by: Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, ANR
2019 is upon us and you may be meeting soon with your lender to discuss financial needs for the year. We all know agriculture is suffering from poor economic conditions – and the outlook for many sectors of the industry doesn’t look real promising. A variety of factors are forcing lenders to be more critical of loan applications. Let’s review a few things you can do to assist your lender as they review your loan application.
A year-end Balance Sheet is very helpful and provides a snapshot of the assets, liabilities, and net worth of your farm. Get in the habit of completing one each year for your lender to keep on file and for your own reference so you can monitor changes over time. You can get a blank balance sheet from your lender or access one here: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management-tools/farm-management-resources.
Cost of Production:
Know your cost of production. What does it cost you to produce 100 pounds of milk? What is your per acre or per ton cost to grow and harvest crops? If you need assistance with determining these, please see: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/ for copies of Ohio State University Extension production budgets and https://farmprofitability.osu.edu/business-summariesfor copies of the Ohio Farm Business Summaries.
Why are you requesting money from your lender? What is your goal(s)? What are you hoping to accomplish with the money you are requesting? Will you use the money as an operating loan to plant your crops? Are you planning an expansion? Are you wanting to consolidate existing debt? Regardless of the reason, your lender is going to need to know how you plan to repay the loan. A budget and cash flow projections will help everyone understand how the money will be used and how it will be repaid. Research has proven that you are more likely to accomplish your goals if they are written. Be sure your goals are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Rewarding, and Timed (SMART). See this Ohio State University Extension fact sheet for information about writing SMART goals: https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/node/767.
Your lender may request copies of your tax returns. Make sure you categorize income and expenses the same way each year. This allows the lender to compare apples-to-apples when evaluating your historic income and expenses. Also, if you pre-pay expenses or defer income, make sure your lender is aware of this so they can make accrual adjustments.
Communication with your lender is critical. Your lender is interested in understanding your farm, knowing how you are progressing, and what your plans are for the short and long-term. Invite your lender to visit the farm for a tour, a ride in the tractor, or to assist with milking!
Every lender would love to see each client have a written business plan. A business plan is made up of five parts: Executive Summary, Description, Operations, Marketing Plan, and Financial Plan. The University of Minnesota Extension has a template available at the following site: https://agplan.umn.edu/.
Summary: The items discussed in this article are ones you can control. Focus on these areas and make adjustments accordingly to make improvements. Contact the Knox County Extension Office for assistance.
by: Barry Ward, Director, OSU Income Tax Schools & Leader, Production Business Management
The new tax law known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was signed into law on December 22, 2017 and will affect income tax returns for all of us for 2018 (to be filed in the next few months). The headline pieces of the new tax law include new tax brackets, higher standard deductions, elimination of personal exemptions and a new corporate flat tax rate of 21%. This will amount to lower total federal income tax for the large majority of taxpayers and C-corporations. Parts of the new tax law will make tax preparation simpler while parts will add complexity to the process.
With the new lower tax rate for corporations (specifically C-corporations) of 21% (a flat 21% rate) this replaces the old graduated tax brackets for C-corporations that started at 15% and topped out at 35%. The new lower tax rate for C-corporations may have created a decidedly uneven playing field if the new tax law hadn’t included a new deduction for all other businesses. This new Qualified Business Income Deduction (QBID) (sometimes referred to as the Pass-Through Deduction) is a 20% deduction of a businesses’ Qualified Business Income (QBI). Without this, businesses across the U.S. would have been strongly considering a change to a C-Corp structure for income tax purposes. With this QBID, the playing field between the different tax entities is mostly re-leveled. There may be inequalities that show up with the new tax law as it relates to business entity selection but it may take some time for these inequalities to reveal themselves.
Chris Zoller, Extension Educator
Revised Recovery Period for Farm Machinery & Equipment
Under the TCJA, new farm equipment and machinery placed in service after December 31, 2017, is classified as 5-year MACRS property. Previously, machinery and equipment was classified as 7-year MACRS property. These assets must be used in a farming business. Equipment used in contract harvesting of a crop by another tax payer is not included in the business of farming.
Used equipment is still classified as 7-year MACRS property. The Alternative Depreciation System (ADS) for all farm machinery and equipment, new and used, is 10 years. Grain bins and fences are still 7-year MACRS property with a 10-year ADS life.
Farm Equipment Purchase Example:
Bill Brown purchased a new combine on September 28, 2017. In May 2018, he purchased a new tractor and used tillage tool. In August 2018, Bill constructed a new fence and in September he constructed a new grain bin. These assets are MACRS recovery classes:
New combine (2017) 7-year
New tractor (2018) 5-year
Used tillage tool 7-year
Fence (2018) 7-year
Grain bin (2018) 7-year
New Rules for Depreciation Methods
Assets placed in service after December 31, 2017, have depreciation rates increased to 200% Declining Balance (DB) for those farm assets in the 3, 5, 7, and 10-year MACRS recovery classes. Assets in the 15 and 20-year MACRS recovery classes are still limited to a maximum of 150% DB. Residential rental property and nonresidential real property continue to be limited to Straight Line (SL) depreciation.
Farm Equipment Depreciation Example:
Bill Brown paid $430,000 in 2017 for the new combine. He elected out of bonus depreciation and did not elect any Section 179 expense deduction. The half-year convention applies. Bill depreciates the combine over a 7-year MACRS recovery class using the 150% DB method. His depreciation is:
[($430,000/7) x 0.5 x 150%] = $46,071
What is the difference if Bill waited until 2018 to make the combine purchase?
[($430,000/5) x 200%) = $86,000
$86,000 – $46,071 = $39,929 more than if purchased in 2017
The increase in the rate of depreciation, combined with the shorter MACRS recovery class for new farm equipment and machinery, may generate more depreciation than needed. Taxpayers may choose to use the Straight Line (SL) method of depreciation and may also elect to use the 150% method. Both elections are made on a class-by-class basis each year. To further reduce the amount of depreciation, you may elect to use the ADS, which calculates depreciation using the SL method and lengthens the recovery period.
For additional information about this topic, contact your tax advisor or visit: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/new-rules-and-limitations-for-depreciation-and-expensing-under-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act.
Source: Ohio Agricultural Law Blog
The holiday season stands out as one of the most generous times of year as people give gifts to the people they love. What better way to get into the holiday spirit than to talk about the tax implications of your gifts? There are three shopping weekends left until December 25th, so here are three highlights about the federal gift tax that you should know:
1. The federal gift tax is assessed on the person who gives the gift, not the person who receives the gift.
An individual who gives a gift of cash or assets with a fair market value greater than $15,000 to any one person in a given year will have to report the gift(s) using IRS Form 709 when filing taxes for that year. These forms cannot be filed jointly, so if a married couple gives a gift that is worth more than $30,000 to any one person, both of them must file IRS Form 709 and report half of the value of the gift.
Form 709 requires a few pieces of information about the gift and who receives the gift. It asks for things like a description of the gift, the recipient’s name and address, when it was given, and its value. While documentation or receipts do not have to be submitted with Form 709, filers should keep records for themselves about the gift in case the IRS has questions.
The gift tax rates for 2018 range from 18 to 40 percent. The rates depend upon how much in excess of the $15,000 exclusion the gift is valued. For instance, a gift valued at $20,000 would have no taxes on the first $15,000, but the $5,000 over the $15,000 threshold would be subject to an 18 percent tax. The 40 percent rate applies to gifts valued at $1,015,000, or $1,000,000 over the $15,000 exclusion.
Fortunately for the recipient, the gift does not count as income to the recipient because the gift falls under the gift tax rules instead of the income tax rules. Continue reading
Source: USDA ERS
Net farm income, a broad measure of profits, is forecast to decrease $9.1 billion (12.1 percent) from 2017 to $66.3 billion in 2018, after increasing $13.8 billion (22.5 percent) in 2017. Net cash farm income is forecast to decrease $8.5 billion (8.4 percent) to $93.4 billion. In inflation-adjusted 2018 dollars, net farm income is forecast to decline $10.8 billion (14.1 percent) from 2017 after increasing $13.0 billion (20.2 percent) in 2017. If realized, inflation-adjusted net farm income would be 3.3 percent above its level in 2016, which was its lowest level since 2002.
[In the text below, year-to-year changes in the major aggregate components of farm income are discussed only in nominaldollars unless the direction of the change is reversed when looking at the component in inflation-adjusted dollars.]
Source: Evin Bachelor, Law Fellow, Agricultural and Resource Law Program
A landowner may present evidence regarding the value and acreage of his or her land, but the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) is free to weigh that evidence as it wishes, according to the Ohio Supreme Court. All seven justices agreed that the BTA in the case of Johnson v. Clark County Board of Revision acted with appropriate discretion, although two justices did not sign onto the reasoning as to why the BTA acted appropriately. The case involved a property owner’s challenge of the Clark County Auditor’s determination of Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) for property tax purposes.
by: Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, Ohio State University Extension
Production costs for Ohio field crops are forecast to be largely unchanged from last year with slightly higher fuel, fertilizer and interest expenses that will increase total costs for some growers. Variable costs for corn in Ohio for 2018 are projected to range from $359 to $452 per acre depending on land productivity.
Variable costs for 2018 Ohio soybeans are projected to range from $210 to $231 per acre. Wheat variable expenses for 2018 are projected to range from $179 to $219 per acre.
Returns will again be low to negative for many producers. Projected returns above variable costs (contribution margin) range from $175 to $348 per acre for corn and $192 to $371 per acre for soybeans. (This is assuming fall cash prices of $4 per bushel for corn and $10 per bushel for soybeans.) Projected returns above variable costs for wheat range from $135 to $249 per acre (assuming $5.20 per bushel summer cash price).
Returns to land for Ohio corn (Total receipts minus total costs except land cost) are projected to range from $23 to $182 per acre in 2018 depending on land production capabilities. Returns to land for Ohio soybeans are expected to range from $84 to $254 per acre depending on land production capabilities. Returns to land for wheat (not including straw or double-crop returns) are projected to range from $28 to $135 per acre.
Total costs projected for trend line corn production in Ohio are estimated to be $760 per acre. This includes all variable costs as well as fixed machinery, labor, management and land costs. Fixed machinery costs of $65 per acre include depreciation, interest, insurance and housing. A land charge of $192 per acre is based on data from the Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey Summary. Labor and management costs combined are calculated at $71 per acre. Returns Above Total Costs for trend line corn production are negative at -$93 per acre.
Total costs projected for trend line soybean production in Ohio are estimated to be $525 per acre. (Fixed machinery costs – $50 per acre, land charge: $192 per acre, labor and management costs combined: $48 per acre.) Returns Above Total Costs for trend line soybean production are also negative at -$23 per acre.
Total costs projected for trend line wheat production in Ohio are estimated to be $501 per acre. (Fixed machinery costs: $55 per acre, land charge: $192 per acre, labor and management costs combined: $42 per acre.) Returns Above Total Costs for trend line wheat production are also negative at -$110 per acre.
These projections are based on OSU Extension Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets. Newly updated Enterprise Budgets for 2018 have been completed and posted to the OSU Extension farmoffice website:
by: Peggy Kirk Hall, Asst. Professor, Agricultural & Resource Law
Amidst a great deal of controversy, President Trump signed the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018” on March 23. The omnibus $1.3 trillion spending package includes a number of provisions that affect agriculture, not all spending related. One glaring omission from the bill that agriculture wanted, however, was language allowing the EPA to withdraw the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Otherwise, the new law contains fixes and clarifications for several key legal issues agriculture has faced in the past year and funding for important agricultural programs.
Section 199A tax deduction revised
Sellers of grain who were hoping to capitalize on the IRC § 199A 20% gross sales deduction when selling grain to their cooperative will be disappointed that the spending bill has removed the deduction and that the removal is retroactive to January 1, 2018. Congress enacted new provisions that will address sales to cooperatives. According to my colleague and tax expert Kristine Tidgren at Iowa State, “the cooperative patron is subject to a new bifurcated calculation and a hybrid 199A deduction. Essentially, the fix gives the cooperative patron a deduction that blends the new 199A deduction with the old 199 DPAD deduction (all within the new 199A). Depending upon their individual situations, cooperative patrons may be advantaged, disadvantaged, or essentially treated the same by selling to a cooperative rather than selling to a non-cooperative.” Read more of Kristine’s analysis here.
Peggy Kirk Hall, Asst. Professor, Agricultural & Resource Law
Decisions announced in December by the Ohio Supreme Court will allow landowners to challenge Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) land values established by Ohio’s tax commissioner by appealing the values to the Board of Tax Appeals.
Twin rulings in cases filed by a group of owners of woodland enrolled in CAUV, Adams v. Testa, clarify that when the tax commissioner develops tables that propose CAUV values for different types of farmland, holds a public hearing on the values and adopts the final values by journal entry, the tax commissioner’s actions constitute a “final determination” that a landowner may immediately appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals. The Board of Tax Appeals had argued that the adoption of values is not a final determination and therefore is not one that a landowner may appeal to the Board.
The tax commissioner forwards the CAUV tables to the county auditors, who must use the values for a three year period. An inability to appeal the values when established by the tax commissioner would mean that a landowner must wait until individual CAUV tax values are calculated by the county auditor, who relies upon the tax commissioner’s values to calculate the county values. As a result of today’s decision, landowners may appeal the values as soon as the tax commissioner releases them.
The landowners also claimed that the process and rules for establishing the CAUV values are unreasonable and not legal. However, the Court rejected those claims.