IRS Grants Tax Relief Extension to Drought-Stricken Farmers, Ranchers; 37 States and Puerto Rico Affected

If you are a farmer or rancher forced to sell your livestock because of the drought that affects much of the nation, special IRS tax relief may help you. The IRS has extended the time to replace livestock that their owners were forced to sell due to drought. If you’re eligible, this may help you defer tax on any gains you got from the forced sales. The relief applies to all or part of 37 states and Puerto Rico affected by the drought.

Here are several points you should know about this relief:

Defer Tax on Drought Sales. If the drought caused you to sell more livestock than usual, you may be able to defer tax on the extra gains from those sales.
Replacement Period. You generally must replace the livestock within a four-year period to postpone the tax. The IRS can extend that period if the drought continues.
IRS Grants More Time. The IRS has added one more year to the replacement period for eligible farmers and ranchers. The one-year extension of time generally applies to certain sales due to drought.
Livestock Sales that Apply. If you are eligible, your gains on sales of livestock that you held for draft, dairy or breeding purposes apply.
Livestock Sales that Do Not Apply. Sales of other livestock, such as those you raised for slaughter or held for sporting purposes and poultry, are not eligible.
Areas Eligible for Relief. The IRS relief applies to any farm in areas suffering exceptional, extreme or severe drought conditions during any weekly period between Sept. 1, 2015, and Aug. 31, 2016. The National Drought Mitigation Center has listed all or parts of 37 states and Puerto Rico that qualify for relief. Any county that borders a county on the NDMC’s list also qualifies.
2012 Drought Sales. This extension immediately impacts drought sales that occurred during 2012.
Prior Drought Sales. However, the IRS has granted previous extensions that affect some of these localities. This means that some drought sales before 2012 are also affected. The IRS will grant additional extensions if severe drought conditions persist.

Get more on this relief in Notice 2016-60 on IRS.gov. This includes a list of states and counties where the IRS relief applies. For more on these tax rules see Publication 225, Farmer’s Tax Guide on IRS.gov.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Post-Petition Causes of Action, Inheritances and Windfalls Are Property of the Estate and Must Be Reported to the Trustee – Part 5 of 5

August 11, 2019

By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division Click here for Part 1 Click here for Part 2

Members

Post-Petition Causes of Action, Inheritances and Windfalls Are Property of the Estate and Must Be Reported to the Trustee – Part 1 of 5

July 14, 2019

By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division A. Property Acquired After The Filing Of The Chapter 13 Case: The Different Approaches. 1. Property Acquired Post-Petition vs. Property “Vesting In The Debtor”. Click here for Part 2 The broad issue of what becomes property of the Chapter 13 estate post-petition involves consideration of two...

Members

Recent Cases Navigate Retirement Account Exemptions

Karen Jolley

February 11, 2024

“Several recent bankruptcy cases have considered the circumstances under which funds held in, derived from, or contributed to a retirement account may be exempt from the bankruptcy estate.”

Members

Think Beyond the Means Test

Cathy Moran

July 31, 2022

It started as a means test question: could emergency medical expenses be deemed non consumer debt. It ended up as a step back to get the bigger picture. Well seasoned bankruptcy counsel brought the fact pattern to a list serve of colleagues. The prospective debtors’ income in a small consulting corporation is declining, his health crisis raises not only income...

Members

U.S. Trustee Fee Unconstitutional

The Honorable William Houston Brown

June 12, 2022

On June 6, the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Siegel v. Fitzgerald1 held that the increase in U.S. Trustee fees in Chapter 11 cases violated the uniformity requirement of the Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause,2 because the fee increase in 2017 only applied to in the U.S. Trustee districts and didn’t apply to the Bankruptcy Administrator districts in Alabama and North Carolina....

Find The Hidden Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction in Bankruptcy

Cathy Moran

October 8, 2023

“Do you have clients in an active Chapter 13 plan paying back mortgage payments that were delinquent when the case was filed?” October 16th is the deadline to file extended income tax returns.

Members

The Effect of “Success” (Or the Lack of It) on Attorneys’ Fees

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

September 18, 2022

Appendix A 1994 Revised Text of 11 U.S.C. § 330(a), with 2005's Minor Changes Highlighted(1994 version highlighted to show additions and deletions in 2005) (a)(1) After notice to the parties in interest and the United States Trustee and a hearing, and subject to sections 326, 328, and 329, the court may award to a trustee, a consumer privacy ombudsman appointed...

Members

Word to the Wise: Failure to Properly Notice a Creditor Is Bad!

M. Jonathan Hayes

April 7, 2024

When the debtor fails to properly schedule a creditor in an asset case, is the now non-dischargeable debt under § 523(a)(3) limited to the amount the creditor would have received had it filed a proof of claim?

Members

FROM THE ARCHIVES: If You’re Gonna Bet the Farm, Maybe Play Against the House

Danielle N. Gueck-Townsend

December 3, 2023

Attorney Gueck-Townsend provides readers with a primer on evidence needed to prove losses.

Members

Thoughts on the Law: “None of My Business” Or “CU Later”? – Does Refusing to Do Business with a Debtor Violate the Automatic Stay?

February 9, 2020

By The Honorable John P. Gustafson Can a creditor refuse to do business with a debtor, or is such refusal a violation of the automatic stay? The case of Brown v. Penn State Employees Credit Union, 851 F.2d 81 (3rd Cir. 1988) held that a credit union’s refusal to continue to do business with a debtor who caused a loss...

Members