On the recordJune 25, 1997
I appreciate my friend from Montana and his eloquent words, particularly with the AMT provision as it was penalizing farmers, the IRS, as you pointed out, changing rules in the middle of the game. I know that this actually occurred in a case up in Washington State where a farm family was audited. And because the IRS decided that if you defer your contract payments, in other words, when you take your grain to market and you get the check at the grain elevator, normally that is when income is derived according to the cash basis accounting system; that the IRS decided, no, not when you deliver your grain to market but when you enter into the contract in the preceding calendar year, that is when that deferred payment is subject to income.
Source
govinfo.gov
