Thursday, April 20, 2023
Bibliography – First Quarter of 2023
The following is a listing by category of my blog articles for the first quarter of 2023.
Bankruptcy
Failure to Execute a Written Lease Leads to a Lawsuit; and Improper Use of SBA Loan Funds
Chapter 12 Bankruptcy – Proposing a Reorganization Plan in Good Faith
Business Planning
Summer Seminars
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2023/03/summer-seminars.html
Registration Now Open for Summer Conference No. 1 – Petoskey, Michigan (June 15-16)
Civil Liabilities
Top Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Part 1
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 8 and 7
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 2 and 1
Contracts
Top Ag Law and Developments of 2022 – Part 2
Failure to Execute a Written Lease Leads to a Lawsuit; and Improper Use of SBA Loan Funds
Double Fractions in Oil and Gas Conveyances and Leases – Resulting Interpretive Issues
Environmental Law
Here Come the Feds: EPA Final Rule Defining Waters of the United States – Again
Top Ag Law and Developments of 2022 – Part 2
Top Ag Law and Developments of 2022 – Part 3
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 10 and 9
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 6 and 5
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 4 and 3
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 2 and 1
Estate Planning
Tax Court Opinion – Charitable Deduction Case Involving Estate Planning Fraudster
Happenings in Agricultural Law and Tax
Summer Seminars
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2023/03/summer-seminars.html
RMD Rules Have Changed – Do You Have to Start Receiving Payments from Your Retirement Plan?
Common Law Marriage – It May Be More Involved Than What You Think
The Marital Deduction, QTIP Trusts and Coordinated Estate Planning
Registration Now Open for Summer Conference No. 1 – Petoskey, Michigan (June 15-16)
Income Tax
Top Ag Law and Developments of 2022 – Part 3
Top Ag Law and Developments of 2022 – Part 4
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 8 and 7
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 2 and 1
Tax Court Opinion – Charitable Deduction Case Involving Estate Planning Fraudster
Deducting Residual (Excess) Soil Fertility
Deducting Residual (Excess) Soil Fertility – Does the Concept Apply to Pasture/Rangeland? (An Addendum)
Happenings in Agricultural Law and Tax
Summer Seminars
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2023/03/summer-seminars.html
RMD Rules Have Changed – Do You Have to Start Receiving Payments from Your Retirement Plan?
Registration Now Open for Summer Conference No. 1 – Petoskey, Michigan (June 15-16)
Real Property
Equity “Theft” – Can I Lose the Equity in My Farm for Failure to Pay Property Taxes?
Happenings in Agricultural Law and Tax
Adverse Possession and a “Fence of Convenience”
Double Fractions in Oil and Gas Conveyances and Leases – Resulting Interpretive Issues
Abandoned Rail Lines – Issues for Abutting Landowners
Regulatory Law
Top Ag Law and Developments of 2022 – Part 2
Top Ag Law and Developments of 2022 – Part 4
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 10 and 9
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 8 and 7
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 6 and 5
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 4 and 3
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 2 and 1
Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land
Abandoned Rail Lines – Issues for Abutting Landowners
Secured Transactions
Priority Among Competing Security Interests
Water Law
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2022 – Numbers 2 and 1
Happenings in Agricultural Law and Tax
April 20, 2023 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Cooperatives, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Insurance, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, February 9, 2023
Chapter 12 Bankruptcy – Proposing a Reorganization Plan in Good Faith
Overview
The USDA’s Economic Research Service expects 2023 net farm incomes to decline nearly 16 percent in 2023 compared to 2022. That expectation is anticipated to be the result of lower cash receipts (projected to drop 4.3 percent), smaller government payments (down 34.4 percent) and higher production costs (particularly fertilizer, lime and soil conditioners). Interest expense is anticipated to increase 22 percent from 2022 and labor costs are projected to rise 7 percent. Net cash income is expected to drop 21 percent from last year. With high costs associated with planting the 2023 crop, if markets turn downward, the result could spell financial trouble for farmers even if yields are excellent.
That’s just the farm-related economic projections. As I mentioned in a prior blog article, the expanding war against Russia being fought in Ukraine will continue to dominate ag markets throughout 2023. In addition, the general economic outlook is not good and that will have implications in 2023 for farmers and ranchers. On January 26, the U.S Bureau of Economic Analysis issued a report (https://www.bea.gov/) showing that the U.S. economy grew by 2.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2022 and 2.1 percent for all of 2022. But the report also showed that economic growth in the economy is slowing. Business investment grew by a mere 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2022, consisting almost entirely of inventory growth. That will mean that businesses will be forced to sell off inventories at discounts, which will lower business profits and be a drag on economic growth in 2023. Nonresidential investment was down 26.7 percent due to the increase in home prices, increased interest rates and a drop in real income. On that last point, real disposable income dropped $1 trillion in 2022, the largest drop since 1932 - the low point of the Great Depression. Personal savings also dropped by $1.6 trillion in 2022. This is a "ticking timebomb" that is not sustainable because it means that consumers are depleting cash reserves and living off of credit cards. Indeed, the Federal Reserve reported that credit card debt increased 18.5 percent during calendar year 2022. This indicates that spending will continue to slow in 2023 and further stymie economic growth - about two-thirds of GDP is based on consumer spending. Relatedly, the Dow was down 8.8 percent for 2022, the worst year since 2008. 2022 also saw a reduction in the pace of international trade. Imports dropped more than exports which increases GDP, giving the illusion that the economy is better off.
With all of these “rough waters” ahead for farmers and ranchers, Chapter 12 bankruptcy might be one avenue that can provide debt relief for farmers and ranchers. A recent case points out that one aspect of Chapter 12 is critical.
The requirement of filing a Chapter 12 reorganization plan in “good faith” – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Good Faith Filing
A Chapter 12 plans is to be confirmed if, among other things, it is proposed in good faith. 11 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3). There have been many court decisions since the enactment of Chapter 12 in 1986 that have dealt with the issue of good faith filing. A recent Chapter 12 case from Wisconsin has again illustrated the requirement that a Chapter 12 plan be filed in good faith.
Recent Case
In re Sternitzky, No. 21-11358-12, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 3500 (Bankr. W.D. Wisc. Dec. 23, 2021); No. 21-11358-12, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 205 (W.D. Wisc. Jan. 27, 2022); Sternitzky v. State Bank Financial, No. 21-cv-822-wmc, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205895 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 14, 2022).
In Sternitzky, the debtors operated a dairy and filed Chapter 12 bankruptcy. Other family members were listed as co-debtors along with their farming business on various debts owed to a bank, including a mortgage on the farm real estate and a perfected security agreement where the other family members pledged equipment, fixtures, crops and inventory as collateral. This case is the third bankruptcy case for the debtors’ dairy operation. The first case was filed by the farming operation, and the next two filings were in the names of the debtors. The first case was dismissed, and the bank filed a foreclosure and replevin action against the debtors, family members and the farming operation. Before the notice concerning the lawsuit against the real estate was recorded, the family members transferred ownership of the mortgaged land by quitclaim deed to the debtors without the bank’s consent. The debtors filed the second case just before a summary judgment hearing was scheduled in state court. The bank then filed motions for relief from the automatic stay to bar the use of cash collateral, and to dismiss the case. The parties settled, agreeing to a payment plan. The debtors then defaulted on the payment plan and notified the bank of their intent to exit the dairy business and convert to a grain farming operation. The bankruptcy court approved the debtors’ sale of 160 acres of wooded land and farm personalty that was collateral of a different creditor. The case was then dismissed for the debtors’ failure to timely file a plan.
The debtors filed the third bankruptcy case immediately before a state court hearing on a summary judgment motion against them based on the stipulated settlement. The proceeds from the sale of collateral were insufficient to pay the bank debt in full. There were also delinquent real estate taxes. The bank sought relief from the automatic stay, and the court determined that the bank had established the existence of practically all of the factors a court considers for relief from the stay – obligations in default for a long time; motions by the bank in the prior cases for relief from the stay; debtors’ default on stipulations in the prior cases; strategic filings; repeated failure to pay taxes on collateral; the debt involved is not consumer debt; the filings and transfers of property were timed to precede events in state court foreclosure action; there were reasons for dismissal of the prior cases; strategic dismissal of prior Chapter 12 and refiled the current case; current case sought to avoid consequences of two prior agreements with the bank.
The court granted relief from the stay and waived the temporary stay of Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a)(3) to allow the bank to take action to pursue entry of judgment in state court. The bank also sought dismissal of the Chapter 12 case and the court found cause to dismiss or convert the case. The court noted that the debtors had almost four years to put together a feasible reorganization plan but did not do so, and their motive in filing the current case was to delay any foreclosure or replevin. The court ordered that the automatic stay be lifted pursuant to 11 U.S.C.§362(d)(1), waived the temporary stay, concluded that the case was filed in bad faith, dismissed the case for cause under 11 U.S.C. §1208(c) and imposed a 180-day bar against re-filing under 11 U.S.C. §109(g). In a later action, the debtors sought a stay against any actions of creditors pending appeal. The court, based on an analysis of all of the factors, granted a conditional stay and required the debtors to pay 2021 real estate taxes on a bank’s real estate collateral, pay all unpaid real estate taxes on that tract along with monthly interest payments to the bank.
The debtors appealed claiming that the bankruptcy court did not consider the totality of the circumstances; that the bankruptcy court incorrectly considered their defaults on prior stipulation agreements; and that the bankruptcy court should have held an evidentiary hearing. The district court reviewed the record for error and concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly looked at the totality of the circumstances and recognized that the plaintiffs had abused the bankruptcy process to avoid paying their debt or suffering repercussions with strategic filings. The district court also held that the bankruptcy court could consider the failed stipulation agreements, because the bankruptcy court still considered all the facts and did not consider any single fact dispositive. The plaintiffs tried to argue that the bankruptcy court did not consider the plaintiffs actions that were in good faith. The district court explained that the bankruptcy court did consider these but did not give them much weight because of all of the evidence of bad faith. The district court held that the bankruptcy court could give more weight to the bad faith evidence and the decision to find lack of good faith “is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Plausible, but not error.
The debtors argued that 11 U.S.C. §349 prevented the bankruptcy court from considering an earlier stipulation agreement. The district court explained that 11 U.S.C. §349 is meant to make the earlier stipulation agreement unenforceable but does not restrict a court from considering it in a good faith filing. Finally, the debtors argued that the bankruptcy court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing, but the district court noted that nothing in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, nor 11 U.S.C. § 102(1), requires an evidentiary hearing. The bankruptcy court must have an informal hearing in particular circumstances, but here the record was clear enough for the bankruptcy court to make a proper decision. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Chapter 12 case and granted the defendant’s motion for relief from the automatic stay.
Conclusion
With 2023 projected to be a difficult year for agricultural producers, Chapter 12 filings may increase. One of the requirements to get a Chapter 12 reorganization plan approved is that be filed in “good faith.”
February 9, 2023 in Bankruptcy | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, February 2, 2023
Failure to Execute a Written Lease Leads to a Lawsuit; and Improper Use of SBA Loan Funds
Overview
One of the most important things that a farmer or rancher can do is to put lease agreements in writing. The problems that can arise with an oral lease are to innumerable to list or even think of. The first case below is an example. The second case involves a farm couple that were struggling financially and were trying to utilize Chapter 12 bankruptcy and SBA COVID relief funds. But the rules must be followed closely, as the Nebraska bankruptcy court’s decision illustrates.
Problems with oral farming agreements and misuse of SBA loan funds – these are the topics of today’s post.
Document Filed with FSA Not a Valid Lease
Coniglio v. Woods, No. 06-22-00021-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 8926 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2022)
Involved in this case was land in Texas that the landowner’s son managed for his father who lived in Florida. The landowner needed the hay cut on 107 acres of the over 5,100-acre farm and agreed orally that the plaintiff, a neighboring landowner, could cut the hay when necessary. The hay was cut on an annual basis. So that he could receive government farm program payments on the land, the plaintiff filed wrote up a “memorialization of a lease agreement” and filed it with the local USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA). The agreement stated as follows: “This is to inform you that Michael J. Woods operates my farm [farm number specified], (approximately 107 acres) agriculturally for hay. This lease agreement began in 2015 and will continue thru December 31, 2020.” The document was dated September 28, 2016, and was signed by the plaintiff. The landowner’s son also signed the agreement at the plaintiff’s request, but later testified that he didn’t believe the document to constitute a written lease. After three years of cutting the hay, the landowner wanted to lease the hay ground for solar development and the plaintiff was told by the landowner and son that the hay no longer needed to be cut and there would be no hay profits to share.
The plaintiff sued for breach of a farm lease agreement – purportedly a lease for a five-year term. The plaintiff also claimed that the father and son tortiously interfered with contract for future years, were unjustly enriched by the breach and had also violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DPTA). The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the basis that the form submitted to the USDA was sufficient to show the existence of a lease agreement, and entered a judgment for the plaintiff and against the father and son, jointly and severally, for $163,434.68 for breach of the “lease.” The trial court also awarded triple that amount ($490,304.94) for violation of the DPTA. The trial court also awarded court costs and attorney fees. The total award was $601,815.62,
On appeal, the defendant claimed that the document filed with the FSA did not satisfy the writing requirement of the statute of frauds. The father testified that he wasn’t aware of any lease agreement and the son testified the arrangement was simply one to have the plaintiff cut the hay when needed and the parties would split the hay. The son testified that he signed the agreement simply so that the plaintiff could receive the farm subsidies associated with the hay ground. The appellate court agreed, noting that the document didn’t contain the essential terms of the lease. It didn’t denote the names of the parties, didn’t describe the property, didn’t note the rental rate, and didn’t list any conditions or any consideration. Accordingly, the appellate court determined that no valid lease existed and reversed the trial court’s judgment.
Debtors Barred From Further Use of COVID Relief Funds
In re Klein, No. BK 22-40804, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 3451 (Bankr. D. Neb. Dec. 7, 2022)
This is the debtors’ third Chapter 12 case since 2019. Two banks as creditors filed motions to dismiss, asserting the debtors were not eligible for Chapter 12 bankruptcy because they were not “family farmers” at the time of filing Chapter 12. The debtors claimed that they did meet the definition of a “family farmer” because they were engaged in farming with 15 cows, 5 calves, a one-half interest in a bull, and cash to operate. However, the debtors did not know where their cows were or if any of them were pregnant. They also failed to confirm a plan in their previous Chapter 12 cases, did not own any land or equipment and were on the brink of surrendering their livestock. Their only source of income was Social Security. The debtors obtained a $500,000 COVID hardship loan from the SBA in October of 2021 based on their representation that they were engaged in the business of farming, operating under a confirmed Chapter 12 plan. When they applied for the loan, the debtors agreed the loan money would only be used as working capital and there was no “substantial adverse change” in their financial condition. The debtors failed to schedule the loan and the debtors claimed they had an approved plan of reorganization for their bankruptcy claim, which they did not. When the debtors received the loan, they paid their attorneys for work on their prior bankruptcy cases, paid themselves for farm work, paid for their own groceries, and paid their daughters as contractors. Within four months of the loan disbursement the debtors had used $275,594.41 of the loan. The SBA sought a preliminary injunction against the debtors to ensure they could not use the remainder of the loan that SBA alleged was obtained by fraud. The bankruptcy court granted the preliminary injunction against the debtors to protect the remainder of the SBA loan. The court found that without the injunction the SBA would suffer irreparable harm if the loan proceeds were spent, and that the SBA would suffer greater harm if an injunction wasn’t entered than if the debtors’ access to was limited. The court also determined that the SBA was likely to succeed on its claim to except the debt from discharge and that public policy favored ensuring that the loan process was not abused and that the loan funds were properly used.
Observation
In Coniglio, the lack of a formal written document memorializing the relationship between the parties and the duties and expectations of both, created a problem that resulted in litigation – litigation that could have been avoided. Based on the facts as stated by the court, the arrangement appeared to be one of a custom cutter. That would be the result if the plaintiff supplied the machinery to cut the hay. In that event, the plaintiff would have simply been an independent contractor and not a tenant. The other possibility is that the plaintiff was a cropper that was compensated with a share of the crop. To be a cropper, the plaintiff would have used the landowner’s (or son’s) equipment. In that instance, the plaintiff would not have any legally enforceable interest in the crop, but would have a contract right to compensation for the provision of his in-kind labor. A cropper is an employee that is hired to produce a crop. A cropper has no interest in the real estate is not a tenant operating under a lease agreement. A cropper is, in essence, an employee. See, e.g., Henney v. Lambert, 237 Iowa 146, 21 N.W.2d 301 (1946). The court didn’t get into these distinctions, but that would be the analysis. In any event, the writing, by itself, was insufficient to constitute a lease.
Conclusion
The court opinions indicate the problems that can arise when farming agreements aren’t reduced to writing and how financial distress can lead to the snowballing of additional legal issues.
February 2, 2023 in Bankruptcy, Contracts | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, January 30, 2023
Bibliography - July Through December 2022
Overview
After the first half of 2022, I posted a blog article of a bibliography of my blog articles for the first half of 2022. You can find that bibliography here: Bibliography – January through June of 2022
Bibliography of articles for that second half of 2022 – you can find it in today’s post.
Alphabetical Topical Listing of Articles (July 2022 – December 2022)
Bankruptcy
More Ag Law Developments – Potpourri of Topics
Business Planning
Durango Conference and Recent Developments in the Courts
Is a C Corporation a Good Entity Choice For the Farm or Ranch Business?
What is a “Reasonable Compensation”?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/08/what-is-reasonable-compensation.html
Federal Farm Programs: Organizational Structure Matters – Part Three
LLCs and Self-Employment Tax – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/08/llcs-and-self-employment-tax-part-one.html
LLCs and Self-Employment Tax – Part Two
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/08/llcs-and-self-employment-tax-part-two.html
Civil Liabilities
Durango Conference and Recent Developments in the Courts
Dicamba Spray-Drift Issues and the Bader Farms Litigation
Tax Deal Struck? – and Recent Ag-Related Cases
Ag Law and Tax Developments
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/09/ag-law-and-tax-developments.html
More Ag Law Developments – Potpourri of Topics
Ag Law Developments in the Courts
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/12/ag-law-developments-in-the-courts.html
Contracts
Minnesota Farmer Protection Law Upheld
Criminal Liabilities
Durango Conference and Recent Developments in the Courts
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/20Ag Law Summit
https://lawpr22/07/durango-conference-and-recent-developments-in-the-courts.html
Environmental Law
Constitutional Limit on Government Agency Power – The “Major Questions” Doctrine
More Ag Law Developments – Potpourri of Topics
Court Says COE Acted Arbitrarily When Declining Jurisdiction Over Farmland
Ag Law Developments in the Courts
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/12/ag-law-developments-in-the-courts.html
Estate Planning
Farm/Ranch Tax, Estate and Business Planning Conference August 1-2 – Durango, Colorado (and Online)
IRS Modifies Portability Election Rule
Modifying an Irrevocable Trust – Decanting
Farm and Ranch Estate Planning in 2022 (and 2023)
Social Security Planning for Farmers and Ranchers
How NOT to Use a Charitable Remainder Trust
Recent Cases Involving Decedents’ Estates
Medicaid Estate Recovery and Trusts
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/12/medicaid-estate-recovery-and-trusts.html
Income Tax
What is the Character of Land Sale Gain?
Deductible Start-Up Costs and Web-Based Businesses
Using Farm Income Averaging to Deal With Economic Uncertainty and Resulting Income Fluctuations
Tax Deal Struck? – and Recent Ag-Related Cases
What is “Reasonable Compensation”?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/08/what-is-reasonable-compensation.html
LLCs and Self-Employment Tax – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/08/llcs-and-self-employment-tax-part-one.html
LLCs and Self-Employment Tax – Part Two
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/08/llcs-and-self-employment-tax-part-two.html
USDA’s Emergency Relief Program (Update on Gain from Equipment Sales)
Declaring Inflation Reduced and Being Forgiving – Recent Developments in Tax and Law
Ag Law and Tax Developments
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/09/ag-law-and-tax-developments.html
Extended Livestock Replacement Period Applies in Areas of Extended Drought – IRS Updated Drought Areas
More Ag Law Developments – Potpourri of Topics
IRS Audits and Statutory Protection
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/10/irs-audits-and-statutory-protection.html
Handling Expenses of Crops with Pre-Productive Periods – The Uniform Capitalization Rules
When Can Depreciation First Be Claimed?
Tax Treatment of Crops and/or Livestock Sold Post-Death
Social Security Planning for Farmers and Ranchers
Are Crop Insurance Proceeds Deferrable for Tax Purposes?
Tax Issues Associated With Easement Payments – Part 1
Tax Issues Associated With Easement Payments – Part 2
How NOT to Use a Charitable Remainder Trust
Does Using Old Tractors Mean You Aren’t a Farmer? And the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit – Is Subject to State Property Tax?
Insurance
Tax Deal Struck? – and Recent Ag-Related Cases
Real Property
Tax Deal Struck? – and Recent Ag-Related Cases
Ag Law Summit
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/08/ag-law-summit.html
Ag Law and Tax Developments
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/09/ag-law-and-tax-developments.html
More Ag Law Developments – Potpourri of Topics
Ag Developments in the Courts
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/12/ag-law-developments-in-the-courts.html
Regulatory Law
Constitutional Limit on Government Agency Power – The “Major Questions” Doctrine
The Complexities of Crop Insurance
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/07/the-complexities-of-crop-insurance.html
Federal Farm Programs – Organizational Structure Matters – Part One
Federal Farm Programs – Organizational Structure Matters – Part Two
Federal Farm Programs: Organizational Structure Matters – Part Three
USDA’s Emergency Relief Program (Update on Gain from Equipment Sales)
Minnesota Farmer Protection Law Upheld
Ag Law and Tax Developments
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/09/ag-law-and-tax-developments.html
Animal Ag Facilities and Free Speech – Does the Constitution Protect Saboteurs?
Court Says COE Acted Arbitrarily When Declining Jurisdiction Over Farmland
Ag Law Developments in the Courts
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/12/ag-law-developments-in-the-courts.html
Water Law
More Ag Law Developments – Potpourri of Topics
January 30, 2023 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Cooperatives, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Insurance, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, October 6, 2022
More Ag Law Developments – Potpourri of Topics
Overview
The courts have continued to issue decisions of relevance to farmers, ranchers and rural landowners. In today’s post, I take a look at some of them from around the country. From property rights to income tax to bankruptcy to herbicide crop damage and landowners disputing over drainage – it’s covered below.
Court Says Public Has Right to Use Private Riverbeds
Adobe Whitewater Club of N.M. v. N.M. State Game Comm'n., No. S-1-SC-38195, 2022 N.M. LEXIS 34 (N.M. Sup. Ct. Sept. 1, 2022)
The plaintiffs, various environmental and recreation groups, sued the New Mexico State Gaming Commission (Commission), claiming a regulation of the Commission violated the public’s right to use parts of New Mexico’s rivers. In 2017, the Commission, promulgated a regulation that outlined a process for landowners to obtain a certificate allowing them to close public access to segments of public water flowing over private property. The plaintiffs challenged the regulation as unconstitutional. Article XVI, Section 2 of the New Mexico state constitution states, “the unappropriated water of every natural stream, perennial or torrential, within the state of New Mexico, is hereby declared to belong to the public.” The issue was whether the public’s right to use the public waters included the right to use the privately owned waterbeds. The New Mexico Supreme Court determined that riverbeds were considered navigable waterways and were subject to the “public trust doctrine.” The private landowners along the riverbed intervened in the lawsuit and claimed the public would be considered trespassers on their land and they could exclude the trespassers. The Court disagreed, finding that the public has the right to use private land when reasonably necessary to gain access to or enjoy public rivers. The Court stated, “A determination of navigability only goes to who has title to the bed below the public water, not to the scope of the public use.” As such the court concluded that the public had access to such rivers to float, wade, fish and engage in other recreational activities that would have a minimal impact on the rights of private property owners. In addition, the Court held that such waters are and always have been public. Accordingly, the Court invalidated the Commission’s regulation.
Retained Ownership of Minable Surface Negates Conservation Easement Deduction.
C.C.A. 202236010 (Sept. 9, 2022)
The Chief Counsel’s office of IRS has taken the position that a conservation easement donation is invalid if the donor owns both the surface estate of the land burdened by the easement as well as a qualified mineral interest that has never been separated from the surface estate, and the deed retains any possibility of surface mining to extract subsurface minerals. In that instance, the conservation easement doesn’t satisfy I.R.C. §170(h). The IRS said the result would be the same even if the donee would have to approve the surface-mining method because the donated easement would not be donated exclusively for conservation purposes in accordance with I.R.C. §170(h)(5). The IRS pointed out that Treas. Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(4) states that a donated easement does not protect conservation purposes in perpetuity if any method of mining that is inconsistent with the particular conservation purposes of the contribution is permitted at any time. But, the IRS pointed out that a deduction is allowed if the mining method at issue has a limited, localized impact on the real estate and does not destroy significant conservation interests in a manner that can’t be remedied. Surface mining, however, is specifically prohibited where the ownership of the surface estate and the mineral interest has never been separated. On the specific facts involved, the IRS determined that the donated easement would not be treated at being made exclusively for conservation purposes because the donee could approve surface mining of the donor’s subsurface minerals.
Family Farms Not Part of Bankruptcy Estate.
Ries v. Archer (In re Archer), Nos. 17-20045-RLJ-7, 19-02001, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 2250 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2022)
A chapter 7 trustee sought a declaration that certain farm ground was a part of the bankrupt estate. The debtors, a married couple, had eight children, who all but one became medical doctors. The debtors had funded their children’s education throughout their lives with funds derived from the family farm. They owned 14 sections of land in Moore County, Texas, (northwest Texas) comprising what was referred to as the “Moore County Farm.” Although, the deed from 1988 for the land listed the defendant’s children’s IRA as the grantee-buyer of the land, the children did not have IRAs at the time or played any part in purchasing the land. The children were not given any right to manage or operate the Moore County Farm so long as the debtors were mentally competent. Beginning in 1998, the USDA and CRP program began making payments to some of the defendant’s children and in 2007 farmers who rented land from the Moore County Farm began to pay some of the children. The children began to open accounts and lines of credit associated with the expenses of the Moore County Farm. From 2005 to 2017, the debtors instructed some of their children to apply as “New Producers” to the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Through this program they were provided with favorable crop insurance as “managers” of a farm, but none of the children had managerial control. Ultimately, the children were charged with and convicted of insurance fraud. Along with the 1988 deed, the debtors executed a warranty deed for the Moore County Farm to some of the children in 2006 and later transferred the farm to the children’s IRAs. In 2008, one of the defendant’s children purchased 670 acres in Randall County, referred to as the “Randall County Farm”. The debtors ultimately had primary authority and control of the farming operations of the Randall County Farm along with the Moore County Farm and had full control over the finances and accounting of the farms. The children did pay for some of the expenses on the Randall County Farm, but overall, the debtors operated the two farms as one entity. There were no further legal issues until 2011 when one of the debtors’ cows was hit by a motorist who sustained serious injuries because of the accident and filed suit. The court awarded the man $8.95 million in damages to be paid by the debtors. The debtors then filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court noted that the children had shared significant responsibilities over the Moore County Farm with their father and that their father wanted to pass the property to his children through the deeds. The court concluded that just because the debtors continued to run the farm did not mean they did not want to ultimately gift the land to the children. The bankruptcy trustee argued this was another scam set up by the family, but the court was not convinced given the common desire of parents to devise property to their children. The evidence showed that the debtors’ intent was for the children to own the farms and operate them for enjoyment. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the Moore County Farm was not part of the bankruptcy estate. The trustee claimed that the Randall County Farm should have been a part of the estate. Because one of the children who purchased the land negotiated a conservation plan with the USDA, received CRP payments, and paid for the farm expenses, the child was the true owner of the Randall County Farm and could not be considered part of the bankruptcy estate.
FIFRA Doesn’t Preempt State-Based Warranty Claims
Kissan Berry Farm v. Whatcom Farmers Cooperative, et al., No. 82774-0-I, 2022 Wash. App. LEXIS 1766 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2022)
The plaintiffs, five state of Washington red raspberry farms, claimed that the use of herbicide Callisto in 2012 killed their berry plants causing more than $2.5 million in lost production for 2012 and two following crop years. Callisto’s use was recommended by an agronomist working on behalf of. the defendant. Callisto’s maker, Syngenta was also named in the suit. Callisto’s label stated that it was safe for use on red raspberries. The label also indicated that usage could result in some crop damage and that compensation for crop damage was limited to the price of the herbicide. The plaintiffs asserted that Syngenta and the agronomist had made various warranties that Callisto was safe for use on red raspberries. Syngenta’s position that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted the farmers’ claims. The trial court agreed on the basis that the plaintiffs’ claims would have required Syngenta to change the product label due to state law. The appellate court reversed based on Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005). Under Bates, state law cannot require a change to a federally approved label, but state-based claims for breach of warranty are not preempted. the Supreme Court found that a pesticide manufacturer who is found liable for state law breach of express warranty claims is not then induced to change their federally registered pesticide label.
Comparative Fault for Unmaintained Waterway
Watters v. Medinger, No. 21-1076, 2022 Iowa App. LEXIS 667 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2022)
The parties had been in various legal spats involving farmland for over a decade. The plaintiff owned farmland adjacent to the defendant that contained waterways. The plaintiff sued the defendant claiming the defendant altered his land in various ways causing extreme degradation and erosion along the plaintiff’s waterways. The trial court determined that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to maintain or mow around the waterways, which allowed for ragweed to grow. The ragweed destroyed the grass along the waterway, which meant the water would flood quicker than it would have if grass could absorb some of the moisture. The trial court found that the defendant’s construction of a new cattle shed and addition of drain tiles did cause damage to the plaintiff’s property, but the at that time the plaintiff had already stopped properly maintaining the waterway. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $2,000 in damages to repair the damage caused by the erosion. The plaintiff appealed claiming that the damage award was insufficient. The appellate court reviewed the plaintiff’s argument that the jury instruction was improper regarding comparative fault. The plaintiff tried to argue that he could not repair any part of the erosion until the drainage issues were solved. The appellate court held the plaintiff failed to address the failure to maintain the waterway before the draining issues arose. A farm tenant testified that the plaintiff’s property was already in “tough shape” before the defendant made any changes to his property. The appellate court held the comparative fault instruction was proper, because there was “a causal connection between the plaintiff’s fault and the claimed damages.” Further, the appellate court held the award of damages was sufficient because the jury settled on an amount within the range of evidence based on expert testimony. Just because the amount was at the low end of the range did not mean the amount was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
Conclusion
Agricultural law and taxation is a very dynamic discipline. There is never a dull moment -more fodder for my radio shows and TV interviews, and content for my books and seminars.
October 6, 2022 in Bankruptcy, Civil Liabilities, Environmental Law, Income Tax, Real Property, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, September 11, 2022
September 30 Ag Law Summit in Omaha (and Online)
Overview
On September 30, Washburn Law School with cooperating partner Creighton Law School will conduct the second annual Ag Law Summit. The Summit will be held on the Creighton University campus in Omaha, Nebraska. Last September Washburn Law School conducted it’s first “Ag Law Summit” and held it at Mahoney State Park in Nebraska. This year the Summit returns in collaboration with Creighton University School of Law. The Summit will be held at Creighton University on September 30 and will also be broadcast live online.
The Summit will cover various topics of relevance to agricultural producers and the tax and legal counsel that represent them.
The 2022 Ag Law Summit – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Agenda
Developments in agricultural law and taxation. I will start off the day with a session surveying the major recent ag law and tax developments. This one-hour session will update attendees on the big issues facing ag clients and provide insight concerning the issues that look to be on the horizon in the legal and tax world. There have been several major developments involving agricultural that have come through the U.S Supreme Court in recent months. I will discuss those decisions and the implications for the future. Several of them involve administrative law and could have a substantial impact on the ability of the federal government to micro-manage agricultural activities. I will also get into the big tax developments of the past year, including the tax provisions included in the recent legislation that declares inflation to be reduced!
Death of a farm business owner. After my session, Prof. Ed Morse of Creighton Law School will examine the tax issues that arise when a farm business owner dies. Income tax basis and the impact of various entity structures will be the focus of this session along with the issues that arise upon transitioning ownership to the next generation and various tax elections. The handling of tax attributes after death will be covered as will some non-tax planning matters when an LLC owner dies. There are also entity-specific issues that arise when a business owner dies, and Prof. Morse will address those on an entity-by-entity basis. The transition issue for farmers and ranchers is an important one for many. This session will be a good one in laying out the major tax and non-tax considerations that need to be laid out up front to help the family achieve its goals post-death.
Governing documents for farm and ranch business entities. After a morning break Dan Waters with Lamson Dugan & Murray in Omaha will take us up to lunch with a technical session on the drafting of critical documents for farm and ranch entities. What should be included in the operative agreements? What is the proper wording? What provisions should be included and what should be avoided? This session picks up on Prof. Morse’s presentation and adds in the drafting elements that are key to a successful business succession plan for the farm/ranch operation.
Fence law issues. After a provided lunch, Colten Venteicher who practices in Gothenburg, NE, will address the issues of fence line issues when ag land changes hands. This is an issue that seems to come up over and over again in agriculture. The problems are numerous and varied. This session provides a survey of applicable law and rules and practical advice for helping clients resolve existing disputes and avoid future ones.
Farm economics. Following the afternoon break, a presentation on the current economy and economic situation facing ag producers, ag businesses and consumers will be presented by Darrell Holaday. Darrell is an ag economist and his firm, Advanced Market Concepts, provides marketing plans for ag producers. What are the economic projections for the balance of 2022 and into 2023 that bear on tax and estate planning for farmers and ranchers? How will the war in Ukraine continue to impact agriculture in the U.S.? This will be a key session, especially with the enactment of legislation that will add fuel to the current inflationary fire – unless of course, the tax increases in the legislation slow the economy enough to offset the additional spending.
Ethics. I return to close out the day with a session of ethics focused on asset protection planning. There’s a right way and a wrong way to do asset protection planning. This session guides the practitioner through the proper approach to asset protection planning, client identification, and the pitfalls if the “stop signs” are missed.
Online. The Summit will be broadcast live online and will be interactive to allow you the ability to participate remotely.
Reception
For those attending in person, a reception will follow in the Harper Center Ballroom on the Creighton Campus.
Conclusion
If your tax or legal practice involves ag clients, the Ag Law Summit is for you. As noted, you can also attend online if you can’t be there in person. If you are a student currently in law school or thinking about it, or are a student in accounting, you will find this seminar beneficial.
I hope to see you in Omaha on September 30 or see that you are with us online.
You can learn more about the Summit and get registered at the following link: https://www.washburnlaw.edu/employers/cle/aglawsummit.html
September 11, 2022 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Cooperatives, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Insurance, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, September 5, 2022
Bibliography – January through June of 2022
Overview
Periodically I post an article containing the links to all of my blog articles that have been recently published. Today’s article is a bibliography of my articles from the beginning of 2022 through June. Hopefully this will aid your research of agricultural law and tax topics.
A bibliography of articles for the first half of 2022 – it’s the content of today’s post.
Bankruptcy
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 8 and 7
Other Important Developments in Agricultural Law and Taxation
Recent Court Cases of Importance to Agricultural Producers and Rural Landowners
Business Planning
Summer 2022 Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conferences
Should An IDGT Be Part of Your Estate Plan?
Farm Wealth Transfer and Business Succession – The GRAT
Captive Insurance – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/03/captive-insurance-part-one.html
Captive Insurance – Part Two
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/03/captive-insurance-part-two.html
Captive Insurance – Part Three
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/04/captive-insurance-part-three.html
Pork Production Regulations; Fake Meat; and Tax Proposals on the Road to Nowhere
Farm Economic Issues and Implications
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/04/farm-economic-issues-and-implications.html
Intergenerational Transfer of the Farm/Ranch Business – The Buy-Sell Agreement
IRS Audit Issue – S Corporation Reasonable Compensation
Summer 2022 Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conferences
Wisconsin Seminar and…ERP (not Wyatt) and ELRP
S Corporation Dissolution – Part 1
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/06/s-corporation-dissolution-part-1.html
S Corporation Dissolution – Part Two; Divisive Reorganization Alternative
Farm/Ranch Tax, Estate and Business Planning Conference August 1-2 – Durango, Colorado (and Online)
Durango Conference and Recent Developments in the Courts
Civil Liabilities
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 8 and 7
Agritourism
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/03/agritourism.html
Animal Ag Facilities and the Constitution
When Is an Agricultural Activity a Nuisance?
Ag Law-Related Updates: Dog Food Scam; Oil and Gas Issues
Durango Conference and Recent Developments in the Courts
Dicamba Spray-Drift Issues and the Bader Farms Litigation
Tax Deal Struck? – and Recent Ag-Related Cases
Contracts
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 6 and 5
What to Consider Before Buying Farmland
Elements of a Hunting Use Agreement
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/02/elements-of-a-hunting-use-agreement.html
Ag Law (and Medicaid Planning) Court Developments of Interest
Cooperatives
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
Criminal Liabilities
Animal Ag Facilities and the Constitution
Is Your Farm or Ranch Protected From a Warrantless Search?
Durango Conference and Recent Developments in the Courts
Environmental Law
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 6 and 5
“Top Tan” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 2 and 1
The “Almost Top Ten” (Part 3) – New Regulatory Definition of “Habitat” under the ESA
Ag Law and Tax Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/02/ag-law-and-tax-potpourri.html
Farm Economic Issues and Implications
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/04/farm-economic-issues-and-implications.html
Constitutional Limit on Government Agency Power – The “Major Questions” Doctrine
Estate Planning
Other Important Developments in Agricultural Law and Taxation
Other Important Developments in Agricultural Law and Taxation (Part 2)
The “Almost Top Ten” (Part 4) – Tax Developments
The “Almost Top 10” of 2021 (Part 7) [Medicaid Recovery and Tax Deadlines]
Nebraska Revises Inheritance Tax; and Substantiating Expenses
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/02/recent-developments-in-ag-law-and-tax.html
Tax Consequences When Farmland is Partitioned and Sold
Summer 2022 Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conferences
Should An IDGT Be Part of Your Estate Plan?
Farm Wealth Transfer and Business Succession – The GRAT
Family Settlement Agreement – Is it a Good Idea?
Registration Open for Summer 2022 Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conferences
Captive Insurance – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/03/captive-insurance-part-one.html
Captive Insurance – Part Two
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/03/captive-insurance-part-two.html
Captive Insurance Part Three
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/04/captive-insurance-part-three.html
Pork Production Regulations; Fake Meat; and Tax Proposals on the Road to Nowhere
Farm Economic Issues and Implications
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/04/farm-economic-issues-and-implications.html
Proposed Estate Tax Rules Would Protect Against Decrease in Estate Tax Exemption
Summer 2022 Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conferences
Ag Law (and Medicaid Planning) Court Developments of Interest
Joint Tenancy and Income Tax Basis At Death
More Ag Law Court Developments
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/06/more-ag-law-court-developments.html
Farm/Ranch Tax, Estate and Business Planning Conference August 1-2 – Durango, Colorado (and Online)
IRS Modifies Portability Election Rule
Income Tax
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 10 and 9
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 8 and 7
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 2 and 1
The “Almost Top Ten” (Part 4) – Tax Developments
The “Almost Top 10” of 2021 (Part 7) [Medicaid Recovery and Tax Deadlines]
Purchase and Sale Allocations Involving CRP Contracts
Ag Law and Tax Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/02/ag-law-and-tax-potpourri.html
What’s the Character of the Gain From the Sale of Farm or Ranch Land?
Proper Tax Reporting of Breeding Fees for Farmers
Nebraska Revises Inheritance Tax; and Substantiating Expenses
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/02/recent-developments-in-ag-law-and-tax.html
Tax Consequences When Farmland is Partitioned and Sold
Expense Method Depreciation and Leasing- A Potential Trap
Summer 2022 Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conferences
income Tax Deferral of Crop Insurance Proceeds
What if Tax Rates Rise?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/03/what-if-tax-rates-rise.html
Registration Open for Summer 2022 Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conferences
Captive Insurance – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/03/captive-insurance-part-one.html
Captive Insurance – Part Two
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/03/captive-insurance-part-two.html
Captive Insurance – Part Three
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/04/captive-insurance-part-three.html
Pork Production Regulations; Fake Meat; and Tax Proposals on the Road to Nowhere
Farm Economic Issues and Implications
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/04/farm-economic-issues-and-implications.html
IRS Audit Issue – S Corporation Reasonable Compensation
Missed Tax Deadline & Equitable Tolling
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/04/missed-tax-deadline-equitable-tolling.html
Summer 2022 Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conferences
Joint Tenancy and Income Tax Basis At Death
Tax Court Caselaw Update
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/05/tax-court-caselaw-update.html
Deducting Soil and Water Conservation Expenses
Correcting Depreciation Errors (Including Bonus Elections and Computations)
When Can Business Deductions First Be Claimed?
Recent Court Decisions Involving Taxes and Real Estate
Wisconsin Seminar and…ERP (not Wyatt) and ELRP
Tax Issues with Customer Loyalty Reward Programs
S Corporation Dissolution – Part 1
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/06/s-corporation-dissolution-part-1.html
S Corporation Dissolution – Part Two; Divisive Reorganization Alternative
Farm/Ranch Tax, Estate and Business Planning Conference August 1-2 – Durango, Colorado (and Online)
What is the Character of Land Sale Gain?
Deductible Start-Up Costs and Web-Based Businesses
Using Farm Income Averaging to Deal with Economic Uncertainty and Resulting Income Fluctuations
Tax Deal Struck? – and Recent Ag-Related Cases
Insurance
Tax Deal Struck? – and Recent Ag-Related Cases
Real Property
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 4 and 3
Ag Law and Tax Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/02/ag-law-and-tax-potpourri.html
What to Consider Before Buying Farmland
Elements of a Hunting Use Agreement
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/02/elements-of-a-hunting-use-agreement.html
Animal Ag Facilities and the Constitution
Recent Court Decisions Involving Taxes and Real Estate
Recent Court Cases of Importance to Agricultural Producers and Rural Landowners
More Ag Law Court Developments
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/06/more-ag-law-court-developments.html
Ag Law-Related Updates: Dog Food Scam; Oil and Gas Issues
Tax Deal Struck? – and Recent Ag-Related Cases
Regulatory Law
The “Almost Top 10” of 2021 (Part 5)
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/01/the-almost-top-10-of-2021-part-5.html
The “Almost Top 10” of 2021 (Part 6)
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/02/the-almost-top-10-of-2021-part-6.html
Ag Law and Tax Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/02/ag-law-and-tax-potpourri.html
Animal Ag Facilities and the Constitution
Pork Production Regulations; Fake Meat; and Tax Proposals on the Road to Nowhere
Farm Economic Issues and Implications
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/04/farm-economic-issues-and-implications.html
Ag Law (and Medicaid Planning) Court Developments of Interest
Wisconsin Seminar and…ERP (not Wyatt) and ELRP
More Ag Law Court Developments
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/06/more-ag-law-court-developments.html
Ag Law-Related Updates: Dog Food Scam; Oil and Gas Issues
Constitutional Limit on Government Agency Power – The “Major Questions” Doctrine
The Complexities of Crop Insurance
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2022/07/the-complexities-of-crop-insurance.html
Secured Transactions
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 6 and 5
Water Law
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 4 and 3
Durango Conference and Recent Developments in the Courts
September 5, 2022 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Cooperatives, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Insurance, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, August 20, 2022
Ag Law Summit
Overview
Last September Washburn Law School conducted it’s first “Ag Law Summit” and held it at Mahoney State Park in Nebraska. This year the Summit returns in collaboration with Creighton University School of Law. The Summit will be held at Creighton University on September 30, and will also be broadcast live online.
The Summit will cover various topics of relevance to agricultural producers and the tax and legal counsel that represent them.
The 2022 Ag Law Summit – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Agenda
Survey of ag law and tax. I will start off the day with a session surveying the major recent ag law and tax developments. This one-hour session will update attendees on the big issues facing ag clients and provide insight concerning the issues that look to be on the horizon in the legal and tax world.
Tax issues upon death of a farmer. After my session, Prof. Ed Morse of Creighton Law School will examine the tax issues that arise when a farm business owner dies. Income tax basis and the impact of various entity structures will be the focus of this session along with the issues that arise upon transitioning ownership to the next generation and various tax elections.
Farm succession planning drafting language. After a morning break Dan Waters, and estate planning attorney in Omaha, NE, will take us up to lunch with a technical session on the drafting of critical documents for farm and ranch entities. What should be included in the operative agreements? What is the proper wording? What provisions should be included and what should be avoided? This session picks up on Prof. Morse’s presentation and adds in the drafting elements that are key to a successful business succession plan for the farm/ranch operation.
Fences and boundaries. After a provided lunch, Colten Venteicher who practices in Gothenburg, NE, will address the issues of fence line issues when ag land changes hands. This is an issue that seems to come up over and over again in agriculture. The problems are numerous and varied. This session provides a survey of applicable law and rules and practical advice for helping clients resolve existing disputes and avoid future ones.
The current farm economy and future projections. Following the afternoon break, a presentation on the current economy and economic situation facing ag producers, ag businesses and consumers will be presented by Darrell Holaday. Darrell is an economist and his firm, Advanced Market Concepts, provides marketing plans for ag producers. What are the economic projections for the balance of 2022 and into 2023 that bear on tax and estate planning for farmers and ranchers? This will be a key session, especially with the enactment of legislation that will add fuel to the current inflationary fire – unless of course, the tax increases in the legislation slow the economy enough to offset the additional spending.
Ethics. I return to close out the day with a session of ethics focused on asset protection planning. There’s a right way and a wrong way to do asset protection planning. This session guides the practitioner through the proper approach to asset protection planning, client identification, and the pitfalls if the “stop signs” are missed.
Reception
For those attending in person, a reception will follow in the Harper Center Ballroom on the Creighton Campus.
Conclusion
If your tax or legal practice involves ag clients, the Ag Law Summit is for you. As noted, you can also attend online if you can’t be there in person. If you are a student currently in law school or thinking about it, or are a student in accounting, you will find this seminar beneficial.
I hope to see you in Omaha on September 30 or see that you are with us online.
You can learn more about the Summit and get registered at the following link: https://www.washburnlaw.edu/employers/cle/aglawsummit.html
August 20, 2022 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Cooperatives, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Insurance, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, June 9, 2022
Recent Court Cases of Importance to Agricultural Producers and Rural Landowners
Overview
Farmers, ranchers and other rural landowners face many legal and tax issues on a daily basis. The type of legal issues varies, and some are cyclical. Others seem to repeat over and over. In today’s article I discuss two cases from Kansas that illustrate some of the issues that seem to come up frequently with respect to real estate, and one that arises on a cyclical basis.
Various legal issues associated with agricultural production and rural landownership – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Common Issues Involving Ag Real Estate
Removal of Vegetation Within Easement Proper
Presnell v. Cullen, 2022 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 250 (Kan. Ct. App. May 6, 2022)
Farm and ranch land is often burdened by easements. Energy-related easements are common in rural areas as are access easements to a landlocked field or home. One common question is what activities are permissible in the easement area by the easement holder? Without clear specification in the written easement agreement, the rule is one of reasonability. That means that the easement holder can use the easement for the purpose(s) for which it was acquired and other associated purposes, within reason.
In this case, the plaintiff owned land subject to a railroad easement. The Central Kansas Conservancy (Conservancy) acquired the easement from a railroad under the National Trails System Act for the purpose of developing a recreational trail. The plaintiff sued claiming that the Conservancy did not have a right to cut down vegetation located within the easement. The trial court disagreed and awarded the Conservancy legal fees. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the Conservancy had a duty to protect and preserve the trees in the easement area, only needed to use 10 to 14 feet of the 66-foot easement, did not control the entire width of the easement, and had actually abandoned the easement.
The appellate court disagreed, finding that the Conservancy had a right to use the railroad corridor to develop and maintain the trail based either based on title ownership or via the easement. Thus, the Conservancy was entitled to remove the vegetation, but only to the extent necessary for developing and maintaining the trail. The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff’s trespass claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s award of attorney's fees under K.S.A. §61-2709(a).
Note: The case points out that reasonable use of the easement is the key when the easement agreement is silent. Here, the Conservancy could remove vegetation, but only if the removal was related to the trail. The landowner’s other trees and vegetation were to be left untouched.
Farmland Adversely Possessed, But No Prescriptive Easement.
Pyle v. Gall, No. 123,823, 2022 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 242 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2022)
Adverse possession has its origin in the English common law. It’s a concept whereby someone who knows that they don’t have legal title to land can gain title by possessing the land long enough without the owner’s permission. There are various elements to adverse possession that have been added over time, but basically if someone openly and knowingly takes possession of someone else’s land and does so for a long enough period of time set by state law, that person can end up the owner of the land via a quiet title action if the true owner knows of the possession and doesn’t do anything within the statutory timeframe to stop it.
Adverse possession was at issue in this case.
The parties disputed the location of the property line between their tracts. The plaintiff routinely planted crops up to what the plaintiff believed to be the property line, but that planting interfered with the crop farming plans of the defendant’s tenant. The plaintiff also regularly used a portion of the defendant’s field as a road to access the plaintiff’s crops. In 2015, the defendant offered to sell the disputed area to the plaintiff and told the plaintiff to stop accessing the plaintiff’s crops via the defendant’s field. Each party hired surveyors, but the surveyors reached different conclusions as to the property line. In March of 2016, the defendant built a fence based on the property line that the defendant’s surveyor found, which was 17 feet beyond what the plaintiff believed to be the property line. In March 2017, the plaintiff sued to quiet title to the field up to the crop line they farmed to by adverse possession and sought either a prescriptive easement or easement by necessity. The trial court held that the plaintiff had adversely possessed the land in dispute and had acquired a prescriptive easement across the defendant’s property.
On appeal, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff had acquired the strip in question by adverse possession. The plaintiff had used the property for the statutory timeframe in an open, exclusive and continuous manner upon belief of true ownership. Use by others for recreational purposes, the appellate court reasoned, did not negate the exclusivity requirement because the use was infrequent compared to the plaintiff’s farming activity on the disputed land. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court on the prescriptive easement issue because both the plaintiff and the defendant used the alleged area on which a prescriptive easement was being asserted. Thus, the plaintiff had not used the easement exclusively. The appellate court remanded to the trial court the issue of whether an easement by necessity had arisen because the trial court had not considered the issue.
Note: Exclusivity is a key element of an adverse possession/prescriptive easement claim
Farm Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy is a cyclical. With the significant downturn in the economy driven largely by incomprehensible energy policy, it is looking as if 2023 will be an even tougher year for many parts of the agricultural sector. Existing operating loans will be renewed at higher interest rates, and this year’s inputs that were prepaid before major price increases may not work to avoid price increases next year. Thus, farm bankruptcies and foreclosures may tick up in 2023.
One of the key points of a farm bankruptcy is that a reorganization plan must be file in a timely manner and in good faith. A debtor cannot act in bad faith towards creditors.
The following case makes the points, and also points out that a farm bankruptcy requires planning as well as a plan.
Chapter 12 Case Dismissed for Unreasonable Delays
In re Bradshaw, No. 20-40948-12, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 1424 (Bankr. D. Kan. May 19, 2022)
The debtor filed Chapter 12 bankruptcy in late 2020 but failed to file a confirmable plan for 18 months. The debtor also failed to meet many other Chapter 12 requirements. As a result, the Chapter 12 Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case under 11 U.S.C. § 1208(c) which allows a case to be dismissed for the debtor’s unreasonable delay or gross mismanagement. Before the court, the Trustee pointed to the debtor’s failure to file a plan in a timely fashion, denial of plan confirmation, continuous loss to the bankruptcy estate and absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation. The Trustee also noted that the debtor did not file taxes in 2016, 2017, or 2018 and the returns filed in 2019 and 2020 were insufficient. The debtor did not consistently file monthly operating reports and the debtor’s proposed plan did not meet basic bankruptcy code requirements.
The court also noted that the Trustee had no way of monitoring the debtor’s case properly because the debtor only filed three of eighteen monthly reports. Without monthly operating reports, it was impossible to determine if the estate could be rehabilitated. The debtor also had no income from farming operations with no prospect of an improved financial situation. The debtor also gambled with estate property and failed to account for, liquidate, or preserve estate property. The bankruptcy estate was uninsured, and the debtor had abandoned it. The court concluded that this amounted to the debtor’s gross mismanagement of the estate. The court noted that the debtor had ninety days to file a plan and after eighteen months and had not done so. While the debtor proposed one plan in April of 2021, it was denied, and no amended plan was submitted. This constituted an unreasonable delay and prejudice to creditors. The court granted the Trustee’s motion to dismiss the case.
Note: Don’t simply file Chapter 12 without an idea of where you are headed with your farming/ranching operation. Chapter 12 is designed for farmers that intend on continuing in farming after restricting the business to make it viable into the future. It’s not for those that don’t have a plan for the business into the future.
June 9, 2022 in Bankruptcy, Real Property | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, May 22, 2022
2021 Bibliography
Overview
In the past, I have posted bibliographies of my articles by year to help readers researching the various ag tax and ag law topics that I write about. The blog articles are piling up, with more 750 available for you to read and use for your research for clients (and yourself). The citations contained in the articles are linked so that you can go directly to the source. I trust that you find that feature helpful to save you time (and money) in representing clients.
Today, I provide you with the bibliography of my 2021 articles (by topic) as well as the links to the prior blogs containing past years. Many thanks to my research assistant, Kennedy Mayo, for pulling this together for me.
Prior Years
Here are the links to the bibliographies from prior years:
Ag Law and Taxation 2020 Bibliography
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/ag-law-and-taxation-2020-bibliography.html
Ag Law and Taxation – 2019 Bibliography
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/02/ag-law-and-taxation-2019-bibliography.html
Ag Law and Taxation – 2018 Bibliography
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/03/ag-law-and-taxation-2018-bibliography.html
Ag Law and Taxation – 2017 Bibliography
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/04/ag-law-and-taxation-2017-bibliography.html
Ag Law and Taxation – 2016 Bibliography
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/04/ag-law-and-taxation-2016-bibliography.html
2021 Bibliography
Below are the links to my 2021 articles, by category:
BANKRUPTCY
The “Almost Tope Ten” Ag Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
What’s an “Asset” For Purposes of a Debtor’s Insolvency Computation?
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
Is a Tax Refund Exempt in Bankruptcy?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/06/is-a-tax-refund-exempt-in-bankruptcy.html
Ag Law and Tax Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/06/ag-law-and-tax-potpourri.html
Montana Conference and Ag Law Summit (Nebraska)
Farm Bankruptcy – “Stripping,” “Claw-Back” and the Tax Collecting Authorities (Update)
BUSINESS PLANNING
For Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
Recent Happenings in Ag Law and Ag Tax
C Corporate Tax Planning; Management Fees and Reasonable Compensation – A Roadmap of What Not to Do
Will the Estate Tax Valuation Regulations Return?
June National Farm Tax and Estate/Business Planning Conference
August National Farm Tax and Estate/Business Planning Conference
C Corporation Compensation Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/03/c-corporation-compensation-issues.html
Planning for Changes to the Federal Estate and Gift Tax System
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
The “Mis” STEP Act – What it Means To Your Estate and Income Tax Plan
Intergenerational Transfer of Family Businesses with Split-Dollar Life Insurance
Ohio Conference -June 7-8 (Ag Economics) What’s Going On in the Ag Economy?
Montana Conference and Ag Law Summit (Nebraska)
Farm Valuation Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/08/farm-valuation-issues.html
Ag Law Summit
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/08/ag-law-summit.html
The Illiquidity Problem of Farm and Ranch Estates
When Does a Partnership Exist?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/09/when-does-a-partnership-exist.html
Gifting Assets Pre-Death – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/09/gifting-assets-pre-death-part-one.html
Gifting Assets Pre-Death (Entity Interests) – Part Two
Gifting Pre-Death (Partnership Interests) – Part Three
The Future of Ag Tax Policy – Where Is It Headed?
Estate Planning to Protect Assets From Creditors – Dancing On the Line Between Legitimacy and Fraud
Fall 2021 Seminars
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/09/fall-2021-seminars.html
Corporate-Owned Life Insurance – Impact on Corporate Value and Shareholder’s Estate
Caselaw Update
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/10/caselaw-update.html
S Corporations – Reasonable Compensation; Non-Wage Distributions and a Legislative Proposal
2022 Summer Conferences – Save the Date
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/12/2022-summer-conferences-save-the-date.html
CIVIL LIABILITIES
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Three
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
The “Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Three
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
Prescribed Burning Legal Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/02/prescribed-burning-legal-issues.html
Damaged and/or Destroyed Trees and Crops – How is the Loss Measured?
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
Mailboxes and Farm Equipment
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/07/mailboxes-and-farm-equipment.html
Statutory Immunity From Liability Associated With Horse-Related Activities
CONTRACTS
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Three
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
Deed Reformation – Correcting Mistakes After the Fact
Considerations When Buying Farmland
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/11/considerations-when-buying-farmland.html
Recent Court Decisions of Interest
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/12/recent-court-decisions-of-interest.html
The Potential Peril Associated With Deferred Payment Contracts
COOPERATIVES
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Final Ag/Horticultural Cooperative QBI Regulations Issued
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
Estate Planning to Protect Assets From Creditors – Dancing On the Line Between Legitimacy and Fraud
Recent Court Decisions of Interest
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/12/recent-court-decisions-of-interest.html
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
Recent Happenings in Ag Law and Ag Tax
Court and IRS Happenings in Ag Law and Tax
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/03/court-happenings-in-ag-law-and-tax.html
Valuing Ag Real Estate With Environmental Concerns
Ag Law and Tax Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/06/ag-law-and-tax-potpourri.html
No Expansion of Public Trust Doctrine in Iowa – Big Implications for Agriculture
Key “Takings” Decision from SCOTUS Involving Ag Businesses
Montana Conference and Ag Law Summit (Nebraska)
Navigable Waters Protection Rule – What’s Going on with WOTUS?
ESTATE PLANNING
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Two
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
What Now? – Part Two
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/02/what-now-part-two.html
Will the Estate Tax Valuation Regulations Return?
June National Farm and Tax and Estate/Business Planning Conference
August National Farm Tax and Estate/Business Planning Conference
Farmland in an Estate – Special Use Valuation and the 25 Percent Test
The Revocable Living Trust – Is it For You?
Summer Conferences – NASBA Certification! (and Some Really Big Estate Planning Issues – Including Basis)
Court Developments of Interest
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/04/court-developments-of-interest.html
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
Planning for Changes to the Federal Estate and Gift Tax System
The “Mis” STEP Act – What it Means To Your Estate and Income Tax Plan
The Revocable Trust – What Happens When the Grantor Dies?
Intergenerational Transfer of Family Businesses with Split-Dollar Life Insurance
Ohio Conference –June 7-8 (Ag Economics) What’s Going On in the Ag Economy?
Reimbursement Claims in Estates; Drainage District Assessments
Montana Conference and Ag Law Summit (Nebraska)
Farm Valuation Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/08/farm-valuation-issues.html
Ag Law Summit
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/08/ag-law-summit.html
The Illiquidity Problem of Farm and Ranch Estates
Planning to Avoid Elder Abuse
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/08/planning-to-avoid-elder-abuse.html
Gifting Assets Pre-Death – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/09/gifting-assets-pre-death-part-one.html
Gifting Assets Pre-Death (Entity Interests) – Part Two
The Future of Ag Tax Policy – Where Is It Headed?
Estate Planning to Protect Assets From Creditors – Dancing On the Line Between Legitimacy and Fraud
Tax Happenings – Present Status of Proposed Legislation (and What You Might Do About It)
Corporate-Owned Life Insurance – Impact on Corporate Value and Shareholder’s Estate
Tax (and Estate Planning) Happenings
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/11/tax-and-estate-planning-happenings.html
Selected Tax Provisions of House Bill No. 5376 – and Economic Implications
2022 Summer Conferences – Save the Date
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/12/2022-summer-conferences-save-the-date.html
INCOME TAX
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Two
The “Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020 – Part One
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
The “Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Four
Final Ag/Horticultural Cooperative QBI Regulations Issued
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
Recent Happenings in Ag Law and Ag Tax
Deducting Start-Up Costs – When Does the Business Activity Begin?
What Now? – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/02/what-now-part-one.html
C Corporate Tax Planning; Management Fees and Reasonable Compensation – A Roadmap of What Not to Do
Where’s the Line Between Start-Up Expenses, the Conduct of a Trade or Business and Profit Motive?
June National Farm Tax and Estate/Business Planning Conference
Selling Farm Business Assets – Special Tax Treatment (Part One)
Tax Update Webinar
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/03/tax-update-webinar.html
Selling Farm Business Assets – Special Tax Treatment (Part Two)
Selling Farm Business Assets – Special Tax Treatment (Part Three)
August National Farm Tax and Estate/Business Planning Conference
Court and IRS Happenings in Ag Law and Tax
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/03/court-happenings-in-ag-law-and-tax.html
C Corporation Compensation Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/03/c-corporation-compensation-issues.html
Tax Considerations When Leasing Farmland
Federal Farm Programs and the AGI Computation
Tax Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/04/tax-potpourri.html
What’s an “Asset” For Purposes of a Debtor’s Insolvency Computation?
Summer Conferences – NASBA Certification! (and Some Really Big Estate Planning Issues – Including Basis)
Court Developments of Interest
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/04/court-developments-of-interest.html
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
The “Mis” STEP Act – What it Means To Your Estate and Income Tax Plan
The Revocable Trust – What Happens When the Grantor Dies?
Ohio Conference -June 7-8 (Ag Economics) What’s Going On in the Ag Economy?
What’s the “Beef” With Conservation Easements?
Is a Tax Refund Exempt in Bankruptcy?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/06/is-a-tax-refund-exempt-in-bankruptcy.html
Tax Court Happenings
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/06/tax-court-happenings.html
IRS Guidance On Farms NOLs
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/07/irs-guidance-on-farm-nols.html
Montana Conference and Ag Law Summit (Nebraska)
Tax Developments in the Courts – The “Tax Home”; Sale of the Home; and Gambling Deductions
Recovering Costs in Tax Litigation
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/07/recovering-costs-in-tax-litigation.html
Tax Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/08/tax-potpourri.html
Weather-Related Sales of Livestock
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/08/weather-related-sales-of-livestock.html
Ag Law Summit
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/08/ag-law-summit.html
Livestock Confinement Buildings and S.E. Tax
When Does a Partnership Exist?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/09/when-does-a-partnership-exist.html
Recent Tax Developments in the Courts
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/09/recent-tax-developments-in-the-courts.html
Gifting Assets Pre-Death – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/09/gifting-assets-pre-death-part-one.html
Gifting Pre-Death (Partnership Interests) – Part Three
The Future of Ag Tax Policy – Where Is It Headed?
Tax Happenings – Present Statute of Proposed Legislation (and What You Might Do About It)
Fall 2021 Seminars
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/09/fall-2021-seminars.html
Extended Livestock Replacement Period Applies in Areas of Extended Drought – IRS Updated Drought Areas
Farm Bankruptcy – “Stripping,” “Claw-Back” and the Tax Collecting Authorities (Update)
Caselaw Update
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/10/caselaw-update.html
Tax Issues Associated With Easements
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/10/tax-issues-associated-with-easements.html
S Corporations – Reasonable Compensation; Non-Wage Distributions and a Legislative Proposal
Tax Reporting of Sale Transactions By Farmers
The Tax Rules Involving Prepaid Farm Expenses
Self Employment Taxation of CRP Rents – Part One
Self-Employment Taxation of CRP Rents – Part Two
Self-Employment Taxation of CRP Rents – Part Three
Recent IRS Guidance, Tax Legislation and Tax Ethics Seminar/Webinar
Tax (and Estate Planning) Happenings
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/11/tax-and-estate-planning-happenings.html
Selected Tax Provisions of House Bill No. 5376 – and Economic Implications
Recent Court Decisions of Interest
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/12/recent-court-decisions-of-interest.html
The Potential Peril Associated With Deferred Payment Contracts
Inland Hurricane – 2021 Version; Is There Any Tax Benefit to Demolishing Farm Buildings and Structures?
2022 Summer Conferences – Save the Date
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/12/2022-summer-conferences-save-the-date.html
The Home Sale Exclusion Rule – How Does it Work When Land is Also Sold?
Gifting Ag Commodities To Children
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/12/gifting-ag-commodities-to-children.html
Livestock Indemnity Payments – What Are They? What Are the Tax Reporting Options?
Commodity Credit Corporation Loans and Elections
INSURANCE
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
REAL PROPERTY
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Three
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
Prescribed Burning Legal Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/02/prescribed-burning-legal-issues.html
Ag Zoning Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/02/ag-zoning-potpourri.html
Court and IRS Happenings in Ag Law and Tax
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/03/court-happenings-in-ag-law-and-tax.html
Is That Old Fence Really the Boundary
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/04/is-that-old-fence-really-the-boundary.html
Court Developments of Interest
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/04/court-developments-of-interest.html
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
Deed Reformation – Correcting Mistakes After the Fact
Valuing Ag Real Estate With Environmental Concerns
Ag Law and Tax Potpourri
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/06/ag-law-and-tax-potpourri.html
Montana Conference and Ag Law Summit (Nebraska)
Farm Valuation Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/08/farm-valuation-issues.html
Considerations When Buying Farmland
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/11/considerations-when-buying-farmland.html
The Home Sale Exclusion Rule – How Does it Work When Land is Also Sold?
REGULATORY LAW
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Two
The “Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Ag Tax Developments of 2020 – Part One
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
The “Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Two
The “Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Four
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
Recent Happenings in Ag Law and Ag Tax
Prescribed Burning Legal Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/02/prescribed-burning-legal-issues.html
Packers and Stockyards Act Amended – Additional Protection for Unpaid Cash Sellers of Livestock
Federal Farm Programs and the AGI Computation
Regulation of Agriculture – Food Products, Slaughterhouse Line Speeds and CAFOS
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
The FLSA and Ag’s Exemption From Paying Overtime Wages
The “Dormant” Commerce Clause and Agriculture
Trouble with ARPA
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/06/trouble-with-arpa.html
No Expansion of Public Trust Doctrine in Iowa – Big Implications for Agriculture
Key “Takings Decision from SCOTUS Involving Ag Businesses
Reimbursement Claims in Estates; Drainage District Assessments
Mailboxes and Farm Equipment
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/07/mailboxes-and-farm-equipment.html
Montana Conference and Ag Law Summit (Nebraska)
California’s Regulation of U.S. Agriculture
Checkoffs and Government Speech – The Merry-Go-Round Revolves Again
Is There a Constitutional Way To Protect Animal Ag Facilities
Caselaw Update
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/10/caselaw-update.html
Recent Court Decisions of Interest
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/12/recent-court-decisions-of-interest.html
Livestock Indemnity Payments – What Are They? What Are the Tax Reporting Options?
SECURED TRANSACTIONS
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
Cross-Collateralization Clauses – Tough Lessons For Lenders
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
The “EIDL Trap” For Farm Borrowers
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/07/the-eidl-trap-for-farm-borrowers.html
The Potential Peril Associated With Deferred Payment Contracts
WATER LAW
Continuing Education Events and Summer Conferences
The “Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2020 – Part Three
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/01/agricultural-law-online.html
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2021/05/the-agricultural-law-and-tax-report.html
Montana Conference and Ag Law Summit (Nebraska)
May 22, 2022 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Cooperatives, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Insurance, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
Other Important Developments in Agricultural Law and Taxation
Overview
I recently concluded a five-part series on what I viewed as the “Top Ten” agricultural law and agricultural tax developments of 2021. There were many “happenings” in ag law and tax in 2021 which meant that there were still some significant developments that didn’t make the “Top Ten.” In today’s post I start discussing some of those. This will also be a multi-part series, and the developments are in no particular order.
The “Almost Top 10” of 2021, the first article in a series – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Bankruptcy Trustee Cannot Retain Fee
In re Doll, No. 21-cv-00731-RBJ, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232612 (D. Colo. Dec. 6, 2021)
The debtor filed Chapter 13 in late 2017, and failed to get the bankruptcy court to confirm his plan. The debtor made $29,900 in plan payments to the standing trustee. From that amount, the debtor’s counsel received $19,800 and $7503.30 was paid to the state for property taxes. The trustee paid the balance of $2,596.70 to himself in partial satisfaction of the statutory 10 percent fee. The debtor sought the return of the amount the trustee paid himself based on 11 U.S.C. §1326 and its difference to the comparative Chapter 12 provision of 11 U.S.C. §1326(a)(1). The debtor pointed out that a trustee is allowed to retain fees when a debtor’s Chapter 12 plan is not confirmed, but not in a Chapter 13. The bankruptcy court allowed the standing trustee to be compensated and the debtor appealed.
The district court agreed with the debtor, noting that 11 U.S.C. §1326(a)(2) provides, “if a plan is not confirmed, the trustee shall return any such payments not previously paid out and not yet due and owing to creditors.” The district court reasoned that if the payments must be returned, the fees collected from such payments must be returned. That language, the district court noted, was in contrast to the Chapter 12 language providing that “if a plan is not confirmed, the trustee shall return any such payments to the debtor, after deducting…the percentage fee fixed for such standing trustee.” The court reversed the reversed the bankruptcy court and remanded the case with instructions for the bankruptcy court to order the trustee to return the fee.
Note: While the district court expressed concern that a standing trustee may not be compensated for his efforts in situations such as this, the district court found the issue to be one for the Congress to address.
LLC Gifts Recharacterized
Smaldino v. Comr., T.C. Memo. 2021-127
Estate planning is a complicated process, and it gets more complicated as assets increase in number and value. If a family business is involved, the complexity is increased further. In this case, the Tax Court pointed out how important it is to carefully do estate planning correctly. At its core, the case involved a gift by a husband to his wife and then to an irrevocable trust. Because the plan wasn’t implemented and/or administered properly, the IRS recast the transaction and the court agreed, with severe tax consequences.
Facts of the case. The couple had a real estate portfolio of nearly $80 million including numerous rental properties that they owned and operated. They agreed that the real estate should pass to the husband’s children and grandchildren from his prior marriage. To accomplish that goal, he put 10 of the real estate properties into a family limited liability company (LLC) that he formed in 2003 (and for which he was designated as the manager) but which remained inactive until late 2012 when he had a health scare that finally motivated him to get his affairs in order. The LLC, in turn, was placed into a revocable trust of which he was the trustee. In 2013, he transferred approximately eight percent of class B member interests in the LLC to an irrevocable trust (dynasty trust) that he had created a few months earlier for the benefit of his children and grandchildren. He named his son as trustee.
At about the same time as the transfer to the dynasty trust, the petitioner transferred approximately 41 percent of the LLC membership interests to his wife (in an amount that roughly matched her then available federal estate and gift tax exemption), who then in turn transferred the same interests to the dynasty trust the next day. As a result, the dynasty trust owned 49 percent of the LLC. Simultaneously, the petitioner amended the LLC operating agreement to provide for guaranteed payments to himself and identified the dynasty trust as the LLC’s sole member. On his 2013 gift tax return, the petitioner reported only his direct transfer of LLC interests to the dynasty trust and not those of his wife. A valuation report dated four months after the transfers to the dynasty trust stated that the 49 percent interest in the LLC had a value of $6,281,000. The federal estate and gift tax exemption was $5,250,000 in 2013. The IRS asserted that the petitioner had underreported the 2013 taxable gifts by not reporting the wife’s gift to the dynasty trust, and asserted a gift tax deficiency of $1,154,000.
The Tax Court agreed with the IRS, concluding that the wife’s gift to the dynasty trust should be treated as a direct gift by the petitioner for numerous reasons. The Tax Court noted that the wife was not a “permitted transferee” under the LLC operating agreement and, thus, could not have owned the LLC interest. The Tax Court also pointed out that the petitioner had amended the LLC operating agreement on the same day of his transfer of LLC member units to the dynasty trust to reflect himself as the sole member. The Tax Court also pointed out that the transfers of the wife’s LLC member interest were undated – they only had “effective” dates, and that the assignments were likely signed after the valuation report was prepared four months later. This meant that the wife had no real ownership rights in the LLC. In addition, the Tax Court pointed out that the 2013 LLC income tax return did not allocate any income to the wife even though the petitioner claimed that she had an ownership interest for one day. The LLC’s return and associated Schedules K-1 listed the petitioner as a 51 percent partner and the dynasty trust as a 49 percent partner for the entire year. The petitioner’s wife was not listed as a partner for any part of the year.
Take home planning pointers. The case is a good one for learning what not to do when setting up a trust and transferring LLC interests as part of an estate plan. The wife’s holding of the LLC interests for a day (at most) before the transfer to the LLC and then her transferring the exact same interests received as a gift to the dynasty trust is not a good approach. It shows a lack of respect for the transaction. The wife’s testimony at trial that she had no intent to hold the interest contradicted the alleged substance of the transaction. It also shows that she didn’t understand the planning that was being engaged in – that’s the fault of the attorneys involved. Also, the husband‘s failure to report the gift to his wife on a gift tax return was further demonstration that he didn’t respect that transfer. With the amount of wealth involved in the case, a team of professionals should have been engaged, and all formalities of the various transactions should have been closely followed. This includes providing written consent for the wife’s admission as an LLC member; providing the dates that documents were actually signed; not transferring the precise amount to the trust as was initially gifted; and having more time pass between the date of the gift to the wife and her subsequent transfer. There was also no amended and restated LLC operating agreement to reflect her ownership (however brief). Also, tax returns did not properly reflect what the taxpayers were doing.
From a broader perspective, it simply is a bad idea to not do estate planning until health emergencies arise. The same is true for other significant life events. By waiting until estate planning is absolutely necessary, estate planning can be rushed and not be done as thoroughly as it otherwise should be. Estate planning is a process that takes time. The rushed process in the case was probably a factor in the IRS succeeding in its assertion of the “step transaction” doctrine.
There’s also another point from the timing involved in the case that has relevance to estate planning in 2020-2021. While I can’t be positive from reading the court’s opinion, it appears that the estate planning was done in late 2012, at least from the standpoint of document drafting, and then completed in 2013. 2012/2013 was a time when there was concern by many that the federal estate tax exemption would drop from $5 million to $1 million. Thus, many clients were worried about being faced with a “use-it-or-lose-it” situation not unlike the situation in 2021 going into 2022. The point is that this uncertainty in the law surrounding estate planning creates an substantial increase in work for estate planners to accomplish in a short timeframe. That combination can lead to a lack of thoroughness in the estate planning drafting and/or review process. It is possible that this was part of the problem that led to the unfortunate tax result of the case.
Note: Following legal formalities is important, such as creating and signing essential documents. Also, consistency in tax reporting is critical. In addition, thorough estate planning should involve a “team approach.” The attorneys drafting the legal documents and providing legal counsel; tax practitioners that can review the tax consequences of the plan; financial and insurance professionals. The more “eyes” that see an estate plan, the less chance that steps will be overlooked and/or mistakes made.
A key question in the case involved the timing of the transfers to the wife and then to the dynasty trust. How long should she have held those transfers before retransferring them to avoid IRS successfully asserting the step-transaction doctrine? In one case, six days was enough for holding assets as part of an overall estate plan before they were retransferred. See Holman v. Comr., 130 T.C. 170 (2008), aff’d., 601 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2010). In any event, the transaction must have economic substance if the transaction is to be respected taxwise.
Conclusion
In the next article, I will look further at other developments of 2021 that weren’t quite significant enough on a national scale to make the 2021 Top Ten list.
January 18, 2022 in Bankruptcy, Estate Planning | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, January 4, 2022
“Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2021 – Numbers 8 and 7
Overview
As I pointed out in Sunday’s article, agricultural law and agricultural tax law intersect with everyday life of farmers and ranchers in many ways. Some of those areas of intersection are good, but some are quite troubling. In any event, it points to the need for being educated and having good legal and tax counsel that is well-trained in the special rules that apply to agriculture.
This is the second installment in my list of the “Top Ten” agricultural law and tax developments of 2021. The list is comprised of what are, in my view, the most important developments in agricultural law (which includes taxation that impacts farmers and ranchers) to the sector as a whole. The developments primarily are focused on the impact to production agriculture, but the issues involved will also have effects that spillover to rural landowners and agribusinesses as well as consumers of agricultural products.
The Eighth and Seventh most important agricultural law and tax developments of 2021 – it’s the topic of today’s post.
8. Ag Nuisance Litigation in North Carolina. In recent years, North Carolina has been the focus of much ag nuisance litigation, particularly targeted at large-scale hog confinement operations. Legal developments flowing from the various cases has influenced the North Carolina legislature as well as legislatures in other states (such as Florida and Indiana) to modify their Right-To-Farm (RTF) laws in an attempt to provide greater legal protection to agricultural operations. In 2021, there were further developments in North Carolina involving nuisance and that state’s RTF law.
The North Carolina RTF law was originally enacted in 1979 with the state policy goal to: "[R]educe the loss to the State of its agricultural and forestry resources by limiting the circumstances under which an agricultural or forestry operation may be deemed a nuisance." After many nuisance suits were filed against confinement hog operations, the legislature amended the RTF in 2013. The amendment specified that an ag operation that has been in business for at least a year and has not fundamentally changed is protected from a nuisance action as a result of changed conditions surrounding it if the ag operation was not a nuisance at the time it began. The plaintiffs refiled their suits in 2014 in federal district court based on the amended law. The federal court held that the RTF law did not apply to shield hog producers and five juries rendered verdicts for the plaintiffs. The legislature again amended the RTF law in 2017 and 2018 to expand its protection for agricultural operations.
There were two additional court opinions in 2021 involving the North Carolina RTF law. In Barden v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, No. 7:20-CV-85-BR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47809 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 15, 2021), the plaintiff sued the defendant in 2020 for trespass, negligence, civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment arising from odor, dust, feces, urine and flies from a neighboring hog facility that housed 20,000-head of the defendant’s hogs. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. The defendant sought to dismiss the complaint for failure to join to the lawsuit the farmer that operated the hog facility via a contact with the defendant as an indispensable party. The court disagreed, as the farmer’s conduct was likely irrelevant to the outcome of the litigation and any impact that an adverse judgment against the defendant might have on the farmer’s interests at the farm was speculative. The defendant also sought dismissal on the basis that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief that was other than speculative. The defendant cited the North Carolina RTF law as barring all of the plaintiff’s claims.
The federal trial court disagreed with the defendant, noting that conditions constituting a nuisance can also constitute a trespass (and other causes of action). Thus, the plaintiff’s complaint was not restricted to allegations of a nuisance cause of action which the RTF law would bar. The court noted that the RTF law was different from other state RTF laws that covered non-nuisance tort claims related to farming operations along with nuisance claims. The RTF law only covered nuisance-related claims and had no application to non-nuisance claims. As to whether the plaintiff adequately alleged the non-nuisance claims, the court concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged, at a minimum, a claim for unintentional trespass by not consenting to dust, urine and fecal matter from entering its property. On the plaintiff’s negligence claim, the court determined that it was reasonably foreseeable that if the defendant did not act reasonably in managing the facility that dust and animal waste would be present on the plaintiff’s property. As such, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty and there was a causal link with any potential breach of that duty. Thus, the plaintiff properly stated a claim for negligence. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant conspired with its corporate parent to mislead the public about the science of hog manure removal and various constitutional violations. The court rejected this claim because any conspiracy was between the defendant and its corporate parent and not with any independent party. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant unjustly enriched itself by using the plaintiff’s property for a de facto easement without paying for it. The court rejected the claim because the plaintiff had conferred no benefit on the plaintiff which gave rise to any legal or equitable obligation on the defendant’s part to account for the benefit received. However, the court refused to strike the plaintiff’s allegations relating to the defendant’s Chinese ownership, influence and exploitation as well as the defendant’s financial resources. The court determined that such allegations had a bearing on the defendant’s motivation, extent of harm and ability to implement alternative technology.
A second court opinion involving the North Carolina RTF law was issued in late 2021. In Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help v. State, No. COA21-175, 2021 N.C. App. LEXIS 733 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2021), the plaintiffs filed suit in 2019 challenging the constitutionality of the RTF law. The plaintiffs sued in 2019 challenging the constitutionality of the RTF law on its face because they claimed the law exceeded the scope of the state’s police power. The defendants moved to dismiss the case and the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed. The state appellate court agreed with the trial court that limiting the potential nuisance liability from ag, forestry, and related operations furthered the state’s goal of protecting ag activities and encouraging the availability and continued production of agricultural products. The appellate court also determined that the RTF law amendments were a valid exercise of legislative and state police powers and did not violate the state Constitution’s Law of the Land Clause or the Due Process Clause. The appellate court also determined that the amendments were not a special or private law, and didn’t deprive any prospective plaintiff of the right to a jury trial.
Note: It is anticipated that the state appellate court opinion, if upheld on any appeal, will provide further guidance to other states and RTF laws.
7. Federal Court Determines Whether Withheld Taxes and Other Pre-Paid Taxes Can Be Deprioritized in Chapter 12 Bankruptcy. As originally enacted, Chapter 12 did not create a separate tax entity for Chapter 12 bankruptcy estates for purposes of federal income taxation. That shortcoming precludes debtor avoidance of potential income tax liability on disposition of assets as may be possible for individuals who file Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy. But, an amendment to Chapter 12 in 2005 made an important change. As modified, tax debt associated with the sale of an asset used in farming can be treated as unsecured debt that is not entitled to priority and ultimately discharged. Without this modification, a farmer faced with selling assets to satisfy creditors could trigger substantial tax liability that would impair the chance to reorganize the farming business under Chapter 12. Such a farmer could be forced into liquidation.
A question that was addressed by a federal trial court in Indiana in 2021 was how taxes that the debtor had already paid are to be treated. Can previously paid or withheld taxes be pulled back into the bankruptcy estate where they are “stripped” of their priority (i.e., deprioritized)? That is a very significant question for a Chapter 12 farm debtor that also has off-farm income of a spouse that helps support the farming operation.
In United States v. Richards, No. 1:20-cv-02703-SEB-MG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 30, 2021), the debtors, a married farm couple, filed Chapter 12 bankruptcy in 2018 after suffering losses from negative weather events and commodity market price declines during 2013 through 2015. The primary lender refused to renew the loan which forced liquidation of the farm’s assets in the spring of 2016. During 2016, the debtors sold substantially all of the farm equipment, vehicles and other personal property assets as well as grain inventory. The proceeds were paid to the primary lender as well as other lenders with purchase money security interests in relevant assets. After filing Chapter 12, the debtors sold additional farmland. The asset sales triggered substantial income tax obligations for 2016, 2017 and 2018 tax years. The debtors Chapter 12 plan made no mention concerning whether off-farm earnings, tax withholdings or payments the debtors voluntarily made to the IRS, or a claim or refund would remain property of the bankruptcy estate after Plan confirmation. The plan did, however, divide the debtors federal tax obligations into 1) tax liabilities for income arising from the sale, transfer, exchange or other disposition of any property used in the debtors’ farming operation “Section 1232 Income”; and 2) tax liabilities arising from other income sources – “Traditional income.” Tax liabilities associated with Traditional Income would retain priority status, but taxes associated with Section 1232 Income would be de-prioritized (regardless of when the liability was incurred) and treated as general unsecured claims that would be discharged upon Plan completion if not paid in full. Under the reorganization Plan, the debtors would pay directly the tax liability associated with Traditional Income incurred after the Chapter 12 filing date. Under the Plan, unsecured claims would be paid on a “pro rata” basis using the “marginal method” along with other general unsecured claims. The Section 1232 taxes would be computed by excluding the taxable income from the disposition of assets used in farming from the tax return utilizing a pro forma tax return. The Plan was silent concerning how the Debtors’ withholding payments and credits for each tax year were to be applied or allocated between any particular tax year’s income tax return and the corresponding pro forma return.
The IRS filed a proof of claim for the 2016 and 2017 tax years in the amount of $288,675.43. The debtors objected to the IRS’s claim, but did seek to reclassify $5,681 of the IRS claim as general unsecured priority status. The IRS failed to respond, and the bankruptcy court granted the debtors approximately $280,000 in tax relief for 2016 and 2017. The debtors then submitted their 2018 federal and state returns showing a tax liability of $58,380 and their pro forma return for 2018 excluding the income from the sale of farm assets which showed a tax liability of $3,399. The debtors, due to withholding and estimated tax, inadvertently paid $9,813 to the IRS during 2018. They claimed $6,414 was an overpayment and listed that amount on the Pro Forma return as a refund. The IRS amended its proof of claim and asserted a general unsecured claim of $42,200 for the 2018 tax year (excluding penalties and interest). The IRS claimed that none of the debtors’ tax liability qualified for non-priority treatment under 11 U.S.C. §1232, and that it had a general unsecured claim for $42, 220 for the 2018 tax year. To reach that amount, the IRS allocated tax withholdings and credits of $9,813 to the assessed tax due on the debtors’ pro forma return which reduced that amount to zero, and then allocated the remaining $6,414 of withholdings, payments and credits to the outstanding tax liability of $48,634. IRS later added $6,347 of net investment income tax that the debtors had reported on their return but IRS had excluded due to a processing error. The debtors objected to the IRS’s claim and asserted it should not be increased by either the $6,414 overpayment or the $6,347 of net investment income tax. The debtors sought to adjust the IRS claim to $54,981 and have the court issue a refund to them of $6,414 or reduce distributions to the IRS until the refund obligation had been satisfied. The IRS objected on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel the issuance of a refund or credit of an overpayment, and that the debtors were not entitled to the refund or credit of the overpayment shown on the pro forma return as a matter of law.
The bankruptcy court sustained the debtors’ objection to the extent the 2018 refund was applied to the IRS’s claim in a manner other than provided for under the confirmed plan. Specifically, the bankruptcy court held that the IRS had exercised a setoff that was not permitted under 11 U.S.C. §553 which violated the plan’s bar against any creditor taking any action “to collect on any claim, whether by offset or otherwise, unless specifically authorized by this Plan.” But, the bankruptcy court held that it lacked jurisdiction to compel the issuance of a refund or credit of an overpayment and that the debtors were not entitled to the refund or credit of overpayment as a matter of law. This was because, the court determined, the refund was not “property of the estate” under 11 U.S.C. § §542 and 541(a). Later, the bankruptcy court held that the overpayment reflected on the pro forma return was “property of the estate” and withdrew its prior analysis of 11 U.S.C. §§542 and 505(a)(2)(B). Thus, the bankruptcy court allowed the IRS’s 2018 general unsecured tax claim in the amount of $54,981 and ordered the Trustee to pay distributions to the debtors until the overpayments had been paid to the debtors.
The IRS appealed, claiming that the bankruptcy court erred in allowing the IRS’s proof of claim in the amount of $54,981 rather than $48,567, and ordering the IRS to issue the debtors a refund or credit of any overpayment in the amount of $6,414. Specifically, the IRS asserted that 11 U.S.C. §1232 did not provide the debtors any right to an “overpayment” or “refund” because it only applies to “claims” - tax liability after crediting payments and withholdings. The IRS based its position on Iowa Department of Revenue v. DeVries, 621 B.R. 445 (8th Cir. B.A.P. 2020). However, the trial court noted distinctions with the facts of DeVries. Here, the sale of property at issue occurred post-petition and involved a claim objection after the Plan had already been confirmed. The appellate court noted that the IRS did not object to the terms of the Plan, and under 11. U.S.C. §1232 the debtors can deprioritize all post-petition Sec. 1232 liabilities, not just a portion. The application of the marginal method resulted in a tax liability of $54,981 to be paid in accordance with 11 U.S.C. §1232. The non-§1232 tax liability was $3,399. The debtors inadvertently paid $9,813 to the IRS and were entitled to a refund of $6,414, and the IRS could not apply that amount against the Sec. 1232 liabilities in calculating its proof of claim. The refund amount was “property of the estate” under 11 U.S.C. §1207(a)(2).
Note: On November 30, 2021, an appeal was docketed with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Devries and Richards are important cases for practitioners helping farmers in financial distress. 11 U.S.C. §1232 is a powerful tool that can assist making a farm reorganization more feasible. The Indiana case is a bit strange. In that case, the debtors were also due a refund for 2016. A pro-forma return for that year showed a refund of $1,300. Thus, the issue of a refund being due for pre-petition taxes could have been asserted just as it was in the Iowa case. Another oddity about the Indiana case is that the 2018 pro-forma (and regular) return was submitted to the IRS in March of 2019. Under 11 U.S.C. §1232, the “governmental body” has 180 days to file its proof of claim after the pro forma tax return was filed. The IRS timely filed its proof of claim and later filed an amended proof of claim which was identical to the original proof of claim. The IRS filed an untimely proof of claim in one of the other jointly administered cases.
Procedurally, in the Indiana case, a Notice regarding the use of 11 U.S.C. §1232 should have been filed with the court to clarify the dates of Notice to the IRS (and other governmental bodies) of the amount of the priority non-dischargeable taxes and 11 U.S.C. §1232 taxes to be discharged under the plan. That is when the issue of the refund would have been raised with the IRS. However, there was no Notice of the filing of the pro-forma return with the court. It will be interesting to see how the U.S. Court of Appeals handles the Indiana case on appeal.
Note: Going forward, Chapter 12 reorganization plans should provide that if a pro-forma return shows that the debtor is owed a refund the governmental bodies will pay it.
Conclusion
The next article will detail the Sixth and Fifth most important ag law and tax developments of 2021. Stay tuned.
January 4, 2022 in Bankruptcy, Civil Liabilities, Income Tax | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, October 8, 2021
Farm Bankruptcy – “Stripping,” “Claw-Back” and the Tax Collecting Authorities (Update)
Note: This article is an update to my blog article of May 4, 2020 that can be accessed here: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2020/05/farm-bankruptcy-stripping-claw-back-and-the-tax-collecting-authorities.html
Overview
As originally enacted, Chapter 12 did not create a separate tax entity for Chapter 12 bankruptcy estates for purposes of federal income taxation. That shortcoming precludes debtor avoidance of potential income tax liability on disposition of assets as may be possible for individuals who file Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy. But, an amendment to Chapter 12 enacted 19 years after Chapter 12 was established made an important change. As modified, tax debt associated with the sale of an asset used in farming can be treated as unsecured debt that is not entitled to priority and ultimately discharged. Without this modification, a farmer faced with selling assets to come up with funds to satisfy creditors could trigger substantial tax liability that would impair the chance to reorganize the farming business under Chapter 12. Such a farmer could be forced into liquidation.
If taxes can be treated as unsecured debt how are taxes that the debtor has already paid to be treated? Can those previously paid or withheld taxes be pulled back into the bankruptcy estate where they are “stripped” of their priority?
Chapter 12 bankruptcy and priority “stripping” of taxes – it’s the topic of today’s post.
2005 Modified Tax Provision
The 2005 Bankruptcy Code allows a Chapter 12 debtor to treat claims arising out of “claims
owed to a governmental unit” as a result of “sale, transfer, exchange, or other disposition of any farm asset used in the debtor’s farming operation” to be treated as an unsecured claim that is not entitled to priority under Section 507(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, provided the debtor receives a discharge. 11 U.S.C. §1222(a)(2)(A). The amendment attempted to address a major problem faced by many family farmers filing Chapter 12 bankruptcy where the sale of farm assets to make the operation economically viable triggered gain which, as a priority claim, had to be paid in full before payment could be made to general unsecured creditors. Even though the priority tax claims could be paid in full in deferred payments under prior law, in many instances the debtor did not have enough funds to allow payment of the priority tax claims in full even in deferred payments. That was the core problem that the 2005 provision was attempting to address.
Nothing in the 2005 legislation specified when the property can be disposed of to have the associated taxes be eligible for unsecured claim status. Of course, to confirm a Chapter 12 plan the taxing agencies must receive at least as large an amount as they would have received had the claim been a pre-petition unsecured claim. On this issue, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that a debtor’s pre-petition sale of slaughter hogs came within the scope of the provision, and that the provision changes the character of the taxes from priority status to unsecured such that, upon discharge, the unpaid portion of the tax is discharged along with interest and penalties. In re Knudsen, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, 581 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 2009). The court also held the statute applies to post-petition taxes and that those taxes can be treated as an administrative expense. Such taxes can be discharged in full if provided for in the Chapter 12 plan and the debtor receives a discharge. Upon the filing of a Chapter 12, a separate taxpaying entity apart from the debtor is not created.
That is an important point in the context of the 2005 amendment. The debtor remains responsible for tax taxes triggered in the context of Chapter 12. The amendment, however, allows non-priority treatment for claims entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(2). That provision covers administrative expenses that are allowed by 11 U.S.C. §503(b)(B) which includes any tax that the bankruptcy estate incurs. Pre-petition taxes are covered by 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8). But, post-petition taxes, to be covered by the amendment, must be incurred by the bankruptcy estate such as is the case with administrative expenses. Indeed, the IRS position is that post-petition taxes are not "incurred by the estate" as is required for a tax to be characterized as an administrative expense in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 503 (b)(1)(B)(i), and that post-petition taxes constitute a liability of the debtor rather than the estate. See ILM 200113027 (Mar. 30, 2001). The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits agreed with the IRS position, as did the U.S. Supreme Court. Hall v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1882 (2012).
2017 Legislation
H.R. 2266, signed into law on October 26, 2017, contains the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act (Act). The Act adds 11 U.S.C. §1232 which specifies that, “Any unsecured claim of a governmental unit against the debtor or the estate that arises before the filing of the petition, or that arises after the filing of the petition and before the debtor's discharge under section 1228, as a result of the sale, transfer, exchange, or other disposition of any property used in the debtor's farming operation”… is to be treated as an unsecured claim that arises before the bankruptcy petition was filed that is not entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. §507 and is deemed to be provided for under a plan, and discharged in accordance with 11 U.S.C. §1228. The provision amends 11 U.S.C. §1222(a)(2)(A) to effectively override the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hall. As noted above, in Hall the U.S. Supreme Court held that tax triggered by the post-petition sale of farm assets was not discharged under 11 U.S.C. §1222(a)(2)(A). The Court held that because a Chapter 12 bankruptcy estate cannot incur taxes by virtue of 26 U.S.C. §1399, taxes were not “incurred by the estate” under 11 U.S.C. §503(b) which barred post-petition taxes from being treated as non-priority. The 2017 legislation overrides that result. The provision was effective for all pending Chapter 12 cases with unconfirmed plans and all new Chapter 12 cases as of October 26, 2017.
Computational Issues
The 2005 provision also makes no mention of how the amount of priority and non-priority tax claims is to be computed. Operationally, if a Chapter 12 bankruptcy filer has liquidated assets used in the farming operation within the tax year of filing or liquidates assets used in the farming operation after Chapter 12 filing as part of the Chapter 12 plan, and gain or depreciation recapture income or both are triggered, the plan should provide that there are will be no payments to unsecured creditors until the amount of the tax owed to governmental bodies for the sale of assets used in the farming operation is ascertained. The dischargeable tax claims are then added to the pre-petition unsecured claims to determine the percentage distribution to be made to the holders of pre-petition unsecured claims as well as the claims of the governmental units that are being treated as unsecured creditors not entitled to priority. That approach assures that all claims that are deemed to be unsecured claims would be treated equitably.
Methods of computation. To accurately determine the extent of the priority tax claim under the non-priority provision, it is necessary to directly relate the priority tax treatment to the income derived from sources that either satisfy the non-priority provision or do not satisfy it. There are two basic approaches for computing the priority and general dischargeable unsecured tax claims – the proportional method or the marginal allocation method. The proportional method (which is the IRS approach) divides the debtor’s ordinary farming income by the debtor’s total income and then multiplies the total tax claim by the resulting fraction. That result is then subtracted from the debtor’s total tax liability with the balance treated as the non-priority part of the tax obligation. Conversely, under the marginal approach, the debtor prepares a pro-forma tax return that omits the income from the sale of farm assets. The resulting tax liability from the pro forma return is then subtracted from the total tax due on the debtor’s actual return. The difference is the tax associated with the sale of farm assets that is entitled to non-priority treatment.
A shortfall of the IRS’ proportional method is that it merely divides the debtor’s tax obligation by applying the ratio of the debtor’s priority tax claim to the debtor’s total income and then divides the total tax claim. That mechanical computation does not consider any deductions and/or credits that impact the debtor’s final tax liability, and which are often phased out based on income. Instead, the proportional method simply treats every dollar of income the same. The result is that the proportional method, as applied to many debtors, significantly increases the debtor’s adjusted gross income and the priority non-dischargeable tax obligation. The proportional method makes no attempt to measure the type of income, or what income “causes” any particular portion of the tax claim.
The marginal approach was adopted by Eighth Circuit in the Knudsen case as well as the Bankruptcy Court in In re Ficken, 430 B.R. 663 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2009). The appropriate tax allocation method was not at issue in either of the cases on appeal. The Kansas bankruptcy court also rejected the IRS approach in favor of the marginal method. The most recent court decision on the issue has, like earlier cases, rejected the proportional method in favor of the marginal method. In re Keith, No. 10-12997, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2802 (Bankr. D. Kan. Jul. 8, 2013).
What About Withheld Tax?
Under the 2005 amendment (and the 2017 legislation) taxes triggered by the sale, exchange, etc., of assets used in farming can be stripped of there priority status in a Chapter 12 farm bankruptcy. However, the debtor’s method for computing the taxes not entitled to priority involves utilization of the debtor’s total tax claim. That means that taxes that have already been withheld or paid through estimated payments should be refunded to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, where it becomes subject to the priority/non-priority computation, rather than being offset against the debtor’s overall tax debt (with none it subject to non-priority treatment). Of course, the IRS and state taxing authorities object to this treatment.
Iowa bankruptcy case. The issue of how to handle withheld taxes was at issue in a recent case. In In re DeVries, No. 19-0018, 2020 U.S. Bankr. LEXIS 1154 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Apr. 28, 2020), the debtors, a married couple, filed an initial Chapter 12 reorganization plan that the bankruptcy court held to be not confirmable. The debtors filed an amended plan that required the IRS and the Iowa Department of Revenue (IDOR) to refund to the debtors’ bankruptcy estate withheld income taxes. The taxing authorities objected, claiming that the withheld amounts had already been applied against the debtor’s tax debt as 11 U.S.C. §553(a) allowed. The debtors claimed that the 2017 legislation barred tax debt arising from the sale of assets used in farming from being offset against previously collected tax. Instead, the debtors argued, the withheld taxes should be returned to the bankruptcy estate. If withheld taxes weren’t returned to the bankruptcy estate, the debtors argued, similarly situated debtors would be treated differently.
The debtors sold a significant amount of farmland and farming machinery in 2017, triggering almost a $1 million of capital gain income and increasing their 2017 tax liability significantly. The tax liability was offset to a degree by income tax withholding from the wife’s off-farm job. Their amended Chapter 12 plan called for a refund to the estate of withheld federal and state income taxes. In the fall of 2019, the debtors submitted pro forma state and federal tax returns as well as their traditional tax returns for 2017 to the bankruptcy court in conjunction with the confirmation of their amended Chapter 12 plan. The pro-forma returns showed what the debtors’ tax liability would have been without the sale of the farmland and farm equipment. The pro-forma returns also showed, but for the capital gain, the debtors would have been entitled to a full tax refund of the taxes already withheld from the wife’s off-farm job.
The court was faced with the issue of whether 11 U.S.C. §1232(a) entitled the bankruptcy estate to a refund of the withheld tax. The IRS and IDOR claimed that 11 U.S.C. §553(a) preserved priority position for tax debt that arose before the bankruptcy petition was filed. The court disagreed, noting that 11 U.S.C. §1232(a) deals specifically with how governmental claims involving pre-petition tax debt are to be treated – as unsecured, non-priority obligations. But the court noted that 11 U.S.C. §1232(a) does not specifically address “clawing-back” previously withheld tax. It merely referred to “qualifying tax debt” and said it was to be treated as unsecured and not entitled to priority. Referencing the legislative history behind both the 2005 and 2017 amendments, the court noted that the purpose of the priority-stripping provision was to help farmers have a better chance at reorganization by de-prioritizing taxes, including capital gain taxes. The court pointed to statements that Sen. Charles Grassley made to that effect. The court also noted that the 2017 amendment was for the purpose of strengthening (and clarifying) the original 2005 de-prioritization provision by overturning the result in Hall to allow for de-prioritization of taxes arising from both pre and post-petitions sales of assets used in farming. Accordingly, the court concluded that 11 U.S.C. §1232(a) overrode a creditor’s set-off rights under 11 U.S.C. §553(a) in the context of Chapter 12. The debtors’ bankruptcy estate was entitled to a refund of the withheld income taxes.
On appeal, the bankruptcy appellate panel for the Eighth Circuit reversed. In re DeVries, 621 B.R. 445 (8th Cir. B.A.P. 2020). The appellate panel determined that 11 U.S.C. §1232(a) is a priority-stripping provision and not a tax provision and only addresses the priority of a claim and does not establish any right to or amount of a refund. As such, nothing in the statue authorized a debtor’s Chapter 12 plan to require a taxing authority to disgorge, refund or turn-over pre-petition withholdings for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate. The statutory term “claim,” the court reasoned, cannot be read to include withheld tax as of the petition date. Accordingly, the statute was clear and legislative history purporting to support the debtor’s position was rejected.
Indiana bankruptcy case. In re Richards, 616 B.R. 879 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2020) was decided the day after DeVries. In re Richards involved debtors, a married farm couple, who filed Chapter 12 bankruptcy in 2018 after suffering losses from negative weather events and commodity market price declines during 2013 through 2015. The primary lender refused to renew the loan which forced liquidation of the farm’s assets in the spring of 2016. During 2016, the debtors sold substantially all of the farm equipment, vehicles and other personal property assets as well as grain inventory. The proceeds were paid to the primary lender as well as other lenders with purchase money security interests in relevant assets. After filing Chapter 12, the debtors sold additional farmland. The asset sales triggered substantial income tax obligations for 2016, 2017 and 2018 tax years. The debtors Chapter 12 plan made no mention concerning whether off-farm earnings, tax withholdings or payments the debtors voluntarily made to the IRS, or a claim or refund would remain property of the bankruptcy estate after Plan confirmation. The plan did, however, divide the debtors federal tax obligations into 1) tax liabilities for income arising from the sale, transfer, exchange or other disposition of any property used in the debtors’ farming operation “Section 1232 Income”; and 2) tax liabilities arising from other income sources – “Traditional income.” Tax liabilities associated with Traditional Income would retain priority status, but taxes associated with Section 1232 Income would be de-prioritized (regardless of when the liability was incurred) and treated as general unsecured claims that would be discharged upon Plan completion if not paid in full. The debtors would pay directly the tax liability associated with Traditional Income incurred after the Chapter 12 filing date. Under the Plan, unsecured claims would be paid on a “pro rata” basis using the “marginal method” along with other general unsecured claims. The Section 1232 taxes would be computed by excluding the taxable income from the disposition of assets used in farming from the tax return utilizing a pro forma tax return.
The Plan was silent concerning how the Debtors’ withholding payments and credits for each tax year were to be applied or allocated between any particular tax year’s income tax return and the corresponding pro forma return. The IRS filed a proof of claim for the 2016 and 2017 tax years in the amount of $288,675.43. The debtors objected to the IRS’s claim, but did seek to reclassify $5,681 of the IRS claim as general unsecured priority status. The IRS failed to respond, and the court granted the debtors approximately $280,000 in tax relief for 2016 and 2017. The debtors then submitted their 2018 federal and state returns showing a tax liability of $58,380 and their pro forma return for 2018 excluding the income from the sale of farm assets which showed a tax liability of $3,399.
The debtors, due to withholding and estimated tax, inadvertently paid $9,813 to the IRS during 2018. The claimed $6,414 was an overpayment and listed that amount on the Pro Forma return as a refund. The IRS amended its proof of claim and asserted a general unsecured claim of $42,200 for the 2018 tax year (excluding penalties and interest). The IRS claimed that none of the debtors’ tax liability qualified for non-priority treatment under 11 U.S.C. §1232, and that it had a general unsecured claim for $42, 220 for the 2018 tax year. To reach that amount, the IRS allocated tax withholdings and credits of $9,813 to the assessed tax due on the debtors’ pro forma return which reduced that amount to zero, and then allocated the remaining $6,414 of withholdings, payments and credits to the outstanding tax liability of $48,634. IRS later added $6,347 of net investment income tax that the debtors had reported on their return but IRS had excluded due to a processing error. The debtors objected to the IRS’s claim and asserted it should not be increased by neither the $6,414 overpayment or the $6,347 of net investment income tax. The debtors sought to adjust the IRS claim to $54,981 and have the court issue a refund to them of $6,414 or reduce distributions to the IRS until the refund obligation had been satisfied. The IRS objected on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel the issuance of a refund or credit of an overpayment, and that the debtors were not entitled to the refund or credit of the overpayment shown on the pro forma return as a matter of law.
The court sustained the debtors’ objection to the extent the 2018 refund was applied to the IRS’s claim in a manner other than provided for under the confirmed plan. Specifically, the court held that the IRS has exercised a setoff that was not permitted under 11 U.S.C. §553 which violated the plan’s bar against any creditor taking any action “to collect on any claim, whether by offset or otherwise, unless specifically authorized by this Plan.” But, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to compel the issuance of a refund or credit of an overpayment and that the debtors were not entitled to the refund or credit of overpayment as a matter of law. This was because, the court determined, the refund was not “property of the estate” under 11 U.S.C. § §542 and 541(a).
Note: While the Indiana bankruptcy court claimed it lacked authority to force the IRS to issue a refund based on a “property of the estate” argument, that argument leads to a conclusion that is counter to the intent and purpose of I.R.C. §1232. How is 11 U.S.C. §1232 to be operative if a court says it can’t enforce it? Certainly, filing a Notice of intent concerning the priority stripping of 11 U.S.C. §1232 taxes with the court asserting the debtors’ right to receive the tax refund would have teed-up the issue more quickly, one wonders whether a judge intent on negating the impact of 11 U.S.C. §1232 would have decided differently.
Later, the court held that the overpayment reflected on the pro forma return was “property of the estate” and withdrew its prior analysis of 11 U.S.C. §§542 and 505(a)(2)(B). Thus, the court allowed the IRS’s 2018 general unsecured tax claim in the amount of $54,981 and ordered the Trustee to pay distributions to the debtors until the overpayments had been paid to the debtors.
The IRS appealed, claiming that the bankruptcy court erred in allowing the IRS’s proof of claim in the amount of $54,981 rather than $48,567, and ordering the IRS to issue the debtors a refund or credit of any overpayment in the amount of $6,414. Specifically, the IRS asserted that 11 U.S.C. §1232 did not provide the debtors any right to an “overpayment” or “refund” because it only applies to “claims” - tax liability after crediting payments and withholdings. The IRS based its position on DeVries. However, the appellate court in In re Richards, No. 1:20-cv-027030SEB-MG, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 188154 (7th Cir. Sept. 30, 2021), noted distinctions with the facts of DeVries. Here, the sale of property at issue occurred post-petition and involved a claim objection after the Plan had already been confirmed. The appellate court noted that the IRS did not object to the terms of the Plan, and under 11. U.S.C. §1232 the debtors were entitled to deprioritize all post-petition Sec. 1232 liabilities, not just a portion. The application of the marginal method resulted in a tax liability of $54,981 to be paid in accordance with Sec. 1232. The non-Sec. 1232 tax liability was $3,399. The debtors inadvertently paid $9,813 to the IRS and were entitled to a refund of $6,414 which the IRS could not apply against the Sec. 1232 liabilities in calculating its proof of claim.
The appellate court also determined that the refund amount was “property of the estate” under 11 U.S.C. §1207(a)(2). The appellate court noted that the debtors’ off-farm earnings became property of the estate at the time the Plan was confirmed and became subject to the terms and payment requirements of the Plan. The Plan directed the use of the off-farm earnings during the life of the Plan and specifically provided that off-farm earnings could not be used to pay tax liabilities associated with the sale of farm assets used in farming – the Sec. 1232 liabilities. Thus, the appellate court concluded what the debtors’ position was consistent with In re Heath, 115 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 1997) because the $6,414 refund was part of a payment made from off-farm earnings necessary to fund the Plan’s payment obligations.
Conclusion
Devries and Richards are important cases for practitioners helping farmers in financial distress. 11 U.S.C. §1232 is a powerful tool that can assist making a farm reorganization more feasible. The Indiana case is a bit strange. In that case, the debtors were also due a refund for 2016. A pro-forma return for that year showed a refund of $1,300. Thus, the issue of a refund being due for pre-petition taxes could have been asserted just as it was in the Iowa case. Another oddity about the Indiana case is that the 2018 pro-forma (and regular) return was submitted to the IRS in March of 2019. Under 11 U.S.C. §1232, the “governmental body” has 180 days to file its proof of claim after the pro forma tax return was filed. The IRS timely filed tis proof of claim and later filed an amended proof of claim which was identical to the original proof of claim. The IRS filed an untimely proof of claim in one of the other jointly administered cases.
Procedurally, in the Indiana case, a Notice regarding the use of 11 U.S.C. §1232 should have been filed with the court to clarify the dates of Notice to the IRS (and other governmental bodies) of the amount of the priority non-dischargeable taxes and 11 U.S.C. §1232 taxes to be discharged under the plan. That is when the issue of the refund would have been raised with the IRS. However, there was no Notice of the filing of the pro-forma return with the court.
Note: Going forward, Chapter 12 reorganization plans should provide that if a pro-forma return shows that the debtor is owed a refund the governmental bodies will pay it.
It is also important to remember that if the debtor does not receive a Chapter 12 discharge, the taxing bodies are free to pursue the debtor as if no bankruptcy had been filed, assessing and collecting the tax as well as all penalties and interest allowed by law including any refunds the taxing bodies are forced to make based on § 1232. Competent bankruptcy counsel that appreciates tax law is a must.
October 8, 2021 in Bankruptcy, Income Tax | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, July 15, 2021
Montana Conference and Ag Law Summit (Nebraska)
Overview
The second of the two national conferences on Farm/Ranch Income Tax and Farm/Ranch Estate and Business Planning is coming up on August 2 and 3 in Missoula, Montana. A month later, on September 3, I will be conducting an “Ag Law Summit” at Mahoney State Park located between Omaha and Lincoln, NE.
Upcoming conferences on agricultural taxation, estate and business planning, and agricultural law – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Montana
The second of my two 2021 summer conferences on agricultural taxation and estate/business planning will be held in beautiful Missoula, Montana. Day 1 on August 2 is devoted to farm income taxation, with sessions involving an update of farm income tax developments; lingering PPP and ERC issues (as well as an issue that has recently arisen with respect to EIDLs); NOLs (including the most recent IRS Rev. Proc. and its implications); timber farming; oil and gas taxation; handling business interest; QBID/DPAD planning; FSA tax and planning issues; and the prospects for tax legislation and implications. There will also be a presentation on Day 1 by IRS Criminal Investigation Division on how tax practitioners can protect against cyber criminals and other theft schemes.
On Day 2, the focus turns to estate and business planning with an update of relevant court and IRS developments; a presentation on the farm economy and what it means for ag clients and their businesses; special use valuation; corporate reorganizations; the use of entities in farm succession planning; property law issues associated with transferring the farm/ranch to the next generation; and an ethics session focusing on end-of life decisions.
If you have ag clients that you do tax or estate/business planning work for, this is a “must attend” conference – either in-person or online.
For more information about the Montana conference and how to register, click here: https://www.washburnlaw.edu/employers/cle/farmandranchtaxaugust.html
Nebraska
On September 3, I will be holding an “Ag Law Summit” at Mahoney St. Park, near Ashland, NE. The Park is about mid-way between Omaha and Lincoln, NE on the adjacent to the Platte River and just north of I-80. The Summit will be at the Lodge at the Park. On-site attendance is limited to 100. However, the conference will also be broadcast live over the web for those that would prefer to or need to attend online.
I will be joined at the Summit by Prof. Ed Morse of Creighton Law School who, along with Colten Venteicher of the Bacon, Vinton, et al., firm in Gothenburg, NE, will open up their “Ag Entreprenuer’s Toolkit” to discuss the common business and tax issues associated with LLCs. Also on the program will be Dan Waters of the Lamson, et al. firm in Omaha. Dan will address how to successfully transition the farming business to the next generation of owners in the family.
Katie Zulkoski and Jeffrey Jarecki will provide a survey of state laws impacting agriculture in Nebraska and key federal legislation (such as the “30 x 30” matter being discussed). The I will address special use valuation – a technique that will increase in popularity if the federal estate tax exemption declines from its present level. I will also provide an update on tax legislation (income and transfer taxes) and what it could mean for clients.
The luncheon speaker for the day is Janet Bailey. Janet has been deeply involved in Kansas agriculture for many years and will discuss how to create and maintain a vibrant rural practice.
If you have a rural practice, I encourage you to attend. It will be worth your time.
For more information about the conference, click here: https://www.washburnlaw.edu/employers/cle/aglawsummit.html
Conclusion
The Montana and Nebraska conferences are great opportunities to glean some valuable information for your practices. As noted, both conferences will also be broadcast live over the web if you can’t attend in person.
July 15, 2021 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, June 9, 2021
Ag Law and Tax Potpourri
Overview
Periodically, I cover recent “happenings” in ag law and tax. It’s been a while since a selected a few developments for summary on this blog. So, today is the day. A snippet of taxes, environmental law and property law
Recent developments in the courts of relevance to agricultural producers, rural landowners and taxpayers in general – it’s the topic of today’s post.
“Roberts Tax” is a “Tax” Entitled to Priority in Bankruptcy
In re Szczyporski, No. 2:20-cv-03133, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61628 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2021).
As you likely recall, in 2012, Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court badly twisted the law to salvage Obamacare by concluding that Obamacare’s requirement that certain persons buy government-mandated health insurance was constitutional because the mandate was a “tax” withing the taxing power of the Congress – even though Obamacare calls it a “penalty.” National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). The cost of that “shared responsibility payment” was offset by a credit under I.R.C. §36B. I.R.C. §36B of the grants “premium tax credits” to subsidize certain purchases of health insurance made on “Exchanges.” The tax credit consists of “premium assistance amounts” for “coverage months.” I.R.C. §36B(b)(1). An individual has a coverage month only when he is covered by an insurance plan “that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State. I.R.C. §36B(c)(2)(A). The law ties the size of the premium assistance amount to the premiums for health plans which cover the individual “and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State. I.R.C. §36B(b)(2)(A). The credit amount further depends on the cost of certain other insurance plans “offered through the same Exchange. I.R.C. §36B(b)(3)(B)(i).
The tax Code provision that Obamacare created clearly states that the credit is available to a taxpayer only if the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through “an Exchange established by the State.” I.R.C. §36B(b)(2)(A). When several persons living in a state that didn’t have a state exchange claimed they were exempt from the mandate to buy health insurance because of its cost absent the credit, Chief Justice Roberts again applied his contorted legal logic to conclude that “an Exchange established by the State” meant “an Exchange established by the State or Federal Government.” King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015). In other words, he completely rewrote the law a second time to salvage it.
Note. Justice Scalia had enough of the nonsense of Chief Justice Roberts when he wrote in his dissent in King, “The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.” He also stated, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State” and “The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges.”
This all brings us to the current case. In Szczyporski, the debtor was required to file an income tax return in 2018, but hadn’t obtained the government-mandate health insurance resulting in the IRS assessing the “Roberts Tax” for 2018. In 2019, the debtor filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy and the IRS filed a proof of claim for taxes in the amount of $18,027.08 which included the Roberts Tax of $927. The IRS listed the Roberts Tax as an excise tax and the balance of the tax claim as income taxes. The debtors objected on the basis that the Roberts Tax is a penalty that is not qualify for priority treatment under 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8). The debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in 2020, and the IRS filed a brief objecting to the debtor’s tax treatment of the Roberts Tax.
The bankruptcy court ruled that the Roberts Tax was a “tax” under the bankruptcy Code entitled to priority treatment. In re Szczyporski, 617 B.R. 529, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 1725 (Bankr. E.D. Pa., Jun. 23, 2020). On appeal, the federal district court affirmed, citing National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). While that decision involved facts outside of the bankruptcy context, the Supreme Court concluded that the Roberts Tax was a “tax” because it was enacted according to the taxing power of the Congress. Thus, it was either an excise or income tax, both of which are entitled to priority in bankruptcy. Here, the district concluded it was an income tax.
Settlement Proceeds Are Taxable Income
Blum v. Comr., T.C. Memo. 2021-18
A damage award that a taxpayer receives that is not attributable to physical injury or physical sickness is includible in gross income. In many lawsuits, there is almost always some lost profit involved and recovery for lost profit is ordinary income. See, e.g., Simko v. Comr., T.C. Memo. 1997-9. For recoveries in connection with a business, if the taxpayer can prove that the damages received were for injury to capital, no income results except to the extent the damages exceed the income tax basis of the capital asset involved. The recovery is, in general, a taxable event except to the extent the amount recovered represents a return of basis. Recoveries representing a reimbursement for lost profit are taxable as ordinary income.
In Blum, the petitioner was involved in a personal injury lawsuit and received a payment of $125,000 to settle a malpractice suit against her attorneys. She did not report the amount on her tax return for 2015 and the IRS determined a tax deficiency of $27,418, plus an accuracy-related penalty. The IRS later conceded the penalty, but maintained that the amount received was not on account of personal physical injuries or personal sickness under I.R.C. §104(a)(2). The Tax Court agreed with the IRS because the petitioner’s claims against the law firm did not involve any allegation that the firm’s conduct had caused her any physical injuries or sickness, but merely involved allegations that the firm had acted negligently in representing her against a hospital.
EPA Properly Approved Missouri Water Quality Standards
Missouri Coalition for the Environment Foundation v. Wheeler, No. 2:19-CV-04215-NKL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102806 (W.D. Mo. Jun. 1, 2021)
In 2009, the state of Missouri proposed water quality standards for nutrient standards for nutrient pollutants in Missouri lakes. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) originally rejected the proposed standards, but ultimately accepted a revised version of the standards in 2018. The plaintiffs, a coalition of environmental groups, sued claiming that the water quality standards should be set aside on the basis that the EPA’s determination was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the state standards, finding them to have been grounded upon a rational basis that they would adequately protect the designated uses of protected waterbodies.
Plaintiffs’ Use of Road on Defendant’s Property Deemed a Prescriptive Easement
Ramsey v. Keesee, 2021 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 231 (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2021)
The plaintiffs each owned property adjacent to the defendant’s eastern boundary line. A road ran along the boundary on the defendant’s property, which was the only local road that connected to a state highway. One of the plaintiffs began maintaining the road without the defendant’s consent. In response, the defendant closed the gate on the road with a lock on it to prevent the plaintiffs from using it. The plaintiffs sued and sought to remove the gate from the road. The trial court determined the plaintiffs had acquired a prescriptive easement over the road by actual, hostile, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous possession of the road for the statutory period of 15 years. As a result, the trial court held that the plaintiffs had the right to use the road for agricultural purposes and to maintain the road in a reasonable manner.
On appeal, the defendant argued that one of the plaintiff’s use of the road two or three times per week did not constitute open and notorious possession because it was insufficient to put the defendant on notice. The appellate court noted that under state common law, it is the legal owner’s actual or imputable knowledge of another’s possession of lands that affects the ownership. As a result, the appellate court held that the plaintiff’s use of the road put the defendant on constructive notice. The defendant then argued that one of the plaintiff’s use of the road was permissive as she had maintained the gates on the road. The plaintiff argued that he always believed the road at issue was an old county road and that he never sought permission to use the road. The appellate court determined that the gates on the road were never intended to prevent the plaintiffs from using the road, but were primarily for farm purposes. The defendant also claimed that the trial court erred in determining the use and location of the prescriptive easement as two of the plaintiffs had not maintained the road. The appellate court noted that maintenance of the road was not a necessary element to establish an easement by prescription. Lastly, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ nonuse of the north part of the road resulted in an abandonment of the prescriptive easement. The appellate court noted that mere non-use of an easement does prove that an easement has been abandoned, and held that the plaintiffs occasional use of the road rebutted the defendant’s abandonment claim.
Conclusion
The developments never cease. There will be more as time goes on.
June 9, 2021 in Bankruptcy, Environmental Law, Real Property | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, June 7, 2021
Is a Tax Refund Exempt in Bankruptcy?
Overview
The U.S. legal system has a long history of allowing debtors to hold specified items of property exempt from creditors (unless the exemption is waived). This, in effect, gives debtors a “head start” in becoming reestablished after suffering economic reverses. But, how extensive is the list of exempt property, and does it include federal and state refunds.
The ability (or not) to treat tax refunds as exempt from creditors in bankruptcy – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Bankruptcy Exemptions – The Basics
Typically, one of the largest and most important exemptions is for the homestead. Initially even the exempt property is included in the debtor's estate in bankruptcy, but the exempt assets are soon returned to the debtor. Only nonexempt property is used to pay the creditors.
Each of the 50 states has developed a unique list of exemptions available to debtors. 18 states and the District of Columbia allow debtors to choose between their state exemptions or the federal exemptions. The remaining states have chosen to “opt-out” of the federal exemptions. Under the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, to be able to utilize a state’s exemptions, a debtor must have resided in the state for 730 days preceding the bankruptcy filing. If the debtor did not reside in any one state for 730 days immediately preceding filing, then the debtor may use the exemptions of a state in which the debtor resided for at least 180 days immediately preceding filing. If those requirements cannot be met, the debtor must use the federal exemptions.
Tax Refunds as Exempt Property – The Moreno Case
Each state’s statutory list of exempt assets in bankruptcy will determine the outcome of whether tax refunds are exempt. But, a recent case involving the state of Washington’s exemption list is instructive on how other states might approach the matter.
Facts of Moreno. In In re Moreno, No. 20-42855-BDL, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 1262 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. May 11, 2021), the debtor filed Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy in late 2020. The debtor then filed her 2020 federal income tax return on January 28, 2021, and later received a tax refund of $10,631.00. That refund was made up of $572 of withheld taxes; $2,800 of a “Recovery Rebate Credit” (RRC); $1.079 of an Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC); and $5,500 of an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The bankruptcy trustee sought to include almost all of the debtor’s tax refund in the bankruptcy estate, excluding only 0.3 percent of the total amount ($31.89) based on the debtor’s Chapter 7 filing being December 30, 2020 (i.e., only one day of 2020 fell after the date the debtor filed bankruptcy).
Timing of filing. The debtor claimed that the tax refund arose post-petition because she filed the return post-petition. Consequently, the debtor claimed, the tax refund was not property of the bankruptcy estate. The court disagreed, noting that under 11 U.S.C. §541(a)(1), the bankruptcy estate includes all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the date the case commences. Based on that, the court determined that the debtor had obtained an interest in the tax refund as she earned income throughout 2020. Thus, the tax refund for the prepetition portion of the tax year were rooted in her prepetition earnings and were property of the bankruptcy estate regardless of the fact that she had to file a return to receive the refund.
RRC. The debtor used the state’s list of exemptions and the trustee conceded that certain portions of the debtor’s prorated tax refund were exempt. Specifically, the trustee did not dispute the debtor's right to retain the full RRC in the amount of $2,800. 11 U.S.C. §541(b)(11), enacted December 27, 2020, specifically excluded the RRC from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.
Withheld taxes. The debtor filed an amended Schedule C on which she claimed that $572 of her 2020 refund attributable to withheld tax was exempt under state law. The trustee disagreed and the debtor failed to explain how state law applied to withheld taxes. However, the trustee conceded that amount was exempt as personal property (up to a dollar limitation). Rev. Code Wash. §6.15.010(1)(d)(ii). This same part of the state exemption statute, the trustee concluded, entitled the debtor to an additional exemption of $2,630, the balance allowable as exempt personal property after allowing the debtor to exempt $370 in cash and checking accounts.
ACTC and EITC. As for the part of the refund attributable to the ACTC and the EITC, the debtor claimed that it was exempt under Rev. Code Wash. §6.15.010(1)(d)(iv) as any past-due, current or future child support “that is paid or owed to the debtor” or as “public assistance” under Rev. Code Wash. §74.04.280 and 74.04.005. The trustee claimed that the ACTC was encompassed by the remaining “catch-all” exemption for personal property of Rev. Code Wash. §6.15.010(1)(d)(ii). However, the court noted that if the catch-all provision didn’t apply to the ACTC, it could be applied to the debtor’s other debts to the benefit of the debtor. Thus, the court needed to determine whether both the ACTC and the EITC were exempt under state law.
The Court first concluded that neither the ACTC nor the EITC portions of the tax refund constituted “child support” under RCW § 6.15.010(1)(d)(iv). Instead, the court determined that the plain meaning of “child support” refers to payments legally required of parents. That was not the case with neither the ACTC nor the EITC. The court likewise concluded that the credits were not “public assistance” as defined by Rev. Code Wash. §§ 74.04.280 and 74.04.005. Based on state law, the court noted, the credits would have to be “public aid to persons in need thereof for any cause, including…federal aid assistance.” Rev. Code Wash. §74.04.005(11). The court determined that the credits, under this statute, could only possibly be exempt as “federal aid assistance” which is defined under Rev. Code Wash. § 74.04.005(8) to include “[T]he specific categories of assistance for which provision is made in any federal law existing or hereafter passed by which payments are made from the federal government to the state in aid or in respect to payment by the state for public assistance rendered to any category of needy persons for which provision for federal funds or aid may from time to time be made, or a federally administered needs-based program.”
The court determined that the state definition of “federal aid and assistance” applied to assistance in the form of monetary payments from the federal government to needy persons, but did not describe federal tax credits. Instead, tax credits are paid by the federal government directly to taxpayers. However, the court also noted that the statutory definition also included “federal aid assistance” and any “federally administered needs-based program.” As such, it was possible that the credits could be exempt as “assistance” from a “federally administered needs-based program.” On this point, the court noted that there was no statutory language nor legislative history associated with the credits indicating that they were part of a federally administered needs-based program. In addition, there was no caselaw on point that provided any light on the subject. However, disagreeing with the trustee’s objection to the categorization of any federal tax credit as a federally administered needs-based program, the court relied on court opinions from other states construing similarly worded state statutes to conclude that both the ACTC and the EITC were “federally administered needs-based programs” exempt from bankruptcy under Rev. Code Wash. §74.04.280. See In re Farnsworth, 558 B.R. 375 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2016); In re Hardy, 787 F.3d 1189 (8th Cir. 2015); In re Hatch, 519 B.R. 783 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa 2014); In re Tomczyk, 295 B.R. 894 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2003).
Conclusion
The Moreno case, even though it involved the particular language of one state’s exemption statute, provides good insight as to how bankruptcy courts in other states would analyze the issue of whether federal tax credits (and other tax benefits) are exempt from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate.
June 7, 2021 in Bankruptcy, Income Tax | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, May 1, 2021
The Agricultural Law and Tax Report
May 1, 2021 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Cooperatives, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Insurance, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, April 25, 2021
What’s an “Asset” For Purposes of a Debtor’s Insolvency Computation?
Overview
The general rule is that discharge of indebtedness produces ordinary income – known as cancellation of debt income (CODI). I.R.C. § 61(a)(12). However, there are exceptions to the general rule. One of those exceptions concerns a debtor that is “insolvent” but not in bankruptcy. An insolvent debtor that’s not in bankruptcy doesn’t have CODI to report. But how is insolvency to be measured? In 2017, the U.S. Tax Court clarified the issue. Unfortunately, just recently the IRS voiced its disagreement with the Tax Court’s 2017 opinion.
The definition of “insolvency” for purposes of the exclusion from income of CODI – it’s the topic of today’s post.
In General
An important part of debt resolution is the income tax consequences to the debtor. Actually, there are two major categories of income tax consequences--(1) gain or loss if property is transferred to the lender in satisfaction of indebtedness and (2) possible CODI to the extent debt discharged exceeds the fair market value of property given up by the debtor.
Recourse debt. The handling of discharge of indebtedness income depends upon whether the debt was recourse or nonrecourse. With recourse debt, the collateral stands as security on the loan. If the collateral is insufficient, the debtor is personally liable on the obligation and the debtor's non-exempt assets are reachable to satisfy any deficiency. The bulk of farm and ranch debt is recourse debt.
For recourse debt, when property is given up by the debtor, the income tax consequences involve a two-step process. Basically, it is as if the property is sold to the creditor, and the sale proceeds are applied on the debt. First, there is no gain or loss (and no other income tax consequence) up to the income tax basis on the property. The difference between fair market value and the income tax basis is gain or loss. There is no relief from gain--even if the taxpayer is insolvent. This is the end of the first step in the process--treated as a hypothetical sale on the debt being discharged. Second, if the indebtedness exceeds the property's fair market value, the difference is discharge of indebtedness income.
Nonrecourse debt. For nonrecourse debt, the collateral stands as security on the obligation. But if the collateral is worth less than the balance on the debt, the debtor does not bear personal liability on the obligation. Therefore, the creditor must look solely to the collateral in the event of default. Very little farm and ranch debt is nonrecourse, except perhaps for some installment land contracts and commodity loans from the Commodity Credit Corporation to the extent that the debtor may pay off the loan with a sufficient amount of an eligible commodity having a price support value equal to the outstanding value of the loan (or less than the value of the loan in the case of a “marketing assistance loan”).
Handling nonrecourse debt involves a simpler one-step process. See, e.g., Comr. v. Tufts, 461 U.S. 300 (1983). Fair market value is ignored, and the entire difference between the income tax basis of any property involved (and transferred to the creditor) and the amount of debt discharged is gain (or loss). There is no CODI.
Exceptions
There are several relief provisions that a debtor may be able to use to avoid the general rule that CODI constitutes income.
Bankruptcy. A debtor in bankruptcy does not report CODI as income. I.R.C. §108(a)(1)(A). However, the debtor must reduce tax attributes (including operating losses and investment tax credits carried forward) and reduce the income tax basis of their property. Losses are reduced dollar for dollar; credits are reduced one dollar for three dollars (one dollar of credit offsets three dollars of CODI). To preserve net operating losses and tax credit carryovers, a debtor may elect to reduce the basis of depreciable property before reducing other tax attributes.
Real property business debt. Taxpayers other than C corporations can elect to exclude from gross income amounts realized from the discharge of “qualified real property business indebtedness.” I.R.C. §108(a)(1)(D). Instead, the income tax basis of the property is reduced.
Note: The provision does not apply to farm indebtedness.
Solvent farmers. For all debtors other than farmers, once solvency is reached there is CODI. For solvent farm debtors, however, the discharge of indebtedness arising from an agreement between a person engaged in the trade or business of farming and a “qualified person” to discharge “qualified farm indebtedness” is eligible for special treatment. I.R.C. §108(a)(1(C). A special procedure for reducing tax attributes and reducing the basis of property is available to the debtor.
A “qualified person” is someone who is “actively and regularly engaged in the business of lending money and who is not somehow related to or connected with the debtor.” “Qualified farm indebtedness” means indebtedness incurred directly in connection with the operation by the taxpayer of the trade or business of farming and 50 percent or more of the average annual gross receipts of the taxpayer for the three proceeding taxable years (in the aggregate) must be attributable to the trade or business of farming. In many instances, the presence of off farm income can make qualifying for the solvent farm debtor rule difficult. Also, a cash rent landlord is likely to be deemed to not be engaged in the trade or business of farming such that discharge of indebtedness is not discharge of qualified farm indebtedness. See, e.g., Lawinger v. Comr., 103 T.C. 428 (1994).
If the requirements are met, a solvent farm debtor first reduces tax attributes in the following order:
- Net operating loss of the taxable year and any carryover losses to that year.
- General business credits (including investment tax credits carried over to that year).
- Minimum tax credit
- Capital losses for the year and capital losses carried over to that year.
- Passive activity loss and credit carryovers.
- Foreign tax credits
Again, losses reduce CODI dollar for dollar. One dollar of credits reduces three dollars of CODI.
After the reduction of tax attributes, solvent farm debtors reduce the income tax basis of property used in a trade or business or held for the production of income in the following order:
- Depreciable property.
- Land used or held for use in the trade or business of farming.
- Other qualified property.
Note: An election can be made to reduce the basis of depreciable property first, before reducing the tax attributes. This may help to preserve the tax attributes for later use.
If, after tax attributes and property basis is reduced, discharge of indebtedness remains, the remainder is income.
Purchase price adjustment. For solvent taxpayers who are not in bankruptcy, any negotiated reduction in the selling price of assets does not have to be reported as discharge of indebtedness income. I.R.C. §108(e)(5). To be eligible, the debt reduction must involve the original buyer and the original seller.
Insolvent debtors. Debtors who are insolvent but not in bankruptcy likewise do not have CODI. I.R.C. §108(a)(1)(B). But, again, insolvent debtors must reduce tax attributes and reduce the income tax basis of property. It is handled much like debtors in bankruptcy make the calculations. However, the amount of income from discharge of indebtedness that can be excluded from income is limited to the extent of the debtor's insolvency. If the amount of debt discharged exceeds the amount of the insolvency, income is triggered as to the excess. Thus, for the rule of insolvent taxpayers to apply, the taxpayer must be insolvent both before and after the transfer of property and transfer of indebtedness.
Determining Insolvency
The determination of the taxpayer’s solvency is made immediately before the discharge of indebtedness. “Insolvency” is defined as the excess of liabilities over the fair market value of the debtor’s assets. Both tangible and intangible assets are included in the calculation. Likewise, both recourse and nonrecourse liabilities are included in the calculation, but contingent liabilities are not. The separate assets of the debtor’s spouse are not included in determining the extent of the taxpayer’s insolvency.
Historically, the courts have held that property exempt from creditors under state law is not included in the insolvency calculation. However, the IRS ruled in mid-1999 that property exempt from creditors under state law is included in the insolvency calculation. Priv. Ltr. Rul. 9932013 (May 4, 1999), revoking Priv. Ltr. Rul. 9125010 (Mar. 10, 1991); Tech. Adv. Memo. 9935002 (May 3, 1999). In 2001, in Carlson v. Comr., 116 T.C. 87 (2001), the Tax agreed with the IRS position. The Tax Court held that a commercial fishing license was an “asset” because the license could be used, in combination with other assets, to immediately pay the income tax on canceled-debt income.
Recent Tax Court clarification. In Schieber v. Comr., T.C. Memo. 2017-32, the petitioner retired from a police force in 2005 and began receiving monthly distributions from his pension plan. The plan withheld federal income tax from the payments. The plan specified that the petitioner could not convert his interest in the plan into a lump-sum cash amount, assign the interest, sell the interest, borrow against the interest, or borrow from the plan. Upon the petitioner’s death, his surviving wife would receive payments for her life. In 2009, GMAC canceled approximately $450,000 of the petitioner’s mortgage debt that was secured by some of the petitioner’s non-residential real estate. The petitioner was not in bankruptcy in 2009. The canceled debt included $30,076 of interest. The petitioner excluded the forgiven interest from income because he had not deducted it on his Form 1040. See I.R.C. §108(e)(2). That provision specifies that “no income shall be realized from the discharge of indebtedness to the extent that payment of the liability would have given rise to a deduction.”
While the IRS conceded this point concerning the interest exclusion, the IRS claimed that the petitioner’s interest in the principal amount of $418,596 that was canceled should be included in income. The petitioner claimed that the pension plan should not be considered an asset for purposes of the insolvency computation of I.R.C. §108(d)(3). Under that provision a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income to the extent of the taxpayer’s insolvency, defined as the extent to which the taxpayer’s liabilities exceed the fair market value of the taxpayer’s assets.
I.R.C. §108(d)(3) does not define the term “assets.” As noted above, in Carlson v. Comr., 116 T.C. 87 (2001), the full Tax Court determined that the value of an exempt asset could be included in the insolvency calculation if it gives the taxpayer “the ability to pay an immediate tax on income” from the canceled debt. In Schieber, the petitioner claimed that he couldn’t access the pension funds by its terms. The IRS did not challenge that point, instead claiming that the point was irrelevant. Instead, the IRS claimed that the petitioner’s right to receive monthly payments caused the plan to be considered an “asset.” The Tax Court disagreed, clarifying that its prior decision in Carlson only extended to assets that gave the taxpayer the “ability to pay an immediate tax on income” from the canceled debt, not the ability to pay the tax gradually over time.
Just recently, the IRS announced its disagreement with the Tax Court’s opinion in Schieber. A.O.D. 2021-1, IRB 2021-15.
Conclusion
The Tax Court’s Schieber decision provided clarity concerning the definition of “assets” for purposes of the insolvency calculation of I.R.C. § 108(d)(3). If an asset doesn’t provide the debtor with the ability to pay an immediate tax on income, the asset’s value is excluded from the insolvency computation. Schieber cites back to the full Tax Court opinion in Carlson for its rationale. Unfortunately, the IRS audit and litigation position appears to be unchanged.
April 25, 2021 in Bankruptcy, Income Tax | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, April 2, 2021
Ag Law and Taxation - 2017 Bibliography
Overview
Today's post is a bibliography of my ag law and tax blog articles of 2017. This will make it easier to find the articles you are looking for in your research. In late January I posted the 2020 bibliography of articles. In late February I posted the bibliography of the 2019 articles. Last month, I posted the 2018 bibliography of articles. Today’s posting is the bibliography of my 2017 articles. Later this month I will post the 2016 bibliography.
The library of content continues to grow with relevant information for you practice or your farming/ranching business.
The 2017 bibliography of articles – it’s the subject matter of today’s post.
BANKRUPTCY
The Most Important Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2016
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2016 (Ten Through Six)
Top Ten Agricultural Law Developments of 2016 (Five Through One)
Farm Financial Stress – Debt Restructuring
Qualified Farm Indebtedness – A Special Rule for Income Exclusion of Forgiven Debt
What Are a Farmer’s Rights When a Grain Elevator Fails?
Agricultural Law in a Nutshell
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/07/agricultural-law-in-a-nutshell.html
The Business of Agriculture – Upcoming CLE Symposium
Tough Financial Times in Agriculture and Lending Clauses – Peril for the Unwary
What Interest Rate Applies to a Secured Creditor’s Claim in a Reorganization Bankruptcy?
PACA Trust Does Not Prevent Chapter 11 DIP’s Use of Cash Collateral
Are Taxes Dischargeable in Bankruptcy?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/12/are-taxes-dischargeable-in-bankruptcy.html
Christmas Shopping Season Curtailed? – Bankruptcy Venue Shopping, That Is!
BUSINESS PLANNING
The Most Important Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2016
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2016 (Ten Through Six)
Top Ten Agricultural Law Developments of 2016 (Five Through One)
C Corporation Penalty Taxes – Time to Dust-Off and Review?
Divisive Reorganizations of Farming and Ranching Corporations
The Scope and Effect of the “Small Partnership Exception”
Using the Right Kind of an Entity to Reduce Self-Employment Tax
Employer-Provided Meals and Lodging
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/05/employer-provided-meals-and-lodging.html
Self-Employment Tax on Farming Activity of Trusts
Minority Shareholder Oppression Case Raises Several Tax Questions
Farm Program Payment Limitations and Entity Planning – Part One
Farm Program Payment Limitations and Entity Planning – Part Two
Summer Ag Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conference
An Installment Sale as Part of an Estate Plan
The Use of a Buy-Sell Agreement for Transitioning a Business
The Business of Agriculture – Upcoming CLE Symposium
Forming a Farming/Ranching Corporation Tax-Free
Farmers Renting Equipment – Does it Trigger A Self-Employment Tax Liability?
New Partnership Audit Rules
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/09/new-partnership-audit-rules.html
Self-Employment Tax on Farm Rental Income – Is the Mizell Veneer Cracking?
IRS To Finalize Regulations on Tax Status of LLC and LLP Members?
H.R. 1 – Farmers, Self-Employment Tax and Business Arrangement Structures
Summer 2018 – Farm Tax and Farm Business Education
Partnerships and Tax Law – Details Matter
CIVIL LIABILITIES
The Most Important Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2016
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2016 (Ten Through Six)
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Developments of 2016 (Five Through One)
Recreational Use Statutes – What is Covered?
Is Aesthetic Damage Enough to Make Out a Nuisance Claim?
Liability Associated with a Range of Fires and Controlled Burns
What’s My Liability for Spread of Animal Disease
Dicamba Spray-Drift Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/07/dicamba-spray-drift-issues.html
Agricultural Law in a Nutshell
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/07/agricultural-law-in-a-nutshell.html
The Business of Agriculture – Upcoming CLE Symposium
Right-to-Farm Laws
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/09/right-to-farm-laws.html
CONTRACTS
The Most Important Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2016
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2016 (Ten Through Six)
Top Ten Agricultural Law Developments of 2016 (Five Through One)
Another Issue With Producing Livestock on Contract – Insurance
The Ability of Tenants-in-Common To Bind Co-Tenants to a Farm Lease – and Related Issues
Ag Goods Sold at Auction – When is a Contract Formed?
Agricultural Law in a Nutshell
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/07/agricultural-law-in-a-nutshell.html
The Business of Agriculture – Upcoming CLE Symposium
Ag Contracts and Express Warranties
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/09/ag-contracts-and-express-warranties.html
What Remedies Does a Buyer Have When a Seller of Ag Goods Breaches the Contract?
COOPERATIVES
The Most Important Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2016
Top Ten Agricultural Law Developments of 2016 (Five Through One)
What Is a Cooperative Director’s Liability to Member-Shareholders and Others?
CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
The Necessity Defense to Criminal Liability
The Business of Agriculture – Upcoming CLE Symposium
What Problems Does The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Pose For Farmers, Ranchers and Rural Landowners?
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Drainage Activities on Farmland and the USDA
The Application of the Endangered Species Act to Activities on Private Land
Eminent Domain – The Government’s Power to “Take” Private Property
Spray Drift As Hazardous Waste?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/07/spray-drift-as-hazardous-waste.html
What Problems Does The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Pose For Farmers, Ranchers and Rural Landowners?
The Prior Converted Cropland Exception From Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Air Emission Reporting Requirement For Livestock Operations
ESTATE PLANNING
Rights of Refusal and the Rule Against Perpetuities
Some Thoughts On Long-Term Care Insurance
Overview of Gifting Rules and Strategies
Disinheriting a Spouse – Can It Be Done?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/04/disinheriting-a-spouse-can-it-be-done.html
Specific Property Devised in Will (or Trust) That Doesn’t Exist At Death – What Happens?
Discounting IRAs for Income Tax Liability?
Special Use Valuation and Cash Leasing
Self-Employment Tax On Farming Activity Of Trusts
Would an Interest Charge Domestic International Sales Corporation Benefit a Farming Business?
An Installment Sale as Part of An Estate Plan
Using An IDGT For Wealth Transfer and Business Succession
Federal Tax Claims in Decedent’s Estates – What’s the Liability and Priority?
Estate Tax Portability – The Authority of the IRS To Audit
Digital Assets and Estate Planning
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/10/digital-assets-and-estate-planning.html
INCOME TAX
The Burden of Proof in Tax Cases – What are the Rules?
The Home Office Deduction
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/02/the-home-office-deduction.html
IRS To Continue Attacking Cash Method For Farmers Via the “Farming Syndicate Rule”
Using Schedule J As A Planning Tool For Clients With Farm Income
Deductibility of Soil and Water Conservation Expenses
Should Purchased Livestock Be Depreciated or Inventoried?
The Changing Structure of Agricultural Production and…the IRS
Farm-Related Casualty Losses and Involuntary Conversions – Helpful Tax Rules in Times of Distress
Charitable Contributions Via Trust
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/03/charitable-contributions-via-trust.html
Ag Tax Policy The Focus in D.C.
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/04/ag-tax-policy-the-focus-in-dc-.html
For Depreciation Purposes, What Does Placed in Service Mean?
Tax Treatment of Commodity Futures and Options
Discounting IRAs for Income Tax Liability?
Like-Kind Exchanges, Reverse Exchanges, and the Safe Harbor
Insights Into Handling IRS Disputes
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/05/insights-into-handling-irs-disputes.html
Employer-Provided Meals and Lodging
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/05/employer-provided-meals-and-lodging.html
Self-Employment Tax On Farming Activity Of Trusts
Minority Shareholder Oppression Case Raises Several Tax Questions
Input Costs – When Can a Deduction Be Claimed?
Like-Kind Exchange Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/06/like-kind-exchange-issues.html
Tax Issues With Bad Debt Deductions
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/06/tax-issues-with-bad-debt-deductions.html
Like-Kind Exchanges – The Related Party Rule and a Planning Opportunity
Tax Treatment of Cooperative Value-Added Payments
Would an Interest Charge Domestic International Sales Corporation Benefit a Farming Business?
Timber Tax Issues – Part One
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/07/timber-tax-issues-part-one.html
Timber Tax Issues – Part Two
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/07/timber-tax-issues-part-two.html
An Installment Sale as Part of An Estate Plan
Using An IDGT For Wealth Transfer and Business Succession
Prospects for Tax Legislation
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/08/prospects-for-tax-legislation.html
Deferred Payment Contracts
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/08/deferred-payment-contracts.html
When Is A Farmer Not A “Qualified Farmer” For Conservation Easement Donation Purposes?
Substantiating Charitable Contributions
Forming a Farming/Ranching Corporation Tax-Free
Farmers Renting Equipment – Does It Trigger A Self-Employment Tax Liability?
Commodity Credit Corporation Loans and Elections
New Partnership Audit Rules
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/09/new-partnership-audit-rules.html
Alternatives to Like-Kind Exchanges of Farmland
South Dakota Attempts To Change Internet Sales Taxation – What Might Be The Impact On Small Businesses?
Fall Tax Schools
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/09/fall-tax-schools.html
Self-Employment Tax on Farm Rental Income – Is the Mizell Veneer Cracking?
Tax Treatment of Settlements and Court Judgments
The “Perpetuity” Requirement For Donated Easements
The Tax Rules Involving Prepaid Farm Expenses
It’s Just About Tax School Time
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/10/its-just-about-tax-school-time.html
IRS To Finalize Regulations On Tax Status of LLC and LLP Members?
The Deductibility (Or Non-Deductibility) of Interest
H.R. 1 - Farmers, Self-Employment Tax and Business Arrangement Structures
The Broad Reach of the Wash-Sale Rule
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/11/the-broad-reach-of-the-wash-sale-rule.html
Comparison of the House and Senate Tax Bills – Implications for Agriculture
Partnerships and Tax Law – Details Matter
Senate Clears Tax Bill - On To Conference
Are Taxes Dischargeable in Bankruptcy?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/12/are-taxes-dischargeable-in-bankruptcy.html
Bitcoin Fever and the Tax Man
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/12/bitcoin-fever-and-the-tax-man.html
House and Senate to Vote on Conference Tax Bill This Week
Another Tax Bill Introduced, Year-End Planning, and Jan. 10 Seminar/Webinar
PUBLICATIONS
Agricultural Law in a Nutshell
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/07/agricultural-law-in-a-nutshell.html
REAL PROPERTY
Another Issue When the Definition of “Agriculture” Matters – Property Tax
The Ability of Tenants-in-Common To Bind Co-Tenants to a Farm Lease – and Related Issues
Like-Kind Exchanges, Reverse Exchanges, and the Safe Harbor
Like-Kind Exchange Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/06/like-kind-exchange-issues.html
Easements on Agricultural Land – Classification and Legal Issues
Should I Enter Into An Oil and Gas Lease?
REGULATORY LAW
Checkoffs, The Courts and Free Speech
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/01/checkoffs-the-courts-and-free-speech.html
Joint Employment Situations In Agriculture – What’s the FLSA Test?
Farmers, Ranchers and Government Administrative Agencies
IRS To Target “Hobby” Farmers
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/03/irs-to-target-hobby-farmers.html
Drainage Activities on Farmland and the USDA
What is a “Separate Person” For Payment Limitation Purposes?
Livestock Indemnity Payments – What They Are and Tax Reporting Options
Can One State Regulate Agricultural Production Activities in Other States?
Farm Program Payment Limitations and Entity Planning – Part One
Farm Program Payment Limitations and Entity Planning – Part Two
Eminent Domain – The Government’s Power to “Take” Private Property
Department of Labor Overtime Rules Struck Down – What’s the Impact on Ag?
The Prior Converted Cropland Exception From Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Air Emission Reporting Requirement For Livestock Operations
Federal Labor Law and Agriculture
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/11/federal-labor-law-and-agriculture.html
Electronic Logs For Truckers and Implications for Agriculture
SECURED TRANSACTIONS
Ag Supply Dealer Liens – Important Tool in Tough Financial Times
“Commercial Reasonableness” of Collateral Sales
What Are A Farmer’s Rights When a Grain Elevator Fails?
Selling Collateralized Ag Products – The “Farm Products” Rule
SEMINARS AND CONFERENCES
Fall Tax Schools
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2017/09/fall-tax-schools.html
Another Tax Bill Introduced, Year-End Planning, and Jan. 10 Seminar/Webinar
Summer 2018 - Farm Tax and Farm Business Education
The Business of Agriculture – Upcoming CLE Symposium
Summer Ag Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conference
WATER LAW
Prior Appropriation – First in Time, First in Right
Kansas Water Law - Reactions to and Potential Consequences of the Garetson decision
Public Access To Private Land Via Water
Big Development for Water in the West - Federal Implied Reserved Water Rights Doctrine Applies to Groundwater
April 2, 2021 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Cooperatives, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Insurance, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, March 21, 2021
Ag Law and Taxation - 2018 Bibliography
Overview
Today's post is a bibliography of my ag law and tax blog articles of 2018. Many of you have requested that I provide something like this to make it easier to find the articles, and last month I posted the bibliography of the 2020 and 2019 articles. Soon I will post the bibliography of the 2017 articles and then 2016. After those are posted. I will post one long bibliography containing all of the articles up to that point in time. Then, to close out 2021, I will post the articles of 2021.
The library of content is piling up.
Cataloging the 2018 ag law and tax blog articles - it's the topic of today's post.
BANKRUPTCY
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017 (Ten through Six)
Chapter 12 Bankruptcy – Feasibility of the Reorganization Plan
Farm Bankruptcy and the Preferential Payment Rule
Can a Bankrupt Farm Debtor Make Plan Payments Directly to Creditors?
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
Chapter 12 Bankruptcy and the Tools-of-the-Trade Exemption
Developments in Ag Law and Tax
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/11/developments-in-ag-law-and-tax.html
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
BUSINESS PLANNING
The “Almost Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017
The Spousal Qualified Joint Venture
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/02/the-spousal-qualified-joint-venture.html
The Spousal Qualified Joint Venture – Implications for Self-Employment Tax and Federal Farm Program Payment Limitations
Form a C Corporation – The New Vogue in Business Structure?
Tax Issues When Forming a C Corporation
End of Tax Preparation Season Means Tax Seminar Season is About to Begin
Converting a C Corporation to an S Corporation – The Problem of Passive Income
Valuation Discounting
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/05/valuation-discounting.html
Valuation Discounting – Part Two
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/05/valuation-discounting-part-two.html
The Impact of the TCJA on Estates and Trusts
Buy-Sell Agreements for Family Businesses
When is an Informal Business Arrangement a Partnership?
Management Activities and the Passive Loss Rules
Expense Method Depreciation and Trusts
Qualified Business Income Deduction – Proposed Regulations
Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust – What is it and How Does it Work?
When Can a Corporate Shareholder be Held Liable for Corporate Debts and Liabilities?
Farm Wealth Transfer and Business Succession – The GRAT
Social Security Planning for Farmers
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/social-security-planning-for-farmers.html
Corporations Post-TCJA and Anti-Corporate Farming Laws
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
What Happens When a Partner Dies?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/what-happens-when-a-partner-dies.html
What are the Tax Consequences on Sale or Exchange of a Partnership Interest?
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
CIVIL LIABILITIES
The “Almost Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017
Landlord Liability for Injuries Occurring on Leased Premises
When Does a Rule of Strict Liability Apply on the Farm?
When Can I Shoot My Neighbor’s Dog?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/05/when-can-i-shoot-my-neighbors-dog.html
Reasonable Foreseeability
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/05/reasonable-foreseeability.html
What is “Agriculture” for Purposes of Agritourism?
Negligence – Can You Prove Liability?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/06/negligence-can-you-prove-liability.html
Wind Farm Nuisance Matter Resolved – Buy the Homeowners Out!
Torts Down on the Farm
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/08/torts-down-on-the-farm.html
Roadkill – It’s What’s for Dinner
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/09/roadkill-its-whats-for-dinner.html
What Difference Does it Make if I Post My Property “No Trespassing”?
Liability for Injuries Associated with Horses
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
Developments in Ag Law and Tax
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/11/developments-in-ag-law-and-tax.html
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
CONTRACTS
Is a Farmer a Merchant? Why it Might Matter
Some Thoughts on the Importance of Leasing Farmland
Contract Rescission – When Can You Back Out of a Deal?
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
Disclaiming Implied Warranties
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/11/disclaiming-implied-warranties.html
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
COOPERATIVES
The Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction – What a Mess!
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
Curtilage – How Much Ag Property is Protected from a Warrantless Search?
Establishing the Elements of a Cruelty to Animals Charge
What Difference Does it Make if I Post My Property “No Trespassing”?
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
The “Almost Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017 (Five through One)
Is a CWA Permit Needed for Pollution Discharges via Groundwater?
Non-Tax Ag Provisions and the Omnibus Bill
Wetlands and Farm Programs – Does NRCS Understand the Rules?
Regulation of Wetlands and “Ipse Dixit” Determinations
WOTUS Developments
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/08/wotus-developments.html
Does the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Apply to Farmers?
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
Is Groundwater a “Point Source” Pollutant?
“Waters of the United States” Means “Frozen Soil”?
Developments in Ag Law and Tax
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/11/developments-in-ag-law-and-tax.html
Can an Endangered Species be Protected in Areas Where it Can’t Survive?
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
ESTATE PLANNING
The “Almost Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017
The Tax Cuts and Job Acts – How Does it Impact Estate Planning?
What’s the Charitable Deduction for Donations From a Trust?
The Spousal Qualified Joint Venture
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/02/the-spousal-qualified-joint-venture.html
Why Clarity in Will/Trust Language Matters
Some Thoughts on the Importance of Leasing Farmland
End of Tax Preparation Season Means Tax Seminar Season is About to Begin
Modifying an Irrevocable Trust – Decanting
Valuation Discounting – Part Two
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/05/valuation-discounting-part-two.html
The Impact of the TCJA on Estates and Trusts
Impact of Post-Death Events on Valuation
Beneficiary Designations, Changed Circumstances and the Contracts Clause
Qualified Business Income Deduction – Proposed Regulations
Spousal Joint Tendencies and Income Tax Basis
Farm and Ranch Estate Planning in 2018 and Forward
The TCJA, Charitable Giving and a Donor-Advised Fund
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
Unpaid Tax at Death – How Long Does IRS Have to Collect?
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
INCOME TAX
The “Almost Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017 (Five through One)
The Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction – What a Mess!
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – How Does it Impact Estate Planning?
What’s the Charitable Deduction for Donations from a Trust?
Can Farmers Currently Deduct Research Expenditures?
Innovation on the Farm – Will the Research and Development Credit Apply?
What Happens When the IRS Deems an Ag Activity to Be a Hobby?
The Spousal Qualified Joint Venture – Implications for Self-Employment Tax and Federal Farm Program Payment Limitations
Livestock Sold or Destroyed Because of Disease
Form a C Corporation – The New Vogue in Business Structure?
Deductible Repairs Versus Capitalization
The Tax Treatment of Farming Net Operating Losses
Congress Modifies the Qualified Business Income Deduction
IRS Collections – The Basics
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/03/irs-collections-the-basics-.html
Tax Issues Associated with Oil and Gas Production
Refundable Fuel Credits – Following the Rules Matters
Distinguishing Between a Capital Lease and an Operating Lease
End of Tax Preparation Season Means Tax Seminar Season is About to Begin
Passive Activities and Grouping
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/04/passive-activities-and-grouping.html
Divorce and the New Tax Law – IRS Grants Some Relief
Gifts of Ag Commodities to Children and the New Tax Law
Post-Death Sale of Crops and Livestock
Is There a Downside Risk to E-Filing Your Taxes?
Purchase and Sale Allocations to CRP Contracts
Converting a C Corporation to an S Corporation – The Problem of Passive Income
The Impact of the TCJA on Estates and Trusts
The TCJA and I.R.C. 529 Plans
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/05/the-tcja-and-irc-529-plans.html
Farmers, Self-Employment Tax, and Personal Property Leases
State Taxation of Online Sales
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/06/state-taxation-of-online-sales.html
The Depletion Deduction for Oil and Gas Operations
Charitable Giving Post-2017
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/07/charitable-giving-post-2017.html
When is an Informal Business Arrangement a Partnership?
Management Activities and the Passive Loss Rules
Tax Issues on Repossession of Farmland
Outline of Tax Proposals Released
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/07/outline-of-tax-proposals-released.html
Life Estate/Remainder Arrangements and Income Tax Basis
Expense Method Depreciation and Trusts
Qualified Business Income Deduction – Proposed Regulations
The Qualified Business Income Deduction and “W-2 Wages”
Tax Consequences on Partition and Sale of Land
Deducting Residual Soil Fertility
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/09/deducting-residual-soil-fertility.html
Social Security Planning for Farmers
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/social-security-planning-for-farmers.html
Eliminating Capital Gain Tax – Qualified Opportunity Zones
The TCJA, Charitable Giving and a Donor-Advised Fund
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
What is Depreciable Farm Real Property?
What is “Like-Kind” Real Estate?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/what-is-like-kind-real-estate.html
Developments in Ag Law and Tax
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/11/developments-in-ag-law-and-tax.html
Trusts and Like-Kind Exchanges
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/11/trusts-and-like-kind-exchanges.html
Unpaid Tax at Death – How Long Does IRS Have to Collect?
Non-Depreciable Items on the Farm or Ranch
What are the Tax Consequences on Sale or Exchange of a Partnership Interest?
Expense Method Depreciation and Structures on the Farm
Deduction Costs Associated with Items Purchased for Resale
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/12/sale-of-items-purchased-for-resale.html
Claiming Business Deductions? – Maintain Good Records, and… Hire a Tax Preparer
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/income-tax/page/7/
Depletion – What is it and When is it Available?
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
INSURANCE
Beneficiary Designations, Changed Circumstances and the Contracts Clause
Recent Developments Involving Crop Insurance
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
Farm Liability Policies – Are All Activities on the Farm Covered?
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
REAL PROPERTY
In-Kind Partition and Adverse Possession – Two Important Concepts in Agriculture
Some Thoughts on the Importance of Leasing Farmland
Prescriptive Easements and Adverse Possession – Obtaining Title to Land Without Paying for It
Purchase and Sale Allocations to CRP Contracts
Tax Issues on Repossession of Farmland
The Accommodation Doctrine – Working Out Uses Between Surfaces and Subsurface Owners
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
What is “Like-Kind” Real Estate?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/what-is-like-kind-real-estate.html
Negative Easements – Is There a Right to Unobstructed Light, Air, or View?
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
REGULATORY LAW
The “Almost Top Ten” Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017 (Ten through Six)
Is There a Constitutional Way to Protect Animal Ag Facilities?
Trade Issues and Tariffs – Are Agriculture’s Concerns Legitimate?
Federal Crop Insurance – Some Recent Case Developments
Non-Tax Ag Provisions in the Omnibus Bill
Are Mandatory Assessments for Generic Advertising of Ag Commodities Constitutional?
Wind Farm Nuisance Matter Resolved – Buy the Homeowners Out!
Regulation of Wetlands and “Ipse Dixit” Determinations
Ag Employment – Verifying the Legal Status of Employees
Roadkill – It’s What’s for Dinner
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/09/roadkill-its-whats-for-dinner.html
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
“Waters of the United States” Means “Frozen Soil”?
How Long Can a Train Block a Crossing?
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/11/how-long-can-a-train-block-a-crossing.html
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
SECURED TRANSACTIONS
Ag Finance – Getting the Debtor’s Name Correct on the Financing Statements
What Are “Proceeds” of Crops and Livestock?
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
SEMINARS AND CONFERENCES
Agricultural Law and Economics Conference
Summer Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Conference
Upcoming Seminars
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/08/upcoming-seminars.html
Fall Tax Seminars
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/09/fall-tax-seminars.html
Year-End Ag Tax Seminar/Webinar
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/12/year-end-ag-tax-seminarwebinar.html
WATER LAW
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017 (Ten through Six)
Top Ten Agricultural Law and Tax Developments of 2017 (Five through One)
The Accommodation Doctrine – Working on Uses Between Surface and Subsurface Owners
Agricultural Law Online!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2018/10/agricultural-law-online.html
Drainage Issues – Rules for Handling Excess Surface Water
The “Almost Top Ten” Ag Law and Tax Developments of 2018
March 21, 2021 in Bankruptcy, Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Cooperatives, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Insurance, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
