|
Grand Rapids, MI | If you remained the producer on all of the farms they most likely should not have done this. Here is the general rule: "[7 CFR Part 718.201] Land that was properly constituted under procedures existing at the
time of reconstitution shall remain so constituted until a change in operation or ownership
occurs that requires a reconstitution."
Here is the definition of a "farm":
"Definition of Farm
A farm is made up of tracts that have the same owner and the same operator.
Land with different owners may be combined if all the land is operated by 1 producer with all
of the following elements in common and substantially separate from other tracts:
• labor
• equipment
• accounting system
• management."
So a FSN with multiple owners is not technically correct, unless it meets the four elements above. If it does it would likely have been "properly constituted" at the time they broke it up. They therefore would have violated 7CFR Part 718.201. If they did and it can be shown, there are detailed provisions for correcting this.
BUT...In order to give a full professional opinion, I would need to know more of the details involved. The handbook just on farm reconstitutions is 196 pages. There are exceptions to exceptions...lol...in typical government style.
Bottom line is figure out how much this is costing you. If it is a significant amount over the next 5 years (and likely beyond) then it is worth pursuing. Needless to say the county office is not likely to be happy being questioned. Of course this is why many people have someone like me do their dirty work...lol. I find that often they are not happy with the extra work I am asking, but if the situation is treated professionally they can respect what I have to do. Basically this isn't worth doing for a few dollars per year. If you start getting into the thousands though....we should talk. | |
|
2008 FSA payments
