Thursday, August 8, 2024
More Legal Scenarios Involving Farmers and Ranchers
Overview
As I have noted many times before. There are many ways in which the law intersects with the daily lives of farmers and ranchers. Today’s article addresses several of those areas. Just a little thinking out loud on a random basis.
Self-defense; Good Samaritan laws; preparing for the exit; and cleaning out fencerows – some random topics addressed in today’s post.
Self-Defense
A common question in agricultural settings is how far you can go in defending your personal property from those that would cause damage or steal.
Agricultural property is often exposed to those who might want to steal, damage or destroy. Where’s the line drawn in far you can go to protect it? In general, to protect property from vandalism and theft, you have a right to use force that is reasonably necessary under the circumstances. But you can’t use force beyond what could reasonably be believed necessary under the circumstances, and you can’t use such force as is likely to lead to great bodily injury or death.
A famous Iowa case from the early 1970s points out that you can’t use force that could physically harm or kill another person in defending your personal property if your life isn’t likewise threatened. For instance, be careful using guard dogs to ward off trespassers. The general rule with respect to guard dogs is that you can’t use any more force through an animal than you could personally. So, if a guard dog injures or kills an intruder, it is the same as if you had done it. Likewise, liability for a dog's dangerous propensities cannot be avoided by posting a sign notifying trespassers of a dog's presence.
You can take steps to protect your property. Just don’t use any force that is more than what is necessary for the situation.
Relatedly, what can you do within the bounds of the law to defend yourself from an animal such as a dog or a bull or other farm animal that isn’t yours? In recent years, some states have enacted “stand your ground” provisions that allow you to use whatever force you think is necessary to protect yourself from an equivalent threat, up to and including lethal force. You don’t have a duty to get away before using force. But you can’t just fire away at will. Your use of deadly force must be justified – and that you’ll have to prove. You don’t get a presumption that you could use deadly force.
In rural settings, the issue often comes up with dogs and livestock that don’t belong to you. If the animal threatens you with great bodily harm or death, then you can take the animal’s life. But you’ll have to establish through video or eyewitness testimony that your action was justified. You’ll likely be charged with animal cruelty or damage to property and then you must establish that you acted properly based on the circumstances. Remember whether you acted properly is based on whether you had a reasonable fear for your life. A jury will determine that question if the matter ends up in court.
So, only take an animal’s life when it’s the last resort, and make sure you have evidence to back up your action.
Good Samaritan Laws
You’re not legally required to render aid to another person who is in peril. But does the law provide any protection if you try to help?
The law used to discourage people from helping others in peril. One extreme example was the Genovese case in Queens, New York in 1964. Many people watched from their homes as Kitty Genovese was attacked in the early morning hours on her return to her apartment from work. No one did anything until it was too late. They later said that they feared liability for getting involved. This event helped spur the enactment in all states of “Good Samaritan” laws.
A Good Samaritan law specifies that if you help a person in peril without expectation of compensation, you can only be held liable for injuries resulting from recklessness or willful intent to injure. These state laws also provide slightly different treatment for emergency medical technicians and hospital staff.
Even though the law doesn’t require you to help someone else in peril, if you do you won’t be liable for any injuries resulting from your attempt to help unless your assistance is reckless, or you intentionally injure the person. Kitty’s situation was horrible, but it did result in a good change in the governing legal rules. And, in agricultural settings, the rule can also apply in situations where aid is rendered to livestock in peril.
Preparing for the Exit
When it comes to estate planning, we tend to think of wills and trusts and powers of attorney. But there are other things you can do before those documents are drafted that will make creating those documents easier and smooth the transition upon death.
When you work on your estate plan, don’t forget to organize and document other information for those that will need it. A good idea is to put in a binder a list of your retirement plan information, and copies of health and life insurance policies. Burial plot location and funeral instructions. Also, provide your email, computer and phone passwords as well as bank account information and data about your debts and bills. Also, put in that binder copies of your driver’s license, birth certificate, social security card, and marriage license. Also include documents related to real estate, a list of your assets, land that you own, stored crops, livestock and marketing contracts. Also include copies of crop insurance policies and USDA program contracts and all your key business relationships.
Make sure the right person knows where to find the binder and make sure they have access to it.
Having this information collected will be helpful for any additional steps in the estate planning process. It will also likely allow more efficient use of an attorney’s time in drafting the necessary documents for your estate plan.
Issues when Cleaning Out a Fencerow
Cleaning up fencerows seems to be an ongoing project. But the cleanup process can generate legal issues that you might not have thought about.
When you’re cleaning out a fence row legal issues can arise that you might not have thought about. For example, what should you do if there’s a tree in the fence line? In that situation, each adjacent owner has an ownership interest in the tree. It’s considered to be jointly owned and you could be liable for damages if you cut it down and your neighbor objects. But, if only the branches or roots of a tree extend past the property line and onto an adjoining neighbor’s property, the branches and roots don’t give the neighbor an ownership interest in the tree. In that situation, you can trim the branches that hang over onto your property. That’s an important point, for example, if you are dealing with a thorn tree that can puncture tires.
Always make sure to trim branches, bushes and vines on a property line with care. Keep the neighbor’s rights in mind when doing the cleanup work. Maintaining good communication is aways beneficial when property line work is involved. Also, if a neighbor’s tree falls onto your property, it’s your responsibility to clean up the mess – but you can keep the resulting firewood. The converse is also true. And it’s not a trespass to be on your neighbor’s side of the fence when doing fence maintenance, such as cleaning out a fence row.
Conclusion
There will be more issues to discuss next time.
August 8, 2024 in Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Criminal Liabilities, Estate Planning, Real Property | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, July 16, 2024
FBAR; Read Before Signing; Reporting 4-H Income and Attorney-Client Privilege
Overview
One of the things that my law students learn shortly into a new semester is that agricultural law covers a wide array of topic matters and will address many areas of the law that they have yet to be exposed to. That is on display in today’ blog article.
Post-death FBAR penalties, reading contracts, proper reporting of 4-H Fair income, and a limitation on the attorney-client privilege – these are the topics of today’s post.
FBAR Penalties Post-Death
In recent years some American farmers have started farming operations in foreign countries, particularly in South America. For these farmers, a provision of the Bank Secrecy Act is important, and the penalties are harsh if the rule is violated.
If you have a foreign account containing $10,000 or more, you must report it to the IRS by the annual tax filing deadline. In a United States v. Gaynor, No. 2:21-cv-00382-JLB-KCD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157733 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2023), a surviving spouse inherited her husband’s foreign bank and investment accounts when he died in 2003. She didn’t learn about the accounts for some time and, as a result, didn’t make the required filings with the financial crimes network – a branch of the IRS. She eventually got everything reported. When she died in 2021, the IRS came after the estate for almost $20 million in penalties for a willful failure to file the required forms for several years. But the court said her failure to file wasn’t willful. So, the estate escaped having to pay the enormous amount.
If you have farming activities outside the U.S. and have foreign bank accounts, make sure you file Form FinCen 114 and report those accounts each year to the IRS. The penalties can be huge – especially if the failure to file was willful. And, they can be imposed on your estate post-death.
If this reporting requirement might apply to you, ask your tax professional about it.
The Necessity of Reading Contracts Before Signing
I am sure you have heard it said that you shouldn’t sign anything before reading it. We’ve all violated that rule in some fashion. Most of the time, there might not be any consequences, but sometimes those consequences can be significant. That’s especially true when it comes to financial documents.In a recent case, a farmer consolidated loans with a local bank in return for a 30-year installment note. Or so he thought. Actually, the note said that he had 30 years to pay it off with annual payments unless the bank decided to demand payment in full at any time. He didn’t read that part. He also thought the interest rate was a fixed 4.25 percent, but that was only for the first five years. After that the rate became variable. He signed the note and the associated paperwork and was current on the payments through the first three years, when the bank demanded payment in full in 14 days.
Local banks don’t normally sell these types of instruments on a secondary market. That should be a tip that you won’t get a long-term fixed rate. What happened in this situation was that the bank was looking at recently submitted financials and determined that while the farmer was able to make the current annual payment, that wouldn’t be the case when the interest rate became a much higher variable rate. So, the bank called the loan.
That left the farmer with limited options – either pay the note in full immediately, get the bank to sign a forbearance agreement and get a loan from another bank with better terms, mediate the dispute or file Chapter 12 bankruptcy. None of those are great options.
Make sure you read and understand what you sign. The legal consequences of not doing so can be significant.
Proper Reporting of 4-H Fair Sale Income
Members of 4-H clubs or FFA Chapters often raise livestock as part of the educational program. When that livestock is sold at the end of the fair, what are the tax issues that are involved?
When a 4-H or FFA animal is sold after the fair, the net income should be reported on the other income line of the 1040. It’s not subject to self-employment tax if the animal was raised primarily for educational purposes and not for profit and was raised under the rules of the sponsoring organization. It’s also not earned income for “kiddie-tax” purposes. But, if the animal was raised as part of an activity that the seller was engaged in on a regular basis for profit, the sale income should be reported on Schedule F. That’s also true if the 4-H or FFA member has other farming activities. By being reported on Schedule F, it will be subject to self-employment tax.
There are also other considerations. For example, if the seller wants to start an IRA with the sale proceeds, the income must be earned. Also, is it important for the seller to earn credits for Social Security purposes?
Raising livestock as a 4-H or FFA project can provide valuable life-lessons in responsibility. By understanding the tax rules associated with the project sales, it can also teach a valuable lesson in business.
Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Communications between an attorney and client are protected by the attorney-client privilege. But if the legal advice given leads to you engaging in an illegal or fraudulent activity, the advice may not be protected, and serious consequences could result. I’ll be back in a moment to discuss.
Normally, communications with your attorney are protected from disclosure. But an exception applies if your attorney provides legal advice that leads to you committing a fraudulent act or crime. See, e.g., United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989). For the rural attorney the exception can come up in bankruptcy planning as well as estate planning where asset protection is involved. There are legitimate strategies to utilize, but others are not and can be challenged as fraudulent or illegal. This area of the law requires careful attention to detail both by the attorney and the client and the rules can be complex.
Make sure you get sound planning advice from your attorney and maybe have a second set of eyes in the firm look over a proposed plan. If you are working with a solo practitioner, get permission to have the plan reviewed. The law does allow a degree of asset protection when it comes to estate planning as well as farm bankruptcy. But it must be done properly. If you get good advice and don’t follow it, you could end up in serious legal trouble and maybe even as a target of a grand jury investigation.
Those would not be pleasant experiences.
Conclusion
There are many ways that the law intersects agriculture. Again, this just is a brief sample of some of the ways.
July 16, 2024 in Contracts, Criminal Liabilities, Income Tax | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, June 16, 2024
Rural Practice Digest - Substack
Overview
I have started a new Substack that contains the “Rural Practice Digest.” You can access it at mceowenaglawandtax.substack.com. While I will post other content from time-to-time that is available without a paid subscription, the Digest is for paid subscribers. The inaugural edition is 22 pages in length and covers a wide array of legal and tax topics of importance to agricultural producers, agribusinesses, rural landowners and those that represent them.
Contents
Volume 1, Edition 1 sets the style for future editions - a lead article and then a series of annotations of court opinions, IRS developments and administrative agency regulatory decisions. The lead article for Volume 1 concerns losses related to cooperatives. The USDA is projecting that farm income will be down significantly this year. That means losses will be incurred by some and some of those will involve losses associated with interests in cooperatives. The treatment of losses on interests in cooperatives is unique and that’s what I focus on in the article.
The remaining 19-pages of the Digest focus on various other aspect of the law that impacts farmers and ranchers. Here’s an overview of the annotation topics that you will find in Issue 1:
- Chapter 12 Bankruptcy
- Partnership Election – BBA
- Valuation Rules and Options
- S Corporation Losses
- Nuisance
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Irrigation Return Flow Exemption and the CWA
- What is a WOTUS?
- EPA Regulation Threatens AI
- Trustee Liability for Taxes
- Farm Bill
- Tax Reimbursement Clauses in IDGTs
- QTIP Marital Trusts and Gift Tax
- FBAR Penalties
- Conservation Easements
- Hobby Losses
- Sustainable Aviation Fuel
- IRS Procedures and Announcements
- Timeliness of Tax Court Petition
- BBA Election
- SCOTUS Opinion on Fees to Develop Property
- Quiet Title Act
- Animal I.D.
- “Ag Gag” Update
- What is a “Misleading” Financing Statement
- Recent State Court Opinions
- Upcoming Seminars
Substack Contents
In addition to the Rural Practice Digest, I plan on adding video content, practitioner forms and other content designed to aid those representing agricultural clients in legal and tax matters, and others simply interested in keeping up on what’s happening in the world of agricultural law and taxation.
Conclusion
Thank you in advance for your subscription. I trust that you will find the Digest to be an aid to your practice. Your comments are welcome. mceowenaglawandtax.substack.com
June 16, 2024 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, February 26, 2024
Animal Ag Facilities and Free Speech – Does the Constitution Protect Saboteurs? (An Update)
Overview
In response to attempts to shut down animal confinement operations by activist groups, legislatures in several states have enacted laws designed to protect these businesses by limiting access. A common approach is for the law to criminalize the use of deception to access a confined livestock facility or meatpacking plant with the intent to cause physical harm, economic harm or some other type of injury to the business. But the laws have generally been struck down on free speech and equal protection grounds. Is there a way for states to provide legal protection to confinement livestock facilities?
What can these facilities do to protect themselves? I wrote about this issue last spring and since that time the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has issued a significant opinion. That makes an update in order.
Laws designed to protect confined animal livestock facilities from those intended to do them harm – it’s the topic of today’s post.
General Statutory Construct
The basic idea of state legislatures that have attempted to provide a level of protection to livestock facilities is to bar access to an animal production facility under false pretenses. At their core, the laws attempt to prohibit a person having the intent to harm a livestock production facility from gaining access to the facility (such as via employment) to then commit illegal acts on the premises. See, e.g., Iowa Code §717A.3A. Laws that bar lying and trespass coupled with the intent to do physical harm to an animal production facility should not be constitutionally deficient. Laws that go beyond those confines may be.
The Iowa provisions. Iowa legislation is a common example of how states have attempted to address the issue. The Iowa legislature has made two attempts at crafting a state law that would withstand a constitutional challenge. The initial version, enacted in 2012, criminalized “agricultural production facility fraud” if a person willfully obtained access to such a facility by false pretenses (the “access” provision) or made a false statement or representation as part of an application or agreement to be employed at the facility (the “employment” provision). The law also required the person to know that the statement was false when made and that it was made with an intent to commit a knowingly unauthorized act. Iowa Code §717A.3A. This initial statutory version was challenged and the employment provision was deemed unconstitutional.
The Iowa legislature then modified the law with a second version that described an agricultural production facility trespass as occurring when a person uses deception “on a matter that would reasonably result in a denial of access to an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public, and, through such deception, gains access to [the facility], with the intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury to the [facility’s] operations, agricultural animals, crop, owner, personnel, equipment, building, premises, business interest, or customer [the “access” provision].” Iowa Code §717.3B. The revised law also criminalizes the use of deception “on a matter that would reasonably result in a denial of an opportunity to be employed at [a facility] that is not open to the public, and, through such deception, is so employed, with the intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury to the [facility’s] operations, agricultural animals, crop, owner, personnel, equipment, building, premises, business interest, or customer [the “employment” provision].
Note: In other words, the Iowa provisions criminalize the use of lies to either gain access or employment at an ag production facility where the use is coupled with the intent to do harm.
Recent Court Opinions
North Carolina. In 2017, a challenge to the North Carolina statutory provision was dismissed for lack of standing. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Stein, 259 F. Supp. 3d 369 (M.D. N.C. 2017). The plaintiffs, numerous animal rights activist groups, brought a pre-enforcement challenge to the North Carolina Property Protection Act. They claimed that the law unconstitutionally stifled their ability to investigate North Carolina employers for illegal or unethical conduct and restricted the flow of information those investigations provide. As noted, the court dismissed the case for lack of standing. On appeal, however, the appellate court reversed. PETA, Inc. v. Stein, 737 Fed. Appx. 122 (4th Cir. 2018). The appellate court determined that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law through its “chilling effect” on their First Amendment rights to investigate and publicize actions on private property. They also alleged a reasonable fear that the law would be enforced against them.
On the merits, the trial court then held that the challenged provisions of the law were unconstitutional under the First Amendment as a violation of the plaintiffs’ free speech rights. There was a direct implication of speech, the court reasoned, because recordings and image capture constituted speech and the Act was unconstitutional under intermediate scrutiny. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Stein, 466 F. Supp. 3d 547 (M.D. N.C. 2020).
On further review, the appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., 60 F.4th 815 (4th Cir. 2023). The appellate court determined that the First Amendment protects the right to surreptitiously record in an "employer's nonpublic areas as part of newsgathering" and that, therefore, the Act was unconstitutional when it was applied to bar the undercover activities that the plaintiff wanted to conduct on private property.
Note: The Attorney General of North Carolina sought the U.S. Supreme Court's review, but the Court declined. North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc. v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., 144 S. Ct. 325 (2023).
Utah. The Utah law was also deemed unconstitutional. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (D. Utah 2017). At issue was Utah Code §76-6-112 which criminalizes the entering of a private agricultural livestock facility under false pretenses or via trespass to photograph, audiotape or videotape practices inside the facility. While the state claimed that lying, which the statute regulates, is not protected free speech, the court determined that only lying that causes “legally cognizable harm” falls outside First Amendment protection. The state also argued that the act of recording is not speech that is protected by the First Amendment. However, the court determined that the act of recording is protectable First Amendment speech. The court also concluded that the fact that the speech occurred on a private agricultural facility did not render it outside First Amendment protection. The court determined that both the lying and the recording provisions of the Act were content-based provisions subject to strict scrutiny. To survive strict scrutiny the state had to demonstrate that the restriction furthered a compelling state interest. The court determined that “the state has provided no evidence that animal and employee safety were the actual reasons for enacting the Act, nor that animal and employee safety are endangered by those targeted by the Act, nor that the Act would actually do anything to remedy those dangers to the extent that they exist.” For those reasons, the court determined that the Act was unconstitutional.
A Wyoming law experienced a similar fate. In 2015, two new Wyoming laws went into effect that imposed civil and criminal liability upon any person who "[c]rosses private land to access adjacent or proximate land where he collects resource data." Wyo. Stat. §§6-3-414(c); 40-27-101(c). The appellate court, reversing the trial court, determined that because of the broad definitions provided in the statutes, the phrase "collects resource data" included numerous activities on public lands (such as writing notes on habitat conditions, photographing wildlife, or taking water samples), so long as an individual also records the location from which the data was collected. Accordingly, the court held that the statutes regulated protected speech in spite of the fact that they also governed access to private property. While trespassing is not protected by the First Amendment, the court determined that the statutes targeted the “creation” of speech by penalizing the collection of resource data.
Note: The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of the appropriate level of scrutiny and whether the statutes survived review. Ultimately, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the statutes were content based and, as such failed to withstand constitutional strict scrutiny review on the basis that the laws were not narrowly tailored. Western Watersheds Project v. Michael, 353 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (D. Wyo. 2018).
Ninth Circuit. In early 2018, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a detailed opinion involving the Idaho statutory provision. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit’s opinion provides a roadmap for state lawmakers to follow to provide at least a minimal level of protection to animal production facilities from those that would intend to do them economic harm. According to the Ninth Circuit, state legislation can bar entry to a facility by force, threat or trespass. Likewise, the acquisition of economic data by misrepresentation can be prohibited. Similarly, criminalizing the obtaining of employment by false pretenses coupled with the intent to cause harm to the animal production facility is not constitutionally deficient. However, provisions that criminalize audiovisual recordings are suspect.
The Iowa experience. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit construed the 2012 version of the Iowa law and upheld the portion of it providing for criminal penalties for gaining access to a covered facility by false pretenses. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 8 F.4th 781 (8th Cir. 2021). This is the first time that any federal circuit court of appeals has upheld a provision that makes illegal the gaining of access to a covered facility by lying.
Conversely, the court held that the employment provision of the law (knowingly making a false statement to obtain employment) violated the First Amendment because the law was not limited to false claims that were made to gain an offer of employment. Instead, the provision provided for prosecution of persons who made false statements that were incapable of influencing an offer of employment. A prohibition on immaterial falsehoods was not necessary to protect the State’s interest – such as false exaggerations made to impress the job interviewer. The court determined that barring only false statements that were material to a hiring decision was a less restrictive means to achieve the State’s interest.
Note. The day before the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion concerning the Iowa law, it determined that plaintiffs challenging a comparable Arkansas law had standing the bring the case. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Vaught, 8 F.4th 714 (8th Cir. 2021). The court later denied a petition for rehearing. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Vaught, No. 20-1538, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27712 (8th Cir. Sept. 15, 2021).
In late 2019, the plaintiffs in the Iowa case filed suit to enjoin the second version of the Iowa law – Iowa Code §717A.3B. The trial court agreed and preliminary enjoined the revised law. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary judgment in early 2020 and the state filed a cross motion for summary judgment, and the case was continued while the appellate court was considering the case involving the initial version of the Iowa law. As noted above, the appellate court ultimately upheld the access provision but not the employment provision. The trial court, in the current case upheld the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the revised statutory language had been slightly modified, but was substantially similar to the initial version. As such, the trial court determined that the revised statute discriminated based on content and viewpoint and was unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny analysis. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, No. 4:19-cv-00124-SMR-HCA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48142 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 14, 2022).
Iowa also has another law that bears on the issue. Iowa Code § 727.8A makes it a crime for “a person committing a trespass as defined in section 716.7 to knowingly place or use a camera or electronic surveillance device that transmits or records images or data while the device is on the trespassed property.”
Iowa Code §716.7 defines a trespass as follows:
- a. “Trespass” shall mean one or more of the following acts:
(1) Entering upon or in property without the express permission of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession with the intent to commit a public offense, to use, remove therefrom, alter, damage, harass, or place thereon or therein anything animate or inanimate,….
(2) Entering or remaining upon or in property without justification after being notified or requested to abstain from entering or to remove or vacate therefrom by the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession, or the agent or employee of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession, or by any peace officer, magistrate, or public employee whose duty it is to supervise the use or maintenance of the property. A person has been notified or requested to abstain from entering or remaining upon or in property within the meaning of this subparagraph (2) if any of the following is applicable:
(a) The person has been notified to abstain from entering or remaining upon or in property personally, either orally or in writing, including by a valid court order under chapter 236.
(b) A printed or written notice forbidding such entry has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the main entrance to the property or the forbidden part of the property.
(3) Entering upon or in property for the purpose or with the effect of unduly interfering with the lawful use of the property by others.
(4) Being upon or in property and wrongfully using, removing therefrom, altering, damaging, harassing, or placing thereon or therein anything animate or inanimate, without the implied or actual permission of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession.
Note: An initial conviction for violation of Iowa Code § 727.8A is an aggravated misdemeanor and a second conviction is a class “D” felony.
In Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Reynolds, et al., 630 F. Supp.3d 1105 (S.D. Iowa. 2022), the plaintiffs (animal rights activist groups) claimed the statute violated their First Amendment rights by hindering them from gaining access to farms and dairies under false pretenses of seeking a job to be able to take pictures and/or videos without the property owner’s consent. The defendants asserted that the case should be dismissed for lack of standing and lack of ripeness.
The trial court (the same Obama-appointed judge that ruled earlier in 2022 on another variant of the Iowa laws) held that the plaintiffs had standing because their organizational objectives would be hindered, and that an arrest is not required before a criminal statute can be challenged. The trial court noted that the statute prohibited video recordings (which the court asserted was protected “speech”) while trespassing which the plaintiffs considered important to broadcasting their negative messages about animal agriculture to the public. More specifically, the court determined that the statute singled out conduct (that the plaintiffs contemplated) by expanding the penalty for conduct already prohibited by law and was not limited to specific uses of a camera. Accordingly, the court determined that the statute was an unconstitutional restriction on the free speech rights of trespassers apparently on the basis that regulating free speech on private property would create a “slippery slope” for not allowing people to record politicians or express views about the Government. In addition, any recording, production, editing, and publication of the videos is protected speech. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs.
The trial court’s view, made it practically impossible for farmers to protect their farming operations from those intending to inflict harm via protected “speech.” Is the trial court saying that there is a constitutional right to trespass? If so, that is flatly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Cedar Point Nursery, et al. v. Hassid, et al., 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021).
Note: Interestingly (and hypocritically) the Iowa federal district court’s website contains the following information: “To be admitted into the courthouse, you must present a government issued photo identification. Please be aware the following items are NOT allowed in the courthouse: cell phones, cameras, other electronic devices (including Apple watches), recording devices,…”.
Note: Iowa Code §716.7A, the Food Operation Trespass Law, remains in effect. That law, effective on June 20, 2020, treats as an aggravated misdemeanor a first offense of entering or remaining on the property of a food operation without the consent of a person who has real or apparent authority to allow the person to enter or remain on the property. A subsequent offense is a Class D felony. This statutory provision was upheld as constitutional by an Iowa county district court judge in early 2022.
In early 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071 (8th Cir. 2024). The appellate court concluded that while false or deceptive speech is not per se unprotected, Iowa had the constitutional right to bar intentionally false speech that is used to cause a legal harm to someone else or their business. The Iowa law, the appellate court concluded, focused on the intent to inflict a legally recognizable harm rather than on the content of what was being said. Accordingly, both the trespass and employment provisions of the law constitutionally barred false statements that result in a harm the law would recognize. It was the law’s reference to the content of the speech (i.e., false statements) that made the law constitutional. The intent requirement did not distinguish among speakers based on their viewpoints. The appellate court succinctly stated that the Iowa law filtered out trespassers who are “relatively innocuous,” and focuses the criminal law on conduct that inflicts greater harms on victims and society. Thus, the Iowa law was not a viewpoint-based restriction on speech, but was a permissible restriction on intentionally false speech undertaken to accomplish a legally cognizable harm.
Kansas and the Tenth Circuit. In Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Kelly, 9 F.4th 1219 (10th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, (U.S. Sup. Ct. Nov. 17, 2021), the court construed the Kansas provision that makes it a crime to take pictures or record videos at a covered facility “without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise.” The plaintiffs claimed that the law violated their First Amendment free speech rights. The State claimed that what was being barred was conduct rather than speech and that, therefore, the First Amendment didn’t apply. But, the court tied conduct together with speech to find a constitutional violation – it was necessary to lie to gain access to a covered facility and consent to film activities. As such, the law regulated protected speech (lying with intent to cause harm to a business) and was unconstitutional. The court determined that the State failed to prove that the law narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest in suppressing the “speech” involved. The dissent pointed out (correctly and consistently with the Eighth Circuit) that “lies uttered to obtain consent to enter the premises of an agricultural facility are not protected speech.” The First Amendment does not protect a fraudulently obtained consent to enter someone else’s property.
Note: On April 25, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Kelly v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, cert. den., 142 S. Ct. 2647 (2022).
As a result of the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Reynolds in early 2024, legislation was introduced into the Kansas Senate that would amend the Farm Animal and Field Crop Act and Research Facilities Protection Act. Among other things, the legislation would criminalize the making of false statements on an employment application to gain access to an animal facility. The legislation stalled in the Senate. Identical legislation was introduced into the Kansas House.
A Different Approach?
The appellate courts generally holding (except for the Eighth Circuit) that the right to free speech protects false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest runs contrary to an established line of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, at least until the Court’s decision in United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012). See, e.g., Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964). The current split between the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits on the constitutionality of the Iowa, Idaho and Kansas laws with respect to the issue of gaining access to a covered facility by lying could warrant a Supreme Court review.
Indiana trespass law. Short of a Supreme Court review of a state statute is there another approach that a state might take to provide protection for agricultural livestock facilities? The state of Indiana’s approach might be the answer. In 2014, the Indiana legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law the “Indiana Trespass Law.” Ind. Code 35-43-2-2. Under the statute, “trespass” is defined as being on a property after being denied entry by the property owner, court order or by a posted sign (or purple paint). If the trespass involves a dwelling (including an ag operation), the landowner need not deny entry for a trespass to be established. The law also sets various thresholds for criminal violations.
Note: The Iowa Food Operation Trespass Law appears to be similar to the Indiana law.
The Indiana law appears to base property entry on the legal property interest of that of a license. A license is a term that covers a wide range of permissive land uses which, unless permitted, would be trespasses. For example, a hunter who is on the premises with permission is a licensee. The hunter has a license for the limited purpose of hunting only. If the hunter were to videotape any activity on the premises, that would constitute a trespass as exceeding the scope of the license. An unlawful entry. This would be the same result for a farm employee. Video recording would be outside the scope of employment. By focusing on the property interest of a license and that of a trespass for unauthorized entry, a claim of a possible free speech violation is eliminated.
Hiring Practices
Considering activists that wish to harm animal agriculture, ag animal facilities should utilize common sense steps to minimize potential problems. Of course, not mistreating animals should always be the standard. Proper hiring practices are also very important. A well drafted employment agreement should be used for workers hired to work in an ag animal facility to help screen potential hires. The agreement should specify in detail the job requirements and what is not permitted to occur on the premises and inside buildings. The agreement should give the employer the right to search every employee for devices that could be used to record activities on the farm and in farm buildings. Also, employee training should be provided and documented. Also, it’s critical that employee conduct be closely monitored to ensure that employees are acting within the scope of their employment and that animals are being treated appropriately.
Conclusion
It’s unfortunate that groups exist dedicated to damage and/or eliminate certain aspects of animal agriculture, and that they will use lies and deception to become employed and gain access. It’s even more frustrating that many of the courts are willing to use the First Amendment as a shield to protect those intending to commit criminal activities to harm animal agriculture. But, until state laws are drafted in a way that will be found constitutional, the only recourse for livestock operations is to adopt hiring and business practices that will minimize potential harm.
The Eighth Circuit’s decision in Reynolds is refreshing. It is an important decision for agriculture in general and the confinement livestock industry in particular. For example, in the Iowa situation, approximately one-third of the nation’s hog production occurs in Iowa.
February 26, 2024 in Criminal Liabilities, Regulatory Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, January 15, 2024
Top Ten Developments in Agricultural Law and Taxation in 2023 – (Part Two)
Overview
With the immediately previous blog article I started the journey through what I believe are the Top Ten developments in ag law and tax of 2023. In that article I wrote about developments ten, nine and eight. Today, it’s the seventh and sixth most important ones. Again, all of these make my Top Ten list because of their significance on a national level to farmers, ranchers, rural landowners and agribusiness in general.
Developments seven and six of 2023 – that’s the topic of today’s post.
- Prison Sentences for Five People Involved in Billion Dollar Biofuel Tax Fraud Conspiracy (i.e., the Dermen/Kingston Conspiracy)
Number seven on my list topped the IRS Criminal Investigation Divisions case list for 2023. Involved is one of the largest tax fraud schemes in the history of the United States and it ultimately led in 2023 to the sentencing of five individuals for their roles in a $1 billion biofuel tax conspiracy. The conspiracy occurred from 2010 to 2018 and involved money laundering, mail fraud and the fraudulent claiming of more than $1 billion in refundable renewable fuel tax credits.
At the foundation of the criminal activity was the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) created in 2005 and expanded in 2007. Under the RFS, the government offers lucrative subsidies and tax credits to companies that convert crops such as soybeans and corn, as well as other products, into “renewable” fuels – the most common of which is corn ethanol. Included in the RFS are biofuel production incentives known as renewable identification numbers (RINs). Under EPA rules, a 38-digit number designed to track each gallon of ethanol or biodiesel from the producer to the point of sale. Ethanol RINs remain with the fuel until it is pumped by a consumer at the gas station. However, biodiesel RINs can be sold separately as credits that can be traded. This allows oil refiners who failed to blend the government-mandated amount of biodiesel to buy RINs to make up the difference without paying a fine. However, it also allowed for the possibility that a RIN price could be negotiated by a biofuel company with an oil refiner with the company using a fake 38-digit number. The RIN buyer would then claim to have shipped the biofuel to be refined. No fuel was actually bought or sold, and both the buyer and seller were in on the scam.
Note: Estimates are that the blending government mandate has resulted in about 40 percent of U.S. corn production being converted into ethanol annually. The estimated taxpayer subsidies of corn farmers have exceeded $71 billion since 2005.
The biggest RFS scam ever involved the parties mixed-up in this development. The perpetrators created the appearance of biodiesel production and sale to claim the tax credits. IRS actually paid out more than $511 million in credits to their biodiesel company that then distributed the proceeds among them as the company’s owners. After pleading guilty, one conspirator was sentenced to 40 years in prison plus over $1 million in restitution and personal financial liability. Another got 18 years in prison plus over $500 million in restitution and another $338 million in personal financial liability. Three others were sentenced to 12, 7 and six years in prison and ordered to pay over $500 million in restitution combined.
The IRS said the case, “has been one of unprecedented fraud against the United States and its citizens and is one of the most egregious examples of tax fraud in U.S. history.”
6. Self-Employment Tax and Limited Partners
Soroban Capital Partners LP v. Comr., 161 T.C. No. 12 (2023)
A question in self-employment tax planning is whether an LLC member is a limited partner. In 1997 the IRS/Treasury issued a proposed regulation to address the issue, but it has never been finalized. The regulation establishes a fact-based analysis based on participation in management to determine limited partner status. A limited partner doesn’t participate in management. For businesses other than those providing professional services, characterization of an LLC member’s interest is determinative of whether the member has self-employment tax liability on amounts distributed to the member (other than guaranteed payments). That means that proper structuring of the entity matters as does the drafting of the LLC operating agreement and the conduct of the members.
Here's what it might look like for a farming operation:
A married couple operates a farming business as an LLC. The wife works full-time off the farm and does not participate in the farming operation. But she holds a 49 percent non-manager ownership interest in the LLC. The husband conducts the farming operation full-time and also holds a 49 percent non-manager interest. But, the husband, as the farmer, also holds a 2 percent manager interest. The husband receives a guaranteed payment for his manager interest that equates to reasonable compensation for his services (labor and management) provided to the LLC. The result is that the LLC’s income will be shared pro-rata according to the ownership percentages with the income attributable to the non-manager interests (98 percent) not subject to self-employment tax. The two percent manager interest is subject to self-employment tax along with the guaranteed payment that the husband receives. This produces a much better self-employment tax result than if the farming operation were structured as a member-managed LLC.
In late 2023, the U.S. Tax Court issued a fully reported opinion confirming that state law classifications of a partner’s interest is not conclusive on the self-employment tax issue. ordinary income to its limited partners. However, the petitioner excluded distributions of ordinary income to its limited partners from its computation of net earnings from self-employment. Its basis for doing so was that the limited partners’ interest conformed to state law. The IRS disagreed asserting that wasn’t enough and that the functions and roles of the limited partners also had to be analyzed for self-employment tax purposes. The Tax Court agreed with the IRS.
At issue was the definition of a “limited partner” for purpose of the exception from s.e. tax under I.R.C. §1402(a)(13). The Tax Court noted that the proposed regulations provided a definition, that the Congress froze the finalization of the regulation for six months and has said very little about the issue since the freeze was lifted and has not provided a definition. The Tax Court noted that it had applied a “functional analysis” test in Renkemeyer, Campbell & Weaver, LLP, 136 T.C 137 (2011), but that this was the first time the Tax Court was asked to determine the self-employment tax status of limited partner in a state law limited partnership (having passed on the issue in a 2020 case).
The Tax Court determined that the functional analysis test applied based largely on statutory construction of I.R.C. §1402(a)(13) which excludes from self-employment tax “the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such.” The Court concluded that the “as such” language meant that there wasn’t a blanket exclusion for a limited partner. Instead, the statute only applies to a limited partner that is acting as a limited partner. If a limited partner is anything more than merely an investor, self-employment tax applies to the partner’s distributive share.
Note: The Tax Court noted that the petitioner cited legislative history in an attempt to support its position, but that the legislative history actually supported the position of the IRS. The Tax Court also noted that the petitioner put forth “myriad other arguments” none of which were persuasive. The petitioner even cited language in the instructions for Form 1065 which it claimed defined a limited partner, but the Tax Court noted that the definition did not purport to define a limited partner.
The Tax Court held that a functional inquiry into the roles and activities of the petitioner’s individual partners under I.R.C. §1402(a)(13) “involves factual determinations that are necessary to determine Soroban’s aggregate amount of net earnings from self-employment.” Accordingly, the Tax Court denied the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and set forth the rule going forward in evaluating the application of self-employment tax for limited partners in professional service businesses.
The manager-managed LLC provides a better result than the result produced by the member-managed LLC for LLCs that are not service partnerships. For those that are, the S corporation is the business form to use to achieve a better tax result. For an S corporation, “reasonable” compensation will need to be paid subject to S.E. tax, but the balance drawn from the entity can be received self-employment tax free. But, for farming operations with land rental income, the manager-managed LLC can provide a better overall tax result than the use of an S corporation because of the ability to eliminate the net investment income tax.
Of course, the self-employment tax and the net investment income tax are only two pieces of the puzzle to an overall business plan. Other non-tax considerations may carry more weight in a particular situation. But for some, this strategy can be quite beneficial.
Soroban Capital Partners LP lays down the rule that it’s not enough to simply hold a limited partnership interest under state law (in the context of a professional service business). A limited partner must truly be acting as an investor and no more.
Proper structuring of the LLC and careful drafting of the operating agreement is important.
Conclusion
I will continue the trek through the “Top Ten” of 2023 in the next post.
January 15, 2024 in Criminal Liabilities, Income Tax | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, July 8, 2023
Coeur d’ Alene, Idaho, Conference – Twin Track
Overview
On August 7-8 in beautiful Coeur d’ Alene, ID, Washburn Law School the second of its two summer conferences on farm income taxation as well as farm and ranch estate and business planning. A bonus for the ID conference will be a two-day conference focusing on various ag legal topics. The University of Idaho College of Law and College of Agricultural and Life Sciences along with the Idaho State Bar and the ag law section of the Idaho State Bar are co-sponsoring. This conference represents the continuing effort of Washburn Law School in providing practical and detailed CLE to rural lawyers, CPAs and other tax professionals as well as getting law students into the underserved rural areas of the Great Plains and the West. The conference can be attended online in addition to the conference location in Coeur d’ Alene at the North Idaho College.
More information on the August Idaho Conference and some topics in ag law – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Idaho Conference
Over two days in adjoining conference rooms the focus will be on providing continuing education for tax professionals and lawyers that represent agricultural clients. All sessions are focused on practice-relevant topic. One of the two-day tracks will focus on agricultural taxation on Day 1 and farm/ranch estate and business planning on Day 2. The other track will be two-days of various agricultural legal issues.
Here's a bullet-point breakdown of the topics:
Tax Track (Day 1)
- Caselaw and IRS Update
- What is “Farm Income” for Farm Program Purposes?
- Inventory Method – Options for Farmers
- Machinery Trades
- Easement and Rental Issues for Landowners
- Protecting a Tax Practice From Scammers
- Amending Partnership Returns
- Corporate Provided Meals and Lodging
- CRATs
- IC-DISCS
- When Cash Method Isn’t Available
- Accounting for Hedging Transactions
- Deducting a Purchased Growing Crop
- Deducting Soil Fertility
Tax Track (Day 2)
- Estate and Gift Tax Current Developments
- Succession Plans that Work (and Some That Don’t)
- The Use of SLATs in Estate Planning
- Form 1041 and Distribution Deductions
- Social Security as an Investment
- Screening New Clients
- Ethics for Estate Planners
Ag Law Track (Day 1)
- Current Developments and Issues
- Current Ag Economic Trends
- Handling Adverse Decisions on Federal Grazing Allotments
- Getting and Retaining Young Lawyers in Rural Areas
- Private Property Rights and the Clean Water Act – the Aftermath of the Sackett Decision
- Ethics
Ag Law Track (Day 2)
- Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land
- Immigrant Labor in Ag
- Animal Welfare and the Legal System
- How/Why Farmers and Ranchers Use and Need Ag Lawyers and Tax Pros
- Agricultural Leases
Both tracks will be running simultaneously, and both will be broadcast live online. Also, you can register for either track. There’s also a reception on the evening of the first day on August 7. The reception is sponsored by the University of Idaho College of Law and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Idaho, as well as the Agricultural Law Section of the Idaho State Bar.
Speakers
The speakers for the tax and estate/business planning track are as follows:
Day 1: Roger McEowen, Paul Neiffer and a representative from the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.
Day 2: Roger McEowen; Paul Neiffer; Allan Bosch; and Jonas Hemenway.
The speakers for the ag law track are as follows:
Day 1: Roger McEowen; Cody Hendrix; Hayden Ballard; Damien Schiff; aand Joseph Pirtle.
Day 2: Roger McEowen; Joel Anderson; Kristi Running; Aaron Golladay; Richard Seamon; and Kelly Stevenson
Who Should Attend
Anyone that represents farmers and ranchers in tax planning and preparation, financial planning, legal services and/or agribusiness would find the conference well worth the time. Students attend at a much-reduced fee and should contact me personally or, if you are from Idaho, contract Prof. Rich Seamon (also one of the speakers) at the University of Idaho College of Law. The networking at the conference will be a big benefit to students in connecting with practitioners from rural areas.
As noted above, if you aren’t able to attend in-person, attendance is also possible online.
Sponsorship
If your business would be interested in sponsoring the conference or an aspect of it, please contact me. Sponsorship dollars help make a conference like this possible and play an important role in the training of new lawyers for rural areas to represent farmers and ranchers, tax practitioners in rural areas as well as legislators.
For more information about the Idaho conferences and to register, click here:
Farm Income Tax/Estate and Business Planning Track: https://www.washburnlaw.edu/employers/cle/farmandranchtaxaugust.html
Ag Law Track: https://www.washburnlaw.edu/employers/cle/idahoaglaw.html
July 8, 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, 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)
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)
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)
Wednesday, July 13, 2022
Durango Conference and Recent Developments in the Courts
Overview
On August 1 and 2, Washburn Law School will be hosting a two-day conference on income tax as well as estate and business planning. Of course, the event emphasizes the application of tax and legal principles to ag producers and rural landowners, but many of the concepts are of general application. One of the featured sessions at the Durango conference will focus on water rights and how those impact income tax and estate planning for farmers, ranchers and rural landowners. Of course, throughout the two days we will be covering many issues that apply to clients in a host of possible situations.
In today’s post, I focus on the Durango water rights session and a few court developments.
Appropriation Water Rights - Tax and Estate Planning Issues (Durango Conference)
This panel session begins with Andy Morehead, an accountant from Eaton, CO, explaining why we are talking about appropriation water rights in tax and estate planning. The importance of the topic relates to the value of water rights. Andy will talk about his experience concerning sales and other projects where water rights significantly increased the wealth of individuals, families or entities.
In Colorado, almost 4,000 wells have been shut in by the State Engineer in the past two decades to maintain streamflow and satisfy downstream priority claims. A similar number have had their pumping rights limited in some way. Given the rapid development occurring in northeast Colorado and the need for water for the new subdivisions along the front range, there will be major political ramifications if any further reductions are made. The economic impact is already being felt. A unit (one acre foot) of Colorado Big Thompson storage water now sells for about $65,000. Approximately 15 years ago, the same volume of water sold for $6,000. This enhanced value has a significant impact on estates, as does any land with associated water rights.
Following Andy’s opening discussion, John Howe, an attorney in Grand Junction, CO, will follow. His practice focuses on real estate matters including the leasing of water rights. John will explain the nature of an appropriation water right, and will also discuss surface rights, tributary and non-tributary groundwater. John will also address nuances in the adjudication system and the chief engineer’s agency. Of particular interest to tax practitioners is whether a right to use water is an ownership interest in real property or a right to use water that is personal property. John will discuss the real/personal property determination. Of course, the focus will be on Colorado, but John may also comment on the real/personal property distinction in adjoining states. He will also share his experiences with business and succession planning title issues involving water rights and focus on a few of the most common title mistakes made with water right dispositions related to estate planning, divorce, financing and foreclosure, and entity dissolution or division.
Mike Ramsey, a long-time water law practitioner in Garden City, Kansas, will follow John’s discussion by addressing approaches to the valuation of water rights and depletion issues. Mike will also discuss I.R.C. §1031 exchanges involving disposition of water rights that are interests on real property and other estate tax planning issues associated with water right ownership.
The Durango conference is going to be a good one that you will want to be a part of, either in-person or online. For further details about the two-day event click here: https://www.washburnlaw.edu/employers/cle/farmandranchtaxaugust.html
Recent Court Developments
Defendant Properly Sentenced for Falsely Obtaining PPP and EIDL Loans
United States v. Stout, No. 21-1938, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16627 (8th Cir. Jun. 16, 2022)
The defendant was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release and $74,600 in restitution for misrepresenting (along with his wife and his sister) that they owned multiple businesses in order to obtain forgivable Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans as well as non-forgivable loans under the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program. The defendant admitted being the ringleader of the scheme. The court determined the “intended-loss,” the monetary harm the defendant purposely sought to inflict, was $116,525.56. The amount was calculated using pre-sentence investigation reports. The defendant claimed that his sentence should be reduced on the basis that the trial court should have limited the loss only to the PPP loans.
The defendant claimed there was no evidence he did not intend to repay the non-forgivable loans, and relied on a 1999 case involving a rancher that misrepresented the number of cattle he owned in order to obtain a loan. But the rancher in that case took multiple remedial actions to repay the falsely obtained loans such as selling his ranch and equipment, starting a new business, and financing his debt. The appellate court determined that the previous case was not like the defendant’s situation. The defendant provided no evidence that he would do anything to repay the loans and had no businesses that would allow him to repay the loans. The appellate court also concluded that the trial court did not err in considering the defendant’s past fraudulent actions of pawning stolen work computers as a reflection of the defendant’s character. As a result, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s sentencing determination.
Shareholders Liable for Corporate Tax under “Midco” Transaction.
Sloan v. Comr., T.C. Memo. 2022-6, on rem. from, 896 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2018), rev’g., T.C. Memo. 2016-115, cert. den., 139 S. Ct. 1348 (2019)
A “Midco” transaction designed to avoid the tax on built-in-gain (BIG) inherent in the appreciation of assets held in a C corporation. Under a “Midco” transaction the seller engages in a stock sale while the buyer engages in an asset purchase through use of an intermediary company. The sale of stock avoids triggering the BIG tax and the purchaser gets a purchase price income tax basis in the assets. The IRS, however, often takes the position that the parties engaged in a Midco transaction have tax liability exposure under I.R.C. §6901as a transferee for unpaid taxes and interest on the basis that the selling shareholder. The IRS could also impose penalties on the transferee parties. The basic issue is whether the selling shareholder knew or should have known that the intermediary company would incur a tax liability that it had no ability to pay.
In this case, the petitioners were transferees of C corporate assets via a typical “Midco” transaction where an intermediary company was affiliated with a promoter. The intermediary company was merely a “shell” company organized offshore that buy the shares of the target company. The cash of the petitioner’s C corporation (target corporation) flowed through the intermediary to the selling shareholders. After acquiring the target’s embedded tax liability, the shell company engaged in a transaction purporting to offset the target's realized gains and eliminate the corporate-level tax. The promoter and the target's shareholders then agreed to split the dollar value of the corporate tax that had purportedly been avoided with the promoter keeping as its fee a negotiated percentage of the avoided tax amount. The target's shareholders kept the balance of the avoided corporate tax as a premium above the target's true net asset value (i.e., assets net of accrued tax liability).
After the transaction there were no assets left in the target corporation and the IRS issued notices of liability to the petitioners as transferees. In the original Tax Court case, the Tax Court ruled that the petitioners were not liable as transferees on the theory that they and their advisers did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the results of the transaction. On appeal, the appellate court reversed, concluding that the petitioners were at the very least on constructive notice that the entire scheme had no purpose other than tax avoidance. The appellate court also concluded the transfer was a constructively fraudulent transfer under Arizona law. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. On remand, the Tax Court entered a decision consistent with the IRS’ computations. Those computations included accuracy-related penalties and IRS recovery of pre-notice interest.
Iowa Law Providing Limited Nuisance Immunity to CAFOs Upheld
Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP, No. 21-0652, 2022 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 86 (Iowa Sup. Ct. Jun. 30, 2022)
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s neighboring confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) violated both the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act due to manure runoff that caused excessive nitrate levels in the plaintiff’s water sources. The federal court dismissed the suit on summary judgment for lack of expert testimony to establish the plaintiff’s claim, finding that the alleged violations where wholly past violations, and that water test results showed no ongoing violation of either statute, but rather a slight decrease in nitrate levels since the start of the defendant’s confined animal feeding operation (CAFO). The federal court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims. The plaintiff then sued the defendant in state court for nuisance, trespass and violation of state drainage law. The defendant moved for summary judgment based on statutory immunity of Iowa Code § 657.11 and the plaintiff’s lack of evidence or expert testimony.
Iowa Code §657.11 provides limited nuisance immunity to a CAFO. Immunity is granted if the CAFO is following all applicable regulations and is using accepted management practices. The plaintiff, relying on Gacke v. Pork XTRA, L.L.C., 684 N.W. 2d 168 (Iowa 2004) claimed that Iowa Code §657.11 as applied to him was unconstitutional under Iowa’s inalienable rights clause. Under Gacke, for a court to determine whether Iowa Code §657.11(2) is unconstitutional a plaintiff must show they (1) “receive[d] no particular benefit from the nuisance immunity granted to their neighbors other than that inuring to the public in general[,]”; (2) “sustain[ed] significant hardship[,]”; and (3) “resided on their property long before any animal operation was commenced” on neighboring land and “had spent considerable sums of money in improvements to their property prior to construction of the defendant’s facilities.” All three elements must be established.
The trial court, noting that the plaintiff’s own CAFO (raising of 500 ewes, and at times over 1,000 ewes and lambs, on his property for over 40 years, along with a six-foot tall manure pile) had benefited from immunity, rejected the plaintiff’s constitutional challenge for failure to satisfy Gacke’s three-part test in Gacke. The trial court then granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to provide any expert testimony or other evidence to support any exception to the statutory immunity defense or to prove causation or damages.
On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, overruled the three-part test of Gacke and applied rational basis review to reject the plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to Iowa Code §657.11. The court noted that Iowa Code §657.11A did not eliminate nuisance claims against CAFOs, but rather established reasonable limitations on recovery rights. The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to preserve error on his takings claim under article I, section 18 of the Iowa Constitution and failed to generate a question of fact precluding summary judgment on statutory nuisance immunity or causation for his trespass and drainage claims. Specifically, the Iowa Supreme Court noted that without accompanying expert testimony, the plaintiff water tests showed neither an increase in nitrate levels nor a spike in nitrate levels that would correlate with manure spreading. The Supreme Court further noted that even assuming an increase in nitrate levels, the plaintiff lacked expert testimony to attribute or correlate any increase in nitrate levels in the stream to the defendants’ actions. Thus, without expert witness testimony that tied the defendant’s alleged misapplication or over-application of manure to the nitrate levels in the plaintiff’s stream, the plaintiff could not, as a matter of law, satisfy his burden of proving that any trespass or drainage violation proximately caused his damages. The Iowa Supreme Court did not address the plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the damages limitations in Iowa Code §657.11A(3).
Note: The Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion didn’t explain how the attorneys for the plaintiff failed to preserve error on the plaintiff’s takings claim and failed to provide expert witness testimony on the tort claims for trespass and drainage issues. However, the Iowa Supreme Court clearly focused on those deficiencies in its opinion.
Conclusion
Agricultural law and taxation is a dynamic area of the law focusing on the legal rules surrounding food production, water rights and allocation, and the production and usage of energy. Of course, taxation is wrapped around all of those issues, as are estate, business and succession planning. All of these issues will be addressed at the upcoming conference in Durango, CO on Aug. 1 and 2. While it’s not the same as being there in person the online attendance platform allows you to participate from your own location.
I am looking forward to seeing you there, or online.
July 13, 2022 in Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Criminal Liabilities, Water Law | 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, April 26, 2022
Is Your Farm or Ranch Protected From a Warrantless Search?
Overview
The Fourth Amendment protects against illegal searches and seizures. In general, government officials must secure a search warrant based on probable cause before searching an area unless the owner gives consent. However, the Fourth Amendment’s protection accorded to “persons, houses, papers and effects,” does not extend to all open areas contiguous to a person’s home, but rather only to the home itself and its surrounding “curtilage” – the area immediately surrounding and associated with the defendant’s home.
The scope and extent of curtilage is an important issue to farming and ranching operations. Farming, hunting, recreational and other activity occurs on private land that is not located in the surrounding vicinity of the home. Indeed, there may not even be a home on the tract. Does that mean that government agents can conduct a warrantless search on such property? The ability to do so has become much easier with the new technological developments.
Warrantless searches of private agricultural land and the scope of curtilage – it’s the topic of today’s post.
In General
Curtilage is generally defined as the land immediately surrounding an individual’s home or dwelling, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but not any “open fields” or buildings or structures that contain separate activities conducted by others. See Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984). For example, in United States v. Ritchie, 312 Fed. Appx. 885 (9th Cir. 2009), the court held that a trailer used occasionally as a place to sleep while performing farm chores did not constitute a “home” for purposes of establishing a Fourth Amendment protection in the curtilage of the home.
Curtilage and Agriculture
Multi-factor test. The extent of the curtilage is defined with reference to the proximity of it to the home. Key factors are whether the area at issue is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passersby. These are known as the “Dunn factors” based on United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987). One key case applying the factors was United States v. Gilman, No. 06-00198 SOM, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32524 (D. Haw. May 2, 2007), aff’d, sub nom., United States v. Terragna, 390 Fed. Appx. 631 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. den., Terragna v. United States, 562 U.S. 1191 (2011). In this case, which turned the typical curtilage analysis on its head, the court held that all evidence that was seized from a shed was to be suppressed because the shed was not within the curtilage of the residence for which a search warrant had been issued. The court reasoned that the home and shed were not enclosed by a fence or natural boundary, and there was no evidence that the shed was used for illegal activities. In addition, the court noted that the defendant took no steps to prevent the observation of the shed from passersby.
Another instructive case applying the Dunn factors is Wilson v. Florida, 952 So. 2d 564 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007). In that case, a warrantless search was allowed of a greenhouse that was not within the curtilage of the defendant’s home. The greenhouse was used to manufacture controlled substances. It was not locked and was made of semitransparent materials. The court determined that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the greenhouse to which the protection against an illegal search and seizure extended.
The “open fields doctrine.” Obviously, a great deal of farming and ranching activities occurs in the “open” and the courts have held that, under the “open fields doctrine,” government officials can make warrantless searches of such areas. Here’s a sample of some of the more prominent cases involving the doctrine:
- In United States v. Kirkwood, No. CR11-5488RBL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65214 (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2012), an open clearing near a rural home that separated the home and outbuildings from a wooded area functioned as curtilage. The court determined that the area was suitable for activities associated with the home and the use of the area associated with the home.
- In Westfall v. State, 10 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999), a sheriff entered a pasture without a warrant. The sheriff seized cattle and charged the owner with cruelty to animals. The warrantless search was challenged, but was upheld under the open fields doctrine.
- In Trimble v. State, 842 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 2006),the court upheld a conviction for cruelty to a dog even though the police did not have a search warrant to search the defendant’s home. While the dog house was within the curtilage of the home, the court determined that the defendant had no expectation of privacy because the dog was visible from the route any visitors to the property would be expected to use.
- In Hill v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 442, 624 S.E.2d 666 (2006),the court upheld convictions for violations of the Virginia Food Act even though an administrative inspection of the defendant’s goat cheese manufacturing facility was conducted without a search warrant. The court determined that the state had a significant interest in protecting public health and that even though the facility was located within the curtilage of the defendant’s home, it was subject to search because it was functioning as commercial property.
- In United States v. Boyster, 436 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2006), open fields were found not to be within the curtilage of the defendant’s home. The fields were within the plain view of an aerial flyover and were 100 yards from the defendant’s residence and not enclosed by a fence and no other precautions had been taken to keep the growing marijuana from being visible by others. Thus, the fields were not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- In State v. Nance, 149 N.C. App. 734, 562 S.E.2d 557 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002),a warrantless search was upheld under the open fields doctrine, where the animals observed were in plain view from the nearby road. However, the court noted that the seizure of items in plain view may require a warrant absent exigent circumstances.
Recent Cases
Ohio case. The scope of curtilage in an ag setting was at issue in State v. Powell, No. 27580, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5096 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). The defendant was charged with seven counts of cruelty to animals. A humane agent for the local Humane Society testified that she was constantly getting complaints, both from the public, next door neighbors, news and also from the County Sherriff’s Office regarding the defendant’s horse not being fed and a pig being stuck. The agent testified that she responded to the area based upon only seeing two of the three horses she knew were normally on the property. The agent also testified that she heard the pigs squealing and followed the sound of animal distress, a sound which she recognized through her experiences as a humane agent. She stated that she first observed the pigs on January 3, 2017. At this time, they were standing in “liquid mud” and she smelled “fecal and urine ammonia” coming from the pen. Fecal and urine ammonia is toxic to pigs. She further stated that pigs were at risk of hypothermia due to the cold weather. The agent spoke with the defendants concerning the condition of the pig pen and the fact that it needed to be remedied along with the pigs’ food and water. The humane agent stated that she and the defendants agreed on a timetable for these items to be remedied. The defendants stated that they would work on it through the week remedy the situation in a timely manner, and that the pigs would be provided food and water. The humane agent testified that when she returned to the property the next day, the pigs were in the same condition and the weather was getting colder. Finally, on her third trip to the property, the humane agent stated the pigs lacked food and fresh water, and that they were “actively freezing to death.” The outside temperature had fallen to six degrees, according to the humane agent. The humane agent arranged for the removal of the pigs from the property on January 7, 2017 at around 12:30 a.m.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the humane agent as the result of an illegal warrantless search of the curtilage surrounding their home. The trial court sustained the defendant’s motion to suppress, and the state appealed. On appeal, the appellate court reversed. The appellate court noted that while curtilage is considered to be part of a defendant’s home and, as such, is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection, the agent’s testimony revealed that the home on the property was uninhabitable due to a collapsed roof and no windows. In addition, the evidence showed that the pig pen was 100 yards from the vacant home, and the pig pen was not in an enclosure surrounding the vacant home. There also was no evidence that steps had been taken to protect the area from observation from the adjacent lane, such as the erection of a privacy fence, locked gates or “No Trespassing” signs. Thus, the court concluded that the pig pen was not within the defendant’s residence or its curtilage, and that the defendant’s observation of the pigs was not a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment was reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Tennessee case. Another key case involving the curtilage issue and agricultural property is that of Hollingsworth v. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 423 F. Supp. 3d 521 (W.D. Tenn. 2019). In January of 2018, the plaintiff went out before sunrise to hunt ducks on his property. While traveling down an interior path, the lights of his pickup reflected off something attached to a tree. He stopped and got out of his pickup and examined the reflection more closely with a flashlight. He found a trail camera with a transmitting antenna, photo storage and SIM card attached to the tree with zip ties. Tree limbs that might obscure the view of the camera had been removed. He removed the camera and discovered that over one thousand photos of himself, his family and friends had been transmitted to someone for several months. The camera’s storage card also contained photographs of two government agents – one employed by the defendant and the other one being an agent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They had trespassed onto the plaintiff’s property (the property was posted as “No Trespassing”) and installed the camera on a tree located on the interior of the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff sued alleging that the installation of the camera violated his Fourth Amendment Rights under both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions. He also sued the agents for criminal and common law trespass under state law. Both defendants moved to dismiss the case.
The defendants claimed that they didn’t violate the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by virtue of the “open fields” doctrine and, if they did, they were entitled to qualified immunity as government agents. The USFWS also claimed it was entitled to sovereign immunity. The plaintiff conceded the sovereign immunity claim, but asserted that the open fields doctrine did not apply particularly because the defendants had to pass through two gates and fences to reach the interior of the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff analogized the zip-tying of cameras to trees as comparable to placing a tracking device to the underbody of an automobile (which is impermissible without a warrant). The plaintiff also claimed that the Tennessee Constitution provided greater protection from a warrantless search than the Fourth Amendment.
The trial court followed an unreported Sixth Circuit decision with facts directly on point with the current case. Spann v. Carter, 648 F. App’x. 586 (6th Cir. 2016). There the appellate court held that the plaintiff’s farm and hunting property constituted an “open field” and that government agents did not, as a result, violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing cameras on the property. The trial court also cited other federal court cases holding that the use of cameras by federal and state game officials to monitor private property did not violate the constitutional rights of the property owner. In addition, the trial court distinguished a car as a personal “effect” from a tree not near a residence. Accordingly, the trial court granted judgment as a matter of law to the defendants.
State Constitutions/Legislation
Some state constitutions protect the privacy of open fields in the same manner as a private dwelling. Other states have statutes that are designed with that same intent. A new Kansas law attempts to provide greater protection to landowners from warrantless searches, but may turn out to not actually achieve its purpose. H.B. 2299, signed into law on April 18, 2022, and effective July 1, 2022, bars any employee of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) from conducting unauthorized “surveillance” on private property without a warrant, court order or subpoena. Had the legislative language stopped at that point or simply state that privately-owned agricultural land is to be treated as a private dwelling, there would have been no question that ag landowners would have been secure from warrantless searches in open fields. However, the new statute continues, “…unless [also] authorized pursuant to…the [C]onstitution of the United States…”. The provision also does not bar surveillance of private property by a wildlife biologist when the primary purpose of the surveillance is to locate and retrieve a missing person or track wildlife movement or migration. “Surveillance is defined as the “installation and use of electronic equipment or devices on private property, including but not limited to, the installation and use of a tracking device, video camera or audio recording device, to monitor activity or collect information related to the enforcement of laws of the state of Kansas.”
Note: By authorizing a warrantless search if it complies with the “Constitution of the United States” the legislation arguably fails to address the “open fields” warrantless search concerns of agricultural landowners. As noted above, the Supreme Court has construed the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches to not apply to private land that doesn’t immediately surround the residence (even if posted “No Trespassing”).
Conclusion
Warrantless searches can be an important issue for farmers and ranchers, particularly with respect to the possibility of inadvertent violations of the criminal provisions of environmental laws. In addition, when a landowner posts their property as “No Trespassing” to purposely exclude the public from entry and put the public on notice that a deliberate entry will expose the entrant to criminal liability, that posting should be respected, even by the government. A “No Trespassing” warning is an express manifestation of the owner’s intent to have privacy. If the government seeks entry into such an area, a reasonable reading of the Constitution requires the government to gather probable cause and secure a search warrant before entering.
April 26, 2022 in Criminal Liabilities | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, March 21, 2022
Animal Ag Facilities and the Constitution
Overview
In response to attempts to shut down animal confinement operations by activist groups, legislatures in several states have enacted laws designed to protect these businesses by limiting access. A common approach is for the law to criminalize the use of deception to access a confined livestock facility or meatpacking plant with the intent to cause physical harm, economic harm or some other type of injury to the business. But the laws have generally been struck down on free speech and equal protection grounds. Is there a way for states to provide legal protection to confinement livestock facilities? What can these facilities do to protect themselves?
Laws designed to protect confined animal livestock facilities from those intended to do them harm – it’s the topic of today’s post.
General Statutory Construct
The basic idea of state legislatures that have attempted to provide a level of protection to livestock facilities is to bar access to an animal production facility under false pretenses. At their core, the laws attempt to prohibit a person having the intent to harm a livestock production facility from gaining access to the facility (such as via employment) to then commit illegal acts on the premises. See, e.g., Iowa Code §717A.3A. Laws that bar lying and trespass coupled with the intent to do physical harm to an animal production facility should not be constitutionally deficient. Laws that go beyond those confines may be.
The Iowa provisions. Iowa legislation is a common example of how states have attempted to address the issue. The Iowa legislature has made two attempts at crafting a state law that would withstand a constitutional challenge. The initial version criminalized “agricultural production facility fraud” if a person willfully obtained access to such a facility by false pretenses (the “access” provision) or made a false statement or representation as part of an application or agreement to be employed at the facility (the “employment” provision). The law also required the person to know that the statement was false when made and that it was made with an intent to commit a knowingly unauthorized act. Iowa Code §717A.3A. This initial statutory version was challenged and, as discussed below, the employment provision was deemed unconstitutional.
The Iowa legislature then modified the law with a second version that described an agricultural production facility trespass as occurring when a person uses deception “on a matter that would reasonably result in a denial of access to an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public, and, through such deception, gains access to [the facility], with the intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury to the [facility’s] operations, agricultural animals, crop, owner, personnel, equipment, building, premises, business interest, or customer [the “access” provision]. The revised law also criminalizes the use of deception “on a matter that would reasonably result in a denial of an opportunity to be employed at [a facility] that is not open to the public, and, through such deception, is so employed, with the intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury to the [facility’s] operations, agricultural animals, crop, owner, personnel, equipment, building, premises, business interest, or customer [the “employment” provision].
In other words, the Iowa provisions criminalizes the use of lies to either gain access or employment at an ag production facility where the use is coupled with the intent to do harm. Sounds quite reasonable, doesn’t it? But the courts (a place where the telling of a lie can come with severe penalties) have generally come to a different conclusion.
Recent Court Opinions
North Carolina. In 2017, a challenge to the North Carolina statutory provision was dismissed for lack of standing. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Stein, 259 F. Supp. 3d 369 (M.D. N.C. 2017). The plaintiffs, numerous animal rights activist groups, brought a pre-enforcement challenge to the North Carolina Property Protection Act. They claimed that the law unconstitutionally stifled their ability to investigate North Carolina employers for illegal or unethical conduct and restricted the flow of information those investigations provide. As noted, the court dismissed the case for lack of standing. On appeal, however, the appellate court reversed. PETA, Inc. v. Stein, 737 Fed. Appx. 122 (4th Cir. 2018). The appellate court determined that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law through its “chilling effect” on their First Amendment rights to investigate and publicize actions on private property. They also alleged a reasonable fear that the law would be enforced against them.
On the merits, the trial court then held that the challenged provisions of the law were unconstitutional under the First Amendment as a violation of the plaintiffs’ free speech rights. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Stein, 466 F. Supp. 3d 547 (M.D. N.C. 2020).
Utah. The Utah law was also deemed unconstitutional. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (D. Utah 2017). At issue was Utah Code §76-6-112 which criminalizes the entering of a private agricultural livestock facility under false pretenses or via trespass to photograph, audiotape or videotape practices inside the facility. While the state claimed that lying, which the statute regulates, is not protected free speech, the court determined that only lying that causes “legally cognizable harm” falls outside First Amendment protection. The state also argued that the act of recording is not speech that is protected by the First Amendment. However, the court determined that the act of recording is protectable First Amendment speech. The court also concluded that the fact that the speech occurred on a private agricultural facility did not render it outside First Amendment protection. The court determined that both the lying and the recording provisions of the Act were content-based provisions subject to strict scrutiny. To survive strict scrutiny the state had to demonstrate that the restriction furthered a compelling state interest. The court determined that “the state has provided no evidence that animal and employee safety were the actual reasons for enacting the Act, nor that animal and employee safety are endangered by those targeted by the Act, nor that the Act would actually do anything to remedy those dangers to the extent that they exist.” For those reasons, the court determined that the Act was unconstitutional.
A Wyoming law experienced a similar fate. Western Watersheds Project v. Michael, 869 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2017), rev’g., 196 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (D. Wyo. 2016). In 2015, two new Wyoming laws went into effect that imposed civil and criminal liability upon any person who "[c]rosses private land to access adjacent or proximate land where he collects resource data." Wyo. Stat. §§6-3-414(c); 40-27-101(c). The appellate court, reversing the trial court, determined that because of the broad definitions provided in the statutes, the phrase "collects resource data" included numerous activities on public lands (such as writing notes on habitat conditions, photographing wildlife, or taking water samples), so long as an individual also records the location from which the data was collected. Accordingly, the court held that the statutes regulated protected speech in spite of the fact that they also governed access to private property. While trespassing is not protected by the First Amendment, the court determined that the statutes targeted the “creation” of speech by penalizing the collection of resource data.
Note: The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of the appropriate level of scrutiny and whether the statutes survived review. Ultimately, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the statutes were content based and, as such failed to withstand constitutional strict scrutiny review on the basis that the laws were not narrowly tailored. Western Watersheds Project v. Michael, 353 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (D. Wyo. 2018).
Ninth Circuit. In early 2018, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a detailed opinion involving the Idaho statutory provision. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit’s opinion provides a roadmap for state lawmakers to follow to provide at least a minimal level of protection to animal production facilities from those that would intend to do them economic harm. According to the Ninth Circuit, state legislation can bar entry to a facility by force, threat or trespass. Likewise, the acquisition of economic data by misrepresentation can be prohibited. Similarly, criminalizing the obtaining of employment by false pretenses coupled with the intent to cause harm to the animal production facility is not constitutionally deficient. However, provisions that criminalize audiovisual recordings are suspect.
Eighth Circuit. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit construed the initial version of the Iowa law and upheld the portion of it providing for criminal penalties for gaining access to a covered facility by false pretenses. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 8 F.4th 781 (8th Cir. 2021). This is the first time that any federal circuit court of appeals has upheld a provision that makes illegal the gaining of access to a covered facility by lying.
Conversely, the court held that the employment provision of the law (knowingly making a false statement to obtain employment) violated the First Amendment because the law was not limited to false claims that were made to gain an offer of employment. Instead, the provision provided for prosecution of persons who made false statements that were incapable of influencing an offer of employment. A prohibition on immaterial falsehoods was not necessary to protect the State’s interest – such as false exaggerations made to impress the job interviewer. The court determined that barring only false statements that were material to a hiring decision was a less restrictive means to achieve the State’s interest.
Note. The day before the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion concerning the Iowa law, it determined that plaintiffs challenging a comparable Arkansas law had standing the bring the case. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Vaught, 8 F.4th 714 (8th Cir. 2021). The court later denied a petition for rehearing. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Vaught, No. 20-1538, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27712 (8th Cir. Sept. 15, 2021).
In late 2019, the plaintiffs in the Iowa case file suit to enjoin the second version of the Iowa law – Iowa Code §717A.3B. The trial court agreed and preliminary enjoined the revised law. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary judgment in early 2020 and the state filed a cross motion for summary judgment, and the case was continued while the appellate court was considering the case involving the initial version of the Iowa law. As noted above, the appellate court ultimately upheld the access provision but not the employment provision. The trial court, in the current case upheld the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the revised statutory language had been slightly modified, but was substantially similar to the initial version. As such, the trial court determined that the revised statute discriminated based on content and viewpoint and was unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny analysis. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, No. 4:19-cv-00124-SMR-HCA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48142 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 14, 2022).
Tenth Circuit. In Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Kelly, 9 F.4th 1219 (10th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, (U.S. Sup. Ct. Nov. 17, 2021), the court construed the Kansas provision that makes it a crime to take pictures or record videos at a covered facility “without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise.” The plaintiffs claimed that the law violated their First Amendment free speech rights. The State claimed that what was being barred was conduct rather than speech and that, therefore, the First Amendment didn’t apply. But, the court tied conduct together with speech to find a constitutional violation – it was necessary to lie to gain access to a covered facility and consent to film activities. As such, the law regulated protected speech (lying with intent to cause harm to a business) and was unconstitutional. The court determined that the State failed to prove that the law narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest in suppressing the “speech” involved. The dissent pointed out (correctly and consistently with the Eighth Circuit) that “lies uttered to obtain consent to enter the premises of an agricultural facility are not protected speech.” The First Amendment does not protect a fraudulently obtained consent to enter someone else’s property.
A Different Approach?
The appellate courts generally holding that the right to free speech protects false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest runs contrary to an established line of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, at least until the Court’s decision in United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012). See, e.g., Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964). The current split between the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits on the constitutionality of the Iowa Idaho and Kansas laws with respect to the issue of gaining access to a covered facility by lying could warrant a Supreme Court review.
Indiana trespass law. Short of a Supreme Court review of a state statute such as that of Iowa, Idaho or Kansas, is there another approach that a state might take to provide protection for agricultural livestock facilities? The state of Indiana’s approach might be the answer. In 2014, the Indiana legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law the “Indiana Trespass Law.” Ind. Code 35-43-2-2. Under the statute, “trespass” is defined as being on a property after being denied entry by the property owner, court order or by a posted sign (or purple paint). If the trespass involves a dwelling (including an ag operation), the landowner need not deny entry for a trespass to be established. The law also sets various thresholds for criminal violations.
The Indiana law appears to base property entry on the legal property interest of that of a license. A license is a term that covers a wide range of permissive land uses which, unless permitted, would be trespasses. For example, a hunter who is on the premises with permission is a licensee. The hunter has a license for the limited purpose of hunting only. If the hunter were to videotape any activity on the premises, that would constitute a trespass as exceeding the scope of the license. An unlawful entry. This would be the same result for a farm employee. Video recording would be outside the scope of employment. By focusing on the property interest of a license and that of a trespass for unauthorized entry, a claim of a possible free speech violation is eliminated.
Hiring Practices
In light of activists that wish to harm animal agriculture, ag animal facilities should utilize common sense steps to minimize potential problems. Of course, not mistreating animals should always be the standard. Proper hiring practices are also very important. A well drafted employment agreement should be used for workers hired to work in an ag animal facility to help screen potential hires. The agreement should specify in detail the job requirements and what is not permitted to occur on the premises and inside buildings. The agreement should give the employer the right to search every employee for devices that could be used to record activities on the farm and in farm buildings. Also, employee training should be provided and documented. Also, it’s critical that employee conduct be closely monitored to ensure that employees are acting within the scope of their employment and that animals are being treated appropriately.
Conclusion
It’s unfortunate that groups exist dedicated to damage and/or eliminate certain aspects of animal agriculture, and that they will use lies and deception to become employed and gain access. But, until state law is drafted in a way that will be found constitutional, livestock operations must adopt hiring and business practices that will minimize potential harm.
March 21, 2022 in Civil Liabilities, Criminal Liabilities, Real Property, Regulatory Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, December 3, 2021
Recent Court Decisions of Interest
Overview
I always find it amazing how often legal issues present themselves for farmers and ranchers. In 30 years of being involved in issues involving agricultural law and taxation, I have never had a shortage of client issues to deal with or matters to write or speak about. It literally has been non-stop.
As usual, the courts continue to issue opinions involving farmers and ranchers and tax matters of importance to an even broader set of taxpayers. In today’s post, I highlight just a few of the recent ones.
Recent court opinions involving agricultural law and taxation – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Farmer’s Marijuana and Firearm Conviction Upheld
United States v. Lundy, No. 20-6323, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33551 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2021)
After receiving a complaint that the defendant was growing cannabis on his property, state police officers investigated the property and found a large crop of cannabis plants, growing equipment, hundreds of pounds of processed cannabis with levels of THC meeting the standard for a controlled substance. The defendant had a past criminal history and unauthorized firearms were also found in his possession. The defendant had also been denied an application for a hemp license the previous year due to his criminal history involving marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
While being interviewed by police, the defendant emphasized that the marijuana on the property was for personal use and not for sale, though he admitted to giving marijuana away. He claimed that the firearms were for protecting his farm from nuisance animals and self-protection. Also at this interview, the defendant offered to smoke marijuana with the police officer conducting the interview. The defendant was arrested, charged with possession of a firearm by a user of controlled substances and ultimately sentenced to 46 months imprisonment.
The defendant appealed his conviction, claiming that the government failed to prove that he knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm, and that the government failed to prove that he knew he was possessing and manufacturing marijuana. To sustain a conviction, the government bears the burden to prove that the defendant took drugs with regularity, over an extended period of time, and contemporaneously with his purchase or possession of a firearm. The defendant claimed that because he thought he was using hemp, the government failed to prove that he knew he used a controlled substance. In refuting the defendant’s claim, the government presented evidence of the defendant’s substance use, including prior testimony by the defendant about his use of marijuana throughout his entire adult life, testimony that he smokes pounds of marijuana a year, findings from the search of his property, testimony that the marijuana found was for personal use, the man’s offer to smoke marijuana with the police officer, and urine and hair samples that tested positive for high levels of THC. The court upheld the defendant’s conviction on the basis that there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant used marijuana with regularity and at the same time as his possession of firearms.
Note: Lundy clearly went, as the songwriter in the 1970s put it, “one toke over the line…”.
Rerouting of Irrigation Ditches Not a Taking
Ministerio Roca Solida_ Inc. v. United States, No. 16-826L, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2277 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 25, 2021)
The federal government has the right of eminent domain. In other words, it can take your property if it wants to. But, under the Constitution, a taking must be for a public purpose and the government must pay “just compensation” for what it takes.
In this case, a ministry owned a forty-acre parcel of land, which included a church camp, located within the boundaries of a national refuge. The refuge is home to many native plants and animals, including certain endemic species of fish that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) committed to protecting beginning in 1995. The USFWS’s protection plan included filling in irrigation ditches to return spring waters back to their historic paths. As a result of this plan, the ministry’s church camp was washed away in a series of floods caused by heavy rainfall. Camp buildings, access ways, and other improvements were swept away. The ministry alleged that construction of the spring water restoration channel caused the destructive flooding and constituted a total physical taking of its property, for which it was entitled to just compensation. Repairs were estimated at a cost of over $200.000.
While it is well-established that government-induced flooding of property can constitute a compensable taking for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, the court found that the ministry did not meet its burden of proving that the government’s construction of the restoration channel caused the flooding that occurred. The refuge had a long history of flooding, which was demonstrated by historical satellite images and expert testimony. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency had designated the ministry’s property as a high-risk flood zone, and informed it of floodplain ordinances requiring that buildings in flood zones be elevated or flood-proofed and anchored. Upon receiving this information, the ministry took no actions to bring itself into compliance with the ordinances. Consequently, the weight of the evidence showed that the flooding of the church camp would have occurred regardless of whether the restoration channel was built.
Farmers Detrimentally Relied on Crop Supply Salesman to Check Crops
Dettenhaim Farms, Inc. v. Greenpoint Ag, LLC, et al., No. 54,162-CA, 2021 La. App. LEXIS 1729 (La. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2021)
The plaintiff corporation is a tenant farmer. Over a period of at least 25 years, a close friend would check the corporation’s crops for stinkbugs. The friend became employed by the defendant and continued checking the plaintiff’s crops for stinkbugs. Eventually, confusion over the corporation’s credit account arose and the defendant’s location manager told the friend that he should tell the plaintiff’s owner and his father that they probably needed to find somewhere else to do business. The manager also told the friend that the friend might not need to go back to the plaintiff’s fields. The friend never communicated this to farmers, and neither did anyone with the defendant. The manager did have a phone conversation with the farmers and thought they knew what he meant, but never told the farmers that the friend would no longer be checking their fields. In late summer, the farmers discovered that their soybean fields had not been checked and that, by then, stinkbugs had caused major damage to the crop.
Upon harvest, yield was dramatically reduced. The plaintiff sued the defendants after harvest for lost profit and also alleged that a different crop consultant could have been found if the friend and/or the defendants had given timely notice that crop consulting services had stopped. The plaintiff’s petition was later amended to add an allegation that the reduced soybean yield caused a premature sale of a cattle herd in order to compensate for the lack of revenue from the sale of harvested crops. The trial court heard testimony from various experts as to economic loss, and concluded that the plaintiff justifiably relied to its detriment on the defendants to advise concerning the products to use on the plaintiff’s fields and when to apply them. That justifiable reliance, the trial court concluded, caused the plaintiff to change position to its detriment. The trial court also determined that the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff and failed to conform to that duty resulting in substantial crop damage which could have been avoided if the defendants had inspected the crops.
As to damages, the trial court accepted the methodology of a CPA that examined yield on nearby farms and concluded that the plaintiff sustained damages of $246,334, The trial court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by waiting at least two weeks to spray for stinkbugs after discovering the infestation. At the time of discovery of the stinkbug problem, the trial court determined, the crop damage had already occurred and the second wave of bugs didn’t arrive until two weeks later. However, the trial court, rejected the plaintiff’s claim that it was forced to sell 600 head of cattle to pay down debt because of the lost crop revenue. The trial court also rejected an emotional distress claim.
On appeal, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding of causation of damages to the soybean crop by the defendants. On the damages issue, the appellate court reduced the award to $148,946 based on the best historical yields over a five-year span rather than the yield from nearby field in 2016 (the year of the crop loss) based on the standard for calculating damages set forth in Aultman v. Rinicker, 416 So. 2d 641 (La. Ct. App. 1982). The appellate court also determined that, based on the evidence, the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages and, as a result, reduced the damage award further to $134,051.
No Deduction For Excess Rent – Bad Valuation
Plentywood Drug, Inc., et al. v. Comr., T.C. Memo. 2021-45
The petitioner, a drug store in a rural town in northeast Montana, claimed rent deduction for the main floor of the building it rented. The petitioner estimated the value of the main floor at $25 per square foot. Upon audit, the IRS rejected the petitioner’s valuation and pegged the value at $7.17 per square foot. The Tax Court rejected both valuations and determined that the rental value was $15.90 per square foot. As a result, the petitioner couldn’t claim approximately $40,000 in deductions attributable to “excess” rent. In addition, the rents paid exceeding the $15.90 per square foot threshold were non-deductible constructive dividends to the building owners. The Tax Court also rejected the IRS imposition of penalties under I.R.C. §6662. The Tax Court noted that real estate data are not publicly available in Montana which complicates efforts to appraise property values and reasonable rents.
EIP Not Exempt From Garnishment
United States v. Ruiz, No. EP-19-CR-03035(1)-DCG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217327 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2021)
The plaintiff was sentenced to five years in prison with five years of supervised release and ordered to pay restitution in early 2021. As of August of 2021, the plaintiff still owed the full amount. The government moved to garnish his bank account containing $3,982.23. The plaintiff claimed that $1,700 contained in the bank account was from a stimulus payment (“Economic Impact Payment”) paid under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") and was exempt from garnishment as an unemployment benefit to provide relief from “economic challenges” faced as a result of the virus. The court noted that the statutory language providing for the payment classified it as a “recovery rebate” taking the form of a tax credit, and did not refer to it as an “unemployment” benefit. It was not conditioned on the lack of employment. The court held that the payment was also not properly classified as unemployment insurance, but was separate and distinct from unemployment insurance. Accordingly, the payment was not protected from garnishment under 18 U.S.C. §3613(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. §6334.
December 3, 2021 in Contracts, Criminal Liabilities, Income Tax, Regulatory Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, September 20, 2021
Estate Planning to Protect Assets From Creditors – Dancing On the Line Between Legitimacy and Fraud
Overview
According to the U.S. Financial Education Foundation, it is estimated that over 40 million lawsuits are filed annually. Thus, for some persons, including farmers and ranchers, an important aspect of estate and business planning is asset protection. The goal of asset protection planning is to protect property from claims of creditors by restructuring asset ownership to limit liability risk in the event of a lawsuit. Done correctly the restructuring creates a degree of separation between the assets and their owner to properly shelter them from creditors.
A significant key to asset protection planning is timing. Once a lawsuit has been filed or is a substantial certainty to be filed with an anticipated adverse outcome for a client, it’s too late to start utilizing legal strategies to shelter assets from potential creditors. Civil and criminal liability is possible for all parties involved as well as malpractice liability for related ethical violations. A recent case illustrates the point.
Considerations when engaging in asset protection – it’s the topic of today’s post.
The Attempt To Shield an Iowa Farm From Creditors – Recent Case
Facts of the case. A recent federal court case from Iowa illustrates the serious problems that can result for parties and their professional counsel that engage in asset protection if not done properly. Kruse v. Repp, No. 4:19-cv-00106-SMR-SBJ, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114013 (S.D. Iowa Jun. 15, 2021), involves three interrelated lawsuits. The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident, which left her in need of 24-hour care likely for the rest of her life. The accident was Weller’s fault and, due to his experience as an insurance agent, he knew he would face a large claim for the plaintiff’s injuries. Weller told family members he feared losing the family farm as a result of the impending lawsuit. After determining his liability exposure exceeded his insurance coverage, he sought legal counsel to help him shelter the assets from a potential claim. Based on the initial legal advice he received, less than two months after the accident Weller transferred the farm and other assets into a revocable trust and made several cash transfers to family members exceeding $100,000. He notified the defendant bank that he had recently been found at-fault in a major motor vehicle accident and that he faced liability exposure that exceeded his insurance coverage. However, the bank began working with him to weaken the appearance of his financial condition.
After leaving his previous attorney when settlement negotiations broke down, Weller met the defendant attorney (Repp) two months before the personal injury trial was set to begin. Repp holds himself out having a practice focusing on estate planning and that he “counsels and advises clients with respect to the management of their wealth to minimize estate and inheritance taxes through the use of asset protection trusts.” Weller later testified at trial that he told Repp of his previous attempts to shield himself from judgment by transferring his assets to a revocable trust and making cash "gifts." To this end, Weller testified he went to Repp specifically because Repp holds himself out as an "asset protection attorney." Repp told Weller that his previous attorney had given bad legal advice and that the cash gifts were inappropriate transfers of wealth. Repp then created an LLC and had Weller transfer the farm to the LLC by quitclaim deed to protect it from the anticipated personal injury judgment. The deed was accompanied with a trustee’s affidavit that Repp prepared and notarized stating that the Trust was conveying the real estate "free and clear of any adverse claim." This transaction was completed approximately one month before trial in the personal injury case was scheduled to begin.
State court judgment. The plaintiff was awarded approximately $2,557,100 million in damages in the personal injury lawsuit. Judgment was entered on May 1, 2015. In early 2016, Repp helped Weller prepare a financial statement reporting the value of the farmland as an LLC asset. The bank helped Weller refinance mortgages on the farm, which listed the farm as Weller’s personal asset, and issued promissory notes that were secured by the mortgage. This led to the plaintiff suing Weller on March 3,2016, for fraudulent transfers intended to shield Weller’s assets from the personal injury judgment. The state trial court determined that the LLC was formed with the intent to shield Weller’s assets from the plaintiff levying her judgment lien against his real estate. The state trial court, on March 13, 2018, found in the plaintiff’s favor and held that all assets of the LLC remained available to the plaintiff for satisfaction of the judgment.
Claims for personal liability and removal to federal court. The plaintiff sued the bank and Repp in early 2019, alleging that they both knowingly participated in Weller’s fraudulent attempts to shield his assets from the plaintiff’s judgment. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that fraudulent transfers had been made under state law; that the defendants conducted or otherwise participated in the conduct of a racketeering enterprise with the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff; and that the defendants tortiously interfered with her ability to collect the personal injury award. The defendants removed the case to federal court and claimed that the undisputed facts entitled them to judgment as a matter of law on various claims. The federal court largely denied the defendants’ claims in early 2020, and the case proceeded.
Under the fraudulent transfer state law claim, the defendants argued that the plaintiff could not prove that they knew of Weller’s fraudulent intent or that they helped in his scheme to shield his assets from the plaintiff’s judgment. The court strongly disagreed pointing to Weller’s disclosures to the bank that he was at fault in a major motor vehicle accident and the bank’s subsequent dealings. The trial court also noted that the bank allowed Weller to inconsistently classify the farm as both a personal and LLC asset. The court determined a factfinder could reasonably infer that the bank had knowledge of Weller’s intent to defraud the plaintiff. The bank argued that the plaintiff did not show prejudice by reason of priority in interest. The court noted that the bank’s argument was based on a false premise, and that prejudice may be shown if a debtor encumbers property to create the appearance of over-securitization. Thus, the court determined that because critical questions existed concerning the effect of Weller’s refinancing with the bank, summary judgment under the fraudulent transfer claim was precluded.
RICO claim. The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) provides for criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. 18 U.S.C. §§1861-1868. Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" within a 10-year period can be charged with “racketeering” if the acts are related in a specified manner to an "enterprise." Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. 18 U.S.C. §924; §1963. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise." There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: (1) either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise; (2) the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; (3) the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity; or (4) the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the first three. 18 U.S.C. §1962(a)-(d). In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers. See National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994). RICO also allows for the recovery of damages that are triple the amount of the actual or compensatory damages.
Repp claimed that there was no common purpose among himself and Weller to constitute an associated in-fact enterprise, and if there was, that the enterprise required a common purpose that is fraudulent, illicit, or unlawful. He asserted that these elements did not exist. The court disagreed, expressing disbelief at the assertions, and noted that RICO liability is extended to those who play some role in directing the group to further its shared goals, unlawful or not, so long as those goals are carried out through a pattern of criminal behavior.
The court stated as follows:
“They nevertheless prepared legal documents transferring his [Weller’s] property to a corporate form that posed significant barriers to any recovery by Kruse, assisted Weller in the creation of financial statements that painted an inaccurate picture of Weller's finances, and defended the legality of the conveyances in court. In both cases, the facts are sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Defendants tacitly agreed to participate in Weller's scheme to defraud Kruse and conspired to further the purpose of a RICO enterprise.”
Thus, the court determined that sufficient evidence existed for a fact-finder to possibly infer that Weller, Repp and the bank shared an unlawful purpose to shield Weller’s assets from the plaintiff’s looming judgment.
The court further stated:
“…Repp changed the course of the effort to defraud Kruse and "joined in a collaborative undertaking with the objective of releasing [Weller] from the financial encumbrance visited upon him by [Kruse]'s judgment."… Reversing the mechanisms put in place by Weller's prior attorney, Repp organized Weller Farms, filed a trustee's affidavit that ignored Kruse's unliquidated tort claim, directed Weller to execute a quit claim deed conveying his real estate to the entity, and assisted Weller in preparing financial statements that embedded multiple "ambiguities" that devalued Weller's financial picture during settlement negotiations. [Repp} then defended the transactions in the fraudulent transfer action, devising a legal strategy in an attempt to persuade the state court to validate the transactions. In essence, Repp agreed Weller's previous efforts were inappropriate. All of his advice that followed was consistent with the expertise in asset protection that Repp, not Weller, possessed.”
The defendants also claimed that there was no pattern of racketeering activity and that they had not directed the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs. The court disagreed, noting that the evidence of three years’ worth of communications led to a reasonable inference that a pattern of racketeering existed. Repp also asserted that he provided nothing more than ordinary legal services such that his conduct played no part in directing the affairs of Weller or the LLC. The court again disagreed and determined that factual issues remained concerning whether Repp played some part in directing the affairs of Weller’s fraudulent scheme.
The court lastly noted that for liability to arise from a RICO conspiracy, the plaintiff only needs to establish a tacit understanding between the defendants for conspirators to be liable for the acts of their co-conspirators. The defendants argued they did not know the full extent of Weller’s fraudulent scheme and were mere scriveners of information provided by him. The court disagreed, stating as follows:
“They claim he was a mere scrivener of information provided by Weller and intended only to assist Weller in setting up a farming entity by which to bring his son into the family business. That characterization, in light of the circumstances surrounding his [Repp’s] relationship with Weller, present genuine factual issues and credibility determinations on whether Repp played "some part" in directing the affairs of Weller's fraudulent scheme and require a jury to resolve.”
The trial court determined there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of or were willfully blind to the scope of the RICO enterprise. Therefore, the trial court denied summary judgment on the RICO charges and determined the defendants’ position was a question for the jury.
Tortious interference with economic expectancy. On the common law tortious interference claim, the defendants argued that the Iowa Supreme Court had not yet recognized tortious interference with an economic expectancy as a cause of action. The Second Restatement of Torts describes this action as, “one who intentionally deprives another of his legally protected property interest or causes injury to the interest.” Second Restatement of Torts §871. A party that does this is subject to liability if the party’s conduct is generally culpable and not justifiable under the circumstances. The court determined that although the Iowa Supreme Court had not yet considered this issue, it would likely recognize this tort as a prima facie tort in the context of fraudulent financial practices.
Repp argued that the plaintiff failed to show that his predominant intent in forming the LLC was to injure the plaintiff’s property interest. However, the court noted that the majority rule governing a prima facie tort does not require that the defendant be motivated predominantly to injure the plaintiff. The court pointed out that the facts led to a reasonable inference that Repp knew the transfer of Weller’s assets to the LLC would interfere with the plaintiff’s collection efforts. The bank made a similar argument, which the court rejected, resulting in summary judgment on the tortious interference claim being denied. Thus, the jury will need to determine whether the defendants were more than mere scriveners, and thus subject to tort liability.
Note: It’s important to remember that the case was positioned on a motion for summary judgment. That’s a fairly low hurdle for the plaintiff to clear, especially when the evidence on such a motion is viewed in the light most favorably to the non-moving party (the plaintiff in the Iowa case).
Ethical Considerations
The asset protection legal field is fraught with ethical “landmines” for attorneys. I asked Prof. Shawn Leisinger, Associate Dean for Centers and External Programs at Washburn University School of Law to comment on some of the possible ethical issues involved in the Iowa case. Shawn teaches ethics at the law school and also sometimes makes ethics presentations at my events around the country. The following comments are his.
It is fairly well settled that attorneys generally, and certainly attorneys who specialize in taxation issues, may advise clients in the area of “tax avoidance” but must not have that same advice go over the line into “tax evasion.” This concept frames the ethical guidelines that attorneys must consider when they work with their clients on asset ownership structuring, whether for tax or liability purposes. In the Iowa case, a fairly common business entity formation asset protection tactic arguably stepped over the line that falls in that gray area between avoidance and evasion.
While each state has its own version of ethical rules that the attorneys licensed their must follow, these rules generally incorporate or adapt what are known as the Model Rules of Professional Conduct promulgated by the American Bar Association. In the case at hand a number of these rules would warrant consideration but we only touch on a few of those that apply most directly here.
MRPC Rule 2.1: Advisor. Under this rule, attorneys are deemed to be counselors who are advised, “In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.” This rule is arguably permissive and would suggest that Repp should have had a candid conversation with the client about the steps being taken to protect the client’s assets and the risks and realities of those steps. We are not privy to the private conversations that occurred in this case, however.
MRPC Rule 8.4: Misconduct. This rule sets forth the specific definitions of attorney misconduct that in turn warrant and could support attorney discipline under the rules. The rule provides, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: … (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; …”.
While the “criminal act” under (b) might seem a higher bar to hit in the asset planning realm, as one reads the facts of the Iowa case it is fairly easy to conclude that the multiple steps taken by and with multiple parties to try to shelter the assets noted, and the continuing interaction with the bankers and others involved in the property transfers, hit either the disjunctive “dishonesty” or “misrepresentation” standards in section (c). I note section (d) as well due to the fact that in many of these kinds of cases a court may well conclude that the catch-all of “acts prejudicial to the administration of justice” certainly must define the actions if one might argue the other provisions do not fit.
From an ethical perspective one should also know that attorneys have an obligation to report unethical conduct of other attorneys under the rules. Rule 8.3 provides, “A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rule of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority”.
An important point to remember is that the ethical perspective on these cases is largely fact specific and subject to argument and interpretation of when and how that gray line may have been crossed.
Conclusion
To put the Iowa case in perspective and provide further guidance for others engaged in asset protection strategies, I asked Timothy P. O’Sullivan, a partner in Foulston Siefkin LLP, a law firm in Wichita, Kansas to comment. Among other things, Tim is a Fellow in the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and is an adjunct professor of law at Washburn University School of Law. The following comments are his.
This Iowa decision puts into stark relief the personal and professional exposure asset protection attorneys may have when advising clients of estate planning techniques to protect their assets from creditor claims. Most estate planning attorneys whose practice extends into this area have given thought, but often not enough, to the possibility that they can be held in violation of attorney professional conduct rules by participating in or structuring a transaction that is a fraudulent conveyance by their clients, as well as risk possible personal liability for damages by an aggrieved creditor. Although there does not appear to be more than a modicum of cases to date imposing such liability against assisting third parties, such exposure is nonetheless present. The exposure may derive from a state’s version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which has been enacted in the vast majority of states, which otherwise would not have included a remedy against a third party involved in the transaction.
As noted in the Iowa case, other potential legal authority for imposing personal liability rests more solidly and broadly under the federal RICO Act as an alleged “civil conspiracy,” or (as the court also noted) an actionable tort by an aggrieved creditor under the Second Restatement of Torts for assisting in the fraudulent act. These principles extend well beyond applicable state law.
The potential liability of estate planning professionals generally requires not only that the creditor incur damages as a result, but also actual knowledge as to the principal purpose of the estate planning device used, and that the client had a debt (which need not be liquidated) the satisfaction of which would be avoided, delayed, or hindered by the implementation of a specific asset protection plan. The plan could be as simple as gifting assets away or it could be a plan to make the claim more arduous or unlikely to be satisfied, such as putting exposed non-exempt assets in an LLC or restructuring debt to the detriment of a claim by a creditor. All three of these strategies were present in the Iowa case. As noted by the court, there is no defense against the personal liability of an attorney that the attorney was a mere scrivener of his client’s plan if the attorney is assisting in implementing a strategy that the attorney knows to be fraudulent.
For professionals engaging in asset protection strategies, there can be no more important prophylactic measure against professional liability exposure than gaining sufficient knowledge of the client, the client’s assets and liabilities, and most importantly, determining ab initio whether the client is seeking advice as protection against a specific currently existing, or problematic current creditor. Perhaps the client is simply desiring to protect against potential future creditors in general due to the nature of the client’s assets or personal, business or professional activities. If so, asset protection planning is entirely appropriate. But, determining the client’s purposes up-front is a must.
The use of detailed salient client questionnaires and requisite financial statements that gather complete and relevant legal and financial information from clients is most desirable. Checking clients’ references and gleaning knowledge of a client’s background can also serve as valuable indicia in determining a client’s honesty and intent in seeking asset protection advice. In all events, the attorney’s engagement letter should make it clear that the attorney is relying on the accuracy of the client’s disclosures and submitted information in recommending or implementing any asset protection plan and further clearly stating that the attorney will not participate, or continue to represent the client, in any plan that might constitute a fraudulent transfer.
Although the Iowa case involved a decision that denied summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the court’s analysis of the legal underpinnings make it quite evident as to the third-party liability exposure of the defendants, including not only the debtor’s attorneys involved in setting up the LLC, but also the debtor’s bank in favorably restructuring the debtor’s debt to the creditors’ disadvantage, should the factual assertions of the plaintiffs be proven at trial.
September 20, 2021 in Business Planning, Criminal Liabilities, Estate Planning | 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)
Monday, April 19, 2021
Ag Law and Taxation - 2016 Bibliography
Overview
Today's post is a bibliography of my ag law and tax blog articles of 2016. Earlier this year I have provided bibliographies for you of my blog articles for 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017. This now completes the bibliographies since I began the blog in July of 2016. At the end of 2021, I will post a lengthy blog article of all of the articles published through that timeframe.
The 2016 bibliography of articles – it’s the subject matter of today’s post.
BUSINESS PLANNING
Treasury Attacks Estate and Entity Planning Techniques With Proposed Valuation Regulations
Using an LLC to Reduce S.E Tax and the NIIT
IRS Audit Issue – S Corporation Reasonable Compensation
Rents Are Passive, But They Can Be Recharacterized - And Grouped (Sometimes)
Tribute To Orville Bloethe
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/12/tribute-to-orville-bloethe.html
CIVIL LIABILITIES
Registration of a Pesticide Doesn't Mean It Might Not Be Misbranded
Death of Livestock In Blizzard Was a Covered Loss by “Drowning”
FIFRA Pre-Emption of Pesticide Damage Claims
Agritourism Acts, Zoning Issues and Landowner Liability
The “Agriculture” Exemption From The Requirement To Pay Overtime Wages
The Scope and Effect of Equine Liability Acts
What’s a Rural Landowner’s Responsibility Concerning Crops, Trees and Vegetation Near an Intersection?
CONTRACTS
Some Thoughts on Production Contracts
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/10/some-thoughts-on-production-contracts.html
CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
Prison Sentences Upheld For Egg Company Executives Even Though Government Conceded They Had No Knowledge of Salmonella Contamination.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Registration of a Pesticide Doesn't Mean It Might Not Be Misbranded
FIFRA Pre-Emption of Pesticide Damage Claims
Air Emissions, CWA and CERCLA
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/08/air-emissions-cwa-and-cercla.html
Are Seeds Coated With Insecticides Exempt From FIFRA Regulation?
ESTATE PLANNING
The Situs of a Trust Can Make a Tax Difference
Treasury Attacks Estate and Entity Planning Techniques With Proposed Valuation Regulations
Common Estate Planning Mistakes of Farmers
Staying on the Farm With the Help of In-Home Care
Including Property in the Gross Estate to Get a Basis Step-Up
Farm Valuation Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/10/farm-valuation-issues.html
The Future of the Federal Estate Tax and Implications for Estate Planning
Tribute To Orville Bloethe
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/12/tribute-to-orville-bloethe.html
INCOME TAX
House Ways and Means Committee Has A Blueprint For Tax Proposals - Implications For Agriculture
In Attempt To Deny Oil and Gas-Related Deductions, IRS Reads Language Into the Code That Isn’t There – Tax Court Not Biting
IRS Does Double-Back Layout on Self-Employment Tax
S.E. Tax on Passive Investment Income; Election Out of Subchapter K Doesn’t Change Entity’s Nature; and IRS Can Change Its Mind
Handling Depreciation on Asset Trades
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/08/handling-depreciation-on-asset-trades.html
Claiming “Bonus” Depreciation on Plants
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/08/claiming-bonus-depreciation-on-plants.html
Proper Reporting of Crop Insurance Proceeds
Permanent Conservation Easement Donation Opportunities and Perils
Sales By Farmers/Rural Landowners Generate Common Questions
Expense Method Depreciation - Great Tax Planning Opportunities On Amended Returns
The DPAD and Agriculture
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/10/the-dpad-and-agriculture.html
Donating Food Inventory to a Qualified Charity - New Opportunity for Farmers
Farm Valuation Issues
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/10/farm-valuation-issues.html
Treatment of Farming Casualty and Theft Losses
More on Handling Farm Losses
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/11/more-on-handling-farm-losses.html
Selected Tax Issues For Rural Landowners Associated With Easement Payments
Are You A Farmer? It Depends!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/11/are-you-a-farmer-it-depends.html
Rents Are Passive, But They Can Be Recharacterized - And Grouped (Sometimes)
It’s Fall and Time to “Hoop it Up”!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/11/its-fall-and-time-to-hoop-it-up.html
Utilizing the Home Sale Exclusion When Selling the Farm
Farmland Acquisition – Allocation of Value to Depreciable Items
Tribute To Orville Bloethe
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/12/tribute-to-orville-bloethe.html
IRS Continues (Unsuccessfully) Attack on Cash Accounting By Farmers
The Uniform Capitalization Rules and Agriculture
The Non-Corporate Lessor Rule – A Potential Trap In Expense Method Depreciation
REAL PROPERTY
Texas Mineral Estates, Groundwater Rights, Surface Usage and the “Accommodation Doctrine”
So You Want To Buy Farmland? Things to Consider
What’s the Character of the Gain From the Sale of Farm or Ranch Land?
Utilizing the Home Sale Exclusion When Selling the Farm
REGULATORY LAW
New Food Safety Rules Soon to Apply to Farmers and Others In the Food Production Chain
New Regulations on Marketing of Livestock and Poultry
The Future of Ag Policy Under Trump
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/11/the-future-of-ag-policy-under-trump.html
Verifying Employment – New Form I-9; The Requirements and Potential Problem Areas
SECURED TRANSACTIONS
Feedlot Has Superior Rights to Cattle Sale Proceeds
WATER LAW
Watercourses and Boundary Lines
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/agriculturallaw/2016/11/watercourses-and-boundary-lines.html
April 19, 2021 in Business Planning, Civil Liabilities, Contracts, Criminal Liabilities, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Income Tax, Real Property, Regulatory Law, Secured Transactions, Water Law | 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)
