I received two excellent comments on my post from Monday of this week regarding the cost to some farm families of not having an estate tax for this year.  The comments had additional information which is all applicable for this year.  The main intent of my post was to let farm families know that without proper planning, an estate in 2010 can cost your farm operation a large amount of current or future taxes.

Also, the key problem with the 2010 estate law is that effective January 1, 2011, it reverts back to the law in effect in 2001.  This means that all estates larger than $1,000,000 will be subject to federal estate taxes.  A quarter section of good farmland can exceed this amount alone.  Congress needs to take action and soon to correct this, or thousands of farm families will be much worse off on January 1, 2011 than they were on January 1, 2009 or 2010.

I will keep you posted and keep sending me the comments.

Just wanted to give all of my readers a heads up that I will be appearing on the Leave a Legacy TV show this Thursday morning (the 25th).  It will generally take the place of AgDay and you may want to check your local listings for time.  You will also be able to view it on the Leave a Legacy site at Agweb after the show at a later time.

I enjoyed doing the show, but as my wife would say, don’t plan on changing your day job.

Most farmers are assuming that since there is no estate tax for 2010, that this must be a good thing for all taxpayers.  The reality is that many farmers may end up paying more in taxes than under the law in effect for 2009.  This is due to the fact that carryover basis will no longer be in effect for many estates.

Under the old law, when a person died, all of their assets were revalued for income tax purposes  based upon the value at the time of death.  Then when the heirs sold the assets, this was the “cost” that they could use in determining their gain or loss.

For example, suppose, a farmer died owning equipment that was worth $1 million dollars that had been fully written off.  Under the old law, you could step up the value to $1 million dollars and depreciate it over 5 to 7 years.  If instead, you decided to sell the farm equipment for $1 million immediately, there would be no tax owed.

Now, when you inherit the equipment, you get no step up in basis, and when you elect to sell the equipment, the gain will be completely taxable.  Also, this sale will not qualify for capital gains treatment, therefore it will be subject to ordinary income tax rates.  At a 35% bracket, this would result in owing $350,000 of tax.

Therefore, due to not having an estate tax, we went from (1)  complete step up in value to date of death value, (2) no estate tax being owed for all estates under $3,5 million, and (3) full write of assets over time as depreciation against other income  to owing $350,000 in income taxes.  This does not sound too good to me. 

I am hoping that Congress gets their act together and fixes this, but I am not too hopeful.  I will keep you updated.

For those people living in rural areas, the smells associated with hogs, cows, etc. can be a nuisance.  Usually most people grin and bear it, however, there are many times when they try to do something about it.

The High Plains Midwest Ag Journal recently reported on a civil trial filed in Kansas City regarding the hog odors from a large commercial hog operation about 80 miles north of Kansas City.  This operation usually contains about 80,000 head of hogs and encompasses over 2,000 acres.  Fourteen rural neighbors had already received $100,000 apiece from a 1999 lawsuit, however, they have taken Premium Standard Farms back to court arguing that these payments are not enough to compensate them for the continuing odors.

The company argues that they are not suffering “substantial impairment” from the odors.  They agree that hogs stink, but it does not meet the qualifications of a nuisance under the law.

Kansas City attorney Charlie Speer has won over $10 million from Premium Standard and its affiliates since 1999 on these types of cases.  In 2009, he indicated a lawsuit that was settled for $1.2 million will “set the bar” for future cases.

PSF attorneys contend these lawsuits are driven only by money and are causing damage to the local ag economy.

I believe that both sides have some merit to their cases.  These smells can be overpowering when you have that many animals in a small area, however, most people living in farm country usually know this when they move there.  I think, however, that these large operators sometimes believe it is cheaper to just settle the lawsuits than to try to fix the problem which can cost substantially more.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City puts out a quarterly review of credit conditions in their region.  This region covers Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and most of the Mountain States.  I try to give you a recap when it comes out since the information is both timely and interesting.

The most recent report for the fourth quarter of 2009 showed that average farm values in the region were up about 3% over the same time in 2008.  Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma showed more than a 3% increase, while Nebraska was only marginally higher and the Mountain States actually showed a price decrease.  This decrease was primarily due to the larger concentration of livestock operations in these states which have not fared well over the last few years.

The bank indicated the strength was due to two primary reasons:

• Rising farm income due to both stronger prices at year-end and higher yields, and
• Small supply of farmland available for sale

For the farmland that did sell, more of this went to other farmers rather than investors.  Residential development is almost at a standstill right now and the recession has put a crimp on people being able to buy farmland for recreational purposes.  Also, the bankers noted that more farmland was purchased for cash during the quarter.

Many of the bankers expect farmers to purchase more capital equipment during 2010 than in 2009.  Livestock prices did move higher during the quarter, but they remain slightly under break even levels.

With the price decreases in January, 2010, it will be interesting to see what the next report brings.

To maximize your profit for your farm, it is very important to determine what your annual fixed costs are and determine if you are maximizing your amortization of these costs on your farm.  Fixed costs are those costs that do not materially change with production increases and decreases. 

Some examples of fixed costs are:

• Depreciation on your equipment
• Insurance costs on equipment
• Your annual salary cost for providing services to the farm operation
• Office related costs
• Other annuals salaries for workers who are not at full capacity

These costs are mostly fixed and if you can increase your production to full capacity, these costs per unit of production will decrease substantially.  The goal is to maximize your production to equal the full amortization of these fixed costs.

Lets say you have a farm with 1,000 acres of production and your total annual fixed costs are $100,000.  This means your average fixed cost per acre is $100.  If you have enough equipment and capacity to farm 2,000 acres and all of your variable costs will remain the same, you will reduce your fixed cost amortization from $100 to $50.  This will result in additional profits to the farm operation of $50,000.

Try calculating these costs for your farm operation and see how it would effect your bottom line.

However, you also need to be careful that as you approach full capacity, you may have to make major investments to go slightly over full capacity.  This can then put your back with higher fixed cost amortization.

As a CPA, I have been involved in many family meetings.  Sometimes, I act as an advisor to the participants.  At other times, I may actually be part of the family that is having the meeting.

I remember having a client several years ago that had several children that were actively involved in the business during their lifetime.  We hada family meeting with several advisors and it became apparent very quickly that strains of the family dynamic and how it affected their relationships.  Very quickly, the perceived problems of childhood, parenthood and other factors came out and you almost had a civil war on your hands.  We were able to get it back on track, but it was touch and go for a while.

Dr. Donald Jonovic writes a monthly column in Successful Farming that I think is always worth reading.  A recent column from the print version of the magazine dealt with  Family Rules of Conduct for these meetings.  Dr. Jonovic listed several rules for effective meetings.  Some of the ones that I feel are especially relevant are:

• Always treat each other the way you would treat important friends or colleagues.  – Too many times I find that family will treat each other worse than any other friend or acquaintance.  We should really treat our family better than our friends.  If we do, many of our family problems would be cured.
• Keep your business and personal disagreements confidential and within the family. – Disagreements should be handled in-house.  Don’t put them in the “outhouse” so to speak. 
• Keep meetings fun – Farming is fun and having meetings about farming and family should be fun.  Have some type of family interactive game or other ice breaker to keep things loose.
• Do not equate difference of opinion with disloyalty – Remember that having people always agree with you means they go over the cliff with you when things go wrong.  Encourage people to give you a different viewpoint.  This is always the best way to learn.
• Leave your cell phones at the door – This may be tougher for our Gen X and Gen Y family members, but it is only for an hour.  They can survive and will learn to enjoy it.

There are many other good points, but to make your meetings effective, implement as many as you can.

In a recent issue of Top Producer magazine, an article was written by Linda Smith about how agricultural managers are dealing with the Gen X and Gen Y generation.

I know that being a parent of 4 Gen Y boys that you need to deal with them differently from people from my generation (the baby boomers).

In dealing with Gen X workers, we need to realize that it is much more important for the boss to be a mentor or coach to their Gen X employees than just the “BOSS”.  If not, you will lose these workers extremely fast.  We also need to realize that Gen X are not wrong in this approach, but rather, this is what is important to them.  If we try to change them, we will fail.

For Gen Y workers, they have more of an entitlement mentality due to receiving trophies from simply participating in sports as kids and receiving stuff from their parents instead of time.  When they enter the work force, this transition from college can be tough on them.

They are more willing to accept authority, however, they are not really compliant.  They are results oriented, not process oriented.  Also, we need to realize that this generation grew up communicating more by text than face to face.  Therefore, it is unrealistic to restrict or eliminate their use of e-mail and texting. 

They want a coach and to be part of a successful team.  Make sure to be that coach for them.

 Our CPA firm deals with many newly formed businesses each year.  When two or more people get together to form a business, it is almost like a boyfriend and girlfriend getting together for the first time.  They are usually fairly giddy with excitement over the new venture and look forward to the business being there forever.  However, like many human relationships, many of these unions will end in divorce and it can be painful.

I like to remind my clients that they need to be extremely diligent in building in a rip cord in case the business does not work out.  Just as in parachuting for the first time, the rip cord is designed to get you to the ground safely when things do not always work out.

In your business agreement, you need to make sure to document what will happen in the following situations:

• What happens if one of the partners becomes disabled or dies?  Will you use life insurance to take care of these situations?
• What happens if one or more of the partners goes bankrupt?
• What happens if one of the partners decides to leave the business?  Are the remaining partners required to purchase the interest?  If so, what is the price and terms and how is it determined?  What if the parties can not agree on the price, how is that resolved?
• What type of restrictions are built in to the transfer of interests?  If not handled correctly, you may end up new partner that you did not know about or want.

These are just some of  the issues that need to be built into the “rip cord” wording to make sure that it works.  Remember, in these situations it is almost always better to design the rip cord up front than to try to come up with the right one when it is too late.

Marcia Taylor with DTN/The Progressive Farmer had a great post recently on the elimination of crop insurance under the Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP) and Group Risk Program (GRP) in over 1,000 counties across the US.  The primary reason for eliminating these counties were due to not reporting at least 30 yield reports or 25% of the acres for the county.  The USDA requires at least this amount of data in order to provide the insurance coverage.

Also, of the 1,062 counties that lost these insurance programs, only 310 counties were actually buying these types of insurance policies.  It appears that most of the counties affected were located in the South, Great Plains and Eastern part of the US.  Most the Mid West corn belt was not affected.  The decision eliminates this coverage for corn, soybean, grain sorghum, cotton and peanut producers.

Farmers in Lawrence County, Alabama say their maximum insurance yield reduced from 135 bushels per acre to only 60.  This insurance can be expensive.  GRIP with a harvest-price option cost $90 per acre as mentioned in the article, however, the return has been as high as $415 in 2007 and $222 in 2008 per acre for this particular county.  Payouts were as high as $614 per acre in Baca County, Colorado in 2008 largely due to the steep decline in corn prices.

However, these farmers need to realize they need to report their yields and if they do a good job of this, then the coverage will be available again.  The trends over time have shown that this coverage returns about $1.78 for every $1.00 of premium. 

GRIP has offered some of these growers superior coverage levels.  This coverage is no longer available and it may cost the farmers substantial losses to their bottom line.