This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-67 
entitled 'Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to 
Prevent Payments to Individuals Who Exceed Income Eligibility Limits' 
which was released on November 24, 2008. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

October 2008: 

Federal Farm Programs: 

USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to Prevent Payments to Individuals 
Who Exceed Income Eligibility Limits: 

Federal Farm Programs: 

GAO-09-67: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-67, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Finance, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Farmers receive about $16 billion annually in federal farm program 
payments. These payments go to about 2 million recipients, both 
individuals and entities. GAO previously has reported that the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not consistently ensure that these 
payments went only to those who meet eligibility requirements. 

GAO was asked to evaluate (1) how effectively USDA implemented 2002 
Farm Bill provisions prohibiting payments to individuals or entities 
whose income exceeded $2.5 million and who derived less than 75 percent 
of that income from farming, ranching, or forestry operations, (2) the 
potential impact of the 2008 Farm Bill’s income eligibility provisions 
on individuals who receive farm payments, and (3) the distribution of 
income of these individuals compared with all 2006 tax filers. GAO 
compared USDA data on individuals receiving payments with the latest 
available Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data on these individuals. 

What GAO Found: 

USDA does not have management controls, such as reviewing an 
appropriate sample of recipients’ tax returns, to verify that payments 
are made only to individuals who do not exceed income eligibility caps 
and therefore cannot be assured that millions of dollars in farm 
program payments it made are proper. GAO found that of the 1.8 million 
individuals receiving farm payments from 2003 through 2006, 2,702 had 
an average adjusted gross income (AGI) that exceeded $2.5 million and 
derived less than 75 percent of their income from farming, ranching, or 
forestry operations, thereby making them potentially ineligible for 
farm payments. Nevertheless, USDA paid over $49 million to these 
individuals. According to USDA officials, a number of factors—such as 
resource constraints that hamper its ability to examine complex tax and 
financial information as well as a lack of authority to obtain and use 
IRS tax filer data for such purposes—contribute to the department’s 
inability to verify that each individual who receives farm program 
payments complies with income eligibility provisions. However, USDA 
does not routinely sample individuals receiving farm payments to test 
for income eligibility; instead, its annual sample selected for review 
is based primarily on compliance with eligibility requirements other 
than income. The 2008 Farm Bill directs USDA to use statistical methods 
to target those individuals most likely to exceed income eligibility 
caps. 

The 2008 Farm Bill will increase the number of individuals likely to 
exceed the income eligibility caps. That is, with lower income 
eligibility caps under the 2008 Farm Bill, the number of individuals 
whose AGI exceeds the caps will rise, increasing the risk that USDA 
will make improper payments to more individuals. For example, had the 
new Farm Bill been in effect in 2006, as many as 23,506 individuals who 
received farm program payments would likely have been ineligible for 
crop subsidy and disaster assistance payments totaling as much as $90 
million. 

Compared with all tax filers, individuals who participated in farm 
programs in 2006 are more likely to have higher incomes. For example, 
as shown in the figure below, 12 of every 1,000 individuals receiving 
farm program payments reported AGI between $500,000 and $1 million 
compared with about 4 of all tax filers who reported income at this 
level. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that USDA work with IRS to develop a system for 
verifying the income eligibility for all recipients of farm program 
payments. If USDA determines that it needs authority to work with IRS, 
it should seek this authority from Congress, as appropriate. In 
commenting on a draft of this report, USDA agreed with these 
recommendations but disputed some of the findings. GAO believes that 
the report is fair and accurate. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-67]. For more 
information, contact Lisa Shames at (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Millions of Dollars in Farm Program Payments Went to Potentially 
Ineligible Individuals Because USDA Does Not Have Adequate Management 
Controls: 

2008 Farm Bill Increases the Number of Individuals Likely Affected by 
the AGI Cap: 

Individuals Who Receive Farm Program Payments Generally Report Higher 
Incomes Than All Tax Filers: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

GAO's Comments: 

Appendix III: U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Program Payments by 
Program or Payment Type, Fiscal Years 2003-2006: 

Appendix IV: Distribution of Income for Individuals Receiving Farm 
Program Payments Compared with All Tax Filers, 2006: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Number of Individuals Potentially Ineligible for Farm Payments 
under the 2002 Farm Bill's AGI Provisions and Amount of Farm Program 
Payments They Received, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006: 

Table 2: Farm Program Payments Made to Potentially Ineligible 
Individuals through Entities, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006: 

Table 3: Estimated Effect of 2008 Farm Bill's Income Eligibility Caps 
on Individuals Who Received Farm Program Payments in 2006: 

Table 4: Estimated Effect of 2008 Farm Bill's Income Eligibility Caps 
on Individuals Who Received Farm Program Payments in 2006: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Percentage of $49.4 Million Paid to Potentially Ineligible 
Individuals, by Program, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006: 

Figure 2: Distribution of Income of Individuals Receiving Farm Program 
Payments and All Tax Filers, 2006: 

Abbreviations: 

2008 Farm Bill: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008: 

2002 Farm Bill: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002: 

AGI: adjusted gross income: 

FSA: Farm Service Agency: 

IPIA: Improper Payments Information Act of 2002: 

IRS: Internal Revenue Service: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

October 24, 2008: 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Finance: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Senator Grassley: 

Farmers receive about $16 billion annually in federal farm program 
payments for crop subsidies, conservation practices, and disasters. 
These payments go to about 2 million recipients, both individuals and 
entities, including corporations, partnerships, and trusts. As we 
reported in November 2006, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
needed to better oversee farm program payments.[Footnote 1] Without 
better oversight to ensure that farm program funds are spent as 
economically, efficiently, and effectively as possible, we noted, USDA 
had little assurance that these funds benefit the agricultural sector 
as intended. We also previously reported that because of weak 
management controls at USDA, some payments, potentially totaling 
millions of dollars, have gone to deceased individuals or farming 
entities organized to receive payments that exceed legislatively 
established limits.[Footnote 2] For example, in July 2007 we reported 
that USDA paid $1.1 billion in farm payments from 1999 to 2005 in the 
names of over 170,000 deceased individuals. We recommended that USDA 
strengthen its controls to prevent improper payments to deceased 
individuals. In 2004, we recommended that because USDA did not have a 
measurable standard for ensuring that farm program payments are going 
to individuals who are actively engaged in farming--as required by 
statute and USDA's regulations--it allowed individuals with limited 
involvement to receive these payments. USDA agreed that it would be 
beneficial to have a measurable standard. However, to date, USDA has 
not taken any action on our recommendation, stating that its 
regulations are sufficient for determining active engagement in 
farming. 

Under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm 
Bill), an individual or entity with an average adjusted gross income 
(AGI) of over $2.5 million, over the previous 3 tax years immediately 
preceding the applicable crop year,[Footnote 3] was ineligible for farm 
program payments unless at least 75 percent or more of the average AGI 
was farm income, defined as income from farming, ranching, or forestry 
operations. The AGI provision of the 2002 Farm Bill covered crop years 
2003 through 2008 and applied to most farm program payments, including 
those for crop subsidy payments (e.g., fixed payments based on 
historical production, known as direct payments, and price support 
payments), conservation practices, and disasters.[Footnote 4] USDA's 
Farm Service Agency is responsible for ensuring that only eligible 
individuals receive farm program payments, either directly or as a 
member of an entity, and do not receive payments that exceed the 
established limits. USDA has relied principally on individuals' one- 
time self-certifications that they do not exceed income eligibility 
caps, and their commitment that they will notify USDA of any changes 
that cause them to exceed these caps. To verify the certification, USDA 
field offices have been able to request these individuals to submit 
their tax returns for review. Individuals failing to provide accurate 
information to verify compliance may not be eligible to receive farm 
program payments for the year or years of the request.[Footnote 5] 

Nevertheless, concerns remained about whether it was appropriate for 
wealthy individuals to participate in taxpayer-funded farm programs. 
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill), 
enacted on June 18, 2008, revised the income eligibility caps for farm 
program payments. In general, the 2008 Farm Bill provides that for crop 
years 2009 through 2012, a person or entity is ineligible for: 

* direct payments if the individual's or entity's 3-year average farm 
income exceeds $750,000; 

* all crop subsidy and disaster payments if the individual's or 
entity's 3-year average non-farm income exceeds $500,000; or: 

* all conservation program payments if an individual's or entity's 3- 
year average non-farm income exceeds $1 million, unless at least 66.66 
percent of the individual's or entity's 3-year average AGI is 
attributable to activities related to farming, ranching, or 
forestry.[Footnote 6] 

In this context, we were asked to evaluate (1) how effectively USDA 
implemented provisions under the 2002 Farm Bill that prohibited 
payments to individuals or entities whose income exceeded $2.5 million 
and who derived less than 75 percent of that income from farming, 
ranching, or forestry operations; (2) the potential impact of the 2008 
Farm Bill's AGI provisions on individuals who receive farm program 
payments; and (3) the distribution of income for individuals receiving 
farm program payments compared with all tax filers in 2006. 

To address these issues, we reviewed USDA's regulations, guidelines, 
and other internal controls for implementing the provisions of the 2002 
Farm Bill, and we examined the AGI provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill. We 
also spoke to USDA officials in headquarters, and the state office and 
one local field office in Louisiana and Mississippi who were 
responsible for ensuring that individuals applying for farm payments 
under the 2002 Farm Bill complied with the AGI provision. We selected 
these offices to provide an example of how USDA implements the AGI 
provisions and the information we obtained cannot be generalized to all 
field offices. In addition, to evaluate how effectively USDA 
implemented the 2002 Farm Bill provisions that prohibited payments to 
individuals or entities with incomes from sources other than farming, 
ranching, or forestry operations that exceeded the specific limits, we 
matched USDA data on the 1.8 million individuals who received farm 
program payments with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax filer data for 
2000 through 2006.[Footnote 7] We limited our review to individuals who 
report their taxes as primary filers--the person who is listed first on 
an IRS tax form, such as the Form 1040 (U.S. Individual Income Tax 
Return). Although we did not analyze tax filer data reported by 
entities, such as corporations, partnerships, or trusts, we did include 
tax filer data for the individuals who make up the entity. For 
individuals with a 3-year average AGI above $2.5 million, we determined 
whether at least 75 percent of the income was derived from farming, 
ranching, or forestry operations. We obtained farm income data for 
these individuals from IRS Form 1040, IRS Schedule F (Profit or Loss 
From Farming), and IRS Form 4835 (Farm Rental Income and Expenses). 
Schedule F and Form 4835 capture farm income for individuals who report 
income from agricultural activities. For all individuals with a 3-year 
average AGI above $2.5 million and with less than 75 percent of their 
AGI derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations, we 
identified the amount of farm program payments subject to the income 
eligibility provision.[Footnote 8] We also identified the amount of 
certain program payments not subject to the income provision for these 
individuals.[Footnote 9] To determine the potential impact of the 2008 
Farm Bill's AGI provisions on individuals receiving farm program 
payments in 2006, we categorized these individuals by their AGI 
amounts. We identified average farm program payments for each of these 
categories and calculated the farm payment income as a percentage of 
AGI. To determine the distribution of income for individuals receiving 
farm program payments compared with all tax filers, we compared the 
income distribution for payment recipients with the income distribution 
for all U.S. tax filers in 2006, the latest year for which tax data 
were available. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 through September 
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I 
contains more detailed information on our scope and methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

USDA cannot be assured that millions of dollars in farm program 
payments it made are proper because it does not have management 
controls, such as reviewing an appropriate sample of recipients' tax 
returns, to verify that payments were made only to individuals who did 
not exceed the income eligibility caps. Of the 1.8 million individuals 
receiving farm payments from 2003 through 2006, 2,702 had a 3-year 
average AGI that exceeded $2.5 million and derived less than 75 percent 
of their income from farming, ranching, or forestry operations, thereby 
making them potentially ineligible for farm payments. Nevertheless, 
USDA paid over $49 million to these 2,702 individuals. Most notably, of 
the 2,702 individuals, 427 received potentially improper payments in 
every year we reviewed, and 1,346 received potentially improper 
payments through a farming operation consisting of one or more 
entities, which can increase the risk of improper payments to 
individuals with high incomes because the local USDA field office may 
not know all the individuals who are members of the entity. 
Furthermore, according to addresses on tax returns for the 2,702 
individuals, 78 percent resided in or near a metropolitan area, while 
the remaining 22 percent resided in large towns, small towns, and rural 
areas. According to USDA officials, a number of factors--such as 
resource constraints that hamper its ability to examine complex tax and 
financial information and lack of authority to access and use IRS tax 
filer data for such purposes--contribute to USDA's inability to verify 
that each individual who received farm program payments was eligible 
under the AGI provision. We also found, however, that the sample that 
USDA draws does not test for income eligibility; instead, USDA reviews 
compliance with eligibility requirements other than income, such as the 
amount of farm program payments a farming operation received in the 
previous year and whether it experienced a change in ownership. USDA 
therefore cannot ensure that only individuals who meet the income 
eligibility caps are receiving farm payments. The 2008 Farm Bill 
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish statistically valid 
procedures to conduct targeted audits of persons or legal entities most 
likely to exceed income eligibility caps. 

The 2008 Farm Bill will likely increase the number of individuals who 
are likely to exceed the income eligibility caps. Specifically, with 
lower income eligibility caps under the 2008 Farm Bill, the number of 
individuals whose AGI exceeds the caps will likely rise, increasing the 
risk that USDA could make improper payments to even more individuals. 
For example, had the new Farm Bill been in effect in 2006, as many as 
23,506 individuals who received farm program payments would likely have 
been ineligible for crop subsidy and disaster assistance payments 
totaling as much as $90 million. Forecasts for high crop prices through 
2012 might increase individuals' incomes and, thus, potentially the 
number of individuals affected by the caps. 

Compared with all tax filers, individuals who participated in farm 
programs in 2006 were three times as likely to have AGI exceeding 
$500,000 as individuals who did not participate in farm programs. That 
is, in 2006, 21 of every 1,000 farm program participants reported an 
AGI exceeding $500,000 compared with 7 of every 1,000 of all tax 
filers. For the 1.1 million individuals who received farm program 
payments and filed a tax return in 2006, 9,651 reported an AGI 
exceeding $1 million and 22,931 reported an AGI exceeding $500,000. 

To ensure greater program integrity, we are recommending that USDA work 
with the Internal Revenue Service to develop a method for determining 
whether all recipients of farm program payments meet income eligibility 
requirements. If USDA finds that it does not have the authority to 
obtain information from the Internal Revenue Service, it should 
identify and request the authority it would need from Congress, as 
appropriate. 

We provided USDA with a draft of this report for review and comment. 
USDA agreed with our recommendations but disputed some of our findings. 
Specifically, USDA noted that only a small percentage of USDA's total 
farm program payments were made to individuals who exceeded the 2002 
Farm Bill's income eligibility caps. While only a small percentage 
exceeded the cap under the 2002 Farm Bill, the percentage of 
individuals exceeding the 2008 Farm Bill's lower income eligibility cap 
is likely to increase. Therefore, USDA will be at greater risk of 
making improper payments unless it has better management controls in 
place. 

USDA also noted that we should not have discussed the "actively engaged 
in farming" requirement in this report. We recognize that meeting the 
actively engaged in farming requirement is separate and distinct from 
the AGI requirement. However, we believe that awareness of this 
requirement places the discussion of income eligibility requirements in 
the context of other key eligibility requirements and provides a more 
comprehensive understanding. 

Finally, USDA sought more information about the individual cases we 
cite where the AGI apparently exceeded the eligibility requirements. 
However, Internal Revenue Code Section 6103 prohibits us from 
disclosing any additional information. 

Our detailed responses to USDA's comments appear at the end of this 
letter and following USDA's written comments in appendix II. 

Background: 

Individuals can receive farm program payments through various programs 
linked to both their ownership interests and the amount and types of 
crops they produce. (App. III lists USDA farm programs and payments 
made between 2003 and 2006 under the 2002 Farm Bill.) Under the 2002 
Farm Bill, a person could receive farm program payments directly or 
through as many as three entities in which the person held a 
substantial beneficial interest--defined as a 10 percent or more 
interest in the operation. For the purposes of the 2002 Farm Bill, a 
person was defined to include, among other things, an individual, 
partnership, trust, corporation, charitable organization, or state 
agency, who could receive payments (1) as an individual and as a member 
of no more than two entities or (2) through three entities and not as 
an individual.[Footnote 10] Under the 2002 Farm Bill, individuals and 
entities were required to be eligible under the AGI provision to 
receive certain USDA payments, including direct and counter-cyclical 
payments; payments under the Marketing Assistance Loan Program; and 
conservation payments. More specifically: 

* Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments Program provides two types of 
payments to producers of covered commodity crops, including corn, 
cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat. Direct payments are tied to a fixed 
payment rate for each commodity crop and do not depend on current 
production or current market prices. Instead, direct payments are based 
on the farm's historical acreage and yields. Counter-cyclical payments 
provide price-dependent benefits for covered commodities whenever the 
effective price for the commodity is less than a predetermined price 
(called the target price). Counter-cyclical payments are based on a 
farm's historical acreage and yields, and are not tied to the current 
production of the covered commodity. 

* Marketing Assistance Loan Program provides benefits to producers of 
covered commodity crops when market prices are low. Specifically, the 
federal government accepts harvested crops as collateral for interest- 
bearing loans (marketing assistance loans) that are due in 9 months. 
When market prices drop below the loan rate (the loan price per pound 
or bushel), the government allows producers to repay the loan at a 
lower rate and retain ownership of their commodity for eventual sale. 
The difference between the loan rate and the lower repayment rate is 
called the marketing assistance loan gain. In addition, producers who 
do not have marketing assistance loans can receive a benefit when 
prices are low--the loan deficiency payment--that is equal to the 
marketing assistance loan gain that the producer would have received if 
the producer had had a loan. Under the 2002 Farm Bill, producers also 
could purchase commodity certificates that allowed them to redeem their 
marketing assistance loan at a lower repayment rate and immediately 
reclaim their commodities under the loan. The difference between the 
loan rate and the lower repayment rate, called the commodity 
certificate exchange gain, was not subject to the AGI provision. 

* Conservation payments provide assistance to producers to help them 
safeguard environmentally sensitive land. For example, the Conservation 
Reserve Program provides annual rental payments and cost-share 
assistance to producers who contractually agree to retire their land 
from agricultural purposes and keep it in approved conserving uses for 
10 to 15 years. Other conservation programs include the Conservation 
Security Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program under the 2008 
Farm Bill, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Grassland Reserve 
Program, and the Wetlands Reserve Program, which are generally 
administered by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

The 2008 Farm Bill, which is in effect for crop years 2009 through 
2012, continues many of the 2002 Farm Bill's provisions, including the 
programs already subject to the AGI caps and programs that the 2008 
Farm Bill added. However, the 2008 Farm Bill changes, among other 
things, the AGI cap by dividing it into two parts: non-farm income and 
farm income; both are averages over a 3-year period. The 2008 Farm Bill 
sets a cap of $500,000 for non-farm income for a person to receive crop 
subsidy benefits, noninsured crop assistance (financial assistance to 
producers for uninsurable specialty crops when low yields, loss of 
inventory, or prevented planting occurs due to natural disasters), or 
disaster payments, and sets a cap of $750,000 for farm income to 
receive direct payments. For conservation programs, the farm bill sets 
a cap of $1 million non-farm income, unless at least 66.66 percent of 
AGI is from farm income. The farm bill also provides USDA discretion to 
waive the conservation cap for "environmentally sensitive land of 
special significance." 

The 2008 Farm Bill also specifies types of income or benefits that must 
be included in determining farm income. These include the production of 
farm-based renewable energy; the sale of easements and development 
rights of farm, ranch, or forestry land, water or hunting rights, or 
environmental benefits; and the processing, storing, and transporting 
of farming, ranching, or forestry commodities, including renewable 
energy. The 2008 Farm Bill also requires the Secretary of Agriculture 
to conduct audits of persons and legal entities most likely to exceed 
the AGI caps. Furthermore, the new law requires persons and entities to 
provide the Secretary of Agriculture, at least once every 3 years, with 
either (1) information and documentation regarding AGI through 
procedures established by the Secretary, or (2) a certification by a 
certified public accountant or similar third party that the person or 
entity does not exceed applicable limitations. It also allows 
individuals filing joint tax returns to allocate their income and 
losses for purposes of applying for farm program payments, which may 
help them individually meet the AGI eligibility requirements even if 
applying jointly they could not. The 2008 Farm Bill creates the Average 
Crop Revenue Election Program, which provides producers with the option 
to participate in a state-level revenue protection system if they are 
willing to forgo counter-cyclical payments and receive a reduction in 
direct payments and the marketing assistance loan rate. Payments under 
this new program are subject to the AGI provisions. 

To receive farm program payments under the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, an 
individual or entity must be "actively engaged in farming." To be 
considered actively engaged in farming, an individual must make 
significant contributions to a farming operation in two areas: (1) 
capital, land, or equipment and (2) personal labor or active personal 
management. An entity is considered actively engaged in farming if the 
entity separately makes a significant contribution of capital, land, or 
equipment and its members collectively make a significant contribution 
of personal labor or active personal management. 

The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) requires the heads 
of executive branch agencies to annually review all programs and 
activities they administer, identify those that may be susceptible to 
significant improper payments, and estimate and report on the annual 
amount of improper payments in those programs and activities. IPIA 
defines an improper payment as any payment that should not have been 
made or was made in an incorrect amount, including any payment to an 
ineligible recipient. 

Millions of Dollars in Farm Program Payments Went to Potentially 
Ineligible Individuals Because USDA Does Not Have Adequate Management 
Controls: 

USDA paid millions of dollars in farm program payments to individuals 
who were potentially ineligible for these benefits on the basis of 
their AGI, for 2003 through 2006. These payments occurred primarily 
because USDA does not have management controls, such as reviewing an 
appropriate sample of recipients' tax returns, to verify that payments 
are going only to individuals who do not exceed the income eligibility 
caps. 

USDA Made Millions of Dollars in Farm Payments to Potentially 
Ineligible Individuals from 2003 through 2006: 

We identified 2,702 individuals--out of the 1.8 million individuals 
receiving farm payments from 2003 through 2006--who were potentially 
ineligible for farm payments because they had a 3-year average AGI that 
exceeded $2.5 million and derived less than 75 percent of their income 
from farming, ranching, or forestry operations. Nevertheless, USDA paid 
over $49 million to these individuals. Table 1 shows the number of 
individuals who were potentially ineligible to receive farm program 
payments under the 2002 Farm Bill's AGI provisions and the amount of 
farm program payments they received from 2003 through 2006. 
Furthermore, 427 of these individuals, or 16 percent, received 
potentially improper payments in each of the 4 years we reviewed. 

Table 1: Number of Individuals Potentially Ineligible for Farm Payments 
under the 2002 Farm Bill's AGI Provisions and Amount of Farm Program 
Payments They Received, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006: 

Dollars in millions. 

Fiscal Year: 2003; 
Number of individuals who received payments: 1,379; 
Amount of farm program payments: $10.9. 

Fiscal Year: 2004; 
Number of individuals who received payments: 1,154; 
Amount of farm program payments: 8.2. 

Fiscal Year: 2005; 
Number of individuals who received payments: 1,328; 
Amount of farm program payments: 13.3. 

Fiscal Year: 2006; 
Number of individuals who received payments: 1,617; 
Amount of farm program payments: 16.9. 

Total; 
Number of individuals who received payments: 2,702[A]; 
Amount of farm program payments: $49.4[B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA data. 

[A] Some individuals received farm program payments in more than one 
year. The total represents the number of unique individuals who 
received payments rather than the aggregate of all 4 years. 

[B] Total does not add due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

Moreover, USDA should have known that 87 of these 2,702 individuals 
were ineligible for payments because it had noted in its own databases 
that these 87 individuals exceeded the income caps and therefore were 
ineligible to receive payments. These notations were based, in part, on 
individuals' certifications that they did not meet the AGI provisions. 
USDA officials state that they relied on this information and could not 
explain why these 87 individuals received a payment in a year in which 
they had been properly identified as ineligible. As a result, we 
consider the payments to these individuals as improper. 

Of the approximately $49 million in federal farm program payments to 
potentially ineligible individuals from 2003 to 2006, about $21 million 
went to individuals as members of entities. As we have previously 
reported, payments through entities have carried a higher risk of 
improper payments.[Footnote 11] Of the 2,702 individuals we identified 
as receiving potentially improper farm payments, about half--1,346-- 
received these payments through entities, according to our analysis of 
USDA's and IRS's data. The remaining 1,356 individuals received 
payments directly from USDA. Table 2 shows the number of potentially 
ineligible individuals receiving farm program payments through 
entities, and the amount of the payments, from 2003 through 2006. 

Table 2: Farm Program Payments Made to Potentially Ineligible 
Individuals through Entities, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006: 

Dollars in millions. 

Entity type: Corporations[A]; 
Number of potentially ineligible individuals who received payments: 
800; 
Farm program payments: $7.5. 

Entity type: General partnerships; 
Number of potentially ineligible individuals who received payments: 
278; 
Farm program payments: 8.3. 

Entity type: Limited partnerships; 
Number of potentially ineligible individuals who received payments: 
255; 
Farm program payments: 2.2. 

Entity type: Joint ventures; 
Number of potentially ineligible individuals who received payments: 53; 
Farm program payments: 2.1. 

Entity type: Irrevocable trusts; 
Number of potentially ineligible individuals who received payments: 55; 
Farm program payments: 0.6. 

Entity type: Revocable trusts; 
Number of potentially ineligible individuals who received payments: 27; 
Farm program payments: 0.3. 

Entity type: Other[B]; 
Number of potentially ineligible individuals who received payments: 22; 
Farm program payments: 0.1. 

Total; 
Number of potentially ineligible individuals who received payments: 
1,346[C]; 
Farm program payments: $21.1. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA and IRS data. 

[A] Includes limited liability companies and S corporations. An S 
corporation is a corporation that is generally not subject to federal 
income taxes under the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, shareholders in 
S corporations generally include their share of the corporation's 
income or losses on their individual returns. 

[B] Includes estates and individuals operating as a small business. 

[C] Some individuals received farm program payments through one or more 
entities. The total represents the number of unique individuals who 
received payments. 

[End of table] 

The following provides examples of potentially improper payments to the 
2,702 individuals who received farm program payments but reported a 3- 
year average AGI that exceeded $2.5 million and derived less than 75 
percent of their income from farming, ranching, or forestry operations 
and thus would generally not be eligible to receive the farm payments: 

* A founder and former executive of an insurance company received a 
total of more than $300,000 in farm program payments in 2003, 2004, 
2005, and 2006 that were subject to the AGI provisions. 

* An individual with ownership interest in a professional sports 
franchise received a total of more than $200,000 in farm program 
payments for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 that were subject to the AGI 
provisions. 

* An individual residing in a country outside of the United States 
received farm payments totaling more than $80,000 for years 2003, 2005, 
and 2006 on the basis of the individual's ownership interest in two 
farming entities. 

* A top executive of a major financial services firm received more than 
$60,000 in farm program payments in 2003. The individual received these 
payments directly, not through an entity. 

* A former executive of a technology company received about $20,000 in 
total farm program payments in years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 that 
were subject to the AGI provisions. This individual also received more 
than $900,000 in farm program payments that were not subject to the AGI 
provisions. 

In 2004, we reported that because USDA's regulations ensuring that 
individuals are actively engaged in farming do not specify measurable 
standards for what constitutes a significant contribution of active 
personal management, they allow individuals with limited involvement in 
farming to qualify for farm program payments.[Footnote 12] For example, 
we found individuals who were members of a farming operation that 
received approximately $700,000 in farm program payments in 2001 who 
asserted to USDA that they provided personal management to the 
operation "on-site" and on a "daily" basis even though these 
individuals lived several hundred miles from the farming operation. We 
recommended that USDA develop and enforce a measurable standard that 
defines a significant contribution of active personal management. USDA 
agreed that it would be beneficial to have a measurable standard. 
However, to date, USDA has not taken any action on our recommendation, 
stating that its regulations are sufficient for determining active 
engagement in farming. 

According to our analysis of addresses reported to the IRS by the 2,702 
individuals, 9 reside outside of the United States--in Hong Kong, Saudi 
Arabia, and the United Kingdom, for example. The remainder resided in 
49 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 
Islands.[Footnote 13] Five states--Arizona, California, Florida, 
Illinois, and Texas--account for 36 percent of the individuals and 43 
percent of the $49.4 million in farm program payments. Furthermore, 
most of the 2,702 potentially ineligible individuals resided in or near 
a metropolitan area while the remaining individuals resided in small 
towns and rural areas.[Footnote 14] For example, according to addresses 
on tax returns for the potentially ineligible individuals from 2003 to 
2006, 78 percent resided in or near a metropolitan area, including 
urban and suburban areas, while the remaining 22 percent resided in 
large towns, small towns, and rural areas. In contrast, for the 1.1 
million individuals who received farm payments and filed a tax return 
in 2006, 36 percent resided in or near a metropolitan area and 64 
percent resided in large towns, small towns, and rural areas. 

Two programs accounted for 79 percent of the $49.4 million in 
potentially improper payments. Of the $49.4 million in farm payments, 
$39 million was paid under the Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments 
Program and the Conservation Reserve Program. Figure 1 shows the 
percentage of the $49.4 million in potentially improper payments, by 
program, subject to the AGI caps for 2003 through 2006. 

Figure 1: Percentage of $49.4 Million Paid to Potentially Ineligible 
Individuals, by Program, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006: 

This figure is a pie graph showing percentage of $49.4 million paid to 
potentially ineligible individuals, by program, fiscal years 2003 
through 2006. 

Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments Program: 50%; 
Conservation Reserve Program: 29%; 
Marketing Assistance Loan Program: 11%; 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program: 6%; 
Other programs: 4%. 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Other programs include the Conservation Security Program, 
Grassland Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Wildlife 
Habitat Incentives Program. 

[End of figure] 

Of the 2,702 individuals who received potentially improper payments, 
1,202 individuals also received about $16 million in payments that were 
not subject to the AGI provision, including commodity certificate 
exchange gains under the Marketing Assistance Loan Program, and certain 
crop disaster assistance payments and Livestock Compensation Program 
payments. 

USDA Does Not Have Adequate Management Controls to Identify Potentially 
Ineligible High-Income Individuals: 

Payments to potentially ineligible high-income individuals have 
occurred because USDA does not have management controls, such as 
reviewing an appropriate sample of recipients' tax returns, to verify 
that payments are going only to individuals who do not exceed the 
income eligibility caps. To determine compliance with farm program 
payment requirements, USDA has annually reviewed a sample of 
individuals receiving farm payments, but this review has assessed 
compliance with farm program eligibility requirements other than 
income--including the amount of payments a farming operation received 
in the prior year and whether it experienced a change in ownership. An 
individual's income has not been a criterion in selecting the sample. 
Furthermore, as we reported in 2004, USDA staff conducts few reviews 
per office each year.[Footnote 15] For example, in one USDA field 
office we visited for this review, an official told us that of the 13 
farming operations selected for a review in 2005--the most recent year 
completed at the time of our visit--USDA reviewed only 4. Reviews for 
the remaining 9 farming operations were waived because they had been 
reviewed in a previous year. Because USDA has drawn a sample of 
individuals receiving farm payments that has not routinely tested for 
income eligibility, it could not ensure that only individuals who have 
not exceeded the income eligibility caps were receiving farm payments. 
However, in the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish statistically valid procedures to conduct 
targeted audits of persons or legal entities most likely to exceed the 
legislation's income eligibility caps. 

Our analysis of USDA and IRS data suggests that USDA's primary method 
for ensuring compliance--its annual review of a sample of individuals-
-has not always identified or prevented payments to individuals who 
were not eligible under the AGI requirement. According to USDA 
officials, the agency has relied principally on individuals' one-time 
self-certifications that they have not exceeded income eligibility caps 
and that they would notify the agency of any changes that caused them 
to exceed these caps. Officials in USDA's Mississippi state office 
noted that producers who believe their average income may exceed the 
AGI provision generally contact their local USDA field office to 
discuss options. However, the Mississippi officials also noted that it 
is rare for a producer to exceed the 2002 Farm Bill's $2.5 million AGI 
threshold. According to these and other USDA officials, resource 
constraints that hamper USDA's ability to examine complex tax and 
financial information contribute to USDA's inability to verify that 
each individual who receives farm program payments were eligible under 
the AGI provision. Furthermore, USDA headquarters officials noted that 
the need to collect and safeguard individuals' tax information, as well 
as field staffs' competing responsibilities, places constraints on 
USDA's ability to verify compliance with the AGI provision. 

USDA headquarters officials also told us that computer matching of its 
farm payment data with IRS tax filer data, as we did in our analysis, 
would help USDA identify individuals who may not be in compliance with 
the AGI provisions. We realize that under Internal Revenue Code Section 
6103, IRS is generally not authorized to provide USDA with tax filer 
information for such purposes without a waiver from the individual tax 
filer. Individual tax filers may authorize IRS, in writing, to disclose 
their return information to a third party. USDA told us that it had not 
yet explored the possibility of requiring farm program payment 
recipients to provide such waivers authorizing IRS to share tax 
information with USDA. 

2008 Farm Bill Increases the Number of Individuals Likely Affected by 
the AGI Cap: 

Because of lower income eligibility caps under the 2008 Farm Bill, the 
number of individuals whose AGI exceeds the caps will likely rise, 
increasing the risk that USDA could make improper payments to more 
individuals. As many as 23,506 individuals are likely to have incomes 
above the new AGI cap of $500,000 for average non-farm income, 
according to our analysis of the AGI provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill 
and 2006 tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments. 
Table 3 shows the range of individuals receiving farm program payments 
in 2006 who potentially would have been ineligible for these payments 
if the 2008 Farm Bill's AGI provisions had been in effect as well as 
the range of the potentially ineligible farm payments, according to our 
analysis of data from USDA and the individuals' tax returns, including 
their Form 1040, Schedule F, and Form 4835. See appendix I for details 
on the methodology used to determine these ranges. 

Table 3: Estimated Effect of 2008 Farm Bill's Income Eligibility Caps 
on Individuals Who Received Farm Program Payments in 2006: 

Income eligibility cap: Average farm income exceeding $750,000; 
Range of potentially ineligible individuals: 41-4,688; 
Range of potentially ineligible payments (Dollars in millions): 
Direct[A]: $0.7- $23.0; 
Range of potentially ineligible payments (Dollars in millions): Crop 
subsidy and disaster assistance[B]: d; 
Range of potentially ineligible payments (Dollars in millions): 
Conservation[C]: e. 

Income eligibility cap: Average non-farm income exceeding $500,000; 
Range of potentially ineligible individuals: 3,594-23,506; 
Range of potentially ineligible payments (Dollars in millions): 
Direct[A]: $12.9-$81.6; 
Range of potentially ineligible payments (Dollars in millions): Crop 
subsidy and disaster assistance[B]: $14.0- $90.4; 
Range of potentially ineligible payments (Dollars in millions): 
Conservation[C]: e. 

Income eligibility cap: Average non-farm income exceeding $1 million 
and less than 66.66 percent of AGI is derived from farm income; 
Range of potentially ineligible individuals: 1,552-9,814; 
Range of potentially ineligible payments (Dollars in millions): 
Direct[A]: f; 
Range of potentially ineligible payments (Dollars in millions): Crop 
subsidy and disaster assistance[B]: f; 
Range of potentially ineligible payments (Dollars in millions): 
Conservation[C]: $3.3- $19.1. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA and IRS data. 

Note: Analysis is based on the 1.1 million individuals who received 
farm program payments and filed single or joint tax returns as the 
primary filer in 2006. 

[A] Direct payments under the Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments 
Program. 

[B] Includes counter-cyclical payments under the Direct and Counter- 
Cyclical Payments Program as well as payments under the Marketing 
Assistance Loan Program and crop disaster programs. Excludes direct 
payments. 

[C] Includes payments under the Conservation Reserve Program, 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and Conservation Security 
Program. 

[D] Individuals are eligible for these payments unless their non-farm 
income exceeds $500,000. 

[E] Individuals are eligible for these payments unless their non-farm 
income exceeds $1 million and less than 66.66 percent of their AGI is 
derived from farm income. 

[F] Some individuals in this income category would have already 
exceeded the income eligibility caps for both farm and non-farm income. 

[End of table] 

Several factors may influence the actual number of individuals affected 
by the new AGI provisions. According to an official with USDA's 
Economic Research Service, some individuals with high income might make 
business decisions that, while legal, would help them avoid the new AGI 
caps. These decisions include leasing all or part of their land to 
individuals not affected by the caps, and then indirectly receiving 
farm program payments by charging a rental rate that includes the lost 
payments; dividing income with a spouse for individuals who are married 
and file a joint tax return; investing in equipment to increase tax 
deductions for depreciation and immediate expensing; and delaying or 
accelerating income from corporations in which the individual has 
controlling interest. Furthermore, while forecasts for high crop prices 
through 2012 might increase individuals' farm income and AGI, an 
increase in the tax deduction for "domestic production activities" 
beginning in 2010 might reduce the impact of the AGI provisions on some 
individuals.[Footnote 16] The 2008 Farm Bill's directive to include the 
production of farm-based renewable energy, production of livestock 
products, and the sale of farm equipment in the definition of farm 
income might increase the number of individuals ineligible for direct 
payments under the Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments Program. 

In discussing the 2008 Farm Bill with USDA officials, they agreed that 
the lower income eligibility thresholds will increase and complicate 
their responsibilities. In particular, with the expanded definition of 
farm income, field office staff no longer will be able to rely 
primarily on an individual's IRS Schedule F to determine farm income. 
Rather, other IRS forms and schedules not used previously may now be 
included in USDA's eligibility determination. The USDA officials also 
stated that the split of AGI into two types of income--farm and non- 
farm--together with separate income caps for direct payments, crop 
subsidy and disaster assistance payments, and conservation payments, 
adds to the complexity for field office staff who must make eligibility 
determinations. In July 2008, USDA published a notice in the Federal 
Register to provide additional implementation information.[Footnote 17] 

Individuals Who Receive Farm Program Payments Generally Report Higher 
Incomes Than All Tax Filers: 

Individuals participating in farm programs are three times more likely 
to have an AGI exceeding $500,000 than all individuals who file taxes. 
We found that 21 of every 1,000 individuals receiving farm payments 
reported an AGI exceeding $500,000 in 2006 while only 7 of every 1,000 
of all individual tax filers reported income at this level or higher. 
Furthermore, as figure 2 shows, 12 of every 1,000 individuals receiving 
farm program payments reported AGI between $500,000 and $1 million 
compared with about 4 of all tax filers who reported income at this 
level. 

Figure 2: Distribution of Income of Individuals Receiving Farm Program 
Payments and All Tax Filers, 2006: 

This figure is a combination of bar graph showing distribution of 
income of individuals receiving farm program payments and all tax 
filers, 2006. The X axis represents the adjusted gross income, and the 
Y axis represents the individuals per 1,000 tax returns. The bars 
represent individuals receiving farm program payments, and the other 
represents all tax filers

Adjusted gross income: $500,000 to under $1,000,000; 
Individuals receiving farm program: 12; 
All tax filers: 4. 

Adjusted gross income: $1,000,000 to under $1,500,000; 
Individuals receiving farm program: 4; 
All tax filers: 1. 

Adjusted gross income: $1,500,000 to under $2,000,000; 
Individuals receiving farm program: 2; 
All tax filers: 0. 

Adjusted gross income: $2,000,000 to under $5,000,000; 
Individuals receiving farm program: 3; 
All tax filers: 1. 

Adjusted gross income: $5,000,000 to under $10,000,000; 
Individuals receiving farm program: 1; 
All tax filers: 0. 

Adjusted gross income: $10,000 or more; 
Individuals receiving farm program: 0; 
All tax filers: 0. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA and IRS data. 

[End of figure] 

Of the individuals who received farm program payments and filed a tax 
return in 2006, 9,651 reported an AGI exceeding $1 million and 22,931 
reported an AGI exceeding $500,000. Individuals who participate in farm 
programs also are over three times more likely to report a loss, that 
is, negative AGI, than individuals who do not participate in farm 
programs. Nearly 7 percent of individuals receiving farm payments 
reported no AGI (that is, income of $0 or less), compared with only 1.9 
percent of all tax filers who reported no AGI. Individuals with no AGI 
received farm program payments averaging $17,200, the highest average 
farm payment among AGI ranges we analyzed. Conversely, average farm 
program payments range from about $9,000 to $14,000 for individuals in 
the six groups with an AGI exceeding $500,000. (App. IV provides a 
detailed distribution of income of individuals receiving farm program 
payments for all AGI ranges and the amount of farm payments, as well as 
the income distribution for all tax filers.) 

Conclusions: 

Thousands of individuals who may not have met the income eligibility 
requirements under the 2002 Farm Bill nevertheless received payments, 
making the payments potentially improper. The likelihood that even more 
individuals will exceed income eligibility requirements and still 
receive payments is expected to grow under the 2008 Farm Bill given the 
bill's new, more complex eligibility criteria. 

In the past, USDA has relied on individuals' one-time self- 
certifications that they meet income eligibility requirements and their 
promise to notify USDA if they no longer meet these requirements. As 
our analysis showed, however, these self-certifications have not always 
proven reliable for all recipients of farm program payments because 
USDA has not always withheld payments from these individuals. Moreover, 
USDA's principal management control to ensure compliance with farm 
program requirements--a review of a sample of individuals receiving 
high payments or a change in operations--has not targeted high-income 
individuals. The need for management controls to ensure individuals 
meet income eligibility requirements will be even more critical under 
the 2008 Farm Bill, which has provided reduced income eligibility caps 
for farm program payments. 

The 2008 Farm Bill directs USDA to establish statistically valid 
procedures to conduct targeted audits of persons and legal entities 
that are most likely to exceed the income eligibility caps. We realize 
that under Internal Revenue Code Section 6103, IRS is generally not 
authorized to provide USDA with tax filer information for such purposes 
without a waiver from the individual tax filer. Individual tax filers 
may authorize IRS, in writing, to disclose their return information to 
a third party. USDA told us that it had not yet explored the 
possibility of requiring farm program payment recipients to provide 
such waivers authorizing IRS to share tax information with USDA. Such 
efforts could help better ensure that program funds benefit those 
engaged in farming as intended. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To provide greater assurance of program integrity, we recommend that 
the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Administrator of the Farm 
Service Agency to work with the Internal Revenue Service to develop a 
system for verifying the income eligibility for all recipients of farm 
program payments. If the Secretary determines that it does not have the 
authority to develop such a system with the Commissioner of the 
Internal Revenue Service, we recommend that the Secretary request this 
authority from Congress, as appropriate. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided USDA with a draft of this report for review and comment. 
USDA agreed with our recommendations. Nevertheless, USDA did not agree 
with several of our findings. First, USDA noted that only a small 
percentage of USDA's total farm program payments were made to 
individuals who exceeded the 2002 Farm Bill's income eligibility caps. 
However, our finding is consistent with the general distribution of 
income among all tax filers: only a very small percentage of all 
individuals who file a tax return report an AGI in excess of $2.5 
million to the IRS. Furthermore, the number of individuals who exceed 
income eligibility caps is likely to increase because the 2008 Farm 
Bill lowers these eligibility caps. Therefore, USDA could be at greater 
risk of making improper payments unless it has better management 
controls in place. 

Second, USDA stated that we should not have discussed the requirement 
of actively engaged in farming in this report. We disagree. We believe 
that it is important to place our discussion of income eligibility 
requirements in the context of other key eligibility requirements to 
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the conditions under 
which individuals may qualify for farm program payments. 

Finally, USDA sought more information about the individual cases we 
cite in this report of individuals whose AGI apparently exceeds the 
eligibility requirements. However, Internal Revenue Code Section 6103 
prohibits us from disclosing any additional information. 

USDA also provided technical corrections, which we have incorporated 
into this report as appropriate. USDA's written comments and our 
responses are presented in appendix II. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
from its issue date. At that time we will send copies of this report to 
appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Agriculture; the 
Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested 
parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on 
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Lisa Shames: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

At the request of the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on 
Finance, we reviewed the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) implementation of 
adjusted gross income (AGI) provisions under the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill) to identify potentially 
improper payments to individuals with high incomes. In this context, we 
were asked to evaluate (1) how effectively the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) implemented provisions under the 2002 Farm Bill that 
prohibited payments to individuals whose 3-year average AGI exceeded 
$2.5 million and who derived less than 75 percent of that income from 
farming, ranching, or forestry operations; (2) the potential impact of 
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008's (2008 Farm Bill) AGI 
provisions on individuals who receive farm program payments; and (3) 
the distribution of income for individuals receiving farm program 
payments compared with all tax filers. 

To evaluate how effectively USDA implemented the 2002 Farm Bill 
provisions that prohibit payments to individuals who do not meet the 
AGI provisions, we reviewed guidance that USDA field offices use to 
determine farm program payment eligibility, including relevant statutes 
and regulations and agency policy, such as the FSA Handbook on Payment 
Limitations, 1-PL (Revision 1), as well as relevant studies prepared by 
USDA's Office of Inspector General and the Congressional Research 
Service and our own past reports. In addition, we spoke with USDA 
officials in headquarters and state and local field offices in 
Louisiana and Mississippi who are responsible for ensuring that 
individuals who receive farm program payments were eligible under the 
2002 Farm Bill's AGI provisions that cap 3-year average AGI at $2.5 
million, unless at least 75 percent is derived from farming, ranching, 
or forestry operations. We selected these offices to provide an example 
of how USDA implements the AGI provisions and the information we 
obtained cannot be generalized to all field offices. We also spoke with 
officials from USDA's Economic Research Service on the implications of 
AGI provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill for individuals who receive farm 
program payments. We also reviewed USDA's FY 2007 Performance and 
Accountability Report to understand its assessment of internal controls 
for its farm programs, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publications 
and guidance on reporting income. 

We obtained and analyzed USDA's computer databases for information on 
individuals receiving farm program payments either directly or through 
an entity, such as a corporation, general partnership, or trust, from 
2003 through 2006. These databases included FSA's Producer Payment 
Reporting System, Permitted Entity file, and Subsidiary Eligibility 
file, as well as payment files from USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service. These databases contained detailed information on 
payment recipients, such as social security numbers, payment amounts, 
the status of recipients as individuals or members of entities, their 
ownership interest in entities, types of entities, and additional 
organizational details. These databases also contained information on 
payments made under USDA's farm programs, including the Direct and 
Counter-Cyclical Payments Program, Marketing Assistance Loan Program, 
Conservation Reserve Program, and Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program. Appendix III provides a listing of USDA farm programs and 
payments made between 2003 and 2006 under the 2002 Farm Bill. 

Using the USDA data described above, we identified approximately 2.6 
million individuals who received farm payments between 2003 and 2006. 
We forwarded the list to IRS and requested that IRS provide selected 
data from Form 1040 (U.S. Individual Income Tax Return), Schedule F 
(Profit or Loss from Farming), and Form 4835 (Farm Rental Income and 
Expenses)--the principal IRS forms for reporting income from farming, 
ranching, or forestry. IRS returned data for about 10.9 million returns 
for tax years 2000 to 2006. We verified the accuracy of the matched 
records through an automated name check to compare the individual's 
name as contained in the USDA data with the name of the tax payer in 
the IRS data. In addition to the automated name comparison, we reviewed 
every name that failed the check to confirm that the two names did not 
match. We did not analyze tax filer data reported by entities, such as 
corporations, partnerships, or trusts, but we did review tax filer data 
for the individuals identified by USDA as members of an entity. At the 
conclusion of our verification efforts, tax returns from about 1.9 
million of the original 2.6 million individuals were validated. 

To determine the number of individuals who received potentially 
improper farm program payments, we calculated 3-year moving averages of 
AGI and farm income, and identified individuals whose average AGI was 
at least $2.5 million for the 3 years immediately proceeding the year 
in which they received a farm program payment. This analysis identified 
3,893 individuals whose tax returns indicated they did not meet the AGI 
provisions for receiving farm program payments in one or more of years 
2003 to 2006. We matched these 3,893 individuals with the data provided 
by USDA to determine the types and amounts of farm program payments 
these individuals received in each year. Our analyses showed that 2,702 
individuals had AGI that exceeded the income eligibility cap and had 
received potentially improper farm program payments.[Footnote 18] For 
payments made to an entity, we attributed the payments to each member 
based on the payment share of the member as recorded in FSA's Permitted 
Entity file. 

We also identified the amount of certain program payments and benefits 
not subject to the income provision for the 2,702 individuals. Payments 
and benefits not subject to the AGI provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill 
include those provided under the 2002 Cattle Feed Program, Conservation 
Reserve Program (annual rental and incentive payments for contracts 
signed prior to May 13, 2002), Florida hurricane disaster programs 
(payments for debris removal), Marketing Assistance Loan Program 
(commodity certificate exchange gains), Noninsured Assistance Program, 
Peanut Quota Buyout Program, and Sugar Beet Disaster Program. We 
identified programs not subject to the AGI provisions with the 
assistance of FSA officials. 

To evaluate the potential impact of the 2008 Farm Bill's AGI provisions 
on individuals who receive farm program payments, we identified 1.7 
million individuals who received farm payments in 2006 and matched 
these individuals with 2006 data provided by IRS. After completing our 
name validation tests, we identified 1.1 million tax returns for 
individuals receiving farm payments in 2006. We categorized tax returns 
for these 1.1 million individuals by the 2008 Farm Bill's farm and non- 
farm income caps for direct payments, crop subsidy and disaster 
payments, and conservation program payments--$750,000, $500,000, and $1 
million, respectively. For individuals who received conservation 
program payments, we also compared their farm income with their AGI to 
determine if at least 66.66 percent of their average AGI was derived 
from farm income. To estimate non-farm income, we calculated the 
difference between reported AGI and farm income for each tax return. 

For joint tax returns, we assumed that the difference between the AGI 
and farm income (Schedule F and Form 4835) represented non-farm income. 
However, because individuals filing joint tax returns represented 70.5 
percent of the 1.1 million returns for all individuals, we performed 
additional steps for joint tax returns to account for the possibility 
that a secondary filer on a joint tax return could have income that may 
be categorized as either farm income, non-farm income, or both. Using 
the 2006 data, we developed 11 different scenarios to estimate the 
potential impact of the 2008 Farm Bill's AGI provisions on tax returns 
from individuals who receive farm program payments. These scenarios 
included non-farm income as values from 0 percent to 100 percent of the 
difference between AGI and farm income, using 10 percent increments. 
Table 4 provides the results of our calculations for individuals whose 
tax filing status was single or married filing jointly. For example, 
the table shows that 3,594 individuals filing single tax returns and as 
many as 19,912 individuals filing joint tax returns, or a total of 
23,506, are likely to have incomes above the new AGI cap of $500,000 
for non-farm income. 

Table 4: Estimated Effect of 2008 Farm Bill's Income Eligibility Caps 
on Individuals Who Received Farm Program Payments in 2006: 

Dollars in millions. 

Percent of income: Non-farm: Joint tax returns: 0; 
Percent of income: Joint tax returns: 100; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 0; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 0.0; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 4,680; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 22.9; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 0; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 0.0; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 0; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 0.0. 

Percent of income: Non-farm: Joint tax returns: 10; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 90; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 1,011; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 2.9; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 3,722; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 18.4; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 1,011; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 3.8; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 244; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 0.5. 

Percent of income: Non-Farm: Joint tax returns: 20; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 80; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 2,573; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 8.0; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 2,639; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 13.2; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 2,573; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 9.8; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 633; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 1.1. 

Percent of income: Non-Farm: Joint tax returns: 30; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 70; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 4,356; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 14.7; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 1,273; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 6.7; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 4,356; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 17.3; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 1,134; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 1.8. 

Percent of income: Non-Farm: Joint tax returns: 40; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 60; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 6,327; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 21.4; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 130; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 1.8; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 6,327; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 24.6; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 2,566; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 5.2. 

Percent of income: Non-Farm: Joint tax returns: 50; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 50; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 8,279; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 28.7; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 68; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 1.1; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 8.279; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 32.7; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 3,428; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 6.6. 

Percent of income: Non-Farm: Joint tax returns: 60; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 40; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 10,419; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 36.3; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 46; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 0.8; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 
10,419; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 41.6; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 4,346; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 8.4. 

Percent of income: Non-Farm: Joint tax returns: 70; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 30; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 12,694; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 43.8; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 38; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 0.6; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 
12,694; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 49.9; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 5,334; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 10.3. 

Percent of income: Non-Farm: Joint tax returns: 80; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 20; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 14,996; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 52.1; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 35; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 0.6; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 
14,996; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 58.5; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 6,311; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 12.3. 

Percent of income: Non-Farm: Joint tax returns: 90; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 10; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 17,418; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 60.4; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 33; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 0.6; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 
17,418; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 67.4; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 7,274; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 13.9. 

Percent of income: Non-Farm: Joint tax returns: 100; 
Percent of income: Farm: Joint tax returns: 0; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 19,912; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: 68.7; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 38; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: 0.6; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 
19,912; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: 76.5; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 8,262; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: 15.8. 

Single tax returns; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible individuals: 3,594; 
Direct[A] (Non-Farm income): Ineligible payments: $12.9; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible individuals: 8; 
Direct[B] (farm income): Ineligible payments: $0.2; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible individuals: 3,594; 
Crop subsidy and disaster assistance[C]: Ineligible payments: $14.0; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible individuals: 1,552; 
Conservation[D]: Ineligible payments: $3.3. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA and IRS data. 

Notes: Analysis is based on the 1.1 million individuals who received 
farm program payments and filed single and joint tax returns as the 
primary filer in 2006. 

[A] Individuals are ineligible for direct payments under the Direct and 
Counter-Cyclical Payments Program if their Non-Farm income exceeds 
$500,000. 

[B] Individuals are ineligible for direct payments under the Direct and 
Counter-Cyclical Payments Program if their farm income exceeds 
$750,000. 

[C] Individuals are ineligible for these payments if their Non-Farm 
income exceeds $500,000. These payments include counter-cyclical 
payments under the Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments Program as well 
as payments under the Marketing Assistance Loan Program and crop 
disaster programs. Excludes direct payments. 

[D] Individuals are ineligible for these payments if their Non-Farm 
income exceeds $1 million and less than 66.66 percent of their AGI is 
derived from farm income. Includes payments under the Conservation 
Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and 
Conservation Security Program. 

[End of table] 

To evaluate the distribution of income of the 1.1 million individuals 
who received farm program payments and filed a tax return in 2006, we 
stratified these individuals by the amount of their AGI. We then 
identified average farm program payments for each of these categories 
and calculated the farm payment income as a percent of AGI. We compared 
the income distribution for farm program payment recipients with the 
income distribution for all individual tax filers in 2006, the latest 
year for which data were available. Information for all tax filers is 
based on IRS's Statistics of Income data. 

For our analyses of IRS's and USDA's data, we performed consistency 
checks to confirm that the data contained the information required for 
our comparisons. We eliminated duplicate records from both the USDA and 
IRS data and ensured the internal consistency of the data by deleting 
any cases with missing values critical for the analysis. When we 
matched USDA records with IRS records, we confirmed that the USDA and 
IRS records represented an accurate match through our automated name 
verification check followed by the visual inspection for each failed 
match. Only those individuals with farm income reported to the IRS who 
also received farm payments were included in the analysis. Accordingly, 
we believe the data we used in the analyses were sufficiently reliable 
for our purposes. We did not independently verify the data from USDA's 
and IRS's computer databases, but we discussed with agency officials, 
as appropriate, the measures they take to ensure the accuracy of these 
data. For the purposes for which the data were used in this report, 
these measures seemed reasonable. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 through September 
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix. 

USDA: 

United States Department of Agriculture: 

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services: 

Farm Service Agency: 

Operations Review and Analysis Staff: 

1400 Independence Ave, SW: 
Stop 0540: 
Washington, DC: 
20250-0501: 

To: Lisa Shames, Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 

From:   

Signed by: Teresa C. Lasseter: 

October 9, 2008: 

Administrator: 

Subject: Responding to U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
Draft Report: GAO-08-1083, "Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to 
Strengthen Controls to Prevent Payments to Individuals Who Exceed 
Income Eligibility Limits." 

See comment 1. 

The following are general comments in response to the draft report. The 
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 required the 
implementation of the $2.5 million average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) 
limitation. This was the first instance of an actual income means test 
applied as eligibility criteria for the receipt of benefits under the 
majority of programs administered by FSA. Under this provision, an 
individual or entity with an average AGI in excess of $2.5 million for 
the three years prior to the year for which benefits were requested was 
ineligible for payments, unless 75 percent or more of the AGI was 
derived from farming, ranching and forestry operations as defined by 
regulation. 

Participants were required to certify compliance with the AGI provision 
by either submitting a certification statement as provided by FSA, or a 
statement from either a CPA or an attorney that certified the 
individual or entity complied with the AGI limitation. FSA was granted 
the authority to request tax information filed by the individual or 
entity in the event the certification was questioned. Requiring three 
year of tax returns initially from over 2 million program participants 
was not a viable option or cost effective alternative, nor was it the 
intent of Congress as a means of certification. 

A GAO study was recently conducted of FSA's implementation of the $2.5 
million AGI limitation. The GAO auditors had a distinct advantage over 
FSA to determine producer compliance and potential payments to 
producers that were non-compliant in that GAO had access to IRS tax 
payer data. FSA does not have that privilege, clearance or resource 
capability to conduct that type of scrutiny of AGI certifications for 
every participant. While GAO faults FSA by stating that it lacked 
adequate management controls to prevent payments to individuals that 
may have exceeded the AGI limitation, FSA noted a number of times 
during this study the Agency made the best use of the resources 
available. 

See comment 2. 

Out of $16B that FSA issues to farmers annually, GAO found that 
payments issued directly or indirectly to individuals that, according 
to IRS data exceeded the AGI limitation in any of the years reviewed, 
amounted to only 0.08 percent of that annual total. Furthermore, not 
all of the more than 80 programs listed in Table II which comprised 
this $16B total in payments were subject to the AGI limitation. 

See comment 3. 

GAO also faulted FSA by not having implemented a measurable standard 
for the contribution of active personal management by a participant for 
meeting the requirements of actively engaged in farming. The 
requirements for actively engaged in farming are not part of AGI, nor 
is AGI compliance dependent upon meeting such requirements. We do not 
believe it is appropriate to make reference to an audit that was 
completed and finalized over 4 years ago. It was made clear during the 
exit conference that any discussions of actively engaged in farming are 
misplaced in this study. Also, actively engaged in farming is not a 
requirement for the receipt of payments and benefits under the majority 
of the programs listed by GAO in Table II. 

See comment 4. 

GAO revisited another finding from a 2004 audit in which FSA's 
procedure for the selection of farming operations for annual payment 
limitation compliance reviews was faulted for not being a statistically 
sound sample. It was explained that this sample was not represented to 
be a statistical sample. Rather, it is a judgmental sampling process 
originally fashioned by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and 
based on criteria to identify the operations most likely to have 
potential compliance errors. Nonetheless, as it was again noted in a 
recent response to GAO, the 2006 selection process was modified to 
eliminate repeat selections, and a statistical sampling process 
currently in use by FSA for other compliance purposes is under 
consideration for the 2008 selection process. 

See comment 5. 

During the fours years of this study, GAO found a total of 2,702 
individuals that received program benefits and that had an average AGI 
that exceeded $2.5 million. Of this four- year total, almost half of 
these individuals received the payments indirectly as a member of an 
entity. The entity was the program participant and payment recipient, 
not the individual directly. What GAO fails to mention is that when the 
entity is AGI compliant, and an interest holder is not AGI compliant, 
the entity is eligible to receive a payment, but the payment reduced by 
the share held by that interest holder. However, through attributing a 
share of recorded payments to that non-AGI compliant interest holder, 
it appears that a payment was issued to that interest holder. 

See comment 6. 

GAO also found that 78 percent of the AGI non-compliant individuals 
that received program payments lived in or near a metropolitan area and 
the remaining 22 percent resided in rural areas, small towns, and 
elsewhere. We fail to see the relevance of this finding as it most 
likely mirrors the demographics of the general population regardless of 
income, occupation, or status as a farm program participant. We trust 
that it is not an inference about truthfulness in AGI self-
certification, and where the participants reside. 

See comment 7. 

The GAO report included examples found of payments issued to prominent 
and perceived wealthy individuals even though the individuals may or 
may not have certified to be AGI compliant. The first two examples were 
of a former insurance company executive and a part-owner of a 
professional sports franchise that each received substantial payments 
in the years 2003 through 2006 under programs subject to AGI 
provisions. GAO failed to mention whether the payments were issued 
directly or indirectly through entities, and, if through entities, 
whether the payments to the entities were subject to a commensurate 
reduction for the interests held by the individuals. 

See comment 8. 

The third example was that of a foreign individual who received a total 
of $80,000 indirectly through two entities during the years 2003, 2005, 
and 2006. GAO failed to mention whether these payments were under 
programs subject to AGI or the foreign person rules, or if commensurate 
reductions were applied to the payments issued to the entities. The 
hurricane disaster relief and other disaster programs that compensated 
for losses and property rehabilitation for those years were not subject 
to the foreign person rules and certain payments were not subject to 
the AGI provisions either. 

See comment 8. 

The fourth example was that of an executive of a major financial 
services firm who received $60,000 directly in 2003 program payments. 
GAO failed to mention if this was under a long-term conservation 
practice agreement or contract, which, if approved prior to the 
enactment of the AGI limitation in 2003, would not be subject to AGI. 
The amount could also have been received for disaster assistance for 
that year which also, was not subject to the $2.5 million AGI 
limitation. 

See comment 8. 

For the fifth and last example, the same reasons apply as in the fourth 
example. GAO inappropriately categorized and termed the $900,000 as a 
farm program payment. This appears to be commodity certificate exchange 
gains which are not program payments issued by FSA. Certification 
exchange gains are simply a monetary value realized by the individual 
as the result of the transaction. 

See comment 8. 

GAO explains in detail occurrences where program payments were issued 
directly and indirectly to individuals that appeared to be noncompliant 
with the AGI limitation, as well as the amounts of program benefits 
issued to them during the 4 year period of the study. GAO refers to 
these payments as "potentially improper payments". FSA recommends that 
the discussion contained in Footnote 7 (Page 4) be more visibly 
included in the general text of the report. GAO notes the reason these 
payments are termed as "potentially improper" is that their analysis 
does not show that any one individual is ineligible for payment. 
Furthermore, if other available forms and information had been 
evaluated, the income may have decreased the individuals' AGI below the 
amounts calculated by GAO and thus, make the individuals eligible for 
program payments. USDA regulations allows for the consideration of such 
information and the subsequent adjustments in the determination of the 
average AGI. 

See comment 9. 

Of particular importance to FSA is the finding that over 2,700 
individuals were noncompliant with the AGI limitation during the 4 
years reviewed and were recipients of over $49 million in program 
payments during that period of time. Over 2,600 of these individuals 
had certified to FSA to be compliant with AGI. Furthermore, there were 
87 payment recipients that received program payments subject to AGI 
during that time even though they had certified to be noncompliant with 
AGI and the subsidiary files were set to preclude the issuance of 
payments subject to AGI to these individuals. GAO maintains that 
details cannot be disclosed to the FSA due to Section 6103 of the 
Internal Revenue Code which prohibits the disclosure of tax return 
information. It is imperative to maintain program integrity that 
details of not only the 87 individuals be disclosed, but also for the 
remainder of the 2,700 individuals. GAO has knowledge of over 2,600 
individuals that may have misrepresented their eligibility status to 
FSA, and as a result, received "potentially improper" program payments. 
GAO has knowledge of 87 individuals that received program payments even 
though GAO contends they were clearly not eligible for such payments. 
FSA hereby requests the authority by whatever means necessary, 
including Congressional authority, to gain access to this specific data 
to enable FSA to initiate any actions deemed appropriate upon further 
evaluation. Otherwise, the real value and true purpose of this report 
is at best questionable. 

See comment 8. 

Overall, the GAO study focused only on the perceived results of the 
implementation of the AGI limitation rather than the stated intent of 
the audit: FSA's implementation of the AGI limitation. It is assumed 
that GAO extensively reviewed the 2002 Act that gave rise to the AGI 
limitation; the regulations promulgated by CCC for the AGI limitation; 
the definition developed for the determination of AGI for individuals, 
corporations, non- profits and charitable organizations which may or 
may not be required to file tax returns; trusts, estates, and all FSA 
field offices; and the information provided to the general public. 
However, no mention or statements are made in the report if the 
implementation and subsequent actions of FSA in regard to AGI met the 
intent of Congress. 

See comment 10. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary and the FSA Administrator actively 
pursue in coordination with the Internal Revenue Service the 
development of a system to be used in the verification of income 
eligibility for all recipients of farm program payments. Additionally, 
if the Secretary determines there is no current authority for the 
development of such a system, it is recommended that authority for such 
a system be requested from Congress.
We agree with this recommendation as this appears to be the best manner 
in which to ensure positive compliance with any AGI limitation or 
income means test that may be imposed by Congress for the receipt of 
farm program benefits. 

USDA requests that GAO, in its final report of this audit, formally 
request from the United States Senate, Committee on Finance, that 
authority be given to FSA for access to tax data held by the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) to be used for AGI compliance determination 
purposes.

The following is GAO's response to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
letter dated October 9, 2008. 

GAO's Comments: 

1. The report number has changed to GAO-09-67. 

2. We recognized in the report that resource constraints limit USDA's 
ability to effectively enforce the adjusted gross income (AGI) 
requirements. As we stated, according to USDA officials, these resource 
constraints hamper the department's ability to examine complex tax and 
financial information, and field staff have other competing 
responsibilities that limit the time available for enforcing the AGI 
requirements. 

3. We acknowledge that a small percentage of USDA's total farm program 
payments were made to individuals who exceeded the 2002 Farm Bill's 
income eligibility caps. The small percentage is to be expected: only a 
very small percentage of all individuals who file a tax return report 
an AGI exceeding $2.5 million to the IRS. Furthermore, the fact that 
only a small percentage of recipients are potentially ineligible does 
not relieve USDA of its responsibility to enforce the AGI requirements. 
This percentage is also likely to increase because the 2008 Farm Bill 
lowers the income eligibility caps. Therefore, USDA will be at greater 
risk of making improper payments to more than the 2,702 individuals we 
found unless it has better management controls in place. 

USDA is correct in stating that not all of the farm programs and 
payments listed in appendix III of this report were subject to the AGI 
limitation under the 2002 Farm Bill. That table was not intended to 
list only programs subject to the AGI limitation. To provide clarity, 
we have included a note below the table in appendix III explaining this 
fact. 

4. We believe that it is important to place our discussion of income 
eligibility requirements in the context of other key eligibility 
requirements to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the 
conditions under which individuals may receive farm program payments. 
Although USDA is correct that the requirements for actively engaged in 
farming are not part of the AGI provision, we mention the issue of 
actively engaged in farming in this report to provide more information 
regarding concerns we have previously raised about USDA's oversight of 
farm program payments.[Footnote 19] 

5. As noted in the report, the 2008 Farm Bill directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish statistically valid procedures to conduct 
targeted audits of persons or entities most likely to exceed the 
legislation's income eligibility caps. Therefore, to provide context 
for our discussion on how USDA ensured recipients met eligibility 
requirements, we provided information regarding concerns we had 
previously raised in our 2004 report about how USDA selected farm 
operations for compliance review.[Footnote 20] 

6. USDA is correct in stating that when the entity is AGI compliant and 
an interest holder is not AGI compliant, the entity is still eligible 
to receive a payment. However, the payment to the entity must be 
reduced by the share held by that interest holder. In our analysis of 
entities, we attributed payments to each interest holder based on the 
payment share of the interest holder as recorded in the Farm Service 
Agency's Permitted Entity database. For the 1,346 potentially 
ineligible individuals who we identify as receiving a payment through 
an entity, USDA did not reduce the payment to the entity based on the 
share held by the individual. (For further discussion of the 
methodology we used, see app. I.) 

7. We have identified potentially ineligible recipients on the basis of 
their reported AGI. While we cannot name these recipients, we believe 
that providing as much demographic information as we can about these 
recipients, such as whether they reside near the farming operation, is 
helpful to users of this report. 

8. USDA believes we should provide more information about the examples 
we cite in this report. Providing this information would allow USDA, 
which does not have authority to access tax information, to identify 
individual filers. Internal Revenue Code Section 6103 prohibits us from 
disclosing any additional information. We note here that some of the 
payments were issued directly to individuals while others were issued 
indirectly through entities. Regarding USDA's comment on whether we 
made a commensurate reduction in the payment when the payment was made 
to an entity, we attributed payments to each interest holder based on 
the payment share of the interest holder as recorded in the Farm 
Service Agency's Permitted Entity database. With respect to USDA's 
comment on requesting authority to gain access to information on 
potentially improper payments, we recommended that the Secretary of 
Agriculture direct the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency to work 
with the Internal Revenue Service to develop a system for verifying the 
income eligibility for all recipients of farm program payments. We 
further stated that if the Secretary determines that it does not have 
the authority to develop such a system with the Commissioner of the 
Internal Revenue Service, we recommended that the Secretary request 
this authority from Congress, as appropriate. 

9. We believe that explaining our use of the term "potentially improper 
payments" in the footnotes on pages 4 and 25 is sufficient. 

10. Appendix I of this report specifies the documents we reviewed. As 
we noted, we reviewed guidance that USDA field offices use to determine 
compliance with the AGI requirements, including relevant statutes and 
regulations and agency policy and guidance. We believe that the intent 
of the AGI eligibility requirement is clear in the 2002 Farm Bill. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Program Payments by 
Program or Payment Type, Fiscal Years 2003-2006: 

Table 5: 

Program or payment name: Agricultural Management Assistance Program; 
2003: $3,549,373; 
2004: $8,783,305; 
2005: $7,279,695; 
2006: $2,333,998; 
Total: $21,946,371. 

Program or payment name: American Indian Livestock Feed Program; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 473,247; 
2006: 7,376,094; 
Total: 7,849,341. 

Program or payment name: Bioenergy Program; 
2003: 148,137,098; 
2004: 150,436,473; 
2005: 99,076,283; 
2006: 57,400,527; 
Total: 455,050,381. 

Program or payment name: Commodity certificate exchange gains[A]; 
2003: 185,219,153; 
2004: 337,296,134; 
2005: 330,138,042; 
2006: 210,263,930; 
Total: 1,062,917,259. 

Program or payment name: Conservation Reserve Program; 
2003: 1,770,210,297; 
2004: 1,808,271,945; 
2005: 1,973,549,573; 
2006: 1,686,117,516; 
Total: 7,238,149,331. 

Program or payment name: Conservation Security Program; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 179,485,573; 
2005: 593,563,202; 
2006: 142,088,837; 
Total: 915,137,612. 

Program or payment name: Cottonseed Payment Program; 
2003: 49,834,565; 
2004: 14,588; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 1,645; 
Total: 49,850,798. 

Program or payment name: Counter-cyclical payments; 
2003: 1,746,682,529; 
2004: 805,809,924; 
2005: 3,008,760,716; 
2006: 3,954,423,534; 
Total: 9,515,676,703. 

Program or payment name: Crop disaster programs[B]; 
2003: 2,035,849,601; 
2004: 748,959,493; 
2005: 2,881,168,505; 
2006: 147,655,261; 
Total: 5,813,632,860. 

Program or payment name: Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program[C]; 
2003: 1,204,615; 
2004: 600,054; 
2005: 337,566; 
2006: 7,094,864; 
Total: 9,237,099. 

Program or payment name: Direct payments; 
2003: 4,149,832,019; 
2004: 5,289,336,282; 
2005: 5,686,444,172; 
2006: 4,558,939,310; 
Total: 19,684,551,783. 

Program or payment name: Emergency Conservation Program; 
2003: 44,760,627; 
2004: 22,177,233; 
2005: 57,934,232; 
2006: 86,618,801; 
Total: 211,490,893. 

Program or payment name: Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Program; 
2003: (41,485); 
2004: 100,326,373; 
2005: (148,398); 
2006: 4,123,078; 
Total: 104,259,568. 

Program or payment name: Environmental Quality Incentives Program[D]; 
2003: 545,495,052; 
2004: 790,482,178; 
2005: 465,584,695; 
2006: 415,334,213; 
Total: 2,216,896,138. 

Program or payment name: Grassland Reserve Program; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 1,348,981; 
2005: 2,835,751; 
2006: 5,913,591; 
Total: 10,098,323. 

Program or payment name: Grassroots Source Water Protection Program; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 3,191,760; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 3,191,760. 

Program or payment name: Hard white wheat incentive payments; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 9,023,427; 
2005: 3,166,216; 
2006: 5,094,077; 
Total: 17,283,720. 

Program or payment name: Karnal bunt fungus compensation payments; 
2003: 3,022,159; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 3,022,159. 

Program or payment name: Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program; 
2003: 17,586,607; 
2004: 5,395,203; 
2005: 14,773,899; 
2006: 36,054; 
Total: 37,791,763. 

Program or payment name: Livestock Compensation Program[E]; 
2003: 1,203,319,891; 
2004: (463,156); 
2005: 70,440,660; 
2006: 213,533,953; 
Total: 1,486,831,348. 

Program or payment name: Loan deficiency payments[F]; 
2003: 666,181,783; 
2004: 457,310,464; 
2005: 4,258,016,314; 
2006: 3,896,456,928; 
Total: 9,277,965,489. 

Program or payment name: Market Access Program; 
2003: 95,485,882; 
2004: 124,004,633; 
2005: 33,542,876; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 253,033,391. 

Program or payment name: Marketing loan gains; 
2003: 189,552,996; 
2004: 114,572,970; 
2005: 384,974,403; 
2006: 246,292,577; 
Total: 935,392,946. 

Program or payment name: Milk Income Loss Contract payments; 
2003: 1,220,761,113; 
2004: 220,703,830; 
2005: 7,308,438; 
2006: 345,843,432; 
Total: 1,794,616,813. 

Program or payment name: Milk Income Loss Transition Program; 
2003: 559,861,054; 
2004: 6,843,823; 
2005: 1,850,455; 
2006: 412,035; 
Total: 568,967,367. 

Program or payment name: Noninsured Assistance Program[G]; 
2003: 237,573,500; 
2004: 122,717,376; 
2005: 107,896,616; 
2006: 64,781,316; 
Total: 532,968,808. 

Program or payment name: Peanut Quota Buyout Program; 
2003: 1,220,317,818; 
2004: 24,989,195; 
2005: 22,302,136; 
2006: 21,201,291; 
Total: 1,288,810,440. 

Program or payment name: Soil and Water Agricultural Assistance 
Program; 
2003: 2,694,734; 
2004: 1,859,399; 
2005: 1,138,084; 
2006: 719,832; 
Total: 6,412,049. 

Program or payment name: Sugarcane Payment Program; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 55,800,000; 
2005: (1,569); 
2006: 0; 
Total: 55,798,431. 

Program or payment name: Tobacco Transition Payment Program[H]; 
2003: 51,120,568; 
2004: 4,501; 
2005: (341); 
2006: 0; 
Total: 51,124,728. 

Program or payment name: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 9,739,427; 
2005: 14,669,796; 
2006: 2,578,164; 
Total: 26,987,387. 

Program or payment name: Tree Assistance Program; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 1,764,917; 
2005: 3,549,270; 
2006: 4,981,844; 
Total: 10,296,031. 

Program or payment name: Wetlands Reserve Program; 
2003: 21,572,999; 
2004: 18,094,066; 
2005: 9,438,694; 
2006: 7,610,100; 
Total: 56,715,859. 

Program or payment name: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; 
2003: 2,265,957; 
2004: 13,994,413; 
2005: 14,154,645; 
2006: 9,124,686; 
Total: 39,539,701. 

Program or payment name: Refunds of farm program payments made before 
2003[I]; 
2003: (292,867,811); 
2004: (8,828,137); 
2005: (2,663,318); 
2006: (248,116); 
Total: (304,607,382). 

Program or payment name: Other programs[J]; 
2003: 34,813,627; 
2004: 45,874,190; 
2005: 182,899,792; 
2006: 91,320,530; 
Total: 354,908,139. 

Program or payment name: Total; 
2003: $15,913,996,321; 
2004: $11,466,729,077; 
2005: $20,237,646,107; 
2006: $16,195,423,902; 
Total: $63,813,795,407. 

Source: GAO analysis of Farm Service Agency data. 

Notes: (1) Table includes programs and payments subject to the AGI 
provisions as well as those not subject to the AGI provisions. (2) For 
commodity certificate exchange gains and payments made under the 
Marketing Assistance Loan Program through cooperative marketing 
associations, we used program year data. (3) Totals may not add due to 
rounding. (4) Negative payments represent receivables due to 
overdisbursements and other payment anomalies in a prior year. 

[A] Includes cotton user marketing certificate gains. 

[B] Includes the Apple and Potato Quality Loss Program, Apple Market 
Loss Assistance Program, Sugar Beet Disaster Program, Quality Loss 
Program, Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program, Florida Hurricane 
Citrus Disaster Program, Crop Hurricane Damage Program, Hurricane 
Indemnity Program, Florida Hurricane Nursery Disaster Program, Florida 
Hurricane Vegetable Disaster Program, Multi-Year Crop Loss Disaster 
Assistance Program, and Single Year Crop Loss Disaster Assistance 
Program, as well as Crop Disaster North Carolina payments, Crop 
Disaster Virginia payments, and Florida Nursery Loss payments. 

[C] Includes the Dairy Indemnity Program, Dairy Options Pilot Program, 
and Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program. 

[D] Includes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the 
Automated Conservation Program Environmental Long Term payments. 

[E] Includes the Livestock Assistance Program, Livestock Indemnity 
Program, Avian Influenza Indemnity Program, 2002 Cattle Feed Program, 
Pasture Flood Compensation Program, and Pasture Recovery Program. 

[F] Includes the Acreage Grazing Payments Program. 

[G] Includes supplemental appropriations for the Noninsured Assistance 
Program. 

[H] Includes the Tobacco Loss Assistance Program and Supplement Tobacco 
Loss Assistance Program. 

[I] Includes market loss assistance payments and production flexibility 
contract payments. 

[J] Includes the Agricultural Conservation Program, Oilseed Payment 
Program including supplemental appropriations for the Oilseed Payment 
Program, Wool and Mohair Market Loss Assistance Program, Yakima Basin 
Water Program, Idaho Oust Program, Livestock Compensation Program- 
Grants For Catfish Producers, Annual Agreement for Agricultural 
Conservation Program payments, Extra-long Staple Cotton Special 
Provision Program, Farm Storage Facility Loans, Finality Rule and 
Equitable Relief, New Mexico Tebuthiuron Application Losses Program, 
Aquaculture Block Grant, Tree Indemnity Program, Loan Deficiency 
Payments for Non-Contract Production Flexibility Contract Growers, Milk 
Marketing Fee, Tri-Valley Growers Program, New York Onion Producers 
Program, Market Loss Onion Producer Program, and Interest payments. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Distribution of Income for Individuals Receiving Farm 
Program Payments Compared with All Tax Filers, 2006: 

Table 6: 

Adjusted gross income: Under $0 (loss) to $0; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 73,492; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
6.6; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): $(90.1); 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): $17.2; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 2,675,594; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 1.9; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): $(34.1). 

Adjusted gross income: $1 to under $5,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 35,639; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
3.2; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 2.6; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (dollars in thousands): 6.9; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 11,633,370; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 8.4; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 2.7. 

Adjusted gross income: $5,000 to under $10,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 50,661; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
4.5; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 7.6; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 6.6; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 11,786,747; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 8.5; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 7.5. 

Adjusted gross income: $10,000 to under $15,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 58,298; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
5.2; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 12.5; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 7.0; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 11,711,680; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 8.5; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 12.5. 

Adjusted gross income: $15,000 to under $20,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 62,797; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
5.6; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 17.5; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in 
in thousands): 7.9; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 10,937,694; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 7.9; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 17.5. 

Adjusted gross income: $20,000 to under $25,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 56,323; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
5.0; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 22.5; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 8.9; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 9,912,261; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 7.2; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 22.5. 

Adjusted gross income: $25,000 to under $30,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 53,858; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
4.8; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 27.5; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 9.5; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 8,749,761; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 6.3; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 27.5. 

Adjusted gross income: $30,000 to under $40,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 99,846; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
9.0; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 34.9; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 10.0; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 14,151,824; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 10.2; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 34.8. 

Adjusted gross income: $40,000 to under $50,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 94,041; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
8.4; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 45.0; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 10.4; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 10,687,193; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 7.7; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 44.8. 

Adjusted gross income: $50,000 to under $75,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 193,446; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
17.3; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 61.9; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 10.3; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 18,854,917; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 13.6; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 61.4. 

Adjusted gross income: $75,000 to under $100,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 125,646; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
11.3; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 86.2; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 11.4; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 11,140,408; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 8.0; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 86.2. 

Adjusted gross income: $100,000 to under $200,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 137,058; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
12.3; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: [Empty]; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 134.4; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 12.0; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 12,088,423; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 8.7; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 132.9. 

Adjusted gross income: $200,000 to under $500,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 51,424; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
4.6; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 295.7; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 13.1; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 3,121,485; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 2.3; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 286.8. 

Adjusted gross income: $500,000 to under $1,000,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 13,280; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
1.2; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: [Empty]; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 686.0; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 13.0; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 589,306; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 0.4; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 678.1. 

Adjusted gross income: $1,000,000 to under $1,500,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 3,836; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
0.3; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 1,216.6; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 13.3; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 150,431; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 0.1; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 1,210.1. 

Adjusted gross income: $1,500,000 to under $2,000,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 1,801; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
0.2; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 1,723.7; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 14.1; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 64,007; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 0.0[B]; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 1,721.9. 

Adjusted gross income: $2,000,000 to under $5,000,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 2,818; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
0.3; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 2,988.8; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 12.6; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 98,724; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 0.1; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 2,989.4. 

Adjusted gross income: $5,000,000 to under $10,000,000; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 741; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
0.1; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: [Empty]; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 6,793.4; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 14.1; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 24,975; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 0.0[B]; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 6,863.2. 

Adjusted gross income: $10,000,000 or more; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 455; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
0.0[B]; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): 21,962.0; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in in thousands): 9.1; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 15,956; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 0.0[B]; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): 28,357.7. 

Adjusted gross income: Total/Average; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Number of 
returns: 1,115,460; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Percent: 
100.0; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
adjusted gross income per return (Dollars in thousands): $92.3; 
Tax returns for individuals receiving farm program payments: Average 
farm payment per return[A] (Dollars in 
in thousands): $10.6; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Number of returns: 138,394,754; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Percent: 100.0; 
Tax returns for all individuals: Average adjusted gross income per 
return (Dollars in thousands): $58.0. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA and IRS data, and IRS Statistics of 
Income. 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

[A] Farm program payments are based on fiscal year 2006 data. 

[B] Rounds to zero. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Lisa Shames (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Thomas M. Cook, Assistant 
Director; Kevin S. Bray; Arthur L. James, Jr; James R. Jones, Jr; 
Leslie V. Mahagan; Grant M. Mallie; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; Tyra J. 
Thompson; and James J. Ungvarsky made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Improper Payments: Agencies' Efforts to Address Improper Payment and 
Recovery Auditing Requirements Continue. GAO-08-438T. Washington, D.C.: 
January 31, 2008. 

Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Management Controls to 
Prevent Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals. GAO-07- 
1137T. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2007. 

Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to Prevent 
Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals. GAO-07-818. 
Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2007. 

Improper Payments: Agencies' Efforts to Address Improper Payment and 
Recovery Auditing Requirements Continue. GAO-07-635T. Washington, D.C.: 
March 29, 2007. 

Improper Payments: Incomplete Reporting under the Improper Payments 
Information Act Masks the Extent of the Problem. GAO-07-254T. 
Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2006. 

Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress. GAO-07-235R. 
Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2006. 

Improper Payments: Agencies' Fiscal Year 2005 Reporting under the 
Improper Payments Information Act Remains Incomplete. GAO-07-92. 
Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2006. 

Financial Management: Challenges Continue in Meeting Requirements of 
the Improper Payments Information Act. GAO-06-581T. Washington, D.C.: 
April 5, 2006. 

Taxpayer Information: Data Sharing and Analysis May Enhance Tax 
Compliance and Improve Immigration Eligibility Decisions. GAO-04-972T. 
Washington, DC.: July 21, 2004. 

Farm Program Payments: USDA Should Correct Weaknesses in Regulations 
and Oversight to Better Ensure Recipients Do Not Circumvent Payment 
Limitations. GAO-04-861T. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2004. 

Farm Program Payments: USDA Needs to Strengthen Regulations and 
Oversight to Better Ensure Recipients Do Not Circumvent Payment 
Limitations. GAO-04-407. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2004. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress, GAO-07-
235R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006). 

[2] GAO, Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to 
Prevent Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals, GAO-07-
818 (Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2007); and, Farm Program Payments: USDA 
Needs to Strengthen Regulations and Oversight to Better Ensure 
Recipients Do Not Circumvent Payment Limitations, GAO-04-407 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2004). 

[3] AGI is defined as taxable income from all sources including wages, 
salaries, and farm income or losses, minus specific deductions. 

[4] For purposes of this report, programs described as subject to AGI 
provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill include programs made subject to the 
AGI limitations in the 2002 Farm Bill, and programs subject to the same 
AGI limitations through subsequent legislation or USDA regulation. 

[5] 7 C.F.R. § 1400.602. 

[6] Under the 2008 Farm Bill, individuals filing a tax return jointly, 
such as a husband and wife, may each qualify for an income limit based 
on an allocation of income among the individuals. The farm bill also 
provides USDA discretion to waive the conservation payment limit for 
"environmentally sensitive land of special significance." 

[7] Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code generally prohibits the 
disclosure of tax return information. An individual's average AGI is 
the average of the individual's AGI from the previous 3 tax years 
immediately preceding the year the individual applies for farm program 
payments. For example, to determine an individual's eligibility for 
farm program payments for 2003, USDA averages AGI from tax years 2000, 
2001, and 2002. 

[8] In this report, we refer to these payments as being "potentially 
improper" and not "improper" because our analysis does not allow us to 
definitively state that any one individual is ineligible for payments. 
Specifically, we analyzed individuals' compliance with the AGI 
provisions based on IRS Schedule F and Form 4835, but did not use other 
forms and schedules where individuals might report farm income and 
losses to IRS. Income on these other forms could increase or decrease 
the individuals' AGI above or below the amounts we calculated, 
potentially making them eligible for farm program payments. In 
addition, we used data as reported on joint tax returns, but 
individuals who filed jointly may be eligible to receive farm program 
payments after income and losses are allocated among the individuals 
filing jointly. This is possible because USDA regulations permit 
individuals who file a joint return to certify their income as if they 
had filed a separate return. 

[9] Payments and benefits not subject to the AGI provisions of the 2002 
Farm Bill include those made under the 2002 Cattle Feed Program, 
Conservation Reserve Program (annual rental and incentive payments for 
contracts signed prior to May 13, 2002), Florida hurricane disaster 
programs (payments for debris removal), Marketing Assistance Loan 
Program (commodity certificate exchange gains), Noninsured Assistance 
Program, Peanut Quota Buyout Program, and Sugar Beet Disaster Program. 

[10] The 2008 Farm Bill defines a person as an individual, and 
eliminates the three-entity rule, requiring that, for the purpose of 
payment limitations, farm payments be attributed to an individual 
regardless of whether payments are received directly or through an 
entity. 

[11] GAO-07-818. 

[12] GAO-04-407. 

[13] The one state not included is Maine. 

[14] We classified tax address zip codes into "Rural Urban Commuting 
Area Codes" that group U.S. Census Bureau tracts into four population/ 
commuting groups: Urban Core, Suburban, Large Town, and Small Town/ 
Isolated Rural Areas. Percentages are based upon the combined Urban 
Core and Suburban areas and the combined Large Town and Small Town/ 
Isolated Rural Areas. 

[15] GAO-04-407. 

[16] Section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain taxpayers 
to claim a deduction for a percentage of their net income from 
qualified domestic production activities. In 2005 and 2006 that 
percentage was 3 percent. The deduction percentage increases to 6 
percent for 2007 through 2009 and to 9 percent beginning in 2010. 

[17] 73 Fed. Reg. 40,283 (July 14, 2008). 

[18] We refer to these payments as being "potentially improper" and not 
"improper" because our analysis does not allow us to definitively state 
that any one individual is ineligible for payments. Specifically, we 
analyzed individuals' compliance with the AGI provisions based on IRS 
Schedule F and Form 4835, but did not use other forms and schedules 
where individuals might report farm income and losses to IRS. Income on 
these other forms could increase or decrease the individuals' AGI above 
or below the amounts we calculated, potentially making them eligible 
for farm program payments. In addition, we used data as reported on 
joint tax returns, but individuals who filed tax returns jointly may be 
eligible to receive farm program payments after income and losses are 
allocated among the individuals filing jointly. This is possible 
because USDA regulations permit individuals who file a joint return to 
certify their income as if they had filed a separate return. 

[19] GAO, Farm Program Payments: USDA Needs to Strengthen Regulations 
and Oversight to Better Ensure Recipients Do Not Circumvent Payment 
Limitations, GAO-04-407 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2004). 

[20] GAO-04-407. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: