OT: Flex fuel vs regular

[Ashton Crusher]

Lying on applications is how they earn their living.

[dpb]

That's state, not fed's and you can always file a complaint to the assessor if it bugs you that much.

Some folks always will "game" a system; doesn't mean the overall system itself is necessarily bad. Certainly ag land shouldn't be taxed at rates for commercial or higher-intensity use.

But, if it is actually raising a crop, whether it's a small acreage or not, seems ok to me.

[dpb]

I knew it was up for review; wasn't sure where it stood. That's probably too bad. KS has been talking of trying to revise theirs to avoid possible challenge on similar grounds; not positive anything's happening or not. There's other groups that want to repeal it to allow the Seaboards and that ilk more leeway but their mainly the ones looking to further integrate vertically--_a_bad_thing_for_sure_ in my book.

[Dean Hoffman]

I know the owners of three of the larger feedlots nearby. Those are owned by family farmers. I don't know about the ownership of the fourth. The one larger hog confinement operation is family owned. There is one larger dairy, ownership unknown. There are a couple confinement chicken operations around. I think those are owned by regular farmers. Ted Turner bought a lot of ground in the Sandhills. That's ranch country with real cowboys, six and eight man football teams, and rodeo arenas next to the high school football fields. The assessors were worried he might put the land into a non profit, non taxable foundation. I haven't heard if he has done anything like that. We do have county zoning rules here. That might be what's keeping the corporations out. I'm not up on the rules so can't say for sure.

[dpb]

There are at least 30 medium to large (10k to 50k+ head) beef feedlots within a 50 mile radius of which only a couple that I'm aware of are not family owned/operated altho most are S-corp or LLC's simply owing to that being the only reasonable organization given tax and liability law. There's one out-of-state ownership dairy calf finishing facility just east of us a couple of miles that was sold and converted from feedlot to this operation in June that's a Minnesota-based large dairy operation. The former owners of it were a FL-based corporation.

Our county passed a local ordinance banning the confinement hog operations when Seaboard built the packing plant about 45 mi SW of town in OK panhandle (there was/is a beef packing plant here). There are quite a number of hog facilities in the surrounding counties supplying Seaboard; all of which are similar in structure to the beef feedlot operations excepting for the breeding operations that are controlled entirely by Seaboard either as owned or vertically-integrated/operated operations.

I don't have a count on the number of dairies but it's in the teens to twenties I'd estimate in area--a considerable number have moved in over last 10-20 yr owing to the added restrictions and costs in AZ and CA from whence they came. Not a single poultry operation I'm aware of within 200 miles--closest area heavy with them is in AR and E OK.

Turner also bought sotoo 30,000A spread in Red Hills country two counties two to our east--he threatened the same thing there but again hasn't so far. At this point he's converted their cow-calf operation to bison and has done good job in maintaining/improving range quality and all so no complaints (yet, anyway). Who knows what will be the end result, though, altho it does appear he's backed off at least some after actually having had "boots on the ground" experience. I've never actually run across him as it's 60-70 mi over there and while he was reportedly around a fair amount early on over there, I've heard of no sightings in several years, now.

We've got a mix--there are both some larger communities but there's small town 8-man football here, too. The nearest 6-man is in the TX panhandle and W TX, though; KS and OK don't have any that I'm aware of, anyway.

[dpb]

On 9/4/2013 3:22 PM, dpb wrote: ...

ERRATUM: ... other than peanuts, [COTTON] (not corn), and sugar--

[dpb]

On 9/4/2013 8:59 PM, dpb wrote: ...

For the record, no, we do _NOT_ raise corn. :)

This is an all dryland operation; beans and corn only work w/ irrigation here.

As an aside on other renewable fuel alternative--there's an group of irrigated guys in county north that pooled resources and put in small bio-diesel facility for their own use--they're producing enough biodiesel from roughly 20% of their production acres for the diesel supply for their entire operation...

[krw]

You obviously have. "Ashton Crusher" called you on part of it, above.

Most business (read: hobbies) DO NOT get huge real estate tax subsidies.

[krw]

For very small values of "earn".

[Ashton Crusher]

Wouldn't it be nice if we all just paid the same taxes without worrying about what kind of legal scam, I mean legal business model, we elected to use.

[dpb]

Nonsense...businesses get all kinds of subsidies/tax breaks from no real estate at all for years for moving in manufacturing or all kinds of stuff...

I pointed out on that one if he's so upset over ag use of a parcel that thinks isn't he can go to the local assessor and have the case reviewed.

[dpb]

On 9/5/2013 10:01 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: ...

Well, that ship sailed 200+ yr ago...

But, in reality, no; there are reasons for differences; some better than others but there are reasons.

[krw]

Good lord. You INSIST on showing your cluelessness.

What a dumbfuck. What exactly do you think the assessor is going to do? It's the law. Idiot!

[dpb]

On 9/6/2013 1:00 PM, [e-mail] wrote: ...

Obscenities are hardly needed/called for just 'cuz you can't see the logically obvious to me... :)

There's the law and there's avoidance of same...you don't think there's ever a case when an attempt at using the law to create an avoidance of liability has been foiled?

If it is within the intent then sure, and I've no problem with it as said before.

There are reviews of questionable judgments made all the time if they're brought to the attention of those making same. Certainly the County Assessor will be more than happy to collect the higher rate on any piece of property that is on rolls currently as ag use if review of same would show it isn't justifiable. But, they don't have manpower to check every parcel every year so unless an issue is raised it'll just go on until either it crops up on a routine reassessment check or someone brings a possible attempt to avoid to their attention.

I'm on local FSA (Farm Service Agency) County Committee a local committee of producers who are a first step in the chain of USDA implementation of prgrams. One of our routine duties is to make determinations of whether folks are qualified operators based on their contributions to farming enterprises all the time. Sometimes it's a hard call and takes requesting additional supporting documentation and/or other evidence an individual actually is contributing sufficiently to be considered a bona fide "producer" (FSA-speak for person qualified to be paid).

While the particular question at hand is regarding the local county tax assessment for the parcel, there are reviews in those offices as well.

Don't see what's so hard... :)

[dpb]

On 9/6/2013 1:00 PM, [e-mail] wrote: ...

There's the law and then there's evasion...

Your hypothesis is the taxing authority would have no recourse to determine what is/isn't valid ag use and I seriously doubt that is so in _any_ jurisdiction.

[krw]

What is obvious to you isn't reality in this universe.

Wrong. ...as usual.

The law is the law, dummy. If it's in the letter of the law, there's not a damned thing to be done.

Idiot.

Of course you don't. You're an idiot.

[krw]

Clueless.

What a frappin' idiot. If the "farm" is within the letter of the law, there's not a damned thing you're going to do about it. It's easy for weekend farmers to be within that letter. It's *very* common and they get huge subsidies for it. Rent a clue if you can't afford to own one.

[dpb]

Indeed if it is within the law then there's nothing that _should_ be done about it--that's precisely what I've said from the git-go.

OTOH, if it is a subterfuge solely for the purpose of avoidance then something could (and should) be done.

Now, there's the gray part--perhaps as the other poster says the sister wouldn't have done it w/o the side benefit but is still producing a viable hay crop--there's nothing wrong technically with that, either as per the law. And, indeed, I've also no problem therein as previously said as everybody is free to use the rules as they exist as they best server their own interest.

Again as previously pointed out, just because it is possible to squeeze corner cases into a general law that benefit a few that aren't generally intended doesn't mean the overall policy is wrong; only that there's never any way to completely prevent the occasional incident of the sort, no matter what the area.

OTOH, there are certainly instances that _are/were_ abuse that have been fixed and/or prosecuted. As said, we find them during FSA audits or have to reject individuals for not being in compliance on occasion.

[dpb]

On 9/6/2013 9:47 PM, [e-mail] wrote: ...

What's your definition of "huge"? Unlikely there's really a lot of money involved for such recreational activities. How much actual money can there be in 10-12A? -- the other poster mentioned a thou or so; hardly a "huge subsidy".

[trader4]

I agree. While production is way up, we're still a large net importer of oil. The most amazing thing I've heard is a forecast that by 2020 the USA will be the largest oil producer in the world.