Recent Blog Posts
We're heading into a summer season of our new Agricultural Law & Policy Roundable--a Farm Office Live summer webinar series dedicated to law and policy issues for agriculture..
The first topic we'll tackle is the Farm Bill. With the recent passage by the House of Representatives, the Farm Bill now moves to the Senate. What was in the House version and what might be problematic for the Senate? Join the Farm Office legal and farm management team as we review provisions that passed in the House, provisions that were pulled, and issues that might cause conflicts in the Senate.
If you're not already signed up for Farm Office Live, visit go.osu.edu/farmofficelive to register. We also maintain an archive of all Farm Office Live recordings on the site.


We’re thrilled to invite you to the Fourth Annual Cultivating Connections Conference, proudly presented by The Ohio State University’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program and Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation, in partnership with the National Agricultural Law Center.
Whether you’re a legal professional, tax advisor, farm transition planner, student, industry partner, or simply passionate about the future of family farms, this conference is designed for you. Over the dynamic multi-day conference, you’ll gain timely insights, practical strategies, and valuable connections to help navigate today’s evolving landscape of farm transition and succession planning.
Mark your calendar: August 3-5, 2026
Location: The Grand Event Center, just steps from The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.
Cultivating Connections is offered in a convenient hybrid format, giving you the flexibility to join us in person or participate virtually from anywhere. No matter how you choose to attend, you’ll be part of an inviting, collaborative community focused on sharing knowledge and building meaningful connections.
Why Attend?
Whether you are advising clients, shaping policy, or building your legal career, this conference offers:
- In-depth education on emerging legal issues
- Continuing Education opportunities
- Networking with practitioners, academics, and professionals
- Practical tools you can apply in your own practice
Agenda Highlights
Participants can look forward to a rich program featuring sessions such as:
- Reverse Mentoring: The Invisible Org Chart
- Identifying and Addressing Mental Health Issues in Farm Families
- Farm Transition from a Farm Manager’s Perspective
- Agricultural and Conservation Easements in Farm Transition Planning
- Incorporating Divorce Protection in Business Entities
- Dealing with Farm Assets Trapped in Corporations
- Managing Tax Basis in Estates
- Reviewing Available Resources for Your Clients
- The State of the Farm Economy
- An Interactive Case Study
- Responsibilities in Assessing Client Capacity
In-person Attendees
Attendees joining us in person on August 3 will enjoy several exciting networking opportunities, including:
- A behind-the-scenes tour of Ohio Stadium
- Attendees receive a complimentary tour; guests are welcome at a discounted price of $20/each
- A 1.0-hour Ethics CLE session focused on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) representation at Hofbrauhaus
- Following the Ethics CLE, a welcome reception at Hofbrauhaus to connect with fellow attendees and speakers
Please note: these experiences are available only to in-person participants. We are unable to livestream the Ethics CLE from Hofbrauhaus currently.
Online Attendees
The conference is designed as a hybrid event:
- The opening day (August 3) features in-person programming
- The remaining two days of the conference (August 4-5) will be simulcast, allowing virtual attendees to participate fully in the educational sessions
Special Student Pricing
Students are encouraged to attend and engage with current professionals and industry partners working in the area of farm transition and succession planning.
- Student Registration: $100
- To register at this reduced rate, students must contact:
- Peggy Hall at hall.673@osu.edu
Link to Register: https://go.osu.edu/cultivatingconnections
Questions?
For additional details about the conference, agenda, or registration, please contact:
- Ellen Essman at essman.23@osu.edu
Tags: Cultivating Connections, Farm Transition Planning Conference, Farm Succession, farm transition planning, Estate Planning, CLE
Comments: 0

OSU Extension, in partnership with the Ohio Farm Transition Network (OFTN), recently hosted the International Farm Transition Network’s (IFTN) Certified Farm Succession Coordinator Training on April 20–22 at the Secrest Arboretum Welcome and Education Center on the OSU CFAES Wooster Campus.
The sold-out, three-day training brought together 30 agricultural professionals from across Ohio, including attorneys, accountants, lenders, insurance agents, Extension educators, and other service providers. The training marked an important step forward in strengthening farm transition planning for Ohio’s agricultural industry.
This intensive 20-hour program equipped participants with facilitation tools and proven strategies to help farm families thoughtfully and strategically plan for the transition of farm assets, management, and decision-making to the next generation. Trained farm succession coordinators play a critical role in guiding families through complex conversations by clarifying goals, exploring transition options, and fostering effective family communication.
Instructors for this training included 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. Upon completion of the program, the participants are eligible to sit for the certification exam to become a Certified IFTN Farm Succession Coordinator.
Beyond professional development, the training highlighted the growing momentum behind the newly launched Ohio Farm Transition Network. OFTN is a statewide initiative formed through a collaboration of leading agricultural organizations committed to improving the consistency, quality, and accessibility of farm transition planning resources for Ohio farm families.
Founding members of the Ohio Farm Transition Network include AgCredit, Farm Credit Mid-America, Nationwide, Ohio Corn and Wheat, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Soybean Council, Ohio State University Extension, and the USDA Farm Service Agency. For more information about the Ohio Farm Transition Network, upcoming programs, or membership opportunities, visit:
https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-transition/ohio-farm-transition-network
The Lowering Input Costs for American Farmers Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, April 28, 2026. Sponsored by Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), and co-sponsored by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), and Ernst (R-Iowa), the bill would eliminate tariffs on phosphate fertilizer and related products coming from Morocco. We have previously discussed the rising costs of fertilizer and other inputs both on Farm Office Live (upcoming schedule and previous videos available here) and in this blog post which examined the conflict in Iran and its contribution to rising prices.
What steps would the bill take to lower costs?
As mentioned above, the bill would eliminate tariffs on phosphate fertilizer and related products imported from the Kingdom of Morocco. Eliminating these tariffs would be significant, since Morocco is the leading exporter of phosphate fertilizers, holding about 70% of the world’s phosphate rock reserves. Since the Trump Administration took office in 2025, baseline tariffs on Moroccan goods have reached up to 10%. If the bill is enacted, the elimination of any tariffs on phosphate fertilizer and related products would take place within 7 days of enactment.
Secondly, if passed, the bill would revoke countervailing duty orders on imports from Morocco within 4 business days. These countervailing duties were first imposed in March of 2021, after Mosaic, a U.S. fertilizer producer, filed a complaint against the OCP Group, a phosphate exporter owned by the Moroccan government. According to congress.gov, a countervailing duty (CVD) is an additional tax or tariff placed on imported goods to offset certain kinds of subsidies provided by an exporting country. (If you’d like to learn more about CVDs, congress.gov has a longer explanation available here). Here, the U.S. (the importer) placed an additional tax on phosphate fertilizer and other related products coming from Morocco (the exporter), because the U.S. felt that the Moroccan government was unfairly subsidizing its phosphate industry. Research conducted by the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University asserts that CVDs on phosphorus fertilizers have cost U.S. producers $6.9 billion from 2021 to 2025. Thus, revoking the CVDs on phosphate products from Morocco would likely mean a substantial price cut for producers buying phosphate fertilizer.
Both the tariffs and the countervailing duties on phosphate from Morocco have contributed to higher prices for U.S. producers. By eliminating these tariffs, the bill would lower the price of phosphate fertilizers for American farmers. The text of the Lowering Input Costs for American Farmers Act is available here. For additional reading, a press release from Senator Marshall’s office about the bill is available here. We will be sure to keep you updated as the bill progresses through Congress.
Tags: legislation, Congressional legislation, phosphate fertilizers, fertilizer, tariffs
Comments: 0
For many farm families, land has been owned for decades, sometimes generations. That long history can create a common problem when it comes time to sell or transfer the property and no one is quite sure what the tax basis is.
Tax basis matters. It is used to calculate taxable gain when real estate is sold. The basic formula is straightforward, as the sale price minus the tax basis equals the gain. Without a reliable basis, it is impossible to estimate tax liability or plan for a sale.
Three situations come up most often. The first is inherited real estate where the date-of-death value was never documented or has been lost. The second is real estate that was purchased many years ago, where the original purchase price and improvements are unclear. The third is real estate that was received as a gift. Each may require a different approach.
Inherited Real Estate: Reconstructing Date-of-Death Value
Inherited property receives a “stepped-up” basis. In most cases, the basis is the fair market value of the property on the date of the prior owner’s death. Ideally, the estate would have obtained an appraisal at the time of death. If so, that appraisal establishes the basis. The first step, then, is to check with the attorney who handled the estate or locate estate records to see if an appraisal exists. Also, any estate tax returns that were filed may include the value of the real estate.
If the estate attorney is not available, probate court records can be checked. If the land was inherited through a will or intestacy (no will), the estate file should include the value of the land. The probate can provide the estate file upon request.
If no appraisal was done and/or the land did not go through probate, the value can still be established. A real estate appraiser can perform a retrospective appraisal, determining what the property was worth as of the date of death, even if that was many years ago. Appraisers rely on comparable sales and market data from that time period to support their conclusions.
This is a common and accepted practice. While it would have been easier to document the value at the time of death, a well-supported retrospective appraisal is generally sufficient for tax purposes.
Purchased Real Estate
For property that was purchased, the starting point for basis is the original purchase price. But for land acquired decades ago, that number is often forgotten or business records have been lost. The first step is to search for any existing documentation. Closing statements, deeds, loan records, or tax documents may provide clues about the purchase price.
If you do not have business records to establish the purchase price, the county auditor can usually help. When real estate is sold, a conveyance fee is paid to the county auditor. (Note: this is specific to Ohio county auditors.) The conveyance fee is the sale price multiplied by the conveyance fee factor, usually 0.2% - 0.4% of the purchase price. The conveyance fee is usually recorded on the face of the deed. So, once the conveyance fee is known, the county auditor can provide the conveyance fee rate at the time of the sale. With the conveyance fee and the rate, the sale price can be calculated.
For example, a farm was sold 30 years ago. The deed recorded at the Recorder’s office shows that the conveyance fee was $500. The county auditor’s records show the conveyance fee at the time was 0.2% of the sale price. With this information, the sale price is established as having been $250,000.
Gifted Real Estate
Real estate received as a gift is treated differently than inherited property. Instead of receiving a stepped-up basis, the recipient generally receives the same basis the donor had in the property.
For example, if a parent purchased farmland for $100,000 and later gifted it to a child when it was worth $500,000, the child’s basis is still $100,000, not $500,000. If the child later sells the property, the gain will be calculated using the parent’s original basis.
The challenge is that the recipient may not know what the donor originally paid for the property. In these situations, the recipient must determine the last time the property was sold or inherited. Once this is established, then the value can be determined using the methods described above.
Documentation Matters
In all three scenarios, documentation is key. The more support you have for the value or cost basis, the stronger your position if the IRS ever questions it. Formal appraisals, written records, and credible supporting data all carry weight.
If documentation is thin, it becomes even more important to be reasonable and consistent in how values are determined. A well-documented estimate is far better than no estimate at all.
Final Thoughts
Uncertainty about tax basis is common with long-held farmland, inherited property, and gifted land, but it can usually be resolved with some effort. Whether through locating old records or obtaining a retrospective appraisal, establishing basis is an important step before selling real estate. Taking the time to determine a defensible tax basis can prevent surprises at tax time and, in many cases, significantly reduce the amount of tax owed.
Tags: Real Estate Basis
Comments: 0

Determining whether a farm purchase is exempt from Ohio sales tax can be confusing and, at times, frustrating. This blog post breaks down Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption by explaining what qualifies, what doesn’t, who can claim the exemption, and why the rules often seem unclear.
The Starting Point
In Ohio, the starting point in determining what qualifies for the agricultural sales tax exemption is simple: everything you buy at retail is taxable unless the law says otherwise. Ohio does have a special sales tax exemption for certain purchases connected to farming, but that exemption is limited. Just because something is commonly used on a farm does not automatically mean it qualifies for the agricultural sales tax exemption.
Put another way, Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption is narrow and fact specific. You cannot assume something is exempt simply because it is farm related. The question is usually the same: Is the item/property being purchased used primarily to produce an agricultural product that will be sold? If the answer is no, the exemption generally does not apply.
Overview of Ohio’s Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption
Both the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) and the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) include provisions that exempt certain agricultural purchases from Ohio’s sales tax. The exemption most commonly relied on by farmers is found in R.C. § 5739.02(B)(17) and explained further in OAC 5703-9-23(B) and 5703-9-23(C).
Under those provisions, certain tangible personal property may qualify for Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption if it used in one of the following ways:
- Property used primarily in farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture to produce products for sale.
- Property purchased for incorporation into tangible personal property produced for sale.
- Property used primarily in producing tangible personal property that will be used to produce products for sale.
- Property used primarily in conditioning or holding products produced for sale.
** For brevity, we refer to the four categories (farming, agriculture, horticulture, and floriculture) all under the terms “agriculture” or “agricultural.”
Some other more specialized code sections that provide a sales tax exemption to agricultural producers include:
- Materials for horticulture and livestock structures – R.C. 5739.02(B)(13) and R.C. 5739.02(B)(36)
- Agricultural land tile – R.C. 5739.02(B)(30)
- Grain Bins – R.C. 5739.02(B)(31)
- Preparation of eggs for sale – R.C. 5739.02(B)(24)
What Qualifies?
Beyond the language found directly in the statutes and regulations, it’s important to look at other legal guidance to understand how the sales tax exemption works in practice. Below are several key points about Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption that farmers should keep in mind when deciding whether a purchase qualifies.
- Farming, Agriculture, Horticulture, and Floriculture
Before claiming the agricultural sales tax exemption, a producer must determine whether their activity qualifies as “agriculture” under Ohio tax law. Ohio uses the following four definitions to determine what counts as agriculture for the purposes of the exemption:
Farming – occupation of tilling soil to produce crops as a business and includes raising livestock, bees, or poultry, if the purpose is to sell such livestock, bees, or poultry, or the products thereof as a business.
Agriculture – cultivation of the soil for the purpose or producing vegetables and fruits and includes gardening or horticulture, together with the raising and feeding of cattle or livestock for sale as a business.
Horticulture – the growing, cultivation, and production of flowers, fruits, herbs, vegetables, sod, mushrooms, and nursery stock for sale as a business and includes the operation of commercial vegetable greenhouses or nurseries.
Floriculture – the production of flowers and plants for sale as a business, either in the field or greenhouse.
- Primary Use
To qualify for Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption, an item must be used primarily in agricultural production. Problems often arise when farmers purchase items like all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) or other utility vehicles that serve multiple purposes on the farm.
Last year, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that helped clarify how courts should evaluate whether a purchase qualifies for the agricultural sales tax exemption. In Claugus Family Farm, L.P. v. Harris, the Court challenged some long-held assumptions about which types of purchases can qualify for the exemption.
In that case, a timber farm purchased a Mercedes-Benz Geländewagen and claimed the vehicle was used to transport people, chemicals, and equipment necessary to manage and maintain its forest. The Tax Commissioner and the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) both concluded that the vehicle did not qualify the agricultural sales tax exemption. The Court, however, disagreed and ruled in favor of the taxpayer.
In Claugus, the tax commissioner argued that the timber farm had not shown that the Mercedes was used primarily for farming because the farm did not keep detailed use or mileage logs for the vehicle. In her opinion, the mere transportation of people and equipment to complete projects around the farm do not count as “primary use” under the tax exemption. The Court rejected that approach, explaining that the statute does not require taxpayers to maintain mileage or use logs. Instead, the Court held that the farm manager’s testimony, stating that approximately 95 percent of the vehicle’s use was related to farming activities, was sufficient to establish that the vehicle was primarily used for farming.
Key Takeaway: Use or mileage logs may be useful evidence when showing that an item is primarily used in agricultural production, but Ohio law does not require taxpayers to maintain written records to meet the primary-use standard.
- The Business Component
To claim Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption, it is not enough that an item is primarily used for an agricultural purpose. The purchaser of the item/property in question must also be engaged in the business of agriculture. Ohio law defines a “business” broadly as “any activity carried on with the goal of gain, benefit, or advantage, whether direct or indirect.” R.C. 5739.01(F).
The Supreme Court of Ohio also addressed this business-requirement in Claugus. One argument that the tax commissioner put forth to prove that the Claugus farm was not eligible for the agricultural sales tax exemption was that the farm was not an active business due to its lack of sales, income, and labor expenses. The Court rejected this argument and again ruled in favor of the taxpayer.
The Court made clear that a lack of profit does not prevent a taxpayer from being considered a business under Ohio law. While profits and sales can strengthen a taxpayer’s position, neither is required to meet the statutory definition of a business.
One practical way to support a claim that a taxpayer is engaged in an agricultural business is by filing Schedule F with a federal tax return. That said, Ohio courts and the ODT have also recognized that new and beginning farmers may still qualify for the exemption even if they have not yet filed a Schedule F, so long as they intend to do so in a subsequent year.
Key Takeaway: To qualify for Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption, a producer must be actively engaged in an agricultural business. Actual profits and sales are not required under Ohio law, but they can be strong evidence that the operation is a legitimate, profit-driven enterprise.
Common Examples of Items that Qualify under § 5739.02(B)(17)
- Property used Primarily in farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture
- Row-crop and livestock production equipment: Tractors, planters, combines, sprayers, balers, milking equipment.
- ATVs and other utility vehicles: ATVs used to distribute seed or fertilizer, repair fences for livestock operations, or access timber plots for harvest planning may qualify – provided their primary use is farming, not recreation.
- Property Purchased for Incorporation into Tangible Personal Property Produced for Sale.
- Feed, seed, and livestock inputs: These products physically become part of the final agricultural product.
- Fertilizer, pesticides, and soil amendments: These products are incorporated into the production process and materially contribute to the resulting product.
- Packing incorporated in marketable products: Containers and packaging material that become part of the product sold (e.g., plant trays sold with nursery stock).
- Property Used Primarily in Producing Tangible Personal Property That will be Used to Produce Products for Sale.
- Equipment used to make production inputs: Examples include machinery used to prepare items such as feed mixes, compost, or bedding that will later be used in agricultural production can qualify.
- Other “intermediary agricultural production equipment”: We will discuss later how the Claugus decision significantly changed the analysis for this category. For now, it is enough to note that Ohio law no longer requires a qualifying item to be directly used on an agricultural product in order to qualify for the sales tax exemption.
- Property Used Primarily in Conditioning or Holding Products Produced for Sale
- Portable grain bins: Ohio law recognizes that portable grain bins used to store harvested grain prior to sale as a necessary step in bringing products to market.
- Cooling, washing, and sorting equipment: Equipment used to wash, cool, grade, or otherwise condition produce prior to sale qualifies when it preserves or prepares the product for market rather than processing it into a new product.
- Livestock handling and holding equipment: Chutes, pens, and temporary holding equipment used to manage livestock before sale may also qualify.
So Why All the Confusion?
- The Direct Connection.
For many years, Ohio law required that an item be used directly on an agricultural product produced for sale in order to qualify for the agricultural sales tax exemption. That is no longer the case.
The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Claugus clearly explains why this “direct use” requirement no longer applies. In the Claugus case, the tax commissioner argued that the timber farm’s purchase of the Mercedes-Benz vehicle did not qualify for the exemption because the vehicle was not used directly on the timber itself. Instead, the vehicle was used to transport people, supplies, and equipment around the farm – what we will categorize as an “intermediate use.”
The Court rejected that argument. It noted that earlier versions of Ohio’s sales tax statute expressly required that property be used “directly” in agricultural production, but that the General Assembly deliberately removed that word when it amended the statute through House Bill 153 (effective Sept. 29, 2011). The Court explained that when the legislature removes specific language from a statue, that change reflects an intentional shift in meaning.
As a result, the Court held that property may qualify as being used in farming even if it is used to perform intermediate steps in the process of producing agricultural products for sale.
This decision marks a significant departure from past interpretations. Agricultural equipment no longer has to be used directly on crop or livestock to qualify for the sales tax exemption. Instead, equipment may qualify so long as its primary use is agricultural in nature, even if that use is an “intermediate use.”
- Other Statutory Schemes
Another common source of confusion for agricultural producers is that Ohio law does not use a single, consistent definition of agricultural equipment, farm machinery, or agriculture itself. Instead, different areas of Ohio law use different definitions, depending on the purpose of the statute.
For example, Ohio’s motor vehicle statutes define “farm machinery” very broadly. Under R.C. 4501.01(U), farm machinery includes “all machines and tools that are used in the production, harvesting, and care of farm products, and includes trailers that are used to transport agricultural produce or agricultural production materials between a local place of storage or supply and the farm, agricultural tractors, threshing machinery, hay-baling machinery, corn shellers, hammermills, and machinery used in the production of horticultural, agricultural, and vegetable products.”
This definition matters because Ohio law also provides that “farm machinery” is not a motor vehicle for purposes of Ohio’s motor vehicle laws. As a result, the license-plate requirement in R.C. 4503.21, which applies to motor vehicles, does not apply to farm machinery. In practical terms, equipment that qualifies as farm machinery may legally operate without a license plate under Ohio vehicle law.
This inconsistency adds to the confusion when producers try to determine whether an item qualifies for Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption. The sales tax exemption uses a far narrower and more use-specific analysis than Ohio’s motor vehicle laws. While motor vehicle statutes focus on road safety and traffic regulation, the sales tax exemption focuses on how property is used in agricultural production. Because the goals of these laws differ, the terms used in each statutory scheme also differ.
The Ag Sales Tax Equation
In conclusion, Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption is narrow, fact-specific, and heavily dependent on how an item is actually used.
To qualify a taxpayer must prove the following equation:
Business Component + Primary Use (or Intermediate Use) = Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption
Put simply, a purchase qualifies for the agricultural sales tax exemption when the buyer is engaged in an agricultural business and the item being purchased is primarily used in agricultural (or in an accepted intermediate step along the way).
As clarified by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Claugus, the exemption no longer requires that property be used directly on crop or livestock, but that the primary use must still be agricultural in nature. The Claugus decision can be found by following this link.
At the same time, producers must be mindful that Ohio law applies different definitions of “agriculture” depending on the legal context, and classifications that apply under one section of law do not automatically carry over to sales tax.
Understanding these distinctions can help producers avoid confusion, minimize audit risk, and correctly apply Ohio’s agricultural sales tax exemption.
Tags: Agricultural Sales Tax, Sales Tax Exemption, Ag Sales Tax Exemption, Ag Sales Tax
Comments: 0
Inheriting property is usually viewed as a financial windfall, but not every asset is a benefit. Some inherited assets come with liabilities, management burdens, or tax consequences that outweigh their value. When that happens, the law provides an option to refuse the inheritance through a process known as a disclaimer. However, disclaiming an asset is not as simple as turning it down. If done incorrectly, a disclaimer can trigger unintended tax consequences or fail altogether.
There are two primary reasons someone might choose to disclaim an inheritance. First, the asset may simply be undesirable. For example, a parcel of farmland may have poor productivity, environmental concerns, or potential liability that makes ownership more of a burden than a benefit. Second, disclaimers are often used as an estate planning tool. If a beneficiary already has significant wealth, accepting additional assets may increase the size of their taxable estate and result in higher estate taxes in the future. In such cases, disclaiming allows the asset to pass to the next beneficiary without increasing the disclaiming party’s estate.
Disclaiming an inheritance requires strict compliance with Ohio law. Under Ohio Revised Code Section 5815.36, a valid disclaimer must be in writing, signed, and irrevocable. It must identify the governing document, such as a will or trust, clearly describe the property being disclaimed, and state the intent to disclaim. In some cases, the disclaimer must also be filed with the probate court or recorded with the county recorder. A person may disclaim all or only a portion of an inheritance, but any partial disclaimer must precisely identify the portion being refused. Because these requirements are technical, a poorly drafted disclaimer can be invalid.
In addition to state law requirements, federal tax rules must also be followed. To avoid being treated as a taxable gift, a disclaimer must qualify under Internal Revenue Code Section 2518. One of the most important requirements is timing. The disclaimer must be completed and delivered to the appropriate party within nine months of the decedent’s death. If this deadline is met and the other requirements are satisfied, the IRS will treat the disclaimed asset as if it had never been transferred to the beneficiary. If the deadline is missed, the disclaimer may be treated as a gift to the next beneficiary, potentially creating gift tax consequences.
A common mistake that prevents a valid disclaimer is the acceptance of benefits from the inherited property. To disclaim an asset, the beneficiary must not receive or use any benefit from it. This includes something as simple as depositing a rent check from inherited farmland or receiving income generated by the asset. Once a benefit is accepted, the law generally treats the inheritance as accepted, and the opportunity to disclaim is lost. Because acceptance can occur unintentionally, it is important to identify early whether a disclaimer might be appropriate and avoid any interaction with the asset until that decision is made.
Another important consideration is that a disclaimer does not allow the beneficiary to control who ultimately receives the property. Instead, the law treats the disclaiming party as if they predeceased the person who created the inheritance. The asset then passes according to the terms of the will, trust, or applicable law. In some cases, this means the property will pass to the disclaiming party’s heirs, but in other situations it may pass under the residuary clause of the estate to a different beneficiary entirely. Because of this, it is essential to review the governing document to understand where the property will go before making a disclaimer.
Disclaimers become more complicated when the beneficiary is a minor or lacks legal capacity. A child cannot execute a disclaimer, so a parent or guardian must act on the child’s behalf, and court approval is required. The court must determine that the disclaimer is in the child’s best interest, which can be difficult to establish unless there are clear risks or liabilities associated with the asset. Timing is also a challenge, because court approval takes time but the nine-month federal deadline still applies. These situations require careful planning to ensure the disclaimer is both valid and effective.
The process for disclaiming also depends on the type of asset involved. For assets that pass through a will or trust, the disclaimer must be delivered to the executor, administrator, or trustee. For non-probate assets, such as accounts with a designated beneficiary, the disclaimer must be delivered to the financial institution or plan administrator holding the asset. Each type of asset has its own procedures, and failing to follow the correct process can invalidate the disclaimer.
Special caution is required when Medicaid eligibility is a concern. Medicaid is a needs-based program with strict asset limits, and it may seem logical to disclaim an inheritance to remain eligible for benefits. However, Medicaid rules generally treat a disclaimer as an improper transfer of assets. This can result in a penalty period during which the individual is ineligible for benefits, meaning Medicaid will not cover care costs during that time. As a result, disclaiming an inheritance is usually not an effective strategy for protecting assets from long term care expenses.
Disclaiming an inheritance can be a useful planning tool, but it requires careful attention to detail and timing. The legal and tax rules are strict, and even small missteps, such as missing a deadline or accepting a minor benefit, can eliminate the ability to disclaim. It is also critical to understand the consequences, particularly that the disclaiming party cannot direct where the asset will go. For these reasons, anyone considering a disclaimer should evaluate their options as soon as possible and work with an attorney to ensure the decision aligns with their overall estate and financial planning goals.
The OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program is thrilled to host the Agri-Law Summit 2026 in partnership with the Ohio State Bar Association's Agricultural Law Committee. The day-long conference will be on May 21, 2026 at Retreat 21 Venue & Tap House near Marysville, Ohio.
Agriculture plays a major role in Ohio’s history and economy, and agricultural businesses have unique legal needs. The Agri-Law Summit brings attorneys together to focus on those legal needs. In addition to practical legal skills, we'll discuss new and pending legislation and court cases, as well as emerging legal issues for agriculture. The goal is to grow our competency in meeting the legal needs of agricultural clients, both now and as new needs arise in the future.
Because we also want to grow the next generation of agricultural attorneys, we're offering full scholarships for the conference to current and recently graduated law students, with support from the Paul L. Wright Endowment in Agricultural Law at Ohio State.
The Summit program features a variety of speakers. Here's our line up for the day:
Ohio Department of Agriculture Updates
- Robin McGuire Rose, Chief Legal Counsel, Ohio Department of Agriculture
Court Cases and Legislation We’re Watching
- OSBA Ag Law Committee and OSU Ag Law Team
Farm Financial Stress: Are We There Yet?
- Bruce Clevenger, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension
- Eli Earich, Attorney, Barrett, Easterday, Cunningham & Eselgroth
- John Essman, Assistant Vice President and Lender, Kingston National Bank
Hazards Ahead: Farm Tax and Labor Law Myths
- Jeff Lewis, Attorney, OSU Ag & Resource Law Program
Farm Estate Planning Strategies for Non-titled Assets and Long-term Care
- Evin Bachelor, Attorney, Wright & Moore Law Co. LPA
- Robert Moore, Attorney, OSU Ag & Resource Law Program
How Does the Farm Service Agency Affect Our Clients?
- Gregory R. Flax, Attorney, Martin, Browne, Hull & Harper
The New Frontier for Agriculture: Dealing with Data Centers, Carbon Capture, and Competition for Land
- Peggy Kirk Hall, Director, OSU Ag & Resource Law Program
- Chad Endsley, General Counsel, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
- Andrew Wecker, Attorney, Wright & Moore Law Co. LPA
The program has been submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court for 5.5 hours of Continuing Legal Education credit. We've also built a social aspect into the program, providing attendees time to engage with one another during a breakfast, lunch, and a post-conference social at Retreat 21's beautiful Tap House.
For more information and to register, visit go.osu.edu/agrilawsummit. Current and recent law students should contact Peggy Kirk Hall at hall.673@osu.edu for scholarship information.
Although it was first introduced in August of 2025, House Bill 406 just had its first hearing in the House Agriculture Committee on March 25. During the hearing, an amended substitute version of the bill, sponsored by Representatives Deeter (R-Norwalk) and Dean (R-Xenia) was accepted by the Committee. This means that at future hearings, the House Agriculture Committee will consider the substitute version of the bill, which is available to read here.
The sale and consumption of raw milk have been widely debated across the country over the past few years, with proponents of raw milk claiming its health benefits, and opponents citing safety concerns (historically, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cautioned consumers to avoid raw milk because it could cause illness). So, if passed, how would Substitute H.B. 406 change the landscape for raw milk in the state of Ohio?
Current law
First things first—what does Ohio law currently say about raw milk? For all intents and purposes, Ohio Revised Code Section 917.04 (available here), outlaws the sale of raw milk to end, or “ultimate,” consumers in the state.
It is important to note that while current Ohio law does prohibit the sales of raw milk to the “ultimate consumer,” it does not prohibit animal owners from consuming raw milk from their own animals. As a result, the use of “herd share agreements” has proliferated throughout the state. A herd share agreement sells ownership in an animal, rather than selling the raw milk from the animal. Under the agreement, a person who pays the producer for a share of ownership in the animal may take their share of milk from the animal. The Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) challenged the use of herd share agreements as illegal in the 2006 case of Schitmeyer v. ODA, but the court did not uphold the ODA’s attempt to revoke the license of the dairy that was using herd share agreements. As a result, it appears that the herd share agreement approach for raw milk sales is currently legally acceptable.
Proposed language
Definitions
If passed, Sub. H.B. 406 would legalize the sale of raw milk and raw milk products for retailers who register as raw milk retailers with ODA. The bill defines “raw milk” as “unpasteurized milk from a cow, goat, or sheep,” and “raw milk products” as “all products derived from raw milk, including cream, butter, yogurt, cheese” and other products specifically allowed by ODA.
The bill would also formally define “herd-share agreement” as “an agreement in which a person acquires an undivided interest in a milk-producing mammal with the owner of such a mammal that includes an arrangement under which the person receives raw milk for personal use not to be sold or distributed for profit,” thus codifying the decision reached in Schitmeyer v. ODA.
Registration
To sell raw milk or raw milk products, Sub. H.B. 406 would require retailers to register annually with ODA. The bill further charges ODA with setting the fees and process for this registration, as well as with “establishing requirements governing the sanitary production, storage, transportation, manufacturing, handling, sampling, testing, examination, and sale of raw milk and raw milk products.”
Labeling, liability, and location requirements
Sub. H.B. 406 specifically spells out some of the basic requirements for the labeling and sale of raw milk and gives ODA the authority to establish other rules and regulations.
For the sale of raw milk or raw milk products to ultimate consumers, the bill requires that the label must state: “RAW MILK: This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria.”
Sub. H.B. 406 would require registered raw milk retailers to provide a liability waiver that must be signed by each consumer “acknowled[ing] the risks of consuming raw milk or raw milk products.” Further, the retailer would be required to keep the signed liability waiver in their records for a minimum of two years.
Finally, the bill would only allow raw milk and raw milk products to be sold on the farm where the raw milk or raw milk products are produced, or at a registered farm market.
Testing
Retailers would have to pass several safety tests in order to sell raw milk. Sub. H.B. 406 would require raw milk retailers to have a licensed, accredited veterinarian test all milking animals for brucellosis and tuberculosis at a frequency determined by ODA. Raw milk retailers would also be required to report every brucellosis and tuberculosis test result to ODA.
In addition to testing animal health, the bill would require raw milk retailers to test their water source and their milk monthly with an accredited laboratory. The milk would have to be tested for salmonella, listeria, e. coli 0157:H7, campylobacter, and staphylococci. Farms would also be subject to routine ODA inspections.
Ohio Quality Milk Production Service Program
Finally, Sub. H.B. 406 would establish the Ohio Quality Milk Production Service Program under ODA. The program’s purpose would be to improve the quality, health, and safety of milk and milking animals through research, testing, sampling, and education. The program would be modeled after the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine’s Quality Milk Production Services program, which tests milking animals, milk, and equipment and water sources used on dairies. More information about their services is available here.
Stay tuned
Sub. H.B. 406 would change Ohio law significantly. Current law essentially outlaws the sale of raw milk to the end consumer, and Sub. H.B. 406 would legalize and set up a regulatory framework for the sale of raw milk and raw milk products. Stay tuned to the Ohio Ag Law blog as we follow this bill on its way through the General Assembly.
Join us on Farm Office Live next Friday, April 17 for a conversation about Ohio's poultry industry with Jim Chakeres, Executive Vice President of the Ohio Poultry Association. Our Farm Office Live team will also cover timely economic and legal topics for the program. Here's the full agenda:
- A Conversation with Jim Chakeres, Ohio Poultry Association
- Crop Input Cost Outlook: ’26 and ‘27 - Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, OSU Extension
- Legislative Update - Peggy Hall and Ellen Essman, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
- Chart of Accounts from Tax Season Stress - Bruce Clevenger, Farm Management Field Specialist, OSU Extension
- Court Cases We're Watching - Ag Law Team, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
We'll begin the program at 10 a.m. and as always, we will record it for those who can't make it. Find registration information and webinar replays on the Farm Office website on this page: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farmofficelive.