B-141720, JUL. 6, 1960

B-141720, JUL. 6, 1960

TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE:

A LETTER DATED APRIL 22, 1960, FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, CONCERNS THE $50,000 LIMITATION PROVISION ON NONRECOURSE PRICE SUPPORT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION APPROPRIATION ACT, 1960, 73 STAT. 167, 178.

THE LETTER IS, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"THIS DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL RECENT INQUIRIES AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE $50,000 LIMITATION TO VARIOUS LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIPS. UNDER THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAMS OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION, PRICE SUPPORT IS GENERALLY AVAILABLE ONLY TO INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, CORPORATIONS, OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITIES PRODUCING A COMMODITY IN THE CAPACITY OF LANDOWNER, LANDLORD, TENANT, OR SHARECROPPER. (IN ALL CASES DISCUSSED HEREIN, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE PERSONS INVOLVED WOULD MEET ALL OTHER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.) IN THE CASE OF COTTON, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A LANDLORD AND HIS TENANT OR SHARECROPPER ARE EACH ENTITLED TO A SHARE OF THE COTTON CROP PRODUCED ON THE FARM AND THE CROP IS DIVIDED, EACH WILL BE ENTITLED TO OBTAIN PRICE SUPPORT UPON HIS SEPARATE SHARE OF THE COTTON BY SELLING HIS COTTON TO COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION OR PLACING IT UNDER A PRICE SUPPORT LOAN. IF EACH OBTAINS PRICE SUPPORT UPON HIS SHARE OF THE COTTON, IT APPEARS CLEAR THAT EACH IS TO BE REGARDED AS HAVING RECEIVED PRICE SUPPORT TO THE EXTENT OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROCEEDS WHICH HE RECEIVES, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE $50,000 LIMITATION. IF THE COTTON IS NOT DIVIDED AND PRICE SUPPORT IS OBTAINED ON THE COTTON ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE LANDLORD AND THE TENANT, IT APPEARS CLEAR THAT EACH IS TO BE REGARDED AS HAVING RECEIVED PRICE SUPPORT TO THE EXTENT OF HIS SHARE OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROCEEDS. ON THE OTHER HAND, A LANDLORD WHO RECEIVES COTTON FROM A TENANT IN PAYMENT OF FIXED OR STANDING RENT (RENT PAYABLE IN A FIXED QUANTITY OF COTTON) OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRES COTTON FROM A TENANT OR SHARECROPPER IS NOT REGARDED AS THE PRODUCER OF SUCH COTTON AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PRICE SUPPORT ON SUCH COTTON. SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE IN EFFECT UNDER THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAMS ON GRAIN AND OTHER COMMODITIES.

"WHERE A TENANT LEASES LAND FOR A CASH RENTAL, HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ENTITLED TO OBTAIN PRICE SUPPORT UPON HIS ENTIRE CROP, AND THE LANDLORD HAVING NO OWNERSHIP OF ANY PART OF SUCH CROP WOULD NOT BE A PARTY TO ANY PRICE SUPPORT TRANSACTION, BEYOND WAIVING HIS LANDLORD'S LIEN, IF ONE EXISTS. IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE CLEAR THAT A TENANT WHO IS TO PAY A FIXED AMOUNT IN CASH AS RENT AND WHO OBTAINS PRICE SUPPORT ON HIS CROP IS TO BE CHARGED WITH THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROCEEDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE $50,000 LIMITATION AND THAT THE LANDLORD IS NOT TO BE CHARGED WITH HAVING OBTAINED ANY PRICE SUPPORT EVEN THOUGH THE TENANT MAY ACTUALLY USE A PORTION OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROCEEDS TO PAY HIS RENT.

"A QUESTION ARISES WHERE LAND IS LEASED UPON CONDITION THAT THE TENANT PAY, AS RENT, A STATED PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE CROP OR AN AMOUNT "EQUAL TO" A PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE CROP. THIS TYPE OF RENTAL ARRANGEMENT IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE ENCLOSED PROPOSED FORM OF FARM LEASE, WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THIS DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THIS LEASE PROVIDES THAT THE LESSEE SHALL PAY TO THE LESSOR AS RENT, IN CASH, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO SPECIFIED PERCENTAGES OF THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF THE CROPS, LESS CERTAIN EXPENSES.'

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY STATES THAT THE POSITION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LESSOR THAT THE AMOUNTS THE LESSOR WOULD RECEIVE UNDER THIS TYPE OF LEASE WOULD MERELY BE RENT AND THAT HE WOULD NOT BE RECEIVING PRICE SUPPORT PROCEEDS THEREBY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE $50,000 LIMITATION. HE ALSO STATES THAT, IN THIS CONNECTION, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE $50,000 LIMITATION RELATES ONLY TO "PRICE SUPPORT * * * EXTENDED * * * TO ANY PERSON * * *.' HE FURTHER STATES THAT IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT THIS LIMITATION APPLIES ONLY TO THE PERSON WHO DIRECTLY RECEIVES THE PRICE SUPPORT--- I.E., THE PRODUCER WHO, HAVING LEGAL TITLE TO THE CROP, HAS THE RIGHT TO AND DOES SELL OR PLACE THE COMMODITY UNDER LOAN TO COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY POINTS OUT THAT UNDER THE PROPOSED LEASE, IT APPEARS THAT TITLE TO CROP WOULD BE IN THE TENANT RATHER THAN THE LANDLORD, THAT THE CROP WOULD BE TENDERED FOR PRICE SUPPORT BY THE TENANT, AND THAT THE PRICE SUPPORT PROCEEDS WOULD BE PAID TO THE TENANT.

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S LETTER CONTINUES AS FOLLOWS:

"THE 1959 WHEAT LOAN AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS (24 F.R. 3813) DEFINE PRODUCER" AS MEANING "A PERSON WHO, AS OWNER, LANDLORD, TENANT OR SHARECROPPER IS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE WHEAT AVAILABLE FOR MARKETING FROM THE FARM OR IN THE PROCEEDS THEREOF.' ALTHOUGH THIS DEFINITION APPEARED IN THE REGULATIONS IN A FORM SIMILAR TO THE DEFINITIONS IN CERTAIN OTHER REGULATIONS OF THIS DEPARTMENT, IT WAS NOT INTENDED THEREBY TO MAKE A LANDLORD WHO DID NOT HAVE OWNERSHIP OF ANY PART OF THE CROP AN ELIGIBLE PRODUCER. A LANDLORD WHO DOES NOT HAVE OWNERSHIP OF ANY PART OF THE WHEAT CROP OR THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF IT WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TENDER ANY PORTION OF THE CROP TO COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FOR PRICE SUPPORT, AND THE TENANT WOULD BE THE PROPER PARTY UNDER THE PROGRAM TO APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE PRICE SUPPORT UPON THE ENTIRE CROP. THE REFERENCE TO THE PROCEEDS FROM THE WHEAT DID NOT APPEAR IN ANY PREVIOUS WHEAT PRICE SUPPORT BULLETIN, AND THE PROPOSED 1960 BULLETIN DOES NOT CONTAIN THIS REFERENCE. BOTH THE 1959 AND 1960 RICE LOAN AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS (24 F.R. 2673, 25 F.R. 1815) PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN WORDS, INCLUDING THE WORD "PRODUCER," SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO THEM BY CERTAIN REGULATIONS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH ACREAGE ALLOTMENT, MARKETING QUOTA, SUGAR, AND SOIL BANK PROGRAMS, AND THESE REGULATIONS DEFINE THE WORD "PRODUCER" AS MEANING "A PERSON WHO, AS OWNER, LANDLORD, TENANT, OR SHARECROPPER ... IS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE ... CROPS AVAILABLE FOR MARKETING FROM THE FARM OR IN THE PROCEEDS THEREOF ....' (23 F.R. 6731). AS IN THE CASE OF THE WHEAT REGULATIONS, THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO MAKE A LANDLORD WHO DID NOT HAVE OWNERSHIP OF ANY PART OF THE CROP AN ELIGIBLE PRODUCER, AND THE LANDLORD WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO TENDER ANY PORTION OF THE RICE CROP TO COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FOR PRICE SUPPORT. THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM BULLETINS ON OTHER COMMODITIES DO NOT CONTAIN ANY REFERENCE TO PROCEEDS FROM THE CROP IN DEFINING THE TERM PRODUCER.'

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY ADVISES THAT IF THERE IS A LIEN ON A COMMODITY ON WHICH A PRODUCER DESIRES PRICE SUPPORT, THE LIEN HOLDER IS REQUIRED TO EXECUTE A LIEN WAIVER BEFORE THE COMMODITY WILL BE ACCEPTABLE FOR PRICE SUPPORT. IT APPEARS THAT IF TITLE TO A CROP IS IN A TENANT, THE LANDLORD USUALLY HAS A LIEN ON THE COMMODITY, EITHER BY STATUTE OR UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE; AND THAT, THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE LANDLORD TO EXECUTE THE LIEN WAIVER BEFORE THE TENANT MAY OBTAIN PRICE SUPPORT ON THE CROP. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION'S LOAN DOCUMENTS CONTAIN SPACES IN WHICH THE PRODUCER MAY DESIGNATE PERSONS TO WHOM PORTIONS OF THE PRICE SUPPORT PROCEEDS SHALL BE PAID, AND THAT, ACCORDINGLY, THE LANDLORD IS OFTEN DESIGNATED ON THE LOAN OR PURCHASE FORM TO RECEIVE THE PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED FROM THE TENANT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN HIS SIGNATURE ON THE LIEN WAIVER. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY STATES THAT IN EACH SUCH CASE, THE LANDLORD RECEIVES A CHECK FROM COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION OR ITS LOCAL AGENCY RATHER THAN RECEIVING A RENTAL PAYMENT FROM THE TENANT.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOREGOING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION:

"1. WHERE A LEASE OF FARM LAND PROVIDES THAT THE RENT TO BE PAID BY THE TENANT SHALL BE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE 1960 CROP, AND WHERE THE TENANT OBTAINS PRICE SUPPORT ON THE CROP AND MAKES PAYMENT TO THE LANDLORD OF THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THE LEASE, HAS PRICE SUPPORT BEEN EXTENDED TO THE LANDLORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE $50,000 LIMITATION?

"2. WOULD THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 BE ANY DIFFERENT IF THE LEASE PROVIDES THAT THE RENT TO BE PAID BY THE TENANT SHALL BE:

"A. A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE 1960 CROP?

"B. AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SUCCESS OF THE CROP IN SOME MANNER OTHER THAN BY A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS (SUCH AS A FIXED AMOUNT PER BALE OF COTTON PRODUCED/?

"C. A FIXED AMOUNT PLUS ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS DEPENDING UPON THE SUCCESS OF THE CROP?

"3. WOULD THE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 BE ANY DIFFERENT IF THE LANDLORD IS DESIGNATED ON THE LOAN OR PURCHASE FORM TO RECEIVE A PART OF THE PROCEEDS AND A CHECK FOR THIS AMOUNT IS ISSUED TO THE LANDLORD?

"4. IF PRICE SUPPORT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN EXTENDED TO THE LANDLORD UNDER ANY OF THE FOREGOING TYPES OF LEASES, CAN THE TENANT OBTAIN PRICE SUPPORT IN EXCESS OF $50,000 PROVIDED THE PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS WHICH HE WILL RETAIN AFTER PAYMENT OF THE RENT WILL NOT EXCEED 50,000?

"5. IF PRICE SUPPORT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN EXTENDED TO THE LANDLORD UNDER ANY OF THE FOREGOING TYPES OF LEASES, MUST COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE DECLINE TO EXTEND PRICE SUPPORT TO THE TENANT UNLESS (A) THE LANDLORD AGREES TO REPAY ALL PRICE SUPPORT AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY HIM ON HIS OWN (IF ANY) AND HIS TENANTS' PRODUCTION IN EXCESS OF $50,000, OR (B)THE LANDLORD HAS QUALIFIED FOR UNLIMITED PRICE SUPPORT BY REDUCTION OF THE CROP ON LAND OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY HIM?

"6. IF PRICE SUPPORT IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN EXTENDED TO THE LANDLORD UNDER ONE OR MORE OF THE FOREGOING TYPES OF LEASES, AND IF THE LANDLORD LEASES LAND UNDER SUCH A TYPE OF LEASE IN 1960 WHICH HE LEASED ON A CROP-SHARING BASIS IN 1959, WOULD SUCH A CHANGE BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE STATUTE?

THE $50,000 LIMITATION PROVISION IS, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS (73 STAT. 178):

"* * * PROVIDED FURTHER, (1) THAT NO PART OF THIS AUTHORIZATION SHALL BE USED TO FORMULATE OR CARRY OUT A PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR 1960 UNDER WHICH A TOTAL AMOUNT OF PRICE SUPPORT IN EXCESS OF $50,000 WOULD BE EXTENDED THROUGH LOANS, PURCHASES, OR PURCHASE AGREEMENTS MADE OR MADE AVAILABLE BY COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION TO ANY PERSON ON THE 1960 PRODUCTION OF ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY DECLARED BY THE SECRETARY TO BE IN SURPLUS SUPPLY, UNLESS (A) SUCH PERSON SHALL REDUCE HIS PRODUCTION OF SUCH COMMODITY FROM THAT WHICH SUCH PERSON PRODUCED THE PRECEDING YEAR, IN SUCH PERCENTAGE, NOT TO EXCEED 20 PERCENTUM, AS THE SECRETARY MAY DETERMINE TO BE ESSENTIAL TO BRING PRODUCTION IN LINE WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME WITH THAT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY TO MEET DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN DEMANDS, PLUS ADEQUATE RESERVES, OR (B) SUCH PERSON SHALL AGREE TO REPAY ALL AMOUNTS ADVANCED IN EXCESS OF $50,000 FOR ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ADVANCE OF SUCH FUNDS OR AT SUCH LATER DATE AS THE SECRETARY MAY DETERMINE, (2) THAT THE TERM "PERSON" SHALL MEAN AN INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, JOINT- STOCK COMPANY, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, TRUST, ESTATE, OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, OR A STATE, POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF A STATE, OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, (3) THAT IN THE CASE OF ANY LOAN TO, OR PURCHASE FROM, A COOPERATIVE MARKETING ORGANIZATION, OR WITH REGARD TO PRICE SUPPORT ON AN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY EXTENDED BY PURCHASES OF A PRODUCT OF SUCH COMMODITY FROM, OR BY LOANS ON SUCH PRODUCT TO, PERSONS OTHER THAN THE PRODUCERS OF SUCH COMMODITY, SUCH LIMITATION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE AMOUNT OF PRICE SUPPORT RECEIVED BY THE COOPERATIVE MARKETING ORGANIZATION, OR OTHER PERSONS, BUT THE AMOUNT OF PRICE SUPPORT MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY PERSON THROUGH SUCH COOPERATIVE MARKETING ORGANIZATION OR OTHER PERSONS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PRICE SUPPORT RECEIVED BY SUCH PERSON FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH LIMITATION, AND (4) THAT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE SHALL ISSUE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBING SUCH RULES AS HE DETERMINES NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THIS PROVISION.'

IT APPEARS FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S LETTER AND THE ABOVE QUOTED LIMITATION PROVISION THAT PRICE SUPPORT IS EXTENDED BY THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION TO PERSONS THROUGH LOANS, PURCHASES, OR PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, AND THAT UNDER THE LIMITATION PRICE SUPPORT IN EXCESS OF $50,000 MAY NOT BE EXTENDED BY THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION TO ANY PERSON ON ANY 1960 CROP.

AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY STATES, IN EFFECT, THAT A LANDLORD WHO DOES NOT HAVE OWNERSHIP OF ANY PART OF A CROP OR THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF IT WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TENDER ANY PORTION OF THE CROP TO COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FOR PRICE SUPPORT AND THAT THE TENANT WHO HAS OWNERSHIP OF THE CROP WOULD BE THE PROPER PARTY TO APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE PRICE SUPPORT. HE FURTHER STATES THAT UNDER THE PROPOSED LEASE (ENCLOSED WITH HIS LETTER), AND ALSO APPARENTLY THE TYPE OF LEASE REFERRED TO IN HIS QUESTIONS, IT APPEARS THAT TITLE TO THE CROP WOULD BE IN THE TENANT RATHER THAN THE LANDLORD, THAT THE CROP WOULD BE TENDERED FOR PRICE SUPPORT BY THE TENANT, AND THAT THE PRICE SUPPORT WOULD BE PAID BY COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION TO THE TENANT. WE AGREE THAT A LANDLORD WHO LEASES HIS LAND FOR A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE TENANT'S CROP (AS RENT), OR AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE TENANT'S CROP (AS RENT), WOULD NOT (IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION IN THE LEASE TO THE CONTRARY) HAVE OWNERSHIP IN ANY PART OF THE CROP, ALTHOUGH PURSUANT TO STATE LAW OR A PROVISION IN THE LEASE THE LANDLORD MAY HAVE A LIEN ON THE CROP FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE TENANT'S RENT. THUS, UNDER THE TYPES OF LEASES REFERRED TO IN QUESTIONS 1 AND 2, OWNERSHIP OF THE CROPS PRODUCED BY THE TENANT WOULD BE IN THE TENANT. THEREFORE, THE LANDLORD INVOLVED, IF HE HAD NO RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE CROP, WOULD NOT--- UNDER YOUR DEPARTMENT'S PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM--- HAVE THE RIGHT TO TENDER ANY PORTION OF THE CROP TO COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FOR PRICE SUPPORT AND THE CORPORATION WOULD NOT EXTEND PRICE SUPPORT TO SUCH LANDLORD.

IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THAT UNLESS PRICE SUPPORT IS EXTENDED BY THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION TO A LANDLORD, OR ON HIS BEHALF (WHERE HE OWNS A SHARE OF THE CROP), THE LANDLORD HAS NOT RECEIVED PRICE SUPPORT. IN OTHER WORDS IF THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION DOES NOT EXTEND PRICE SUPPORT TO A LANDLORD, OR ON HIS BEHALF, BUT INSTEAD EXTENDS IT TO THE LANDLORD'S TENANT ON THE TENANT'S CROP, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT IT MAY BE SAID THAT PRICE SUPPORT HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO THE LANDLORD.

THE AMOUNTS PAID BY A TENANT TO A LANDLORD UNDER EITHER OF THE TYPES OF LEASES REFERRED TO IN QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 WOULD APPEAR TO BE RENT RATHER THAN PRICE SUPPORT. THE FACT THAT A TENANT PAYS HIS RENT FROM PRICE SUPPORT PROCEEDS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE SUCH RENTAL PAYMENTS PRICE SUPPORT PAYMENTS, EVEN THOUGH, FROM A MONETARY STANDPOINT, THE END RESULT IS THE SAME AS THOUGH THE LANDLORD WAS EXTENDED PRICE SUPPORT. WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE FIND NOTHING IN THE PROPOSED FORM OF LEASE (ENCLOSED WITH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S LETTER) WHICH REQUIRES THE TENANT TO OBTAIN PRICE SUPPORT ON HIS CROP IN ORDER TO MAKE HIS RENTAL PAYMENT TO THE LANDLORD AND UNDER SUCH LEASE THE TENANT MAY SELL HIS CROP ON THE OPEN MARKET.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, QUESTIONS 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, AND 3, ARE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE MAKING UNNECESSARY ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 4 AND 5.

CONCERNING QUESTION 6, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NOTHING IN THE APPROPRIATION ACT CONTAINING THE $50,000 LIMITATION, OR IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THEREOF, WOULD REQUIRE US TO OBJECT IF YOU DETERMINED IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A LANDLORD WHO LEASED LAND ON A CROP SHARING BASIS IN 1959 TO LEASE SUCH LAND IN 1960 UNDER THE TYPES OF LEASES REFERRED TO IN QUESTIONS 1 AND 2, I.E., FOR SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF THE CROP OR AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE CROP. QUESTION 6 IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.