|
|
About
Us
|
|
|||||||||
|
New
State Statutes Allow Nonmember Equity Capital for Cooperatives In the Spring of 2001, the Wyoming Processing Cooperative Statute was adopted It allows both patron and nonpatron investment in a cooperative. This change resulted from Wyoming lamb producers’ desire to form a cooperative to process value-added product using a new generation cooperative model. In July, 2003, Minnesota adopted similar legislation. Other states, including Wisconsin and North Dakota, are considering similar reforms; they are motivated by the desire to expand rural development opportunities. Numerous cooperative leaders have expressed concern about these reforms. The key provisions of the Wyoming statute are reviewed below. Although the law was designed with agriculture cooperatives in mind, it has applicability to other types of cooperatives, including purchasing, housing, utility and health, care cooperatives.
1. The cooperative’s
owners are divided into two classes: “Patron members” have
rights and obligations of delivery of product to the cooperative; and
“Nonpatron members” who have no product delivery obligations
and are primarily investors. Patron members may participate also as investors.
Like traditional cooperatives subject to Subchapter T of the Internal Revenue Code, cooperatives organized under the Wyoming statute are allowed pass-through taxation on their patron-based earnings. However, they are also eligible for pass-through taxation on the profits from their nonpatron business; this is similar to the tax treatment of LLCs. If they have nonpatron members, they are not eligible for the antitrust protection provided by the Capper Volstead Act to agricultural cooperatives. QUESTIONS However, agricultural cooperatives often require significant capital to operate and compete effectively. The trend in conversion of cooperatives to non-cooperative forms, such as LLCs, has been attributed to the need to gain greater access to equity. If investment capital in cooperatives is constrained by both producer/patrons’ lack of capital and institutional requirements, can the cooperative form of business in the US survive? Can the cooperative model be restructured to have more flexibility without destroying its unique user-driven nature? These questions deserve significant attention from cooperative leaders and researchers. Footnotes |
|||||||||||
|
Rural Cooperatives Center, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics One Shields Avenue, University of California, Davis, California 95616 USA Tel: (530) 752-2408 Fax. (530) 752-5451 Email: ruralcoops@ucdavis.edu |
|||||||||||