- 12 -
petitioner received a cost-share payment,7 petitioner was
obligated to perform minimal services in connection with the CRP
land.
In imposing the above-described restrictions on the use of
the land, the primary purpose of the CRP contract was to
effectuate the statutory intention of converting highly erodible
croplands to soil conserving uses. The services that petitioner
was required to perform over the contract term included
maintaining the vegetative cover, controlling weeds, insects, and
pests on the land, and fulfilling certain reporting requirements.
These service obligations were not substantial and were
incidental to the primary purpose of the contract. Thus, the CRP
payments represented compensation for the use restrictions on the
land, rather than remuneration for petitioner's labor. Our
conclusion is consistent with and supported by the language used
by Congress in the CRP statute, which describes the payments as
rentals. Therefore, the payments are excluded from petitioner's
earnings from self-employment as rentals from real estate within
the meaning of section 1402(a)(1).8
7 The cost-share rate was 50 percent. Food Security Act of
1985, Pub. L. 99-198, sec. 1234, 99 Stat. 1511, 16 U.S.C. sec.
3834(b)(1)(1994).
8 Respondent points out that the legislative history of the
Food Security Act of 1985 indicates that in addition to the
environmental benefits, a successful conservation reserve would
"curb production of surplus commodities" and "provide some needed
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011