One of our readers sent me an e-mail yesterday regarding an article posted by www.farmgate.com regarding the return on farmland investment from 1970 top 2009.   This post was based upon the research done by Iowa State University.

Over the years farmland investment have yielded a very competitive rate of return compared to other investments.  However, about half of the return comes from appreciation in land, which can be unpredictable and it does not provide any cash to cover expenses or mortgage payments.

This research broke down the years between four distinctly different periods:

• The farm boom period from 1970 to 1981,
• The farm crisis from 1982 to 1987
• The recovery period from 1988 to 2003
• The Ethanol Boom from 2004 to 2009

During the farm boom period, an average farmer enjoyed 7.3% average cash rent return on their land and their land appreciated in value from an average of $392 per acre to $1,941 per acre or an average return of about 14.3%.  Therefore the total average return for this period was about 21.6%.

During the farm crisis, the average cash rent was actually at the highest average of about 8%, however, this was due to the decrease in land prices.  During this period, land values decreased from $1,941 per acre to about $786 per acre or an average negative return of (14%), which about wiped out the returns during the farm boom.  Overall average returns during this period was a negative (6%).

During the recovery period, average cash rents were about 7.25% and land prices increased from about $786 to $2,010 or an average increase of about 6% or a total annual return of 13.25%.

Therefore, the overall return during the 40 year period wsa about 6% from appreciation and 7% from cash rents for an overall annual return of 13%.

During the Ethanol Boom, the average cash rents was the lowest at about 4.4%, but the increase in price from $2,010 to $3,850 or 11.4% equals an average annual return of about 15.8%.

The best cash rent return was 9.6% in 1987 at the peak of the farm crisis and worst return was 2008 at 3.8% during the Ethanol Boom.  The best appreciation year was 1977 at 36.8% and the worst was 1985 at a negative 28%.

It is projected by 2019 that Russia may become the world’s largest wheat exporter and Russian, Ukranian and Kazakhstan (RUK) wheat exports collectively may double the United States wheat exports according to the June 2010 issue of Amber Waves.  This growth in wheat exports may help mitigate global food security concerns and help offset the the shift in US acreage to corn, soybeans and other more profitable crops.

USDA is projecting that wheat exports by there three counties could increase by about 50 percent to over 50 million metric tons by 2019 or about 1.9 billion bushels.  The region may account for over half of the increase in wheat exports and could supplant the US as the “wheat breadbasket of the world”.

The US has been in second place since World War II but could easily slip to second place especially if the trend to more corn and bean acres at the expense of wheat production continues.

The US share of wheat exports may drop from the current 24 percent range for 2001-09 to an estimated 16 percent by 2019.  The European Union, Canada and Argentina will also lose market share while Australia is expected to remain flat.  The three former Soviet Union counties should see their market share go less than 20 percent to over 33 percent by 2019.

There are two main reasons why RUK have become larger wheat exporters.

1. The region’s transition from planned to market-orientated economies that began with collapse of the former USSR in the early 1990s.  During the late Soviet period of 1987-91, the USSR imported 35 mmt of grain, while in 2009, the former USSR nations exported nearly 55 mmt.  This is a turnaround of over 90 mmt or about 3 billion bushels of grain.  Also, the large contraction in the livestock sectors led to market driven importation of meat and exports of grain.
2. The region’s yield has risen steadily during the 2000s.  During the 1990s, wheat yields actually decreased primarily due to bad weather and a lack of inputs, especially fertilizer.  However, during the 2000s, wheat yields have risen about 32 percent in Russia and about 25 percent in Kazakhstan.  A lot of this increase is due to the large vertically integrated enterprises that are in charge of the crop from the very beginning to the final wheat sale.

If the world market for grain was expected to remain steady, this increase in Soviet production could lead to much lower prices, however, the world will add another 750,000 or so people over the next 10 years and they will eat a lot of wheat so wheat prices may actually rise over this period.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City issued their quarterly report on agricultural credit conditions for the first quarter of 2010.  They indicated farmland values rose due to strong demand and the rebound in livestock prices.  Both farmer and non-farm demand appears to be very good.  Looking ahead, they expect farmland values to hold steady.

However, most district bankers reported that farm income fell slightly in the first quarter, however, they expect higher levels in the second quarter with the year being steady.

Farmland values for the quarter rose about 2% with Nebraska having the highest gains of about 6%, however, Oklahoma and the mountain states were lower for the quarter.  This was the strongest gain in over a year primarily due to the livestock rebound.  Interest rates edged down slightly, averaging 6.6 percent.

In reviewing the long-term chart shown in the report, there have only been 3 quarters that have been negative since 1990.  Two quarters were in late 1990 when the Internet bubble was at its highest and one quarter last year.   Owning farmland has been a very good investment over the last 20 years.  We all hope the trend continues for the next 20 years.

The April 29, 2010 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek had a good article on how the seed companies are developing drought resistant corn seed that may expand the corn belt farther into Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

Another benefit of the seed is a reduction in the amount of irrigation that is needed.  This can lead to reduced crop insurance premiums and can boost the value of this crop land.  Also, the article states that agriculture accounts for 70% of global freshwater use and the single biggest issue facing agriculture is the availability of water.  By creating seed that uses less irrigation water or requires less natural water, a farmer can increase their net income, and in some cases, substantially.

Dupont indicates that in their test trials, the new seeds are creating yields that about 6% better than the old seeds.  Syngenta is aiming for a 10% increase in yields.  The seed companies believe that by 2020, over 55 million acres of corn will be planted with the new drought resistant seed. 

If a farmer’s old corn yield was 120 bushels per acre and they can create a 10% yield increase at $3.50 bushel price, this would increase the net bottom line by about $42 per acre less any increase in seed cost plus any reduction in irrigation costs.  This can be a substantial increase to the bottom line.

I have taken a couple of days off from writing a post due to tax season ending on April 15.  As a CPA, you tend to build up a large adrenalin rush until April 15 and then it takes a big dump and all you want to do is nothing and get a lot of sleep.  I now seem to be recovered and should get back to my normal posting schedule.

I also want to let my readers know that I will be taking my BMW motorcycle on a cross country trip beginning on or around May 10 and returning on or around May 23.  I will be traveling from Washington state to a wedding in Kansas.  From Kansas I am going to Los Angeles and then heading north back to Yakima.  I will try to write a few posts about the trip while I am gone assuming I get good access to a computer.  These posts will probably be more of a personal nature, but I will try to incorporate some tax or farming issues if they are pertinent.

Now for the blog post.

About a year ago, I had a client that was involved in a small sub-division in the local area.  He was a 50/50 partner with another person.  The lots were listed for sale for about $45,000, however, the project was not quite complete.  With the downturn in the economy, the client decided to sell his 50% interest in the LLC back to his partner.  The consideration was no cash and the other partner would take over the debt.

The client went on his merry way until he got a call from the State of Washington wanting the excise taxes that he owed on the transfer.  In our state (and there are many others just like it), if you sell a 50% or more interest in an LLC during a 12 month period, then you owe the real estate excise tax on the full fair market value of the property excluding any debt.  Even though you only sold 50%, you owe the excise tax on the full 100% of value.

In this case, there were let’s say about 50 lots advertised at $45,000, so the state assessed the excise tax of about 1.9% on $2,250,000 or about $42,750.  He had to pay  the whole excise tax even though not one of the lots had ever sold and the actual value of each lot was probably closer to $25,000 at that time.

Now, what I think is even more of money grab by the state is when the lots are actually sold, then the excise tax of 1.9% is, you guessed it, owed again.  There is no credit to offset any of the tax previously paid.

I now recommend that any of my clients that are involved in a 50/50 LLC and want to get out of the LLC, to only sell 49.5% of the LLC and wait over a year to sell the remaining .5% interest.

For many of our farmers who are doing succession planning to their children, they need to make sure to watch out for these excise taxes.

Premium Assistance Credit

The act provides for refundable tax credits that eligible taxpayers can use to help cover the cost of health insurance premiums for individuals and families who purchase health insurance through a state health benefit exchange (which each state is required to establish under section 1311 of the act). Under new IRS § 36B, an eligible individual will enroll in a plan offered through an exchange and report his or her income to the exchange. Based on the information provided to the exchange and his or her income, the individual will receive a premium assistance credit. Treasury will pay the premium assistance credit amount directly to the insurance plan in which the individual is enrolled. The individual will then pay to the plan in which he or she is enrolled the dollar difference between the premium tax credit amount and the total premium charged for the plan.

Eligibility for the premium assistance credit is based on the individuals income for the tax year ending two years prior to the enrollment period. The premium assistance credit is available for individuals (single or joint filers) with household incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (for the family size involved) who do not received health insurance through an employer or a spouse’s employer. The credit amount is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based on the percentage of income the cost of premiums represents, rising from 2% of income for those at 100% of federal poverty level for the family size involved to 9.5% of income for those at 400% of federal poverty level for the family size involved.

The premium assistance credit will be available for years ending after Dec. 31, 2013.

Small Business Tax Credit

The act provides tax credits for small businesses and individuals designed to increase levels of health insurance coverage, as part of the IRC § 38 general business credit. Small businesses defined as businesses with 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $40,000 would be eligible for a credit of up to 50% of nonelective contributions the business makes on behalf of their employees for insurance premiums (new IRC § 45R). Tax-exempt organizations would get a 35% credit against payroll taxes.

Employers with 10 or fewer employees and average wages of less than $20,000 would get 100% of the credit; it would be phased out, up to the 25-employee limit. The $20,000 average annual wages figure will be indexed for inflation after 2013. Five-percent owners under the section 416 top-heavy plan rules and 2% S corporation shareholders are not included in the definition of employee, but leased employees are counted.

This credit is available for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2009.

Excise Tax on Uninsured Individuals

The act creates new IRC § 5000A, which requires U.S. citizens and legal residents to maintain minimum amounts of health insurance coverage. Minimum essential coverage includes various government-sponsored programs, eligible employer-sponsored plans, plans in the individual market, grandfathered group health plans and other coverage as recognized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury. This requirement would not apply to individuals who are incarcerated, not legally present in the United States or maintain religious exemptions.

Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage will be subject to a penalty equal to $750. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee. The total household penalty may not exceed 300% of the per-adult penalty.

The penalty amount will be phased in over the years 2014-2016 and will be indexed for inflation after 2016. However, liens and seizures are not authorized to enforce this penalty, and noncompliance will not be subject to criminal penalties.

This provision is effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2013. The reconciliation bill if enacted would change the amount of the penalty.

Tax-Exempt Health Insurers

The act provides for a program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services that will foster the creation of qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers to offer health insurance. Insurers receiving federal grants or loans under the program would be exempt from federal tax (under IRC § 501(a)) for periods when the insurer complies with the terms of the program.

Reporting Requirements

The act requires insurers (including employers who self-insure) that provide minimum essential coverage to any individual during a calendar year to report certain health insurance coverage information to both the covered individual and to the IRS (new IRC § 6055).

The information required to be reported includes: (1) the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the primary insured, and the name and taxpayer identification number of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy; (2) the dates during which the individual was covered under the policy during the calendar year; (3) whether the coverage is a qualified health plan offered through an exchange; (4) the amount of any premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction received by the individual with respect to such coverage; and (5) such other information as the Secretary may require.

This requirement is effective for calendar years beginning after 2013.

Medical Care Itemized Deduction Threshold

The threshold for the itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses is increased from 7.5% of AGI to 10% of AGI for regular income tax purposes. This is effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2012, except that for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, if either the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse turns 65 before the end of the tax year, the increased threshold does not apply and the threshold remains at 7.5% of AGI.

Cafeteria Plans

The act makes premiums for coverage under a qualified health plan offered through an exchange a qualified benefit under a cafeteria plan. This provision applies only to cafeteria plans established by a small employer that elects to make all its full-time employees eligible for one or more qualified plans offered in the small group market through an exchange.

This provision is effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2013.

Additional Hospital Insurance Tax on High-Income Taxpayers

Under the act, the employee portion of the hospital insurance tax part of FICA, currently amounting to 1.45% of covered wages, is increased by 0.9% on wages that exceed a threshold amount. The additional tax is imposed on the combined wages of both the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s spouse, in the case of a joint return. The threshold amount is $250,000 in the case of a joint return or surviving spouse, $125,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return, and $200,000 in any other case.

For self-employed taxpayers, the same additional hospital insurance tax applies to the hospital insurance portion of SECA tax on self-employment income in excess of the threshold amount.

The provision applies to remuneration received and tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2012.

Employer Responsibility

Under new IRC § 4980H, an applicable large employer that does not offer coverage for all its full-time employees, offers minimum essential coverage that is unaffordable, or offers minimum essential coverage that consists of a plan under which the plan’s share of the total allowed cost of benefits is less than 60%, is required to pay a penalty if any full-time employee is certified to the employer as having purchased health insurance through a state exchange with respect to which a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to the employee.

An employer is an applicable large employer with respect to any calendar year if it employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees during the preceding calendar year.

An applicable large employer who fails to offer its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan for any month is subject to a penalty if at least one of its full-time employees is certified to the employer as having enrolled in health insurance coverage purchased through a state exchange with respect to which a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to such employee or employees. The penalty for any month is an excise tax equal to the number of full-time employees over a 30-employee threshold during the applicable month (regardless of how many employees are receiving a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction) multiplied by one-twelfth of $2,000.

An applicable large employer who offers, for any month, its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan is subject to a penalty if any full-time employee is certified to the employer as having enrolled in health insurance coverage purchased through a state exchange with respect to which a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to such employee or employees.

This provision is effective for months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013.

Fees on Health Plans

Under new section 4375, a fee is imposed on each specified health insurance policy. The fee is equal to two dollars (one dollar in the case of policy years ending during fiscal year 2013) multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the policy. The issuer of the policy is liable for payment of the fee.

For any policy year beginning after September 30, 2014, the dollar amount is equal to the sum of: (1) the dollar amount for policy years ending in the preceding fiscal year, plus (2) an amount equal to the product of (A) the dollar amount for policy years ending in the preceding fiscal year, multiplied by (B) the percentage increase in the projected per capita amount of National Health Expenditures, as most recently published by the Secretary before the beginning of the fiscal year.

The issuer of the policy is liable for payment of the fee.

In the case of an applicable self-insured health plan, new IRC § 4376 imposes a fee equal to two dollars (one dollar in the case of policy years ending during fiscal year 2013) multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the plan. For any policy year beginning after September 30, 2014, the dollar amount is equal to the sum of: (1) the dollar amount for policy years ending in the preceding fiscal year, plus (2) an amount equal to the product of (A) the dollar amount for policy years ending in the preceding fiscal year, multiplied by (B) the percentage increase in the projected per capita amount of National Health Expenditures, as most recently published by the Secretary before the beginning of the fiscal year. The plan sponsor is liable for payment of the fee.

The fee is effective with respect to policies and plans for portions of policy or plan years beginning on or after Oct. 1, 2012.

Excise Tax on High-Cost Employer Plans

New IRC § 4980I imposes an excise tax on insurers if the aggregate value of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage for an employee (including, for purposes of the provision, any former employee, surviving spouse and any other primary insured individual) exceeds a threshold amount. The tax is equal to 40% of the aggregate value that exceeds the threshold amount. For 2018, the threshold amount is $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage, multiplied by the health cost adjustment percentage (as defined in the act) and increased by the age and gender adjusted excess premium amount (as defined in the act).

The provision is effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017.

Tax on HSA Distributions

The additional tax on distributions from a health savings account (HSA) or an Archer medical savings account (MSA) that are not used for qualified medical expenses is increased to 20% of the disbursed amount, effective for disbursements made during tax years starting after Dec. 31, 2010.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services

The act imposes a 10% tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services (new IRC § 5000B). Like a sales tax, the tax will be collected from the person tanning when payment for the tanning services is made. The provision applies to services performed on or after July 1, 2010.

Flexible Spending Account

The act mandates that the maximum amount available for reimbursement of incurred medical expenses of an employee, the employee’s dependents, and any other eligible beneficiaries with respect to the employee, under a health flexible spending account for a plan year (or other 12-month coverage period) must not exceed $2,500. The provision is effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2012.

SIMPLE Cafeteria Plans for Small Business

The act establishes a SIMPLE cafeteria plan for small businesses. Under the provision, an eligible small employer is provided with a safe harbor from the nondiscrimination requirements for cafeteria plans as well as from the nondiscrimination requirements for specified qualified benefits offered under a cafeteria plan, including group term life insurance, benefits under a self insured medical expense reimbursement plan, and benefits under a dependent care assistance program. Under the safe harbor, a cafeteria plan and the specified qualified benefits are treated as meeting the specified nondiscrimination rules if the cafeteria plan satisfies minimum eligibility and participation requirements and minimum contribution requirements.

The provision is effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2010.

Expansion of Adoption Credit, Adoption Assistance Programs

For 2010, the maximum adoption credit is increased to $13,170 per eligible child (a $1,000 increase). This increase applies to both non-special needs adoptions and special needs adoptions. Also, the adoption credit is made refundable. The new dollar limit and phase-out of the adoption credit are adjusted for inflation in tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2010. Also, the scheduled sunset of EGTRRA provisions relating to the adoption credit is delayed for one year (i.e., the sunset becomes effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2011).

For adoption assistance programs, the maximum exclusion is increased to $13,170 per eligible child (a $1,000 increase). The new dollar limit and income limitations of the employer-provided adoption assistance exclusion are adjusted for inflation in tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2010. The EGTRRA sunset of provisions relating to adoption assistance programs is also delayed for one year (i.e., the sunset becomes effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2011).

Charitable Hospitals

The act establishes new requirements applicable to section 501(c)(3) hospitals, regarding conducting a community health needs assessment, adopting a written financial assistance policy, limitations on charges, and collection activities.

Information Reporting

The act requires employers to disclose on each employee’s annual Form W-2 the value of the employee’s health insurance coverage sponsored by the employer, effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2010.

The act requires businesses to file an information return (e.g., a Form 1099) for all payments aggregating $600 or more in a calendar year to a single payee, including corporations (other than a payee that is a tax-exempt corporation). The provision is effective for payments made after Dec. 31, 2011.

Return Information Disclosure

The act allows the IRS, upon written request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to disclose certain taxpayer return information if the taxpayers income is relevant in determining the amount of the tax credit or cost-sharing reduction, or eligibility for participation in the specified state health subsidy programs.

Upon written request from the Commissioner of Social Security, the IRS may disclose the certain limited return information of a taxpayer whose Medicare Part D premium subsidy, according to the records of the Secretary, may be subject to adjustment.

The act contains a provision to extend the general exclusion for reimbursements for medical care expenses under an employer-provided accident or health plan to any child of an mployee who has not attained age 27 as of the end of the tax year and codifying the economic substance doctrine.

Facebook has a game called Farmville that has become very popular.  When my wife first started playing the game, I almost thought I was going to have to get her some treatment for her addiction.  I would constantly get messages from Facebook asking me to do something for her Farmville game.  The first couple of times, I did what it asked and after that, I decided was too much work and stopped doing it.

I have found that this game seems to appeal to women more than men.  I am not sure why that is true since I like all things about farming, but I think the main reason for me, is that it is not real farming.  The process of planting, growing and harvesting a real crop has much more appeal to me than a game.

This post is simply a reflection of my opinion.  I am sure there are others who disagree with me, but I know that millions play the game.

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.

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.

Mike Walsten from the “Your Precious Land”

Mike also was interviewed on Ag Day last week and one of his interesting comments related to the trend of farmers in the metro Chicago area.  When pricing for development land was very high during the mid 2000′s, these farmers were able to sell their farm land for upwards of $15,000 an acre and then reinvest it tax-deferred under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.  They mostly reinvested in three or four times the land located in more rural areas.

Now, with the drying up of development potential, many of these farmers are now going back to the people they sold their land to for maybe $20,000 an acre and re-purchasing it for $5,000 to $7,500.  I think you will see this trend continue for a couple of more years.  Then, when the development trend starts again (and based upon a growing population, it will start again sometime), these same farmers might be able to sell the land for $20,000 an acre or more again.

It seems like some of the best investors over the last decade have been our farmers.  It has been a long-time since we could say that.