and assistance to farmers in the Northeast region of the state who want to add or expand their production of value-added food, fiber, or fuel products. Ohio State's center is the newest of the USDA-funded Ag Innovation Centers, which includes seven other centers in Massachusetts, New York, Minnesota, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri and Indiana.
The center will focus on "value-added agriculture," which refers to enhancing an agricultural product by altering its physical state, production method, or marketing approach, ultimately broadening the customer base for the product. Examples include:
-
Making a physical change, like milling wheat into flour or making strawberries into jam, that transforms the original product into something new.
-
Changing your production method, which includes growing organically, shifts how the product is produced and makes it more appealing to a specific market.
-
Adding marketing labels like “locally grown” or “Ohio Proud” which enhance their appeal by emphasizing local origins and can attract new customers. *
The NEO-AIC team will work with clients to assess and assist with their specific needs for developing or expanding value-added production. The team will also coordinate connections with processors, markets, and distribution outlets throughout the region and identify new products and opportunities for farms. As the legal member of the team, I'll provide resources to help clients understand the laws and regulations that apply to their value-added production and their businesses. Specific services the team will provide include:
- Technical assistance: Help with legal and food safety questions and making connections to local service providers.
- Value chain coordination: Help finding markets and distribution outlets for value-added products and strategic identification of new customer demands that can be filled by local farms.
- Business development support: Help with developing the plans necessary to start or expand a business, including legal and regulatory requirements, financing options, and connections to resources.
Thanks to the hard work and foresight of Dr. Shoshanah Inwood, OSU secured financial support for the new center from USDA Rural Development. With additional assistance from Ohio State University Extension and The Ohio State University College of Food Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, NEO-AIC is able to offer its services free of charge to Northeast Ohio farms.
Visit this link to learn more about the NEO-AIC.
Tags: value-added, food processing, Northeast Ohio Agricultural Innovation Center, NEO-AIC
Comments: 0
Trusts are often an important component of a farm succession plan. But there are two primary different types of trust – revocable and irrevocable. A revocable trust often meets most needs and can be the preferred choice for flexibility. However, in cases where enhanced asset protection or estate tax management is necessary, an irrevocable trust may be more suitable. Occasionally, a combination of both types may be needed for optimal results.
A new bulletin, Understanding Revocable and Irrevocable Trusts, is now available to help you compare these trusts and consider how each can play a role in your farm’s transition plan. Find this bulletin and many other farm transition related resources at farmoffice.osu.edu.
Also, we are about to renew our popular Planning for the Future of Your Farm Series with several in-person workshops scheduled:
- December 4, 2024 - Fulton County (9:00 to 4:00 p.m.)
- January 23, 2025- Putnam County (9:00 to 4:00 p.m.)
- February 6, 2025- Pickaway County (10:00 to 4:00 p.m.)
- February 18, 2025- Clark County (9:00 to 4:00 p.m.)
- March 3 & 17, 2025- Washington County (6:30 to 9:00 p.m.)
- March 11 & 13, 2025- Wayne County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- March 13 & 18, 2025 - Knox/Licking/Delaware County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
An online webinar version will also be available on February 3, 10, 17, and 24, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. For more information on both the in-person and online presentations, visit Planning for the Future of Your Farm Workshops.
Join experts David Marrison and Robert Moore at Ohio Maple Days for a hands-on workshop on farm transition planning. This engaging session is designed to guide farm families in making thoughtful plans for the future of their farm business. Discover how to have essential conversations about succession and explore practical strategies and tools for transferring ownership, management, and assets to the next generation.
The workshop will take place on December 6, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., at the Ashland University Convocation Center. Visit woodlandstewards.osu.edu for additional information. Can't attend? More farm transition workshops are scheduled in the coming months—find dates and locations under the Farm Transition section at farmoffice.osu.edu.
Tags: farm transition planning
Comments: 0
Written by AnnaMarie Poole, Law Fellow, National Agricultural Law Center
Background Info
In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act substantially raised the federal lifetime gift and estate tax exemptions, nearly doubling the previous limits. As of 2024, individuals can transfer up to $13.61 million, and married couples up to $27.22 million, without facing federal estate tax. This increased exemption has provided significant tax relief by allowing larger portions of estates to be passed on tax-free. However, this benefit is temporary and is scheduled to end on December 31, 2025. After this date, the exemption will revert to the 2017 level of $5.49 million, adjusted for inflation1, which would reduce the amount that can be transferred tax-free in one’s estate.
The estate tax exemption was raised in hopes of reducing the financial burden on higher wealth families, many of whom argued that the previous exemption levels led to “double taxation” on already-taxed assets, which harmed family-owned businesses and farms. Also, by reducing estate tax liability by raising the exemption, it was hoped that people benefitting from the higher exemption would invest more of their wealth rather than redirect it toward complicated estate planning or tax-avoidance strategies. The argument was this would help stimulate the economy.
Opinions vary widely on what will happen to the estate tax exemption after 2025. Some believe that Congress will extend the current higher exemption limits, which would keep the thresholds at or near the 2024 levels to continue providing tax relief. Others expect the exemption to revert to the pre-2017 level, adjusted for inflation, which would result in a significantly lower threshold that will subject more estates to federal taxes. Some predict a compromise, with the exemption being set somewhere between the current amount and the original amount, which would allow for a middle-ground approach that would balance tax revenue needs with estate planning concerns. Finally, some propose lowering the exemption even further than the 2017 level and increasing tax rates. Let’s look at each of these scenarios.
Option #1: Extend the Current Limit
One prevailing thought is to extend the estate tax exemption due to its minimal contribution to overall federal revenue and its limited impact on reducing deficits. Over the past 50 years, the estate tax has consistently accounted for less than 3% of total federal revenues. In 2020, it raised just $17.6 billion out of $3.5 trillion in federal revenue, enough to cover only about a day’s worth of federal spending. Given its relatively small role in funding government operations, many argue that the economic benefits of preserving wealth, protecting family-owned farms and businesses, and encouraging investment outweigh the limited revenue gains from allowing the exemption to expire. This perspective suggests that maintaining the higher exemption would continue to promote economic stability without significantly affecting the federal budget.
Option #2: Revert to Original Limit
Historically, the estate tax has been used as a tool to prevent the excessive concentration of wealth and political power. However, due to recent changes, only about 0.2% of estates are currently taxed, and the average tax rate on inherited wealth is just 2%. Proponents of a lower exemption argue that reverting to the original exemption level would restore the estate tax’s role in curbing wealth inequality and funding public services. Additionally, with an estimated $80 trillion in wealth set to be transferred from baby boomers to their heirs in the next two decades, a lower exemption could ensure that a larger portion of these inheritances is taxed.
Option #3: Middle Ground
Another potential solution for estate tax reform could involve finding a middle-ground exemption level that lies between the current higher threshold of $13.61 million per person and the previous lower amount of $5.49 million, adjusted for inflation. This would allow for more moderate estates to pass on assets without facing significant tax burdens while allowing larger estates to still contribute to public revenues. Adjusting the exemption this way could protect smaller inheritances while ensuring fair contributions from estates of higher value.
Another middle-ground option would be to maintain the current exemption of $13.61 million per person but introduce a slightly increased tax rate on any amount exceeding this threshold. Currently, estates over the exemptions are taxed at a rate between 18% to 40%. By raising the tax rate but keeping the exemption, there would still be protections for most estates but those exceeding the exemption contribute a bit more to the tax system. By making this adjustment, the policy could protect inheritances and generate necessary government revenue.
Option #4: Lower the Original Limit
Another option is to reduce the estate tax exemption to an amount lower than the 2017 level and/or increase the estate tax rates. An example of this approach is found in the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act of 2024, introduced in the Senate by Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and in the House by Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO). The bill outlines various affordable housing initiatives aimed at lowering costs for renters and buyers, while proposing modifications to estate and gift taxes to fund these measures. Some proposed modifications to estate and gift taxes include:
- Lower the estate tax exemption to the 2009 amount of $3,500,000
- Replace the current estate tax rate of 40% with progressive rates
- Tax rate of 55% for estates valued between $3,500,000 and $13,000,000
- Tax rate of 60% for estates valued between $13,000,000 and $93,000,000
- Tax rate of 65% for estates over $93,00,000
- Additional 10% tax for estates over $1 billion
- Reduce the annual gift tax exclusion from $18,000 to $10,000
While this type of legislation seems unlikely to pass Congress, there is a vocal minority that would like to see estate tax exemptions significantly reduced.
Who Can Make Federal Tax Law Changes?
The President does not have the authority to unilaterally change estate tax exemptions or make permanent adjustments to the tax system; those decisions are made by Congress. While the President can propose or advocate for specific tax policies, it is Congress that drafts, debates, and enacts tax legislation. As the federal estate tax provisions are set to expire in 2025, any adjustments to exemption levels or tax rates will require congressional approval. Lawmakers may choose to extend the current exemption, revert to previous thresholds, reach a compromise, or adopt a new approach. However, while the President can influence this process, direct control remains with Congress.
What This Means For You
As of now, it is impossible to know what will come on January 1, 2026. However, it is not too late to utilize the current estate and gift tax limits. In the upcoming year here are some things you should consider:
- Gifting: Gifting can be an effective way of reducing estate tax liability but there are many tax and estate planning implications. For a detailed discussion of gifting, see the Gifting To Reduce Federal Estate Taxes bulletin available here.
- Consulting with an Estate Planning Attorney: An estate planning attorney can help set up the best plan for you and potentially utilize the current exemptions while they are still available.
- Reviewing Your Current Plan: You should make sure your current estate plan reflects your goals and takes advantage of the current higher exemption before it potentially decreases.
- Staying Informed: As the tax laws potentially change in the upcoming year, you should stay informed about issues that could impact your estate plan and your family’s finances.
1 The adjusted for inflation exemption is expected to be between $7 million and $7.5 million.
Tags: federal estate tax exemption
Comments: 0

Part 2 in our series on Carbon Capture and Storage
If you’re a landowner, you may hold a valuable property interest that is gaining attention across the country: pore space. Pore space is the empty space between the particles of soil, sand, rock, and sediment beneath the surface of your land. It’s a geological formation that, if large enough, can store gas, brine water, and similar substances. Why the recent interest in pore space? It’s a necessity for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)—a technology that removes carbon dioxide (CO2) from emission sources and stores it in pore space far beneath the land’s surface.
We began this series on CCS with an overview of the technology and why it’s gaining traction in Ohio. See our first post on the Ohio Ag Law Blog. This second post focuses on legal issues related to pore space. The capacity to store CO2 in the pore space beneath the surface is a property interest that may have value to landowners—one that could be sold or leased to another party for CCS or other storage purposes. But before pore space transactions occur in Ohio, the General Assembly must address a few legal issues: clarification of pore space ownership, whether and how pore space interests can be severed and conveyed, and the relationship between a severed pore space interest and surface and mineral interests. Here’s why these are important legal needs.
- Ownership of pore space. A golden rule of property law partly answers the issue of pore space ownership in Ohio: the “ad coleum” doctrine. The doctrine states that the owner of land owns the rights above and below the land, from the sky to the earth’s core. The assumption under this common law rule, then, is that a landowner owns all subsurface pore space. But what if the pore space is created as a result of a particular activity, like mining? While a few court cases in Ohio have followed the ad coleum doctrine and recognized pore space ownership as an attribute of surface ownership, there have been inconsistent court rulings on the question of ownership of pore space resulting from mining activities. The rulings drive a need for the Ohio legislature to clarify pore space ownership issues, first by codifying the ad coleum doctrine and stating that a surface owner also owns the pore space beneath the surface. Second, statutory law could state whether the surface or mineral owner holds the right to pore space resulting from mineral extraction. If Ohio follows the general rule on mineral extraction adopted among other states, Ohio law would state that the surface owner retains the right to pore space after minerals are fully extracted.
- Severance, conveyance, and recording of pore space interests. Can a surface owner sever the rights to pore space and convey the interest to another party, as Ohio law allows with mineral interests? That’s another legal question in need of clarification in Ohio. The legislature could establish the right to sever pore space and adopt the same conveyancing and recording standards we utilize for tracking other property interests in Ohio.
- Conflicts with other property interests. Can pore space owners interfere with mineral and surface ownership interests by taking actions such as establishing a CCS well on the surface to store CO2 in the pore space? Which property interest has priority over the others if there is a conflict? Our courts can address legal questions as they arise but the Ohio legislature has the power to clear up the relationship between these property interests through statutory law. In particular, Ohio law should establish the priority of rights between the surface, pore space, and mineral interests and answer which is dominant over another when there is a conflict.
Will the legislature tackle these pore space issues that arise with the potential of CCS in Ohio? Possibly, but probably not until the next legislative session begins in January. There are currently proposals in both chambers of the legislature that simply declare an “intent to regulate carbon capture and storage technologies and the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide for long-term storage,” House Bill 358 and Senate Bill 200, but those bills do not yet contain any detailed language and they will die if not passed by year’s end. With few days remaining in the legislative session this year, the bills are not likely to see any action. There will likely be new versions of the bills introduced next year, however, if the interest in CCS in Ohio continues. Hopefully, the proposals will answer our legal questions about pore space as a property interest of Ohio landowners.
Read the next blog post in this series, which reviews the CCS legislation under consideration in Ohio, at this link.
Tags: pore space, CCS, carbon, carbon capture, carbon injection, carbon lease, carbon sequestration
Comments: 0
While we never like to see the damage and destruction caused by natural disasters, such as the floods in North Carolina, it can be an opportunity to take stock of our own situation. Disasters remind us of the unpredictability of life and highlight the need to ensure our personal and financial affairs are in order. While you might think that large-scale disasters won’t affect your area, people in North Carolina and Tennessee likely felt the same until disaster struck. With that in mind, here are a few key aspects to consider when planning for unforeseen events:
- Estate Planning Documents. Imagine being injured during a natural disaster, only to discover that your health care power of attorney has been destroyed in the chaos. Without it, your family might struggle to make critical decisions on your behalf. The same applies to financial powers of attorney, wills, and trusts. If those documents are lost or damaged, your loved ones could face significant legal and financial challenges.
To avoid these situations, you should have a copy of your documents in a safe, secure location. One easy solution is to keep a digital copy with your attorney. Most law firms keep their documents digitally on secure servers. If your law firm does not already have a digital copy of your documents, consider asking them to add your documents to their server. If you do not want to have digital copies of your documents, make a paper copy and leave with your attorney or another trusted person.
- Insurance. Have you reviewed your insurance policy with your insurance agent to access how your policy would address a disaster such as fire, tornado or flood? Some of those affected by the recent flooding never imagined they’d need flood insurance—until it was too late. Be sure to have a discussion with your insurance agent as to what type of disasters are covered and, more importantly, what disasters are not. If your policy lacks coverage for certain disasters, consider adding endorsements to extend your protection. Acting proactively ensures you're not left scrambling when a crisis arises.
- Business Succession. What would happen to your farming operation if the primary manager were suddenly injured, incapacitated, or unavailable? Having a clear succession plan is essential to ensure the farm continues to operate smoothly in the face of such disruptions. Establish a plan that designates individuals—either from within the operation or externally—who can take over management duties if the primary leader becomes unavailable. Ensure that they are familiar with the day-to-day operations and responsibilities.
Also, Make sure that all essential business records are regularly backed up and that copies are stored securely, either digitally or at an offsite location. This is crucial in case the main office is destroyed or inaccessible. Would you know what bills need to be paid in the next 30 days if the office is destroyed in a fire?
- Contact Information. If your phone was lost or destroyed, would you have the contact information for important people—like family members, employees, advisors, or key vendors? With smartphones storing most of our contacts, many of us only have a few numbers memorized. While you could eventually track down phone numbers, the last thing you want to do during a disaster is scramble to find essential contacts. Create a list of contact information for those you may need to reach in an emergency. Store a copy of this list somewhere outside your home or office, or give it to someone whose number you have memorized. This ensures you can quickly access critical phone numbers and emails when needed most.
While most of us may never experience catastrophic damage from floods, fires, or tornadoes, some of us inevitably will. How prepared are you for the unexpected? Being unprepared only makes a disaster more difficult to manage. Take an hour or two now to develop an emergency plan—this small investment of time will help you respond more quickly and avoid making a challenging situation even worse.
One thing we're not short on in agriculture today is the opportunity to engage in carbon sequestration programs. Many programs are available that offer to pay farmers and landowners for adopting practices that sequester carbon dioxide to keep the pollutant out of the atmosphere. The practice aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as carbon dioxide is a significant contributor to GHG. Farming practices that sequester carbon include using cover crops, adopting no-till, and planting trees.
If you're considering a carbon sequestration or carbon credit program, what do you need to know about carbon sequestration? An upcoming program offered by OSU Extension's Energy Outreach Program will offer insight into carbon sequestration. Join us on October 29, 2024 at 8 a.m. for a webinar on "Carbon Sequestration for the Farmer and Landowner" and hear from these three panelists:
- Michael Estadt, Assistant Professor & Extension Educator, Pickaway County
- Peggy Kirk Hall, Attorney & Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program
- John Porter, Outreach & Partnership Liaison,Truterra, LLC
The panel will highlight important issues and considerations for farmers and landowners interested in carbon sequestration. Pre-registration is not necessary; simply join the webinar through this link: go.osu.edu/carbon2024.
Contact Dan Lima at lima.19@osu.edu or call the OSU Extension office in Belmont Co. (740) 695-1455 for more information.
Tags: carbon, carbon sequestration, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas, climate change, climate smart
Comments: 0