Firm to Farm: Payment Rule Changes in ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Act Sparks Local FSA Entity Confusion

New farm payment rules allow LLC members to have separate limits, but some local FSA offices are still applying outdated policies, creating confusion for producers.

frozen funds usda money farm programs_Photo by ivandanru via Adobe Stock.jpg

Photo by ivandanru via Adobe Stock

Adobe Stock

TOPEKA, KAN. (RFD NEWS) — My colleague, Paul Neiffer, and I are seeing letters from the local FSA office for the 2026 crop year indicating that an LLC or an S corporation is is limited to a single payment limit. This is contrary to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) provision, which fundamentally changed the treatment of pass-through entities (LLCs and S corporations) by allowing individual-level payment limits. In other words, an entity (other than a C corporation) that limits liability is not limited to a single payment limit at the entity level. This is a very significant (and favorable) rule change for many farming operations.

So, what’s going on here?

The Source of the Conflict

There is a distinct disconnect between the national-level policy changes (as outlined in the OBBBA and the updated FSA guidelines) and the operational practices at local County Offices. National FSA leadership, including Undersecretary Richard Fordyce, has confirmed that the intent of the OBBBA was to end the “person-trap” that previously forced operations into complex General Partnerships just to obtain separate payment limits. LLCs and S corporations are now intended to be treated as pass-throughs.

However, many (exactly how many is unknown) local FSA County Committees and office staff have operated under the rigid “$125,000-per-entity” rule for years. The transition to verifying “active management/labor” for each individual member within an LLC or S Corp is a massive administrative shift for local offices that are already facing staffing and training bottlenecks. This is, indeed, the most frequent point of friction – the “Actively Engaged in Farming” requirement. For an individual in an LLC to qualify for a separate limit, the FSA must verify that they are providing proportional contributions of labor, management, and capital. Local offices are reportedly being extremely cautious and documentation-heavy, often defaulting to old interpretations until they receive explicit, localized guidance from their State Office.

How to Navigate This

For farmers being told by their local office that “nothing has changed” and that they are still capped at a single entity limit, the problem is likely a training lag rather than an agency-wide refusal to implement the law. The most effective way to challenge an incorrect local determination is to cite the current version of the FSA Handbook 6-PL (Payment Limitation, Payment Eligibility, and Average Adjusted Gross Income). Since the passage of the OBBBA, the handbook has been amended to reflect the pass-through treatment of LLCs and S-Corps.

If the local County Committee continues to deny the application of the new limits, you can request an appeal or, more effectively, ask them to elevate the question to the State FSA Office. Often, the issue is that local staff are simply waiting for a specific “how-to” memo from the State office that has been delayed in their inbox.

The primary reason entities get denied the new limits is a lack of documentation regarding proportional management and labor. Ensure that you have clear, written records showing that each member claiming a limit is actively performing tasks proportional to their interest. Providing this documentation up-front can often preempt the office’s desire to default to the old “single-entity” rule.

Summary

The OBBBA clearly changed the rule for LLCs and S corps, it looks as if the reality of federal policy implementation is at issue. The law has changed, but the local institutional inertia is high. If you are being told there is only one limit, the local office is likely applying outdated 2024-era logic to a 2026 regulatory environment. It’s going to take time and training to fix this agency problem.

Related Stories: Firm to Farm
In his latest Firm to Farm blog post, Ag Legal & Taxation Expert Roger McEowen examines contracts, insurance, and property rights and how those legal processes can impact your farm or ranch operation.
Digital contracts are becoming more common for farmers and ranchers, which means some unique legal issues might arise. RFD-TV’s farm legal expert Roger McEowen briefly examines those.
The IRS recently issued its 2024 guidance on the extended replacement period for drought (and other weather-related) livestock sales. RFD-TV Ag Legal & Tax expert Roger McEowen discusses the IRS’ extension of the replacement period for livestock sold due to weather-related conditions.

LATEST STORIES BY THIS AUTHOR:

The meaning of a “double-fraction” clause and the impact on future oil and gas conveyances—that is the topic of today’s blog post by RFD-TV Agril-Legal expert Roger McEowen.
In today’s blog post by RFD-TV agri-legal expert Roger A. McEowen tackles the task of building a solid hunting use agreement.
Acquiring farm or ranch land, as well as the key concepts and issues are the topics of today’s blog post by RFD-TV Agri-legal Expert Roger McEowen.
With 2023 projected to be a difficult year for agricultural producers, Chapter 12 filings may increase. One of the requirements to get a Chapter 12 reorganization plan approved is that be filed in “good faith.” In this blog post, RFD-TV Legal Contributor Roger A. McEowen explains exactly what farmers need to know about the process.
The failure of a grain elevator can cause large problems for farmers and for the local community it serves. A farmer who knows their rights and where they stand if an elevator fails can be in a better position than those farmers who aren’t as well informed. That is the topic of today’s blog post by RFD-TV Legal Contributor Roger A. McEowen.
Financial matters in farming can be frustratingly complicated, especially when it comes to the process of filing for bankruptcy. That is the topic tackled in today’s blog post by Farm-Legal Expert Roger A. McEowen—the definition of “insolvency” for purposes of the exclusion from income of CODI.