Boa SafraMonitoring

June 2026 · Regulatory-risk brief

§180 / Legacy Nutrient DeductionIRS Communications Monitor

Refreshed 2026-06-27 — expanded scope from the Bryce + Zack SME review (JCT · Senate Ag/Finance · Pub 225 · federal case law · scholarly/law-review · law-firm/CPA) + the verified case-law precedent report folded in. Baseline: 6-agent sweep 2026-06-23.

Updated Jun 30, 2026 · today
Current postureWATCH — foundation stable, climate heating

Nothing changed the law for §180 this month: the statute (1960), regulations (1961), and IRS guidance posture are all unchanged, and §180 even survived the 2025 OBBBA tax rewrite untouched. But the public narrative is shifting from “obscure deduction” to “controversial tax shelter,” and Boa Safra is now named by name in national ag press. The realistic threat is administrative (an IRS guidance project, Dirty-Dozen flag, or test-case audit) and prospective — not legislative and not present. This is a baseline run; future months are scored as changes against it.

Bottom line

  • The legal foundation of the Legacy Nutrient Deduction is UNCHANGED and currently stable — no new statute, regulation, IRS ruling, court case, or enforcement campaign touching IRC §180 this period. §180 survived the July 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill” (P.L. 119-21) untouched, and no pending bill threatens it.

  • The biggest signal this month is REPUTATIONAL/ADMINISTRATIVE, not legal: the “loss of soil nutrients = tax shelter” framing is accelerating in ag media, and two April-2026 pieces (Ambrook “There’s Cash in the Soil”; AgWeb Farm Journal) name Boa Safra directly — quoting Zack Porter and Adam Brenneman and citing BSA’s pricing and “<2% audit / 100% audit-defense” claims. This named-company + “loss/abuse” pattern is the classic precursor to IRS sub-regulatory action.

  • Housekeeping that matters: the authority everyone (including BSA’s own keyword list and competitors) cites as “PLR 9211007” is actually TAM 9211007 (Dec. 3, 1991) — and it DENIED the deduction. It is not a favorable ruling; it is the taxpayer loss that defined the 3-part test (beneficial ownership · presence/extent · actual exhaustion). BSA should correct this framing externally — done right, it’s a credibility edge over sloppier promoters.

  • The defensibility line is now publicly drawn by the field’s most-cited independent authority (Kristine Tidgren, Iowa State CALT): value only fertilizer attributable to the prior owner’s applications (not ALL soil nutrients), prove the supply is declining, and prove beneficial ownership. BSA’s conservative hindcasting maps onto exactly this boundary — that is the moat, provided BSA stays inside it.

  • Watch one thing above all: a coming STATUTE or IRS rulemaking. Roger McEowen (Washburn) now openly predicts Congress will legislate and the IRS will write rules — “it could be in the reconciliation bill or the skinny farm bill.” Such an event would either legitimize or constrain BSA’s method; it is the single highest-leverage thing this monitor exists to catch early.

  • Case-law foundation now mapped and primary-verified (per Bryce + Zack): the taxpayer WINS (Shurbet 1965, Meyers 1976 — both IRS-acquiesced) turned on a provable cost basis + measurable depletion of a wasting asset, exactly what BSA’s soil-testing baseline supplies; the one LOSS that matters — Duda (5th Cir. 1977) — is the “can’t depreciate the land itself” boundary BSA must stay clear of. No new case has cited these precedents since 1997, so the landscape is stable. Full chronological report: research/08_caselaw_precedent_report.md.

  • Current empirical reality is benign: every audit the academics have reviewed — including one ~$40M deduction — closed with “no change.” No court has ever ruled on the modern deduction, for or against; there is no IRS campaign and no current Audit Technique Guide. The risk is that this clean slate is also an undefended one — a single adverse test case (likely brought against an aggressive promoter) could reset the whole field.

Signal registerranked by relevance to §180

  1. 01Ag-media “tax shelter” framing now names Boa Safra by name

    Press / Policy

    2026-04-05 · Ambrook/Offrange — “There’s Cash in the Soil” (quotes BSA co-owner Zack Porter + Tidgren)

    Calls §180 a “controversial tax break” turned “major tax shelter”; pairs BSA with Tidgren’s warning that deductions reaching half the property value are “outside what the IRS intended.” Named-company + abuse framing is the precursor profile to an IRS CCA, Dirty-Dozen listing, or audit campaign. Highest-relevance signal this month.

  2. 02Leading academic predicts a coming statute / IRS rulemaking

    Commentary / Legislative

    2026-04-13 · Roger McEowen via AgWeb/Farm Journal (article also names BSA’s Adam Brenneman + cites BSA audit claims)

    “I foresee a statute from Congress and IRS writing rules… reconciliation bill or skinny farm bill.” The single highest-leverage future event — could legitimize OR constrain BSA’s valuation method. Watch reconciliation + Farm Bill (H.R. 7567) tax titles closely.

  3. 03“PLR 9211007” is actually TAM 9211007 — and it was a taxpayer LOSS

    Written Determination

    1991-12-03 · Iowa State CALT (Tidgren), corroborated by McEowen & U. of Illinois

    BSA’s own keyword list and competitors cite it as a favorable PLR. It is a Technical Advice Memorandum that DENIED the deduction (no beneficial ownership, failed to prove presence/extent, failed to prove exhaustion) — and thereby set the 3-part test BSA’s method satisfies. Fix the external framing; correctly told, it is a credibility differentiator.

  4. 04Controlling skeptical view: value prior-owner fertilizer, not ALL soil nutrients

    Commentary

    2025-03-21 · Kristine Tidgren, Iowa State CALT — “Considering the Residual Fertility Deduction”

    The field’s most-cited independent authority finds “no legal support” for valuing all soil nutrients vs. only prior-owner-applied, unexhausted fertilizer; flags 20–75% penalty exposure. This is the likely IRS attack line if audits ever turn adverse — and the exact boundary BSA’s conservative method is built to stay inside.

  5. 05§180 survived the 2025 OBBBA tax rewrite untouched; no pending bill threatens it

    Legislation

    2025-07-04 · One Big Beautiful Bill Act, P.L. 119-21 (Congress.gov + GovTrack full-text search)

    The largest tax rewrite in years left §180 intact; no bill in the 118th/119th Congress amends or limits it, and the 2026 Farm Bill (H.R. 7567) is silent on it. Legislative risk is low; the threat vector is administrative, not statutory.

  6. 06No IRS guidance, Priority Guidance Plan project, or new determination in ~30 years

    Statute / Guidance

    2025-09-30 · IRS 2025-2026 Priority Guidance Plan (no §180 item) + 30-yr guidance gap confirmed by McEowen/Tidgren

    Statute unchanged since 1960, regs since 1961, no project pending — the foundation is static, not deteriorating. The flip side: there is also no protective authority, so the deduction is undefended as well as unchallenged.

  7. 07No court case ever decided on the modern deduction; reviewed audits closed “no change” (incl. ~$40M)

    Case Law / Enforcement

    2026-01-09 · Roger McEowen, “Top 10 Ag Law & Tax Developments of 2025” (RFD-TV/Firm to Farm)

    Clean precedent slate and benign present enforcement support BSA’s conservative positioning. But “no adverse case” also means “no protective case” — a single test case against an aggressive promoter could contaminate the whole field, including the conservative end.

  8. 08Case-law precedent chain mapped & verified — wins hinge on measurability (BSA's strength); Duda is the boundary

    Case Law / Enforcement

    2026-06-25 · Full precedent report, CourtListener-verified: Shurbet 347 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1965), Meyers 66 T.C. 235 (1976), Duda 560 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1977), Warren 40 T.C. 991 (1963)

    The wins (Shurbet, Meyers — both IRS-acquiesced) required a provable cost basis + measurable depletion of a wasting asset — exactly what BSA's soil-testing baseline supplies. Duda (LOSS) is the 'can't depreciate the land itself' line to stay clear of. Every win came from FEDERAL court, not Tax Court. No new case has cited these precedents since 1997 → stable.

  9. 09Rising mainstream awareness: USDA webinar, podcasts, and real farmer skepticism online

    Social Signal

    2025-07-10 · USDA/farmers.gov “Deducting Residual Fertility” webinar; organic X discussion (e.g. @clintwfischer thread)

    The topic has reached federal extension channels and everyday farmer conversation (“Wild West,” “proceed with great caution”). Rising visibility legitimizes the category but also raises the probability of becoming an IRS audit target. Reddit volume is still near-zero — an uptick there would be an early mainstreaming signal.

Monitored categoriesfindings by domain

IRC §180 is current, in force, and substantively unchanged since enactment in 1960 (only a 1976 technical edit). Treas. Reg. §§1.180-1 and 1.180-2 date to T.D. 6548 (Feb. 22, 1961) and have never been amended. Critically, neither the statute, the regulations, nor IRS Pub. 225 uses the words “residual” or “excess fertility,” or addresses valuing nutrients embedded in soil at a stepped-up-basis purchase — the exact theory the LND product rests on. That theory is inferred from the statute plus one 1991 TAM and pre-1996 rulings.

1960 (tech-amended 1976)Neutral

IRC §180 stable and substantively unamended since enactment (Pub. L. 86-779; sole later change a non-substantive 1976 edit).

26 U.S.C. §180

Long, unbroken pedigree — but Congress has never expanded §180 to cover “residual fertility” specifically.

1961-02-22Neutral

Treas. Reg. §1.180-1 adopted by T.D. 6548 (26 FR 1486); never amended. Companion §1.180-2 covers election mechanics.

26 CFR §1.180-1

The regulatory framework BSA relies on is 64 years old and silent on residual/excess fertility — the gap BSA fills, and the IRS’s strongest line of attack.

2025-09-30Tailwind

IRS 2025-2026 Priority Guidance Plan contains NO project on §180, soil/residual fertility, or farmland basis allocation (same absence in 2024-2025).

2025-2026 Initial PGP

No imminent rulemaking threat — but also no forthcoming favorable clarification. First appearance of a §180 item in a future PGP would be a red flag.

Pub. 225 (2025 ed.)Threat

IRS Farmer’s Tax Guide frames §180 as a fertilizer/lime purchase-expensing election; does not use “residual/excess fertility” or address embedded nutrients in purchased/inherited soil.

IRS Pub. 225

The IRS’s own taxpayer guide gives the residual-fertility theory no explicit support — a key vulnerability if the position is ever challenged.

ΔBaseline run — no prior month to compare. Future runs flag any new IRB item, Treasury rule, or PGP project.

There is effectively ONE IRS written determination on point — TAM 9211007 (Dec. 3, 1991), a taxpayer loss — plus one retired 1995 internal audit guide (MSSP grain-farmer guide, Training 3149-133). No PLR, TAM, CCA, FSA, or FAA on §180 residual fertility has issued in the ~30 years since. New determinations post every Friday at irs.gov/written-determinations and are UILC-coded, so any single new hit on UILC 180.00-00 would be a high-signal event.

1991-12-03Threat

TAM 9211007 — mislabeled “PLR” by promoters and BSA’s keyword list. It DENIED the deduction (corp not beneficial owner; failed to prove presence/extent; failed to prove exhaustion) and established the 3-part test now relied on.

Tech. Adv. Memo. 9211007

Never present it as a favorable PLR. Correctly framed (a denial defining the bar BSA clears), it differentiates BSA from sloppier promoters. Obtain the primary text via Tax Notes/Westlaw for the legal file.

1995-07Neutral

IRS MSSP “Guideline on Grain Farmers” (Training 3149-133) — internal audit guide reiterating the same 3 requirements and instructing examiners to scrutinize valuations. Now retired/out of print.

MSSP Training 3149-133

The de-facto examiner standard, but stale. A new or revived ATG on this topic would signal renewed enforcement focus.

Context onlyNeutral

Related but NOT residual-fertility-specific (do not cite as §180 support): PLR 8226022 (groundwater depletion); Rev. Rul. 77-12 / 54-241 (topsoil cost depletion); Rev. Rul. 67-123 (lime — §180 enactment history).

various

Cited by Tidgren for context; using them as direct §180 authority would overstate the support base.

ΔBaseline = the 1991 TAM only. Monthly check: irs.gov/written-determinations (find=180, sort by release date) + weekly index PDFs; alert on any new UILC 180 / fertilizer / soil-nutrient determination.

No court has ever decided the modern §180 “residual/excess soil fertility on purchased land” deduction — not for it, not against it. The doctrine leans on analogues (Duda, Meyers) and the 1991 TAM. There is no public IRS campaign, no listed-/reportable-transaction designation, and no current Audit Technique Guide for farming or §180. Academics call it the “Wild, Wild West.”

1977Threat

A. Duda & Sons v. United States, 560 F.2d 669 (5th Cir.) — you generally cannot deplete/depreciate soil or land itself absent severance of a natural deposit.

560 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1977)

The IRS’s outer-limit weapon. LND must clearly distinguish prior-owner-APPLIED residual fertilizer from inherent soil nutrients — the line aggressive promoters blur.

1976Tailwind

John W. Meyers, 66 T.C. 235 — cost depletion allowed for topsoil severed and sold with sod (IRS acquiesced, 1977-1 C.B. 1).

66 T.C. 235 (1976)

Wins turn on MEASURABILITY — exactly what BSA's soil-testing baseline supplies (why Meyers won and Warren lost).

1965Tailwind

Shurbet v. United States, 347 F.2d 103 (5th Cir., aff'g 242 F. Supp. 736) — cost depletion ALLOWED for a wasting natural resource (Ogallala groundwater) on a provable cost basis; IRS acquiesced (Rev. Rul. 65-296).

347 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1965)

The closest FAVORABLE analogy and strongest win — structurally identical to LND (provable basis + measurable depletion of a wasting asset in farmland). IRS acquiescence makes it a shield BSA can cite affirmatively.

1963Threat

Warren v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 991 — DENIED topsoil depletion to a sod grower; later distinguished by Meyers.

40 T.C. 991 (1963)

The clean Tax Court soil case was a LOSS — reinforces Bryce/Zack's point that federal court (source of every win here) is the better forum.

2026-01-09Tailwind

No new §180 court case, guidance, or legislation in 2025; reviewed audits — including one ~$40M deduction — closed with “no change.” No IRS campaign or listed-transaction designation as of June 2026.

McEowen, Top 10 of 2025

Benign present enforcement. But anecdotal, and “undefended” — the first adverse test case is the top existential trigger to watch (via CourtListener §180 alert).

Verified Jun 2026Tailwind

Current IRS Audit Technique Guide library contains NO farming/agriculture/§180 guide; the 1995 MSSP is archived only.

IRS ATG library

No modern examiner playbook exists. The appearance of any new Farming/§180 ATG would be an early warning of renewed enforcement focus.

ΔVerified precedent chain folded in (report 08): Shurbet/Meyers (wins, IRS-acquiesced) · Duda/Warren (losses) — all CourtListener-verified; 10 cases cite them, newest 1997 (stable). Monthly check: CourtListener Alerts across ALL federal courts (not just Tax Court) — topic + citator cites:(268322 Shurbet | 4704239 Meyers | 348408 Duda | 4701563 Warren); IRS ATG library; IRS Newsroom.

No bill in the 118th or 119th Congress amends, limits, or repeals §180, and none targets residual/excess soil fertility or farmland basis allocation. §180 survived OBBBA (P.L. 119-21, July 2025) untouched, and the 2026 Farm Bill (H.R. 7567) is silent on it. JCT tracks only the small fertilizer-expensing election (~$0.1B/yr) — not the step-up valuation BSA monetizes. The live signal is the “loophole/tax shelter” narrative, not any pending text.

2025-07-04Tailwind

OBBBA (H.R. 1 / P.L. 119-21) — major 2025 tax law (100% bonus depreciation, §179 to $2.5M, permanent QBI, $15M estate exemption, farmland-sale installment election) — SILENT on §180.

P.L. 119-21

§180 went through the biggest tax rewrite in years untouched. The bigger estate exemption + farmland-sale relief reshape the surrounding step-up/recapture math BSA should fold into client messaging.

2026Neutral

2026 Farm Bill (H.R. 7567) advancing (extension expires Sept 30, 2026); commodity/conservation/trade scope, no §180 tax language. McEowen predicts a statute may yet ride reconciliation or a “skinny farm bill.”

H.R. 7567 / CRS R48918

Low direct risk today, but the Farm Bill / reconciliation tracks are exactly where a future §180 statute would appear — monitor any late-added tax title.

2024 (FY2025)Neutral

JCT tax-expenditure estimates (JCX-48-24) list “Expensing by farmers for fertilizer and soil conditioner costs” (~$0.1B/yr). Treasury Green Book FY2025 has no §180 proposal; no newer Green Book issued.

JCX-48-24

§180 is a benign, low-cost line item to scorekeepers — unlikely to draw revenue-raiser attention. The residual-fertility valuation is unscored, which is precisely the gap critics point to.

ΔBaseline = no legislative threat. Monthly check: Congress.gov saved-search/API + GovTrack fallback; Treasury Green Book; JCT publications; House Ag Committee.

The two anchor academics — Kristine Tidgren (ISU CALT) and Roger McEowen (Washburn) — set the cautionary consensus: the deduction is defensible only when tied to documented, unexhausted prior-owner fertilizer, and aggressive whole-soil valuations invite penalties. Both now appear in mainstream ag media alongside Boa Safra by name. Social channels are vendor-dominated (LinkedIn, YouTube), with genuine farmer skepticism surfacing on X and near-zero organic Reddit volume.

2025-03-21Threat

Tidgren, “Considering the Residual Fertility Deduction” — the definitive cautionary analysis: value only prior-owner-applied fertilizer, prove declining supply + beneficial ownership; 20–75% penalty exposure on aggressive positions.

Iowa State CALT

Defines the IRS’s likely attack line and the safe boundary. BSA’s methodology should publicly map to her three criteria.

2026-04-13Neutral

McEowen via AgWeb/Farm Journal: “There is no code section… the only guidance is the scant things IRS said 34 years ago”; predicts a coming statute + IRS rules. Article quotes BSA’s Adam Brenneman and cites BSA pricing + “<2% audit / 100% defense” claims.

AgWeb/Farm Journal (Eckelkamp)

BSA is now in independent ag media — rising legitimacy AND rising audit-target visibility. The statute prediction is the top forward-looking watch item.

2023-07-03Neutral

Paul Neiffer (Farm CPA), “Deducting Excess Soil Fertility” — qualification rules (active farmer; cash-rent landlords & tenants buying rented ground do NOT qualify), warns against double-dipping; “very little IRS guidance.”

Farm CPA Report

Practitioner-cautious eligibility guardrails worth reflecting in BSA’s client-qualification screen.

2025-06-23Neutral

Organic farmer discussion on X (e.g. @clintwfischer thread): a real mix of “Wild West / proceed with great caution” skepticism and promotional replies; vendor accounts dominate the hashtag. Reddit volume near-zero.

X / social sweep

Ground-truth sentiment is split. A future rise in organic Reddit/X skepticism or audit anecdotes would be an early mainstreaming/risk signal.

ΔBaseline = Tidgren/McEowen cautious, BSA newly named in press. Monthly check: CALT + Neiffer RSS, McEowen/Washburn, AgWeb topic feeds, X + YouTube + Reddit saved searches, AICPA Ag Conference agenda.

Sources monitoredhow each channel is watched

SourceCoversHow we watch itStatus
Federal Register APITreasury/IRS proposed & final rulesFree JSON API (no key); agency=IRS + term filter; diff document_numbersVerified — backbone
IRS GuideWire / NewswireRev. Ruls/Procs, Notices, Announcements (~1 wk before IRB prints)Email subscription → Gmail MCP read (no public RSS)Recommended — needs one-time signup
IRS Written DeterminationsPLRs / TAMs / CCAs (UILC-coded)Firecrawl scrape + weekly index PDFs; alert on UILC 180/167/168/611/1245/1016Verified — Friday drops
Internal Revenue BulletinAuthoritative weekly compilation of guidanceIndex scrape; predictable per-bulletin URL; keyword grepVerified
CourtListener / Free LawALL federal courts (not just Tax Court) — new §180 cases + any case citing the 4 precedentsFree API + 2 standing monthly Alerts: topic + citator cites:(268322/4704239/348408/4701563). Baseline: 10 citing cases, newest 1997.Verified — queries live-tested 6/27
Congress.gov APIFederal legislationFree api.data.gov key; keyword bill search + diff; GovTrack fallbackVerified
Iowa State CALT (Tidgren)Authoritative ag-tax analysis & early warningRSS (blog + article feeds); date-window + keyword filterVerified — highest expert signal
Paul Neiffer (Farm CPA)Practitioner commentarySubstack RSS; keyword filterVerified
AgWeb / Farm Journal + Ambrook/OffrangeMainstream ag-media coverage (incl. BSA mentions, “loophole/tax-shelter” framing)Topic-feed scrape + Firecrawl monitor; SerpAPI google_news catch-allVerified — leading indicator
Treasury Green Book / JCTAdministration revenue proposals; tax-expenditure estimatesPage/RSS check on each releaseVerified
Firecrawl page monitorsFeed-less IRS pages (determinations, IRB index, newsroom)firecrawl_monitor_create with goal-based AI change-judge; monitor_run on demand monthlyVerified — mechanics confirmed
Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)Tax-legislation drafting/scoring + tax-expenditure estimates; 10-member roster (5 = Senate Finance)Firecrawl scrape (403s curl; no RSS) + @jctgov on X (tweets every pub) + member handles via agent-reachVerified 6/25 — staffer social not viable
Senate Ag Committee (+ Senate Finance)Farm Bill / USDA oversight / input-cost atmospherics; §180 statutory change = Senate Finance (covered via JCT)Scrape newsroom/hearings (no RSS) + Congress.gov on H.R. 7567; @SenateAgGOP/@SenateAgDems. Highest alert = a Farm Bill markup.Verified 6/25
IRS Pub 225 (Farmer's Tax Guide)The only IRS taxpayer-facing §180 text (annual edition)Hash PDF + read cover tax-year; diff the 'Fertilizer and Lime' + 'See section 180' passages vs snapshotVerified 6/25
Scholarly / law reviewsEmerging legal-academic argument on §180 (admissible in court)Google Scholar Alerts (push) + NALC/Texas A&M/U-Illinois RSS + SSRN. No §180 law-review article exists yet → first = high signal.Verified 6/25 — alerts need one-time setup
Law firms / CPA groupsPractitioner §180 commentaryRSS: McEowen Substack + Neiffer + CALT; Firecrawl-scrape CLA/Adams Brown/PinionVerified 6/25 — dead sources (McEowen typepad, farmcpatoday) removed
Tax Notes (optional, paid)Earliest expert commentary + primary TAM/PLR full textSubscription (no free API)Optional paid upgrade

Confidence & gaps

  • HIGH confidence on the legal-stability core: statute/amendment history, 1961 regs unamended, 2025-2026 PGP has no §180 item, Pub. 225 language, no pending legislation (Congress.gov + GovTrack), §180 untouched by OBBBA — all verified against primary or official sources.

  • HIGH confidence that “PLR 9211007” is actually TAM 9211007 (Dec. 3, 1991) and was a denial — triangulated across Tidgren, McEowen, and U. of Illinois. A minor digit/date variant (9211067 / Dec. 31) appears in some sources; consensus is 9211007 / Dec. 3, 1991. The full primary TAM text sits behind paid databases and should be pulled for BSA’s legal file.

  • MEDIUM confidence on the absolute negative “no IRB item in 30 years” — rests on search absence + three independent experts; a definitive negative needs a paid citator (Tax Notes/Bloomberg/Checkpoint) pass on §180.

  • The “~$40M audit closed no change” data point is a single practitioner’s report, not verifiable IRS data — directional, not dispositive.

  • Case-law now PRIMARY-verified via CourtListener (Shurbet 268322, Meyers 4704239, Duda 348408, Warren 4701563); the citator query is the high-signal channel (10 citing cases, newest 1997). Only the pre-1960 B.T.A. cites — Swaney (5 B.T.A. 990, 1927), Sanford (2 B.T.A. 181, 1925), Johnson v. Westover (1955) — remain secondary-only; pull primary via Westlaw/Hein before external use. The broad CourtListener TOPIC query is noisy (~1,197 hits, mostly unrelated) — rely on the citator + triage.

  • One-time setup still pending for the expanded sources (does not affect this brief): CourtListener token + 2 standing Alerts, 3 Google Scholar Alerts, free SSRN account. Firecrawl monitors for the IRS Written-Determinations, JCT, and Senate Ag pages are being created.

  • Tooling gaps to close before going live monthly: the Twitter/X keyword CLI errored this run (X coverage came via web/Firecrawl); Reddit full-text search is thin; Exa semantic search was not configured; Congress.gov returned intermittent 503s (confirmed via GovTrack mirror). None changes the substantive findings.

Glossary

IRC §180
Internal Revenue Code section letting a farmer elect to deduct (rather than capitalize) the cost of fertilizer/lime to enrich farmland — the statutory hook for the residual-fertility deduction.
Residual / excess fertility
Unexhausted nutrients (from a prior owner’s fertilizer applications) present in farmland soil at purchase/inheritance — the value BSA reconstructs (“hindcasting”) and deducts.
PLR
Private Letter Ruling — IRS guidance to one taxpayer on their facts; not precedent but published (redacted).
TAM
Technical Advice Memorandum — IRS Chief Counsel guidance issued during an exam; like a PLR, published but non-precedential. (9211007 is a TAM, not a PLR.)
CCA
Chief Counsel Advice — internal IRS legal advice, published under §6110.
IRB
Internal Revenue Bulletin — the IRS’s authoritative weekly compilation of Revenue Rulings, Procedures, Notices, and Announcements.
UILC
Uniform Issue List Code — the IRS’s topic index for written determinations; UILC 180.00-00 = §180 issues. Used to filter the determinations feed.
ATG / MSSP
Audit Technique Guide / Market Segment Specialization Program — IRS examiner playbooks. The 1995 grain-farmer MSSP is the de-facto §180 audit standard; now retired.
PGP
Priority Guidance Plan — the IRS/Treasury annual list of regulatory projects. A §180 entry would signal coming rulemaking.
Recapture (§1245)
Previously deducted residual fertility is taxed back as ordinary income on a later sale (avoided only if held until death/step-up) — a client-advice point.
OBBBA
One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21, July 2025) — the major 2025 tax law; left §180 untouched.