Order Code RS21493
Updated March 12, 2007
Payment Limits for Farm Commodity
Programs: Issues and Proposals
Jim Monke
Analyst in Agricultural Economics
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
Payment limits set a maximum amount of farm commodity program payments per
person. Limits were created in 1970 and continue today. Federal deficits and perceived
inequities in the distribution of payments have heightened congressional attention. The
Administration’s proposal for the 2007 farm bill would impose a tighter income cap to
qualify for government payments (means testing). H.R. 124 would mandate new rules
to reduce the use of schemes to avoid limits. Other bills addressing payment limits are
expected as lawmakers continue to consider the distribution and effect of subsidies.
Tighter payment limits would likely affect more southern cotton and rice farms
than midwestern feed grain and oilseed farms. Fewer acres of cotton or rice are needed
to reach the limit, since payments per acre are higher. Tighter household income limits
may not necessarily affect the same farms, as nonfarm sources of income affect means
testing and some large farms may have low net income. This report will be updated.
Background on Payment Limits
Payment limits, which have existed since 1970, set a maximum amount of farm
program payments a “person” can receive (7 U.S.C. 1308). In addition, the 2002 farm bill
created an income test to exclude payments to households with very high incomes. The
issue was controversial for the 2002 farm bill, and remains so today. The debate usually
focuses on what size farms should be supported, whether payments should be proportional
to production or limited per individual, and the need to reduce spending.
The effect of payment limits varies greatly across individuals and regions. The South
and West have more large farms than the Upper Midwest or Northeast. By commodity,
cotton and rice farms are affected more often since subsidies per acre are relatively higher.
What Payments Are Subject to Limits? Producers generally receive three
types of payments: direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, and marketing loans.
Applying payment limits to direct and counter-cyclical payments is relatively
straightforward, since they are direct cash transfers. Marketing loans are more

---

CRS-2
complicated because limits do not apply to some marketing loan options (see CRS Report
RL33271, Farm Commodity Programs: Direct Payments, Counter-Cyclical Payments,
and Marketing Loans, by Jim Monke).
The following types of payment are subject to limits:
! Direct payments
! Counter-cyclical payments
! Some marketing loan benefits
— marketing loan gain (MLG): repaying a loan for less than the original
amount and keeping the difference as a marketing loan benefit
— loan deficiency payment (LDP): a cash payment instead of a loan
Payments not subject to limits include:
! Some marketing loan benefits
— certificate gain (similar to MLG): repaying a loan with commodity
certificates instead of cash (P.L. 106-78, § 812, exempts these from limits)
— forfeiting the commodity and keeping the cash from the loan.
The 2002 farm bill also created an income test, prohibiting payments to entities with
adjusted gross income greater than $2.5 million, unless 75% or more comes from farming.
Other farm programs have payment limits per person. These include the Milk
Income Loss Contract (MILC, 2.4 million pounds of milk annually), Conservation
Reserve Program ($50,000), and Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($30,000).
Who Receives Payments? Individuals, corporations, partnerships, and trusts
are eligible. One-third of the 2 million farms in the United States receive subsidy
payments, although the ratio is as high as 72% in North Dakota and 70% in Iowa. About
700,000 farm operators and 1 million landlords receive payments. The impact of limits
can be minimized legally by creating multiple entities to receive payments.1
How Many Farmers Are Affected? Although data are available on the
distribution of payments, few data are available on the current effect of payment limits.
The 2003 report of the Payment Limits Commission provided data relevant to one of the
three current payments.2 In 2000, about 1% of producers receiving payments were
affected by the $40,000 limit on what now are called direct payments. This amounted to
12,300 producers across 42 states. The reduction in direct payments was $83 million, or
1.6%. Payment reductions in California and Texas represented 36% of the total reduction.
Cotton farmers accounted for 60% of the cut in California and 35% of the cut in Texas.
In December 2006, USDA released a new database that attributes payments to individuals
better than previous data releases, but analyses have yet to be published because of the
complexity of the raw data.
1 Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (University of Missouri), Analysis of Stricter
Payment Limits: Additional Information, June 2003, p. 2, at [http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/
outreach/publications/2003/FAPRI_UMC_Report_06_03.pdf]; and USDA, Report of the
Commission on the Application of Payment Limitations for Agriculture, Aug. 2003, pp. 31-39,
at [http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/payment_limits/paymentLimitsAll.pdf].
2 Report of the Commission on the Application of Payment Limitations for Agriculture, pp. 65-75.

---

CRS-3
Current Payment Limits
Under the 2002 farm bill, the annual payment limit is $360,000 per person. The
limit has three parts: $40,000 for direct payments, $65,000 for counter-cyclical payments,
and $75,000 for marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments. These amounts add
to $180,000, but can be doubled (see Table 1). The $360,000 limit is not a firm ceiling,
however. Marketing loan benefits are essentially unlimited because producers can use
commodity certificates without limit when other marketing loan options are limited.
One way to double the limit is the “three entity rule,” allowing one person to receive
payments on up to three entities, with second and third entities eligible for one-half of the
limits. The other is the “spouse rule,” which treats a husband and wife as separate persons
to double a farm’s payment limit. Payments for most commodities are combined toward
a single limit, but separate limits apply to peanuts, wool, mohair, and honey.3
Table 1. Payment Limits on Farm Commodity Programs
Current law
Proposals
Type of Limit
(109th Congress)
Administration
2002
S. 385 /
2007 farm bill
Farm Bill
H.R. 1590
proposal
Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments
(a) Direct Payments
$40,000
$20,000
110,000
(b) Counter-Cyclical Payments
$65,000
$30,000
110,000
Doubling allowance
$105,000
$50,000
None
Subtotal
$210,000
$100,000
220,000
Marketing Loan Payments
(c1) Marketing Loan Gains
$75,000
$140,000
(c2) Loan Deficiency Payments
$75,000
(c3) Commodity Certificates
No limit
No limit
(c4) Loan Forfeiture Gains
Doubling allowance
$75,000
$75,000
None
Subtotal of (c1) and (c2)
$150,000
$140,000
$150,000
Subtotal including (c3) and (c4)
No limit
No limit
Sum of Direct, Counter-Cyclical, and Marketing Loan Payments
Total of (a), (b), (c1) and (c2)
$360,000
$360,000
$250,000
Total including (c3) and (c4)
No limit
No limit
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Limitation
$2.5 million
$200,000
Ineligible for payments if AGI exceeds...
except if 75%
no change
no exceptions
is from farming
Source: CRS.
3 See the USDA fact sheet “Payment Eligibility and Limitations” (July 2003), at [http://www.
fsa.usda.gov].

---

CRS-4
Policy Issues In Congress
Supporters of payment limits use both economic and political arguments to justify
tighter limits. Economically, they contend that large payments facilitate consolidation of
farms into larger units, raise the price of land, and put smaller, family-sized farming
operations at a disadvantage. Even though tighter limits would not redistribute benefits
to smaller farms, they say that tighter limits could help indirectly by reducing incentives
to expand, and could help small and beginning farmers buy and rent land. Politically, they
believe that large payments undermine public support for farm subsidies and are costly.
Critics of payment limits counter that all farms are in need of support, especially
when market prices decline, and that larger farms should not be penalized for the
economies of size and efficiencies they have achieved. They say that farm payments help
U.S. agriculture compete in global markets and that income testing is at odds with federal
farm policies directed toward improving U.S. agriculture and its competitiveness.
In August 2003, the Payment Limits Commission (created by the 2002 farm bill)
provided a detailed report to Congress. The report has extensive data on program
payments and limits, but the commission ultimately did not take a position other than that
any changes should wait until the next farm bill.
Many observers believe that the 110th Congress may consider payment limits during
the 2007 farm bill debate as part of overall consideration of the distribution and effect of
subsidies. Newspapers have published stories critical of farm payments and how they are
distributed to large farms, nonfarmers, or landowners.4 Limits are increasingly interesting
to urban lawmakers, and have advocates among smaller farms and social interest groups.
Administration Proposals.5 The Administration’s 2007 farm bill proposal
would deny any commodity payments to households with adjusted gross income (AGI,
for tax purposes) exceeding $200,000 — down from the current $2.5 million income test
— and would not allow the exemption for households with 75% of income from farming.
The Administration’s plan would redistribute the $360,000 limit across the payment
types, eliminate the three-entity rule, and apply a single limit to all commodities, but
retain the exemption from limits for commodity certificates and forfeiture (Table 1). The
Administration estimates this plan would save $1.5 billion over 10 years and appeal as a
reasonable plan to limit benefits using a commonly accepted notion of high income.
The 2007 farm bill proposal differs from prior year Administration proposals. In
2006 and 2005, the Administration proposed tighter payment limits by lowering the cap
from $360,000 to $250,000, including commodity certificates and loan forfeiture under
the limits, eliminating the three-entity rule, and applying limits to the dairy program.
Regarding the continued ability to use commodity certificates to avoid limits under
its proposal, USDA asserts that fewer cotton and rice farms (the primary users of
4 For example, see the Washington Post series Harvesting Cash, published in 2006, at
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2006/07/10/LI2006071000403.html].
5 USDA’s 2007 farm bill proposal is available at [http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/
_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=FARM_BILL_FORUMS].

---

CRS-5
commodity certificates) will use certificates to exceed payment limits on marketing loans
because another part of its farm bill proposal would reduce marketing loan benefits.
This different approach using means testing could help achieve “direct attribution”
of payments to individuals, a goal seeking to reduce “schemes” by which producers create
various entities to avoid limits. AGI is a common measure of income, and combines
income from all sources (farm and nonfarm, as well as individual, partnership, and
corporate income from farming). AGI measures net income, and farm income is added
on a net basis also, that is, after expenses. However, some critics of the proposal say a
phase-out is needed so that households barely over the limit do not lose all their payments.
H.R. 124 also promotes direct attribution, but through new USDA-issued regulations
that would be aimed to reduce the use of schemes and multiple entities to avoid limits.
Statistics about farmers’ income taxes can be confusing since no single statistic
reveals which farms might be affected. Farm income may be reported on Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) forms Schedule F (sole proprietor), Form 4835 (farm rental income),
Schedule K-1 (partnership), and Schedule C (corporation). Most farms file Schedule F,
but data are difficult to obtain for partnerships and corporations. Moreover, farms
overwhelmingly report losses for tax purposes (because of cash accounting, depreciation,
and other practices), even though USDA farm income numbers are positive. For example,
in 2004, 2 million Schedule F returns reported a net farm loss of $13 billion; two-thirds
of these showed a loss. That ratio is reversed for the approximately 80,000 Schedule F
“large farms” with sales over $250,000. About one-third of all Schedule F forms have
government payments, compared with over 80% of “large farm” Schedule F forms.6
In 2004, about 80,000 Schedule F returns (4%) and 26,000 Forms 4835 (4%) were
for households with more than $200,000 AGI (the Administration’s proposed limit).7
However, not all of these farms received government payments. About 25,000 Schedule
F returns (1.2%) and 13,000 Forms 4835 (2%) both received payments and had AGI over
$200,000; these farms received about 5% of government payments.8 These potentially
affected farms are not necessarily large farms, nor above the AGI limit because of high
farm income. More USDA and IRS data about partnerships and corporations is needed.
Texas A&M published a study of the proposal using representative farms.9 The
conclusion is that more farms may be affected than USDA’s data suggests. However, the
report does not address the peculiarities of taxable farm income such as cash accounting
or depreciation, or whether the farm accounting data are comparable to taxable measures.
Supporters of the proposal say farmers are skilled at managing taxes and can keep taxable
farm income lower than accounting measures of farm profitability.
6 CRS analysis of IRS data at [http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html], and USDA-ERS, Effects
of Federal Tax Policy on Agriculture, by Ron Durst, James Monke, AER 800, April 2001, at
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer800/aer800.pdf].
7 CRS analysis of IRS data at [http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html], Feb. 2007.
8 USDA analysis of IRS data, unpublished, Feb. 2007.
9 Agricultural and Food Policy Center, “Impact of a Proposed AGI Means Test on Representative
Crop Farms,” Feb. 2007, at [http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/3/461/BP%2007-01.pdf].

---

CRS-6
CBO Budget Options. The Congressional Budget Office’s 2007 edition of
Budget Options10 again proposes tighter payment limits to reduce agricultural spending.
The CBO suggestion would reduce direct and counter-cyclical limits by half, and count
certificate gains and forfeiture toward the current marketing loan limit. CBO estimates
this approach would save $1 billion over 10 years.
Proposals in the 109th Congress. Senator Grassley introduced S. 385 (109th
Congress) to tighten limits on direct, counter-cyclical, and marketing loan payments to
a total of $250,000, and count commodity certificates and loan forfeiture toward
marketing loan limits. The bill had eight cosponsors. An identical bill, H.R. 1590 (109th
Congress), was introduced in the House by Representative Kind and had two cosponsors.
Neither of the bills was formally considered by the agriculture committees, but they may
be markers for bills to be introduced in the 110th Congress.
These bills would have reduced the statutory limit (before doubling) on direct
payments from $40,000 to $20,000; and the limit on counter-cyclical payments would
have decreased from $65,000 to $30,000. While the limit on marketing loans would have
remained the same at $75,000, the effective limit would have been reduced because
commodity certificates and loan forfeiture would be counted toward the limit (Table 1).
This is a key feature because, as a practical matter, marketing loan payments are not
limited under the 2002 farm bill. When MLGs and LDPs hit the limit, producers can shift
to commodity certificates without limit.
The bills would have established a new rule allowing a person with an interest in
only a single farming operation to double the payment limits without needing to use the
three-entity or spouse rules, both of which would have continued. Thus, farmers would
have had another means and found it easier to double the payment limits. The changes
would have applied to the “covered commodities” and to certain loan commodities as a
group, but peanuts, wool, mohair, and honey were not addressed by the bills.
In 2005, Congress debated farm bill changes as part of budget reconciliation for
FY2006. Neither the House nor the Senate agriculture committee included payment
limits in their reconciliation markup. But a floor amendment by Senator Grassley to add
payment limits to the Senate version of the FY2006 budget reconciliation bill failed by
a procedural vote of 46-53 on November 3, 2005 (S.Amdt. 2359 to S. 1932, 109th
Congress). S.Amdt. 2359 contained the same monetary limits as S. 385 (109th Congress),
but had different provisions regarding attribution and eligibility.
Proposals in the 2002 Farm Bill and 108th Congress. The Senate-passed
version of the 2002 farm bill contained tighter limits (S.Amdt. 2826 to S. 1731, 107th
Congress), but those limits were rejected by the conference committee. The vote on the
Senate’s 2002 farm bill amendment was 66-31 in favor of tighter limits. That bill would
have limited direct and counter-cyclical payments to a combined $75,000, allowed a
$50,000 spouse benefit, replaced the three-entity rule with direct attribution, limited
marketing loan benefits to $150,000, and counted commodity certificates and forfeiture.
In 2003, Senator Grassley introduced a payment limits bill, S. 667 (108th Congress).
10 Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options, Feb. 2007, pp. 83-84, at [http://www.cbo.gov/
ftpdocs/78xx/doc7821/02-23-BudgetOptions.pdf].

---