Category: Farm Management

The Mid-South region of the United States (Eastern Arkansas, Northeastern Louisiana, Northwestern Mississippi, and Southeastern Missouri) is a highly productive and extremely homogeneous agricultural region. The region produces the same crops (corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans), uses relatively the same types of agricultural management practices, and is highly dependent on groundwater for irrigation from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer (Massey et al., 2017). Producers in the Mid-South also depend heavily on access to rented cropland. Purchasing enough cropland to be economically viable would require a significantly large capital investment. In addition, the market for cropland is thin and only a small fraction of cropland changes hands annually (Bigelow et al., 2016). Renting cropland provides crop producers with the flexibility to adjust their farm size as conditions warrant to achieve the scale of operation needed to remain economically competitive. Renting cropland also helps young crop producers with limited capital get started in farming.

Just how important is rented cropland in the Mid-South? Figure 1 presents harvested cropland in the Mid-South by tenure of the operator (full owners, part owners, full tenants) for the five agriculture census years 2002 through 2022 (USDA, NASS, 2024). Full owners operate only on land they own, while full tenants operate only on land rented from others. Part owners operate both land they own and land they rent from others. Hence, harvested cropland for part owners in Figure 1 is split between owned and rented cropland for each census year. The numbers in Figure 1 demonstrate the magnitude of importance that rented cropland plays in Mid-South agriculture. Significantly more cropland in the Mid-South is rented rather than owned, and dependence on rented cropland in the region has grown over time. Rented cropland by part owners in the Mid-South trended upward across the five census years, ranging from 4.1 million acres in 2002 to 5.1 million acres in 2022. A significant number of acres in the region are operated by full tenants, ranging from 3.6 million acres in 2022 to 4.4 million acres in 2012. In contrast, cropland operated by full owners trended downward for the region from 2.2 million acres in 2002 to 0.8 million acres in 2017 and 2022, while owned cropland operated by part owners remained relatively steady in the region at around 2 million acres each census year.

Figure 2 presents the percentage of harvested cropland operated by each tenure classification across census years for the Mid-South. For comparison, the same percentages are presented for the United States in Figure 3. Rented cropland plays a stronger role in Mid-South agriculture than the United States as a whole. Adding the percentage of cropland operated by full tenants to the percentage of cropland rented by part owners reveals that the proportion of total cropland rented in the Mid-South has ranged from 65 to 76 percent of total cropland. In other words, two-thirds to three-quarters of all cropland acres in the Mid-South have been rented from others since the beginning of the 2000s. This compares with approximately one-half (46 to 50 percent) of cropland rented from others in the United States over the same period. The larger proportion of rented relative to owned cropland in the Mid-South is due largely to full tenants. Full tenant percentages for the Mid-South are 2.5 to 3 times greater than those for the United States in all five census years. The full tenant category is typically defined as being largely comprised of young producers with limited capital. However, the large full tenant percentages for the Mid-South reflect limited access to cropland for purchase within the region rather than a large prevalence of young producers.

So why is the practice of renting cropland so prevalent in Mid-South agriculture? The simple answer is that most Mid-South cropland is owned by entities or individuals who are not farmers. These non-operator landlords are landowners who are not actively involved with a farm operation but rent their land out to other farm operators (Bigelow et al., 2016). The largest portion of these non-operator landlords are individuals, followed by partnerships. A large portion of these entities are retired farmers who rely on lease payments to support them in their retirement. Trusts and corporations represent other types of non-operator landlords (Bigelow et al. 2016). Non-operator landlord entities tend to hold on to the land rather than sell it to retain their investment in the land. They often seek others to farm the land to maintain its productivity and to receive a return on investment in the land.

---

References and Resources

Bigelow, D. A. Borchers, and T. Hubbs (2016). U.S. Farmland Ownership, Tenure, and Transfer. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin Number 161. August 2016. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/74672/eib-161.pdf?v=7044.6

Massey, J.H., C.M. Stiles, J.W. Epting, R.S. Powers, D.B. Kelley, T.H. Bowling, C.L. Janes, and D.A. Pennington (2017). Long-Term Measurements of Agronomic Crop Irrigation Made in the Mississippi Delta Portion of the Lower Mississippi River Valley. Irrigation Science. 35:297-313. 

USDA, NASS, (2024). United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/index.php

---

Watkins, Brad. “The Importance of Rented Cropland to Mid-South Agriculture.” Southern Ag Today 4(18.3). May 1, 2024. Permalink

In March 2022, the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates at an aggressive pace to fight rising inflation.  Now, two years later and with inflation near the Federal Reserve’s target rate, the question on most of our minds is, will the Federal Reserve begin to bring interest rates down this year?

The Federal Reserve enacts monetary policy in the United States with the dual mandate of 1) keeping inflation low and stable and 2) maintaining full employment in the economy.  To achieve these goals, the Federal Reserve’s main policy tool is to adjust the federal funds rate or the rate at which banks in the Federal Reserve System lend to one another overnight.  This rate is set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which meets eight times each year (roughly every six weeks) to determine if any change in the federal funds rate is warranted.

Figure 1 below shows how the federal funds rate has changed in comparison to the inflation rate, measured using the Personal Consumption Expenditure index (PCE), and the unemployment rate.  From March 2022 until August 2023, the FOMC increased the federal funds rate every time they met.  Since then, they have held interest rates steady between 5.25% and 5.50%.

Figure 2 below shows how increases in the federal funds rate have impacted the cost of borrowing.  Since March 2022, the bank prime rate has increased from 3.25% to 8.50%.  Rates for variable rate agricultural loans, as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Agricultural Survey, have followed a similar trend.  Interest rates reported in the survey for the first quarter of 2024 were roughly 9.50% for operating loans, 9.27% for intermediate loans, and 8.88% for long-term farm real estate loans.  

Whether or not the FOMC begins to ease interest rates this year will depend largely on whether the inflation rate continues to decline.  As shown in Figure 1, the rate of overall inflation in February 2024 was 2.5%.  The core inflation rate, which excludes food and energy expenditures, was slightly higher at 2.8%.  The Federal Reserve’s target rate for inflation is 2.0%.  

It seems clear from the figure that the FOMC’s aggressive rate increases have been successful in taming inflation; however, inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s target rate.  Perhaps more concerning, at least from the perspective of the FOMC, is that the rate at which inflation is decreasing has slowed over the past year.  In fact, the inflation rate essentially remained unchanged from December 2023 through February 2024.

It is unlikely that the FOMC will bring interest rates down if inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s target rate.  However, FOMC members have given no indication that they intend to raise interest rates above their current levels to achieve that goal either.  In the short term, the safe bet seems to be to expect interest rates to hold steady at or near where they are now.  Two caveats to this prediction are unexpected changes in either the inflation rate or the level of employment in the U.S. economy.  Should the inflation rate begin to move upward, the FOMC may decide they have no choice but to resume interest rate increases.  Alternatively, signs that indicate the U.S. economy is entering a recession would pressure the FOMC to begin lowering interest rates despite greater-than-desired inflation.  

According to the Federal Reserve’s description of its monetary policy goals, the Fed does not specify a numerical goal for employment like it does for inflation; therefore, it is difficult to predict what specific economic conditions would encourage the FOMC to ease interest rates prematurely.  One employment indicator that the FOMC will pay attention to as it makes interest rate decisions is the unemployment rate.  An unexpected increase in the unemployment rate could indicate that the economy is entering a recession.

The most recent estimate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics places the unemployment rate at 3.8%, which is below the 30-year average and in line with the long-term projections made by FOMC members.  Furthermore, the unemployment rate has held steady at or near pre-pandemic levels even as interest rates have increased (Figure 1).  Based on this data, it appears that high interest rates have had little impact on employment, at least up to this point.  Should this continue, the chance that the FOMC will vote to decrease interest rates before they reach their inflation target is small.       

Figure 1.  Changes in the Inflation rate, the Federal Funds Rate, and the Unemployment Rate, January 2018-February 2024 

Figure 2. Changes in the Federal Funds Rate, Bank Prime Rate, and Selected Agricultural Loan Rates, Q1 2018-Q1 2024

References

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment Rate [UNRATE], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE, April 5, 2024.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Bank Prime Loan Rate Changes: Historical Dates of Changes and Rates [PRIME], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRIME, March 27, 2024.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Federal Funds Effective Rate [FEDFUNDS], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS, April 1, 2024.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Median Personal Consumption Expenditures Inflation, retrieved from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; https://www.clevelandfed.org/indicators-and-data/median-pce-inflation.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Agricultural Survey, retrieved from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; https://www.dallasfed.org/research/surveys/agsurvey/2024/ag2401#tab-report.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Monetary Policy Principles and Practice, Monetary Policy: What Are Its Goals?  How Does It Work.  Retrieved from: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/monetary-policy-what-are-its-goals-how-does-it-work.htm

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), March 20, 2024: FOMC Projections Materials, Accessible Version.  Retrieved from: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20240320.htm

American agriculture has been experiencing labor shortages for many years. Domestic workers left the sector for higher-paying opportunities, and farmers constantly struggle to find people for multiple tasks. While H-2A visas and importing food products from other countries (especially Mexico) are viable alternatives in the short-term, automation is seen as a long run solution to persistent farm labor shortages (Gutierrez-Li, 2021). Machines can be developed to mimic harvesting tasks currently performed by human beings. In addition, robots can tolerate wider weather conditions (like heat waves, smoke from fires, droughts, or excess rain) and operate for longer hours. Drones and other technologies can harvest fruits and vegetables, apply pesticides, water crops, and transport and pack commodities. If mechanization offers so many benefits, why have farmers not automated more production processes? The answer is simple: costs. Designing, creating, and testing machines involves high R&D investments, meaning the price tag for automation is often cost prohibitive for small and medium-sized farmers. 

One major limitation of the current H-2A program is that its use is restricted to seasonal agriculture, putting year-round sectors, like dairy, at a disadvantage. For this reason, dairy farmers have had more incentives to invest in automation, given their inability to access foreign legal labor. To better understand the unique needs and challenges of dairy farmers related to labor, we surveyed dairy producers in Wisconsin and Minnesota, two important milk-producing states. We were interested in learning about the use of automatic milking systems (AMS). AMS use robotic arms to attach teat cups using sensors, yielding a “hands-free” milking process. These technologies are more prevalent in other regions (particularly Europe), where dairy farmers have more readily adopted robots capable of conducting some of the tasks previously performed by humans. 

Our survey targeted 2,000 dairy farmers and received 650 responses in January 2023. Of those, only 39 farmers were already using AMS. Most adopters of this technology considered their investment in AMS worthwhile. Some of the benefits mentioned include increasing productivity, reducing the workload of existing workers, allowing owners and workers to plan more efficiently, cows being more comfortable, and farmers not being under the constant stress of finding and managing crews. However, not all comments were positive. Some producers mentioned constant issues with robots breaking down and high maintenance costs. The size of the operation (number of cows) and availability of skilled labor (or the lack thereof) also determined the net value of AMS. A selected sample of comments (each from a different respondent) is included at the end.

In summary, tight agricultural labor markets, political divisions complicating the passing of immigration reforms, and a growing population to feed emphasize the importance that mechanization will play in U.S. agriculture. However, the transition to automated food production processes is complex. Technologies take time to be developed, do not entirely eliminate the need for labor, and are costly to maintain and repair. Farmers’ decisions to mechanize their practices will depend on the feasibility of realizing increases in productivity that will outweigh the costs of automating. Other considerations such as commodity prices, availability of specialized labor, animal welfare, environmental concerns, and farm succession to the next generation also play a role.

Farmers’ Perceptions about Using Automatic Milking Systems

Positive Experiences

“Yes, it was well worthwhile. it made improvements in all parts of our operation. It’s only been a year and a half, but we are seeing better production, breeding, health, and much easier handling of the cows. We remodeled our existing free stall barn for dry cows and heifers so now we have all animals in 2 barns. So much more efficient and can do all the work in less time. Don’t regret doing it at all!”

“Yes, because the cows are more relaxed and comfortable. The workers are also more relaxed and get more free time.”

“The stars all lined up for this project. -Stall pipes needed to be replaced anyways, so it was a good time to redo the barn. – Milking is hard on a lot of bodies especially during cropping. – Finding people to help milk wasn’t getting easier. – This project was money well spent.”

“Yes, I do. It often is a different type of flexibility than a traditional parlor, but it also ties you down more. Tough to leave further than 30 minutes away because it is difficult to find qualified people to be “on call”. In the last 11 years we have gone from 4 to 8 robots.”

“For our farm it was either sell the cows or put in an AMS system. My husband’s knees and shoulders are shot, and he’s not old enough to retire, with the AMS he is able to do the other chores (mixing feed, cleaning barn, and feeding calves). It was a big investment, but it is serving us well and it allows me to continue to work full time off the farm. The cows do really well with it, the information you get on each cow is amazing. It also has improved our heat detection and insemination rate.”

“Yes. Before AMS, we were milking 180 cows in a D8 parallel. All labor included was 18-man hours/day. That’s everything. Breeding, feeding, bedding, milking calves, heifers, everything! After Ams, it’s 12-man hours for same work plus 80 more cows on milk and 10x more milk.”

Negative Experiences

“Had robots from 2001 to 2007. Anything and everything went wrong. Robots called house almost every night for problems. Spent hours trying to fix robots. In summer 2006 a new update was put into computer causing virus to get into the system which made cows 2 and 3 titers. Had 30 rows come down with Mastitis in 2 weeks’ time before we figured out where the problem was coming from. The decision was made to pull the robots out and put a herringbone parlor in place of the robots. now we milk 2x per day and can walk away when milking is done and can sleep thru the night without a robot calling us to come to the barn for another problem.”

“We’ve had robots for 9 years. Certainly, we cannot milk all cows ourselves (just me and my husband) But the monthly bill is extreme. We can fix some things ourselves, but they have to come a lot always something wrong. We find them very frustrating. Would I recommend them? After 9 years I’m still not sure.”

References

Gutierrez-Li, A. (2021). The H-2A visa program: addressing farm labor scarcity in North Carolina. NC State Economist. North Carolina State University.

---

Gutierrez-Li, Alejandro, Cesar Escalante, and Shree Ram Acharya. “The Costs and Benefits of Mechanization: A Look at the Dairy Sector.” Southern Ag Today 4(16.3). April 17, 2024. Permalink

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) released its annual Prospective Plantings report on March 28, 2024.  This report typically isn’t as exciting as college basketball’s March Madness, but the Prospective Plantings report does supply estimates of acreage that affects the agricultural markets and provides the basis for numerous discussions for the upcoming growing season. 

What does the 2024 Prospective Plantings report show for the Southern Ag Today States? The following tables show the prospective planting acreage for the Southeastern states, with the 2023 planted acres and the predicted 2024 acres (and 2024 acres as a percentage of the 2023 acres). The states are listed in rank from most to least 2024 acres.

Table 1 indicates the corn acres that are projected for the Southeastern states. Oklahoma is the only southern state that shows an increase in 2024 corn acres while Arkansas and Mississippi are predicted to plant about 25% fewer acres. While the Southeastern states are expected to plant about 10% of the U.S. corn acres, this is 27.67% of the reduction in U.S.2024 corn acres. While some of the lost corn acres in the Southeast are shifted to soybean and cotton, there are some acres that are not reflected in the 2024 major crop plantings.

Overall, the U.S. is predicted to plant 90 million acres in 2024. This is five percent lower than 2023 acres and slightly lower than industry expectations, resulting in a sixteen-cent rally for December 2024 corn futures prices.

Table 1.  2023 Acres and Prospective Plantings for 2024, Corn (1,000 acres)
	2023	2024 Prospective
		Acres	% of 2023
Texas	2,500	2,100	84
Kentucky	1,600	1,550	97
Tennessee	940	930	99
N. Carolina	950	890	94
Arkansas	850	620	73
Mississippi	790	590	75
Louisiana	700	560	80
Virginia	495	470	95
Georgia	485	410	85
Oklahoma	390	400	103
Alabama	330	310	94
S. Carolina	365	300	82
Florida	90	80	89
U.S.	94,641	90,036	95

Upland Cotton prospective plantings are included in Table 2. U.S. Cotton acres are expected to be four percent higher than in 2023. Half of the Southeastern states have double-digit percentage increases, and the remaining states are near the previous year’s cotton acres.

Table 2. 2023 Acres and Prospective Plantings for 2024, Upland Cotton (1,000 acres)
	2023	2024 Prospective
		Acres	% of 2023
Texas	5,550	5,500	99
Georgia	1,110	1,100	99
Arkansas	510	540	106
Mississippi	400	500	125
Oklahoma	420	500	119
Alabama	380	430	113
N. Carolina	380	390	103
Tennessee	265	300	113
S. Carolina	210	240	114
Louisiana	120	140	117
Florida	89	90	101
Virginia	81	80	99
U.S.	10,083	10,470	104

Peanut acres are shown in Table 3. Overall, peanut acres across the nation are predicted to remain the same as in 2023. South Carolina and Mississippi have the highest percentage increase in acres, while Texas and Virginia have largest percentage peanut decrease in acres. 

Table 3. 2023 Acres and Prospective Plantings for 2024, Peanut (1,000 acres)
	2023	2024 Prospective
		Acres	% of 2023
Georgia	775	820	106
Alabama	175	180	103
Florida	160	170	106
Texas	225	160	71
N. Carolina	124	120	97
S. Carolina	77	85	110
Arkansas	35	35	100
Virginia	29	24	83
Mississippi	18	20	111
Oklahoma	16	15	94
U.S.	1,645	1,651	100

Table 4 illustrates that soybean acres for 2024 is up three percent in the U.S.  Oklahoma has the largest increase in predicted acres, with Texas losing the largest percentage of acres in 2024.

Table 4. 2023 Acres and Prospective Plantings for 2024, Soybean (1,000 acres)
	2023	2024 Prospective
		Acres	% of 2023
Arkansas	2,980	3,100	104
Mississippi	2,180	2,250	103
Kentucky	1,830	1,950	107
N. Carolina	1,640	1,650	101
Tennessee	1,600	1,650	103
Louisiana	1,030	1,150	112
Virginia	580	630	109
Oklahoma	460	550	120
S. Carolina	395	350	89
Alabama	350	320	91
Georgia	160	160	100
Texas	125	100	80
U.S.	83,600	86,510	103

It should be noted that that these are only intended plantings, and the actual acreage will vary from these estimates. Weather, commodity prices, input prices, and availability will have an impact on the acres that get planted.

---

Source: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/x633f100h/31980870j/fj237r16t/pspl0324.pdf

---

Runge, Max. “2024 Prospective Plantings for Southern Ag Today States.” Southern Ag Today 4(15.3). April 10, 2024. Permalink

It’s that time of year again! Let’s hope you won’t be like Homer Simpson, scrambling to put numbers on the federal income tax return, rushing to the post office, and tossing the envelope in the mail bin at the last minute on Tax Day. While many of us only think about taxes during tax season, for private forest landowners, every forest management decision could have tax implications. Understanding the tax consequences, taking advantage of the preferential tax provisions, and integrating tax planning into forest management decisions are crucial.  

Forest landowners may generate income not only from timber but also from various nontimber forest products. Timber income generally qualifies for the preferential capital gains tax treatment if the holding period requirement is met. However, is income from nontimber forest products treated similarly to timber income for federal income tax purposes? This is the topic of today’s article. 

If you are interested in timber taxes, please refer to the timber tax tips for 2023: https://www.timbertax.org/publications/fs/taxtips/TaxTip2023.pdf.

Defining nontimber forest products for tax purposes

Nontimber forest products generally refer to goods harvested or derived from forests for purposes other than timber. They may include tops, limbs, twigs, branches, roots, tubers, bulbs, leaves, bark, fruits, nuts, tree sap, mushrooms, and other fungi, and in some instances, entire plants. 

Note that the IRS definition of timber differs from the term used by a forester. For tax purposes, timber generally means standing trees suitable for commercial production of wood products. Under certain tax provisions (e.g., gain or loss from the disposition of timber under Section 631), timber also includes Christmas trees (i.e., evergreen trees aged six years or older when severed from roots and sold for ornamental purposes). Therefore, nontimber forest products, for tax purposes, have a broader scope than their definition in forestry. 

Character of income from nontimber forest products

Not all types of income are treated equally for tax purposes. The character of income may determine whether it’s subject to certain taxes (e.g., self-employment tax, net investment income tax), which loss deduction rules to follow, the allowable amount of certain deductions, and the applicable tax rate. 

With a few exceptions, net profits from the sale of most nontimber forest products generally are taxable as ordinary income. If the income is derived from your material participation in a trade or business (including a farming business), it is subject to self-employment tax. 

Sales of the following nontimber forest products normally generate ordinary income:

• Logging residues left behind after a timber harvest and sold separately from the original timber sale. Products such as pulpwood from tops and limbs, wood mulch, wood chips, and firewood may be made from these logging residues. While income from the original timber harvest might qualify as capital gains, income from the sale of these byproducts is ordinary income. The sale of tree stumps is normally considered ordinary income (see below for an exception). 
• Christmas trees harvested before reaching six years of age.
• Products collected from trees, such as pine straw, maple sap, walnut sap, evergreen boughs, pinecones, fruits, and nuts.
• Living trees, such as seedlings, balled-and-burlapped trees, living ornamental trees, and living fruit or nut trees. 
• Products from annual plants and mushrooms in forests, including mosses, lichens, vines, herbs, wildflowers, ramps, beargrass, and mushrooms. 
• Products derived from some perennial plants but not the final harvest. For example, some ginseng growers sell the leaves and stems of the plants annually before harvesting the roots. 

On the other hand, long-term capital gains could be generated in these cases:

• The sale of tree stumps from cutover land purchased years ago as an investment by a taxpayer not in the timber or tree stump business. 
• The final harvest sale of cultivated perennial plants. Examples include American ginseng, black cohosh, and goldenseal. Income from the sale of these products’ roots can qualify as capital gains.

Reporting expenses and income from nontimber forest products

Depending on the extent of your involvement in the production of nontimber forest products, your nontimber activities  may qualify as a trade or business. Especially, forest farming operations is inherently a business because it is the intentional and intensive management of forested lands to produce nontimber products and is . 

Ordinary and necessary expenses related to the gathering, growing, processing, or marketing of nontimber forest products are deductible. Nontimber forest products producers who qualify as material participants in a trade or business should report the deductible expenses on Form 1040, Schedule C or F, as appropriate. Expenses incurred to establish forest perennials are capital expenses. They can be recorded in a capital account and deducted from the gross proceeds when the plants are harvested and sold. Material participants in a trade or business should report ordinary income from nontimber forest products on Schedule C or F (Form 1040), as appropriate, and report capital gains on Form 4797.

Forest owners classified as investors should report ordinary income from nontimber forest products as “Other income” on Form 1040, Schedule 1, and report capital gains on Form 8949 and Schedule D (Form 1040).  Prior to 2018, investors report deductible expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on IRS Form 1040, Schedule A, where they will be subject to the 2 percent of adjusted gross income floor. However, the miscellaneous itemized deductions are suspended for 2018-2025 because of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Conclusions

Many private forest landowners generate income from nontimber forest products. While the income serves as a supplement to timber income for some forest landowners, for others, it may be their primary source of income. With a few exceptions, most of the income from nontimber forest products is taxable as ordinary income for federal income tax purposes. Ordinary and necessary expenses associated with the production of nontimber forest products are deductible. It is critical to keep records of these expenses to support your profit motive and substantiate your deductions. 

This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide financial, tax, or legal advice. Please consult your own tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation.

---

Li, Yanshu. “Tax Considerations of Income and Expenses from Nontimber Forest Products.” Southern Ag Today 4(14.3). April 3, 2024. Permalink