Blog

  • Time to Meet with Your Tax Professional

    Time to Meet with Your Tax Professional

    The information found in this article should not be considered tax or legal advice, it is a brief review of options for educational purposes only. Please work with your trusted tax and legal professional to discuss various options that may be well suited to your specific situation. 

    The 2021 calendar year for many farmers around the country has not failed to hold its fair share of surprises. Although we are seeing increasing input costs in many areas, we have also seen an increase in price to many crops across the agricultural spectrum, and some have continued to receive some federal program payments within the 2021 calendar and tax year. For many farmers this may create a taxable situation, especially for those that had pre-paid inputs in 2020 for their 2021 crop. There are several tax management strategies that can be used to help off-set some of the farm’s 2021 tax liability. However, you must remember a couple of points:

    1. Tax management is not how to get out of paying taxes, but how to get the most amount of money through the tax system at the least expensive tax rate possible. 
    2. There is no one size fits all and good tax management may require increasing your tax liability in some years.

    Prepays,  IRC § 461(a); Treas. Reg. § 1.461-1(a)(1)

    To purchase inputs for the following year, the farmer must utilize a cash basis accounting and tax structure (not an accrual system). The prepay amount cannot exceed 50% (IRC § 464) of other expenses with some caveats and exceptions, and prepays cannot be used solely as a means to reduce tax liability. First and foremost, it must be done for other beneficial purposes to the farm. 

    Many farms utilize prepays. Prepays allow a farmer to purchase inputs for the next tax year’s production. Any expenses accrued for this may only be deducted as a cash expense for the tax year in which it was purchased if 1) there is a possibility of a supply issue and this will guarantee that you will have the input required, and/or 2) if purchasing the input in the year prior to use will save the farmer money due to a lower cost of the input(s) today vs. the year it will be used. It is required that the pre-pay has been paid by the farmer and a constructive receipt has been received. There are limits to prepays, so work with your tax professional in determining the right amount for your situation.

    Income Averaging (Schedule J), IRC §1301

    Income averaging uses IRS Form Schedule J Income Averaging for Farmers and Fisherman. Many farmers are on a cash accounting basis and not an accrual accounting system for accounting and tax purposes. When using the cash accounting method a farmer may see large swings from year to year in revenues and profit.  Income averaging allows farmers to spread out these peaks and valleys with some caveats. Income Averaging allows a farmer to take a portion of the taxable income from the current year, split that portion equally, and spread it across the previous three tax years to be taxed at hopefully a lower taxable rate than what it would have been in the present tax year. If there is room left in previous year’s lower tax brackets, this can be very advantageous for a farmer or commercial fisherman. 

    Retirement Accounts, Health Care Accounts, and Educational Accounts

    There are tax free account options that can be used to build your retirement or save for college, or Health Savings Accounts (HSA) for medical expenses. Each comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. This may include taxes owed and penalties incurred if the money is removed prematurely, and/or is not used for its intended purpose. Please speak with a trusted tax or legal professional and include a good financial planner as part of the team in these situations.

    Depreciation

    Most farmers are very familiar with depreciation, IRC Section 179, and Special Depreciation usually referred to as Bonus Depreciation. Many farmers utilize Sec. 179 or Bonus depreciation to make purchases of equipment, machinery, etc. and subsequently lower their taxable income. This is fine if:

    1. The purchase was part of the farm’s business plan and not just a way to lower your tax bill, and
    2. You are using cash to make the purchase, and do not need to take out a loan for the purchase.

    In many cases the overuse of these depreciation methods has caused some farmers to get into trouble, either through creating a cash flow issue or through an increased tax liability over time. This is because there may be little “carry-over” depreciation to off-set future income since the entire value of the purchase was depreciated all in one year. Expanding debt just to save money for taxes is not a good idea, especially if it was not already built into your farm’s business plan. The farm’s cash flow may be severely impacted. Even if the farm did not need to take out a loan for the purchase, this can increase the overall tax liability by putting the farm into a higher tax bracket because of the lack of depreciation carry over to offset future income. 

    Good habits have to be built and continually exercised. Now is the time to make an appointment with your tax professional to discuss some options before the end of the calendar year.  These discussions should become a part of the farm’s normal fall/winter year-end rituals. Make sure to provide your tax professional with all of the necessary information, including but not limited to year-to-date (YTD) income, expenses, any capital asset sales and purchases, any known and anticipated income and expenses between the date of the meeting and the end of the year.

    Source:

    Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. (2021). 2021 Instructions for Schedule J (2021): https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sj.

    Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. (2021). Publication 225, Farmer’s Tax Guide. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p225.pdf.


    Kantrovich, Adam. “Time to Meet with Your Tax Professional.Southern Ag Today 1(50.3). December 8, 2021. Permalink

  • Fewer Dairy Cows in Parts of the South

    Fewer Dairy Cows in Parts of the South

    The number of dairy cows in the U.S. declined to 9.4 million head in October, 14,000 head fewer than in October 2020.  Milk production per cow and milk production fell below last year, as well.  All three statistics are a sharp departure from the Spring when the number of cows peaked at 9.5 million head.  

    Four states in the South are included in monthly NASS reports on milk cows, production per cow, and milk production: Florida, Georgia, Virginia, and Texas.  Fewer cows were reported in Florida (-7,000 head) and Virginia (-3,000 head) in October compared to October 2020.  Georgia reported 1,000 more dairy cows.  Texas, where milk production has largely moved to the panhandle, reported 22,000 more cows.  Following cows, October milk production was lower in Florida and Virginia and higher in Georgia and Texas.

    DMC payments were triggered last month for the tenth straight month.  While all milk prices have increased in the South, prices elsewhere are below a year ago.  Feed costs continue to be high, leading to continued DMC payments.  Reduced milk production is likely to result in some higher milk prices in coming months increasing milk over feed cost margins but rising non-feed costs will keep the pressure on margins.  


    Anderson, David. “Fewer Dairy Cows in Parts of the South.” Southern Ag Today 1(50.2). December 7, 2021. Permalink

  • Current “Squeeze” Dynamics in ICE Cotton Futures

    Current “Squeeze” Dynamics in ICE Cotton Futures

    Squeeze situations in financial markets have been in the news this year.  In early 2021, the stock of the company GameStop was subject to extreme price volatility as a large number of short sellers were forced to buy back their positions while other traders were buying the stock aggressively.  Squeeze plays exist in commodity futures markets, too.  A common example of this can happen with short speculators in a rising futures market.  Assuming those speculators can’t deliver the physical commodity against their short futures position, they are left having to buy their way out of their short futures position, which contributes to upside price volatility.   

    A different version of this short squeeze situation is playing out in ICE cotton futures in the current marketing year.  The set-up for this situation involves a number of things.  First, there is a physical supply imbalance in the form of the very low level of physical “certified stocks” of cotton that are eligible for delivery against ICE cotton futures contracts, as shown in Figure 1.  Daily certified stock levels are published daily by the ICE.  

    Second, there is a historically high level of “unfixed call sales” contracts, especially on the Mar’22, May’22, and Jul’22 cotton contracts.  Unfixed call sales represent un-finalized basis contracts between merchants and mills which will eventually require buying of futures to fix the price. This situation is reflected by weekly data published by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.  

    Third, there is also historically large, long speculative positioning in ICE futures, including both hedge funds and index funds.  With the current expectations for rising inflation, speculators who are long cotton futures may hang on to, or even expand their long futures position in ICE cotton.  This could lead to continued futures price volatility, especially during February, April, and June. 

    Chart Source:  Author compiled with data from USDA Ag Marketing Service (https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/cotton-tobacco ) and cotton certified stocks from the Intercontinental Exchange (https://www.theice.com/marketdata/reports/4/product/588/hub/732/isOption/false/isSpread/false ).


    Robinson, John. “Current “Squeeze” Dynamics in ICE Cotton Futures.” Southern Ag Today 1(50.1). December 6, 2021. Permalink

  • Southern States Address Solar Facility Decommission

    Southern States Address Solar Facility Decommission

    As Southern states pass their first decade of solar photovoltaic (PV) development, state policy-makers can view a horizon when many tons of solar PV equipment will require removal and disposal. Solar PV panels wear down under weather exposure, and at about twenty-four years cease useful and economic efficiency in generating electricity, and must be removed. Most solar PV facilities are developed by private companies upon leases with private landowners, which generally require the PV facility owner to remove equipment and restore land. However, such leases rarely address the specific costs of decommission, nor guarantee cash will be available to pay the costs, potentially exposing taxpayers and ratepayers to the financial burden of decommission. Land restoration has been a concern of rural communities and farm producers who have lost access to productive farmland devoted to solar PV development. 

    Though disposal of solar PV equipment is regulated under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq), decommission requirements are left to state authority. VirginiaLouisianaNorth Carolina and Texas have enacted solar “end of life” (EOL) disposal legislation, and South Carolina recently allocated state budget funds to regulatory development. In other states without regulation, counties may still require decommission plans as a condition for rezoning for a solar PV facility. (Such a model ordinance has been drafted in Georgia.) Indeed Virginia’s statute places upon its counties a developer requirement of financial assurance in exercising zoning approval authority. 

    Under North Carolina’s regulatory mandate, the NC Department of Environmental Quality recently completed an in-depth stakeholder study exploring costs of decommission and site restoration, future recycling markets to offset such costs, the timing of waste volume (for example, see figure 1), and waste management capacity and hazardous waste determination. The report provides a detailed window into decommission issues, which may serve as a model for other Southern regulators. Click here for more on the North Carolina Report.

    Figure 1. Timing of Solar PV Waste Volume in North Carolina (courtesy NC Department of Environmental Quality)


    Branan, Robert Andrew. “Southern States Address Solar Facility Decommission.” Southern Ag Today 1(49.5). December 3, 2021. Permalink

  • Cuba: Potential Market or Continuing Menace?

    Cuba: Potential Market or Continuing Menace?

    Passage of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 allows U.S. firms to legally export their agricultural products to Cuba and travel there for business purposes. From modest beginnings of $140 million in 2002, U.S. exports grew to $387 million in 2004, peaking at $694 million in 2008. U.S. exports then fell to $456 million in 2012, $215 million in 2016 and $157 million in 2020 (Figure 1). Frozen poultry, soy products and corn have accounted for virtually all U.S. export in recent years. Remittances, exports and tourism are major hard currency earners for Cuba and determine market potential, and the success of U.S. exports. Market potential is hampered by strict U.S. regulations on financing and Cuban requirements to export through the state trading entity, Alimport. Cuba has the potential to be a $1.0 billion market absent government restrictions and more open trade between the two countries. Competition is keen and growing as the U.S. presence in the market has declined.


    Rosson, Parr. “Cuba: Potential Market or Continuing Menace?Southern Ag Today 1(49.4). December 2, 2021. Permalink