CFAES Give Today
Farm Office

Ohio State University Extension

CFAES

Recent Blog Posts

By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Tuesday, May 27th, 2025

Guest author:  Dr. Carl Zulauf, Professor Emeritus, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University.

Note:  The U.S. House of Representatives passed its budget reconciliation bill on May 22, 2025.  Prior to the bill’s passage, the budget reconciliation process required the House Agriculture Committee to reduce spending by $230 billion over the 10-year budget period. The committee’s final proposed provisions for doing so, which represents the Farm Bill attention we’ve long awaited, were included in the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House. Thank you to our guest author and Farm Bill expert, Dr. Carl Zulauf, for the following summary of the House's proposed Farm Bill changes that now move over to the Senate for consideration.

1.  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

  • Secretary of Agriculture shall not increase cost of the thrifty food plan based on a reevaluation or update of its composition.
  • Cost of thrifty food plan indexed for CPI inflation.
  • Work requirements are increased.
  • Required state matching share goes from 0% currently to 5% in Fiscal Year (FY) 2028.  This cuts Federal spending without cutting program benefits.
  • Matching share increases as state’s SNAP error rate increases.  Matching share can be as high as 25%.

2.  Farm Safety Net

Support Prices

  • Separate program for temperate japonica rice appears to have been terminated.
  • Starting with 2031 crop year, prior year reference price increased by multiplying it by 1.005.
  • In no year can a reference price exceed 115% of its 2026-2030 statutory value, so adjustment does not apply if reference price escalator is at its maximum.
  • For long grain and medium grain rice, marketing loans repaid at prevailing world market price.
  • For upland cotton, marketing loans repaid at lowest prevailing world market price. 
  • For upland cotton, a refund shall be provided to producer equal to difference between the lowest prevailing world market price and the repayment amount.
  • For 2026-2031 crop years, upland cotton and extra-long staple cotton shall receive storage payments equal to the lessor of the submitted tariff rate for the marketing year or $4.90 for California and Arizona or $3.00 for other states.
  • Textile mill assistance equals 3 cents / pound until July 31, 2025; 5 cents / pound thereafter.

Additional Base Acres

  • Up to 30 million new base acres can be added by eligible farms. 
  • Only farms that planted or prevent planted a crop over 2019-2023 can add new base acres.
  • An eligible farm is a farm for which 2019-2023 crop year average program commodity acres planted or prevent planted plus lesser of (a) 15% of farm’s total acres or (b) 2019-2023 crop year average acres planted or prevent planted to commodities other than program commodities, trees, bushes, vines, grass, or pasture (including cropland that was idle or fallow) exceeds the farm’s base acres as of September 30, 2024 excluding unassigned cotton base acres. 5-year average includes years with no acres planted or prevent planted. Positive difference is farm’s potential new base acres; includes unassigned cotton base.
  • New base acre are allocated among covered commodities using the ratio of 2019-2023 average acres planted or prevent planted to covered crops on the farm to the 5-year average of covered crops planted or prevent planted plus new base acres.
  • If multiple covered crops were grown on a given acre in any year from 2019-2023 (other than a covered crop produced under an established practice of double cropping), the owner elects which of the covered crop is included in potential new base.
  • A farm’s total base acres after adding new base acres cannot exceed the farm’s total acres.
  • Pro-rating occurs if total eligible new base acres exceed 30,000,000.  Each eligible farm’s new base acres is reduced by an across-the board share so new base acres total 30 milion.
  • Assessment: Farm Service Agency (FSA) reported roughly 270 million base acres for 2019 crop year after excluding unassigned cotton base acres of roughly 3 million.  Sum of average National Agriculture Statistics Service planted acres plus average FSA prevent plant acres to current program crops over 2019-2023 equal roughly 264 million, implying approximately 24 million acres (264 + 30 – 270) of current non-covered crops, including unassigned cotton base acres, could be added to US base acres.  This is a major expansion of commodity program payments to current noncovered crops.

Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Payment Yield

  • Beginning with crop year 2026, PLC payment yields for new base acres on a farm are current PLC payment yields for the farm.  If the farm has no current payment yield for a crop, PLC payment yield for the farm is set equal to average payment yield for the county in which the farm is situated or is determined using existing methods if no PLC yield exists.

Producer Election

  • Annual producer election is extended through 2031 crop year. 
  • If no election is made, default choice is the same coverage for each covered commodity as existed for 2024 crop year.

Agriculture Risk Coverage

  • Coverage level is increased from 86% to 90% beginning with the 2025 crop year.
  • Payment cap per base acre is increased from 10% to 12.5% of the benchmark revenue beginning with the 2025 crop year.

Special Rule for Seed Cotton and Corn

  • In determining the maximum payment rate for ARC-CO and PLC, the current year price can be no lower than $0.30 / pound for seed cotton and ‘$3.30 / bushel for corn.
  • No marketing loan rate can be established for seed cotton.’’

Payment Limits

  • Increases number of potential payment entities on a farm by expanding entities designated as qualified pass-through entities
  • Increases per person payment entity from ‘$125,000 ’to ‘$155,000.
  • Payment limit is indexed to CPI inflation.
  • Payment limit waived if 75% or more of the average gross income of the person or legal entity is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities.

Sugar Program

  • Sets loan rate for raw cane sugar for 2025-2031 crop years at 24.00 cents / pound and for beet sugar at 136.55% of the raw cane sugar loan rate.
  • Adjusts rate for storing sugar forfeited to the government.
  • Changes beet sugar allotments.

Dairy Margin Coverage

  • Updates production history to highest annual milk marketing during any one of the 2021, 2022, or 2023 calendar years.
  • Raises maximum coverage from 5 million to 6 million pounds.

Livestock and Tree Loss Assistance

  • Payment rate for losses due to predation is 100% of market value of affected livestock.
  • Payment rate for losses due to adverse weather or disease is 75% of market value of affected livestock.
  • Adds payment for unborn livestock.
  • For livestock forage disaster program, changes eligibility from 8 consecutive weeks to 4 consecutive weeks or 7 of 8 consecutive weeks.  Payments can be received for 2 months of losses instead of current 1 month of losses.
  • Adds assistance for losses of farm-raised fish due to piscivorous birds.
  • Changes determination of normal mortality rate for tree losses and honeybee colony losses.

3. Crop Insurance

Premium Subsidy

  • Sets highest coverage level at 85% for individual yield or revenue insurance, 90% for individual yield or revenue insurance aggregated across multiple commodities, and 95% for area yield or revenue insurance. 
  • Increases coverage level for Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) from 86% to 90%.
  • Increases premium subsidy for SCO from 65% to 80%.

Administrative and Operating (A&O) Expenses:

  • Beginning with the 2026 reinsurance year, an additional A&O subsidy is to be paid to insurance providers for eligible contracts.  Amount is 6% of net book premium.  Eligible contract is a crop insurance contract in an eligible State.  Excluded are catastrophic risk contracts, area-based or similar contracts; and a contract that the provider does not incur loss adjustment expenses as determined by the Corporation.  Eligible state is a state in Group 2 or Group 3 as defined in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement for reinsurance year 2026) and eligible contract’s loss ratio exceeds 120% of total net book premium written by all approved insurance providers.  
  • Beginning with 2026 reinsurance year, A&O reimbursement to approved insurance providers and agents for Specialty Crops shall be at least 17% of premium used to define loss ratio A&O reimbursements for contracts covering agricultural commodities subject to an increase during 2011-2015 reinsurance years are to be adjusted for inflation in a manner consistent with the 2011-2015 increases.  For 2026 reinsurance year, inflation adjustment shall not exceed the percentage change for the preceding reinsurance year included in Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
  • Increases funds for monitoring program compliance and integrity from current $0.004 billion per FY to $0.006 billion per FY plus $0.01 billion for a related statute for FY2026 and after.
  • Authorizes creation of a Poultry Insurance Pilot Program.  Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi must be included.

Beginning and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers

  • Extends eligibility to 10 years from 5 years.
  • Increases subsidy assistance from 10 percentage points  to 15 percentage points for 1st and 2nd reinsurance years, 13 percentage points for 3rd reinsurance year, 11 percentage points for 4th reinsurance year, and 10 percentage points for 5th - 10th  reinsurance years.

4.  Conservation

  • Authorizes funding for Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($2.7 billion for FY2026 to $3.3 billion for FY2028 – 2031); Conservation Stewardship Program ($1.3 billion for FY2026 to $1.4 billion for FY2029 – 31); Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ($0.625 billion for FY2026 to $0.700 billion in FY2029 – 2031); and Regional Conservation Partnership Program ( $0.425 billion for FY2026 to $0.450 billion for FY2027 – 2031).
  • Authorizes funds for Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention ($150 million / year). Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program ($10 million / year), Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program ($15 million / year), and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program ($1 million through FY2031). 

5.  Trade

  • Authorizes funds through FY 2031 for trade promotion programs: Market Access Program, $0.40 billion / year; Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, $0.07 billion / year; E (Kika) De La Garza Emerging Markets Program, $0.008 billion / year; Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, $0.009 billion / year; and Priority Trade Fund, $0.0035 billion / year.
  • Gives Secretary of Agriculture discretion to provide a greater allocation to a program(s) for which amount requested exceeds available funding but should try to support exports of types of commodities that funds were originally allocated.

6.  Research

  • Authorizes funds for Urban, Indoor, and Other Emerging Agricultural Production Research, Education, and Extension Initiative, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions, Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with Disabilities, Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and Research Facilities Act.
  • Extends certain provisions of Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
  • Rescinds unobligated balances of Competitive Grants for Non-Federal Forest Landowners program and State and Private Forestry Conservation Programs.

7.  Energy

  • Extends Biobased Markets Program and Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels through 2031.

8.  Other

  • Authorizes funding for Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention, Specialty Crop Block Grants, Organic Production and Market Data Initiative, Modernization and Improvement of International Trade Technology Systems and Data Collection, National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, and Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use Survey.
  • Authorized funding for Animal Disease Prevention and Management Program and Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program. 
  • Extends Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund, Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund, Wool Research and Promotion, and Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund through 2031.

 

Tax 2025 image.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Friday, May 23rd, 2025

Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University Announces Summer Income Tax School Webinar
Barry Ward & Jeff Lewis, OSU Income Tax Schools

An “Update on Current Tax Issues and Law Changes” along with a section on “Taxpayers in Trouble” are the focus of the upcoming Summer Tax School Webinar featured by Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University.

This webinar is scheduled for August 11th and registration is now open. The registration page can be accessed at: go.osu.edu/summertaxschool.

This Summer Tax School is designed to update tax preparers about current tax issues, new law changes and tax legislation. This school will also include a section on working with “taxpayers in trouble”.

The morning session will focus on update issues and include:

  • Updates on current tax issues at the federal, state and municipal level 
  • Updates on the recently passed legislation and/or progress on pending tax legislation

The afternoon session on working with “Taxpayers in Trouble” will enable you to:

  • Select relevant information from Forms 1099-A and 1099-C
  • Identify the proper IRS form on which to report the deemed sale of the foreclosed property
  • Determine if a taxpayer is insolvent
  • Explain the tax treatment of cancellation credit card and other consumer debt
  • Complete Form 982

Webinar Agenda for August 11th:
9:00 Webinar room opens
9:20 Welcome and introductions
9:30 Webinar begins
Noon Lunch break
12:40 Webinar resumes
2:30 Webinar concludes

Continuing Education Credit Hours: 5
Continuing Legal Education Hours: 4

Instructors for this webinar include Jahn Lawrence and Melinda Garvin.

Registration cost is $200 and includes 5 hours of Continuing Education (CPE) and 4 hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE). Registration information and the online registration portal can be found online at: go.osu.edu/summertaxschool

Participants may contact Barry Ward at 614-688-3959, taxschools@osu.edu or Jeff Lewis at 614-292-2433, taxschools@osu.edu for more information.

Summer Tax School 2025 Flyer

Posted In: Tax
Tags:
Comments: 0
U.S. Department of Labor website header.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Tuesday, May 20th, 2025

The classification of workers as either independent contractors or employees has once again become a focal point of federal labor policy, reflecting the broader ideological shifts that accompany changes in presidential administrations. With the transition to new leadership in the White House, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued new guidance that redefines the criteria used to determine worker status. This latest interpretation marks a departure from the 2024 Democratic rule (the “2024 Rule”), instead embracing a model more consistent with prior Republican approaches. The change has significant ripple effects for employers and workers as it influences everything from wage protections to benefits eligibility and legal liability. 

On May 1, 2025, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2025-1(the “2025 Bulletin”), offering updated guidance on how to assess whether a worker qualifies as an employee or independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

The 2025 Bulletin explicitly states that the WHD will no longer apply the analytical framework established by the 2024 Rule when evaluating worker classification under the FLSA. Instead, the WHD will rely on the standards set forth in Fact Sheet #13 (July 2008) and Opinion Letter FLSA2019-6 (referred to as the “2008 Guidance” and “2019 Guidance,” respectively). However, the 2025 Bulletin clarifies that the 2024 Rule remains applicable in the context of private litigation.

The History of the Independent Contractor Revolving Door
The 2025 Guidance marks the latest development in a long-running pattern of revolving labor policy, reflecting the political priorities of successive presidential administrations. The 2024 Rule had previously replaced the Trump Administration’s 2021 Rule (the “2021 Rule”), which aimed to simplify the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis under the FLSA. The 2021 Rule emphasized two “core factors” of the traditional multifactor economic realities test: (1) the nature and degree of control over the work, and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss. By prioritizing these elements, the Trump-era rule created a more employer-friendly framework that often favored independent contractor classification. 

The 2024 Rule reinstated the “totality of the circumstances” approach to the economic realities test, treating all factors with equal weight rather than prioritizing any single one. By doing so, the WHD assessed worker classification by holistically evaluating all six factors of the test. This broader, more balanced analysis often leaned toward classifying workers as employees, particularly in cases where multiple factors pointed to economic dependence on the employer.  

While the Trump Administration previously issued a rule emphasizing a two “core factors” approach to worker classification, neither the 2025 Bulletin nor the 2008 and 2019 Guidance documents it references adopt that framework explicitly. Instead, the 2025 Bulletin affirms the DOL’s departure from the Biden-era 2024 Rule and suggests that additional rulemaking may be forthcoming, signaling continued evolution in the DOL’s enforcement strategy. 

DOL Enforcement v. Private Litigation
It’s essential to understand the scope of the 2025 Bulletin’s applicability. As previously discussed, the 2025 Bulletin eliminates the use of the 2024 Rule in WHD investigations and classifications, even though that rule remains effective in private litigation. The distinction between these two contexts – WHD investigations and private lawsuits – centers on who initiates the action, the underlying purpose, and the legal procedures involved. 

WHD Investigation

  • Initiated by: The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division
  • Purpose: To enforce federal labor laws, such as the FLSA, by ensuring employers comply with minimum wage, overtime, and classification rules. 
  • Process: WHD investigators may conduct audits, review payroll records, and interview employees. These investigations can be random, complaint-driven, or targeted based on industry trends. 
  • Outcome: If violations are found, the WHD may seek back wages, penalties, or require changes in employment practices. Employers can settle disputes administratively without going to court. 

Private Litigation

  • Initiated by: An individual worker or group of workers
  • Purpose: To seek compensation for alleged violations of labor laws, such as unpaid wages or misclassification. 
  • Process: The case is filed in court, and both parties engage in litigation, which may include discovery, motions, and potentially a trial. 
  • Outcome: A judge or jury determines liability and damages. The court may award back pay, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief. 

Practical Implications
For private employment matters, employers should continue to follow the 2024 Rule, as it remains the governing standard in litigation. The 2025 Bulletin applies only in the context of WHD investigations. While future rulemaking could align the DOL’s position more closely with the 2021 Rule – potentially establishing a new nationwide standard – it is essential for employers to stay informed about ongoing developments relating to worker classification. Misclassifying a worker, even unintentionally, can lead to significant financial penalties under both federal and state laws and may jeopardize the long-term stability of your business. 

(Side note: Adding to the complexity of this situation is the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine and could have far-reaching implications for how the DOL approaches worker classification. However, the full impact of that ruling warrants a deeper discussion – one best served for a future blog post.)

For more information on the 2024 Rule and worker classification, check out our previous blog post here.  

Help wanted sign in front of corn field.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Friday, May 16th, 2025

On April 9, 2025, the Ohio House of Representatives passed its version of the state’s biennial budget, also known as House Bill 96, which introduces substantial revisions to Ohio’s pesticide application laws. These updates aim to bring the state into closer alignment with current federal regulations and carry significant implications—particularly for family farms that involve youth workers. As the school year ends and more minors begin working regularly on farms, the timing of these proposed changes raises concerns about how they may limit the roles young people can legally perform—especially when it comes to pesticide-related tasks. 

Changes on the Horizon?
One of the most notable changes is the proposed restriction that only licensed commercial or private pesticide applicators may “use” Restricted Use Pesticides (“RUPs”). This would eliminate the previous allowance for trained service persons, immediate family members, or employees to apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator.

Additionally, House Bill 96 expands the definition of “use” of RUPs to include not only the act of application but also:

  1. Pre-application activities such as mixing and loading;
  2. The application itself, performed by a licensed commercial or private applicator;
  3. Other pesticide-related tasks, including transporting or storing opened containers, cleaning equipment, and disposing of leftover pesticides, spray mixtures, rinse water, containers, or any materials containing pesticides.

The bill makes clear that no individual may use RUPs unless they are properly licensed under Ohio law, reinforcing the importance of formal certification for anyone involved in pesticide handling.

What Does this Mean for Youth on the Farm?
Under current Ohio law, immediate family members—including minors—are permitted to apply RUPs as long as they are under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. For years, agricultural families have relied on this exemption to allow youth to assist with farm duties involving pesticide use. However, the proposed changes in House Bill 96 would eliminate this exception by requiring that anyone handling RUPs be individually licensed. Because Ohio law mandates that pesticide applicators be at least 18 years old, minors would no longer be permitted to perform any pesticide-related tasks, even under direct supervision. Of course, this provision is not just geared toward youth on the farm—it also affects employees and trained service persons who previously operated under a licensed applicator’s supervision. If the proposed changes go through, a violation of the law could result in significant civil penalties. 

Given the proposed changes in House Bill 96, it’s an appropriate time to take a broader look at the full range of youth labor regulations that apply to farm work. While pesticide use is just one area impacted by legal restrictions, there are numerous federal and state laws that govern what tasks minors can perform, what equipment they can operate, and how many hours they can legally work—especially during the school year versus summer months. These rules can vary based on the age of the minor and their relationship to the farm owner. With regulatory changes potentially tightening in one area, it’s essential for farm families and employers to ensure they are in compliance across the board to avoid penalties and ensure safe, lawful participation of youth in agricultural work. Read more about employing youth on the farm here

Next Steps
Farm families and employers should begin preparing for the upcoming changes to Ohio’s pesticide rules. While these changes aren't law yet—they won’t take effect until the Governor signs the bill—they are needed to align Ohio’s regulations with federal law. If Ohio wants to keep its authority to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), these updates are a forgone conclusion.

To review the specific pesticide-related provisions in House Bill 96, begin on page 903 of the bill text. Alternatively, for an overview of the proposed budget and potential changes, you can consult the summary prepared by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.

Authored by: Carl Zulauf, Seungki Lee, and David Marrison, Ohio State University, May 2025

Click here for PDF version of this paper

This paper provides estimates of expected payments by the ARC-CO (Agriculture Risk Coverage – County version) and PLC (Price Loss Coverage) commodity programs for the 2024 crop year. 

Official payment rates are expected in October 2025.  They can deviate notably from estimates as final prices and yields are yet known.  Prices and yields, particularly for ARC-CO, are in a range where small changes can cause large changes in payment rates.  Use the estimates with caution.

The estimates use 2024 crop year program parameters from USDA, FSA (US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency), and latest available data for 2024 market year price estimates from USDA, FSA and county yield estimates from USDA, NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service).

May 2025 Estimates of 2024 Crop Year Payments:

  1. ARC-CO:  Ohio corn and soybean payments are expected for at least some counties.  As a revenue program, ARC-CO payment calculations include yield.  2024 Ohio weather was highly variable.  Yields and thus county payment rates will be variable.  Some counties have irrigated and non-irrigated base acres.  Payment estimates are calculated only for non-irrigated base since dryland production is far more common in Ohio.  Payment estimates per base acre vary from $0 (21 counties) to $90 (Greene) for corn base and from $0 (13 counties) to $58 (Fairfield) for soybean base (see appended maps).  These estimates include the 85% payment factor (i.e. 15% payment reduction factor).  No estimate is available for corn and soybeans in 24 and 15 counties.  A common reason is that too few farmers in the county responded to the NASS survey to estimate yield with statistical confidence.  County NASS yields are not available for wheat.  Also appended are maps of county gross revenue (estimated price times estimated yield) plus estimated ARC-CO pay rate per acre.  They illustrate that ARC-CO payments are countercyclical to low market revenue (correlation between total revenue and ARC-CO pay rate is roughly -0.30).  Higher revenue/yields are almost always preferred to an ARC-CO payment.
  2. PLC:  At present, no PLC payments are expected for corn, soybeans, and wheat as the current estimate of US market year price is not below the effective reference price:  corn ($4.35 vs. $4.01), soybeans ($9.95 vs. $9.26), and wheat ($5.50 vs. $5.50).

Commodity Program Policy Objective:

  1. ARC-CO provides assistance if a crop’s county market revenue is below 86% of a crop’s county benchmark market revenue for 5 recent crop years.
  2. PLC provides assistance if a crop’s US market year price is below 100% of the crop’s US effective reference price set by Congress. 
  3. ARC-IC provides assistance if an ARC-IC farm’s average per acre revenue from all program crops is below 86% of the ARC-IC farm’s per acre benchmark revenue.

Payment Formulas:

ARC-CO payment rate per base acre = MAX [$0, or 86% times (county benchmark revenue minus observed revenue) times a farm’s PLC base yield times 85% payment reduction factor].  County benchmark revenue = (5-crop year Olympic average (high and low values removed) of recent US market year prices times 5-crop year Olympic average of recent trend-adjusted county yields).  Observed revenue = observed US crop year price times observed county yield.  ARC-CO payment rate is capped at 10% of county benchmark revenue.

PLC payment rate per base acre = MAX [$0, or (US effective reference price – US market year price) times a farm’s PLC base yield times 85% payment reduction factor].

ARC_CORN

 

Soybean ARC

 

Corn Revenue

 

 

Soybean Revenue

 

 

 

Posted In: Business and Financial
Tags:
Comments: 0
Legal Groundwork
By: Robert Moore, Thursday, May 08th, 2025

Not long ago, an official looking letter arrived addressed to my deceased father. Inside was a message from “Attorney Patterson” stating that a man named Nicholas Moore had died in Canada. No heirs. No next of kin. But, conveniently, a $10 million life insurance policy just waiting to be claimed.

The letter was vague on details and how my family was related to Nicholas Moore was even more ambiguous. But “Mr. Patterson’s” letter was optimistic, and the proposition was simple: if I agreed to pose as a relative, we’d split the payout 50/50. It was a win/win proposition, we would both receive half of the unclaimed life insurance policy.

My branch of the Moore family tree is pretty small so I was quite sure I was not related to Nicholas Moore of Ontario, Canada.  Furthermore, I am not in the habit of replying to Canadian estate lawyers who contact me out of the blue regarding long lost relatives. But curiosity got the better of me. I sent an email to “Attorney Patterson” — not because I believed any part of the story, but because I wanted to see how this scam was played.

The email response did not disappoint. I was assured that this was all legitimate, there was no risk to me, and my “partner” would do all the work. All that was required of me was my full name, address, occupation, marital status, and age.  Of course, it was very important that I keep this all a secret. 

I knew what was coming in the next email - requests for funds to pay for filing fees, expenses and other costs required to collect the $10 million insurance policy, so I ended my email exchange with “Mr. Patterson”.  Still, this scam did get me thinking about some real issues with life insurance policies.

How Life Insurance Policies Really Work

In the real world, life insurance is not handled by sketchy attorneys with gmail addresses probably working from a dimly lit basement. Life insurance companies are a suspicious group, and rightly so.  Before any money goes out, they require two things: proof that the insured has indeed passed away, and confirmation that the person asking for the money is the one actually listed as the beneficiary. That’s it, no exceptions.  Ask anyone who has made a death benefit claim to a life insurance company, they can attest that it is a deliberate, formal process and the insurance company will not send funds until all I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed.  “Attorney Patterson” will be disappointed that his scam will not work.

Due to the inflexible nature of life insurance policies, it is very important to make sure that each life insurance policy has up-to-date beneficiaries.  Parents who forgot to add their second child to their life insurance policy would be disappointed to find that that their first child will receive the entire payout from the policy.  Life insurance companies will not make exceptions for “I meant to” or “I should have”.  Make sure that every person you want to receive the death benefit is identified as a beneficiary.

Life insurance policies will typically allow for contingent beneficiaries.  A contingent beneficiary will receive the death benefit if the primary beneficiary dies before the insured dies and the policy pays out.  It is important to have a contingent beneficiary for each primary beneficiary.

If there are no beneficiaries or all primary and contingent beneficiaries have died, the death benefit will be paid to the insured’s estate.  Then, the will or laws of the state will direct how the death benefit proceeds are distributed.  The death benefit proceeds will be treated just like any other asset in the estate.  The probate process will require verification of all heirs of the estate before the funds are released.  “Attorney Patterson” will be further disappointed to learn that probate court is also scam-resistant.

 Useful Tips for Life Insurance Policy

The following tips may not be as exciting as discovering you are the long-lost heir of a $10 million insurance policy, but they are useful for any life insurance policies you may own:

  • Locate the policy and check the primary and contingent beneficiaries. Are they current? Alive? People you still like?  If you cannot find the policy, contact the life insurance company or your insurance/financial advisor.  It is relatively easy to add or change beneficiaries.
  • Determine the cash value (if any), death benefit, premium and any other relevant information you may need for the policy.  Do these numbers still match the goals of your estate plan?
  • Tell someone you have a life insurance policy. This can be a spouse, child, executor, or trusted advisor. Life insurance companies do not contact you to start a death benefit claim, someone must contact them.  There are life insurance policies that never get claimed because no one knows to file a claim.

A Scam’s Silver Lining

Even with scams, there is something we can learn.  “Attorney Patterson’s” letter reminds us to keep our life insurance policies up-to-date so we don’t have to search across international borders for heirs.  If you haven’t reviewed your life insurance policy for a few years, pull out the policy and review its terms and beneficiaries.  If you can’t find the policy or are confused about some of its terms, contact your insurance agent or financial advisor.  They will be able to explain your policy to you in a brief conversation.  Keeping your life insurance policy current and accurate will make life much simpler for the beneficiaries of your policy.

Posted In: Estate and Transition Planning
Tags: Life Insurance
Comments: 0
Save the Date announcement for the Agri-Law Summit
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Wednesday, May 07th, 2025

Final plans are underway for the first annual "Agri-Law Summit," co-hosted by our OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program and the Ohio State Bar Association Agricultural Law Committee. The day-long continuing legal education program will be Thursday, August 14, 2025, at the Retreat 21 Venue and Taphouse near Marysville, Ohio.  

"Growing Our Competency in Counseling Agriculture" is the theme for the event, reflecting the goal of building expertise among the attorneys who work with agricultural businesses.  The conference will begin with a focus on emerging issues for agriculture, featuring discussions with Tracy Intihar, Assistant Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture and Harrison Pittman, Director of the National Agricultural Law Center.  We're finalizing speakers for additional topics on the agenda, which will include:

  • Guiding farm businesses on disaster risk mitigation
  • Legal needs for value-added businesses
  • Advising new farmland owners
  • Drafting tips for LLC operating agreements
  • Tax incentives for agricultural easements
  • Cybersecurity management

Through the Paul L. Wright Endowment in Agricultural Law at Ohio State, law students and new law graduates can receive a scholarship to attend the Agri-Law Summit at no cost.

A final agenda and registration information for the Agri-Law Summit will be available soon on the Farm Office website at farmoffice.osu.edu/agri-law-summit. 

Posted In: Legal Education
Tags: agri-law summit, legal education, CLE
Comments: 0
drone flying in blue sky
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Wednesday, April 30th, 2025

Unidentified drones flying over property have raised many concerns recently, but new laws in Ohio may ease those concerns. The new laws aim to enhance safety, protect privacy, and align state laws with federal regulations for “unmanned aerial vehicles” (UAVs), or “drones.” Passed late last year as H.B. 77 and effective on April 9, 2025, the new laws amend Ohio’s aircraft safety laws to prohibit operating UAVs in certain ways and also address local government use and regulations for UAVs.

Legal definition of UAV

A UAV, according to the new law, is commonly referred to as a drone and is  a vehicle that does not carry a human operator, is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the vehicle, uses aerodynamic forces to provide lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, and is either expendable or recoverable. The law clarifies that a satellite is not a UAV.

Prohibited drone operations 

The law establishes four prohibited actions by UAV operators in Ohio and sets penalties for violating the prohibitions:

  1. Knowing endangerment.  A person shall not operate a UAV “on the land or water or in the air space over this state in a manner that knowingly endangers any person or property or purposely disregards the rights or safety of others.” A violation of this provision can result in a $500 fine and/or up to six months of imprisonment.
  2. Interference with law enforcement and emergency responders.  The law prohibits operating a drone in a way that disrupts, interrupts, or impairs the operations or activities of law enforcement, fire department, or emergency medical services.  Criminal misdemeanor or felony charges are possible, depending on whether the interference was committed knowingly or the result of recklessness.
  3. Operation over critical facilities.  Two new provisions apply to “critical facilities,” which includes hospitals that receive air ambulance services; military installations; commercial distribution centers; courts, jails, and prisons; and police stations, sheriff’s offices, state highway patrol stations, and premises controlled by the bureau of criminal investigation.  The law prohibits a person from operating a drone to photograph, record, or loiter over or near a critical facility in two situations.  The first situation is operating a drone with the purpose of tampering with or destroying the facility and the second is operating a drone to further another criminal offense involving harm to a person.  Violations of these laws can lead to criminal misdemeanor and felony charges, depending on the operator’s intent and whether the action is a repeated violation.
  4. Compliance with federal law.  The new law ties into federal law and regulations that require registration of UAVs and licensing for certain UAV operators.  Ohio law prohibits a person from operating a UAV in Ohio if those federal laws or FAA regulations would prohibit the operation, which allows the state to enforce the federal law requirements.

Local governments and drones

Another provision of the new law provides authority to municipalities, counties, townships, and park districts.  These local governments can now adopt local ordinances or regulations for UAVs in two situations: for hobby or recreational uses of drones above a park or other public property and for the use and operation of drones by the local government.

What do the new laws mean for agriculture?  The laws place new responsibilities on drone operators to use drones responsibly and for legitimate purposes while providing remedies for those whose safety or privacy are endangered by drone operations.  In those situations, a person should contact local law enforcement. Federal law requires registration and “Remote ID” tracking technology for UAVs, which can allow identification of the drone operator from an on-the-ground transmitter.  With the new laws, there are now legal options for pursuing enforcement against bad actors.  Local governments can also now enact additional laws to ensure safe drone operation in their public areas. 

What the laws don’t do is authorize the “shooting down” of suspicious drones. It is a federal crime to shoot or intentionally harm a drone, even if the drone is flying over someone’s private property. Shooting a drone from the sky can also create safety risks and potential civil liability. Read more about options for dealing with suspicious drone activity in our  previous blog post.

Information about House Bill 77 is available on the Ohio General Assembly’s website.

 

Posted In: Drones, Property
Tags: drone, uav
Comments: 0
Legal Groundwork
By: Robert Moore, Wednesday, April 23rd, 2025

The federal estate tax exemption is set to drop dramatically in 2026—from $13.99 million in 2025 to an estimated $7–$7.5 million per person. For some farm families, this shift could result in significant estate tax exposure. While most estates won’t exceed the new limit, some farmers, especially those with high-value farmland or appreciating assets, will find themselves suddenly at risk of federal estate taxes.

Gifting is one strategy to reduce the size of your taxable estate, but it’s not always simple or risk-free. Let’s explore when gifting can help, when it might not, and what to watch out for.

Two Types of Gifts

There are two main gifting categories under federal law:

  • Annual Exclusion Gifts – In 2025, you can gift up to $19,000 per recipient ($38,000 for couples) annually without using any of your lifetime exemption.
  • Lifetime Credit Gifts – Larger gifts are allowed, but they reduce your lifetime estate tax exemption.  The lifetime estate tax exemption is the amount of wealth that the IRS exempts from estate taxes.  The exemption can be used at death, gifted away during life, or a combination of the two.

Example: If a parent gifts a $1,019,000 farm to a child, the first $19,000 is exempt from taxes and does not reduce the parent’s estate tax exemption.  The remaining $1,000,000 reduces the parent’s lifetime estate tax exemption from $13.99 million to $12.99 million.

Gifting Strategies That Work

1. Annual Exclusion Gifts

If you're just slightly over the expected 2026 exemption, annual gifts can move you back under the limit.

Example: A grandparent with 10 grandchildren can gift $190,000 per year. Over 2 years, that’s $380,000—enough to reduce a modest estate and eliminate taxes.

But for high-net-worth individuals, $19,000 per person may be too little to make a significant impact.

2. Lifetime Gifts of Appreciating Assets

Large gifts don’t directly reduce estate tax liability (since they reduce your exemption), but they remove future appreciation from your estate.

Example: If you gift farmland worth $1M that later appreciates to $3M, only $1M is deducted from your estate tax exemption — the $2M in appreciation escapes estate taxation entirely.

Potential Downsides of Gifting

  • No Stepped-Up Basis.  Gifting assets during life means recipients take your original tax basis, not the stepped-up value at death—potentially increasing future capital gains taxes.
  • Loss of Control & Income.  You must fully give up ownership and control. Gifting income-producing property could impact your financial security.
  • Risk of Financial Mismanagement.  If a gifted asset is lost to debt, lawsuits, or divorce, it's gone. One solution? Use an irrevocable trust to hold the gift—this protects assets while still benefiting your heirs.

Another Strategy: Pay Directly for Education & Medical Expenses

The IRS allows unlimited direct payments of tuition or medical bills without using your exemption. But payments must go straight to the provider, not to the individual.

Example: Grandpa has a $9 million estate and wants to reduce its size before the federal estate tax exemption drops in 2026. He has four grandchildren in college and a daughter who recently underwent surgery.

Grandpa pays the following directly:

  • $20,000 in tuition for each grandchild (4 x $20,000 = $80,000) directly to their universities
  • $25,000 in hospital bills paid  directly to the hospital for his daughter

Total Reduction in Taxable Estate: $105,000

Impact on Exemption: None—these payments do not count against Joe’s $13.99 million estate tax exemption or annual gift limit, because they qualify under the IRS educational and medical exclusions.  Grandpa could still give each of those recipients an additional $19,000 under the annual gift exclusion without any tax consequences.

Conclusion: Gift With Caution and Professional Help

Gifting can be an effective estate tax strategy—but only when used thoughtfully and with professional guidance. Consider the loss of stepped-up basis, the asset’s appreciation potential, your own financial needs, and the stability of the recipient. For some, the risks of gifting may outweigh the benefits.

With estate tax rules changing in 2026, now is the time to review your estate plan. Consult your attorney and tax advisor to determine if gifting fits your strategy—and how to do it safely.

For more information on gifting and estate taxes, see the Gifting to Reduce Federal Estate Taxes bulletin available at farmoffice.osu.edu.

Farm Office Live agenda for April 25, 2025
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Friday, April 18th, 2025

We're preparing for another edition of our monthly webinar, Farm Office Live, on Friday, April 25 at 10 a.m.  Our featured guest this month is Dr. Margaret Jodlowski, Asst. Professor in the Dept. of Agricultural Environmental and Development Economics, who will discuss farm labor issues with us.  Our remaining agenda features the Farm Office team addressing these topics:

  • Strategies for Developing the Next Leader of Your Farm Operation - David Marrison, Farm Management Field Specialist
  • Crop Profit Outlook - Barry Ward, Production Business Management Leader
  • Farm Business Analysis Update - Clint Schroeder, Farm Business Analysis Program Manager
  • State and Federal Legislative Update - Peggy Hall, Agricultural & Resource Law Program Director
  • New Laws: Paystub Protection Act and Operation of Drones - Jeff Lewis, Agricultural & Resource Law/Tax Schools Attorney
  • Tax Update: Are Avian Flu Indemnifications Exempt? - Barry Ward and Jeff Lewis
  • Upcoming Events and Deadlines - David Marrison

Join in for this free webinar by registering at farmoffice.osu.edu/farmofficelive, where replays of previous webinars are also available. We hope to see you there!

 

 

Posted In:
Tags: Farm Office Live
Comments: 0

Pages