Tax in rural communities

My old boss, an accountant (CPA) who represented taxpayers in their appeals processes, lived on a small farm in the highlands between Orange and Riverside Counties. Most accountants, however, are unlikely to trade the pen for the plowshare. According to this Vishal CPA Prep, some counties have no licensed CPAs at all.

Rural communities, on average, tend to be less wealthy than metro communities. The tax code is structured, in part, to remedy inequalities between poorer and affluent Americans. However, many of the intended benefits and tax expenditures can only be accessed if the filer knows about the benefits. As noted in this 2018 article by the Internal Revenue Service, rural Americans would disproportionately benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit. However, they often choose not to apply because of reasonably held misconceptions about their eligibility. The IRS article explains that qualifying taxpayers can claim the EITC by filing electronically "through a qualified tax professional," "using free community tax help sites," or filing "themselves, with IRS Free File." The mention of Free File shows that the article is outdated, as the IRS Free File program has been eliminated for the 2026 filing season. The other two solutions require the use of either internet services or the services of a tax professional, neither of which are consistently available in rural locations. 

For low-income or elderly taxpayers, the IRS also offers services from the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) and Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) programs. The IRS provides a geographic site locator tool to find volunteers. However, these too have their geographic limits. Searching from the zip code of 96101, which is the county seat of Modoc County (Alturas, CA) in California, there are only three sites within 100 miles. UWNC, the Lassen Salvation Army, is the closest at 76.15 miles away. When relying upon volunteer accountants, rural communities may be underserved. Likewise, professional accountants seem few and far between in rural areas.

Accountants located near Altura, CA

Credit: Google Maps

Even where volunteers exist, the supply of professional tax help is dwindling nationwide. The United States is experiencing a shortage of new accountants. With hundreds of thousands of professionals of the Baby Boomer age cohort retiring, recent trends indicate that those positions will remain unfilled.

Credit: Preston Fore, AICPA 2023 Trends Report

Some smaller accounting firms have rejected potential clients. Beyond shortages, some tax experts caution that potential clients need to be cautious when choosing a tax preparer due to the current low bar to qualify. Firms turn away clients while bad actors fill the gaps.

In addition to a shortage of labor for tax preparation services, President Trump's 2025 hiring freeze exacerbated labor shortages within the IRS. As a consequence, tax filing and processing have become more difficult on both ends of the process. For low-income taxpayers, the shortages mean refund claims, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, will take longer to reach taxpayers. IRS response times when called for information have also become slower than ever. For taxpayers with no days off of work and only an hour for lunch, they might be out of luck when it comes to getting a live response.

Nonetheless, the IRS continues to publish helpful materials for rural-coded sectors of the economy. With a shortage of professional tax help, taxpayers may need to rely upon the publications themselves to stay informed and know which credits and deductions to apply for.

The 2025 tax year's Farmer's Tax Guide (Publication 225) provides an encyclopedic level of information for farmers, from general concepts of the cash or accrual method of accounting to more trade-specific concepts like Elective Farm Income. The publication also specifies farm-related deductible expenses like "Breeding Fees," "Fertilizer and Lime," and other "Prepaid Farm Supplies." 

More importantly, the Farmer's Tax Guide keeps tax filers up-to-date on expiring tax policies, like the temporary 100% deductibility of food or beverages provided by a restaurant. From personal experience working with small business owners, taxpayers often miss changes to tax policy, which can result in staggeringly large tax assessments for deficient payments, audits, and lengthy appeals proceedings during which interest ticks up.  

While helpful, IRS publications like Publication 225 may be difficult for many small business owners to comprehend. The length and depth of the publication makes it equally helpful and difficult to parse. Nestled within the publication is perhaps the most important detail, the rule surrounding whether farm-expenses can be listed at all on a tax return. As a long-standing principle, "Hobby Farming," or "Not-for-Profit Farming" doesn't qualify. Unfortunately for less-established farmers, one major factor in the consideration of a farm as a hobby farm is whether "taxpayer was successful in making a profit in similar activities in the past." More than most businesses, many crops need years to mature to profitability, leading to a horizontal equity issue between more established farmers and newer farmers. 

Business owners still have options with the IRS publication information, even with a lack of close CPAs. Kaizen CPA's accounting site recommends that business owners use QuickBooks if they net less than $500,000 each year. If above, Kaizen recommends a live CPA. Rural businesses might not have the option between a live CPA and QuickBooks. While QuickBooks does not have the functionality to facilitate the filing of income tax returns, it can organize financial information in a way to make the workload digestible for a live CPA during tax season. From there, the hypothetical rural business owner would need to take fewer trips to a CPA's office or may even merely contact them by email with their information ready. Now, with the shortage of CPAs nationwide, it might make a business owner a more palatable client to have their books in order.

There's a reason the CPA licensing process is difficult: taxes are oftentimes too complex for taxpayers to handle on their own. With a shortage of live CPAs and IRS employees, taxpayers will need to increasingly rely upon accounting software, which might miss niche credits that the taxpayer qualifies for. Rural taxpayers may need to embrace a new type of self-reliance in terms of financial literacy. 

Left to burn: how federal cuts are abandoning rural America's wildfire defenses

My memory of leaving Sonoma County for San Francisco includes a period of about four years where California wildfires progressively escalated in severity, oftentimes blanketing the city in smoke. In 2017, that included ducking inside to avoid breathing in the ashes of the town where I went to high school. It culminated in 2020 with the North Complex Fire causing the orange, alien sky that enveloped San Francisco. That fire was caused by a freak "lightning siege" attributable to climate change.  

My friend took this photo outside her apartment in September, 2020. Source: Rose Barry, 2020.

 The Palisades Fire early last year should have emphasized the apocalyptic urgency of addressing wildfire dangers in California and beyond. But in the name of limiting "waste and abuse" the Trump administration ignored this urgency and instead proceeded to cut federal funding to fight fires in rural America. 

The Cuts 

Like the rest of the Trump administration's 2025 efforts, these cuts are as chaotic as they are dramatic, attacking wildfire prevention and response from multiple angles. 

First, the administration cut 10% of workers at the Forest Service. The Forest Service manages Federal land, and many of their responsibilities include fire prevention and firefighting. Fewer workers means fewer people clearing the brush and fewer people trained to fight fires. This puts California in a precarious position, with the Federal government managing 57% of forests in the state. Nevada is arguably in even worse shape, with 86% of their land being federally managed. 

Critics of the policy include members of the previous Trump administration. Former Forest Service chief Vickie Christiansen posits that the policies amount to "$40 million saved now for $4 billion in wildfire expense" later. Ryan Zinke, Trump's former Secretary of the Interior, says that the cuts shift the question of hiring from "'are we paying them enough” (to) “are we even going to have the bodies?'"

Firefighters from Stockton, CA putting out a fire off Hidden Valley Road. Source: Creative Commons, 2013.

The administration has also merged disparate firefighting groups from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior into a single U.S. Wildlife Fire Service. While there have been proposals to this effect in the past, they were previously rejected due to a 2008 Congressional report finding this consolidation had significant drawbacks. The consolidation shifts the focus away from fire prevention and towards suppression. The Forest Service ideally fights fire through its land management duties, and separating the two functions increases the risk of catastrophic fires that cannot be adequately suppressed. 

Despite some of the most high stakes firefighting occurring in rural spaces (especially in California), rural firefighters are often volunteers. As a previous post on this blog puts it, "volunteer firefighting is a rural issue." California has 200 volunteer fire departments, with many rural spaces completely lacking professional firefighters. Communities often fund these departments partially through local fundraisers. As people leave these communities, staffing these departments becomes even more difficult. Willow Creek in Humboldt County finds their department shrinking as calls increase.  Cuts to the Forest Service means these towns already lacking in resources have even less ability to serve their community even as the fire season grows ever larger. 

Volunteer Fire Station in Occidental, CA. Source: Lisa Pruitt, 2025.

 States and localities have also suffered from the suspension of FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants in 2025, with a lawsuit forcing the resumption of grants only last year. A massive backlog has resulted, with two years worth of applicants applying for one year of grant funding. This affects infrastructure for fire prevention as well as other disasters. 

This backlog disproportionately affects rural towns. Larger municipalities frequently have full-time grant-writers, where small towns often rely on a thin secretarial support staff, if that. These towns have no ability to fund their own improvements, with necessary infrastructure often costing several times the town's budget. 

The Response 

California moved relatively swiftly to counter the Forest Service cuts, deploying $72 million in Cal FIRE grants to "rake the forest" and fast track critical fire prevention projects. While certainly helpful, the State can only work with the 3% of forest land it manages directly and must work with private landowners who own the other 40% of the land. With a majority of the land in California under Federal management, this effort is limited. 

Utah also increased their wildfire funding by $150 million and joined the Great Plains Interstate Fire Compact. The compact enables coordination and resource sharing with other western states to fight wildfires and prevent wildfires. While this likely won't make up for the gap left by the federal government, this more coordinated local effort is cause for optimism. 

The Department of the Interior also announced a $20 million grant to equip "small, remote emergency response agencies with practical, deployable tools," i.e. modern water tanker trucks. While not unwelcome, this targeted funding does not make up for the larger structural damage done by the Trump administration. 

Notably, none of these responses make efforts to alleviate the specific burdens on rural communities. They simply attempt to fill in the gaps left by the federal government's retreat, failing to address the prior inequities. 

Conclusion  

On our current trajectory I find it difficult to be optimistic about anything involving climate change. As a Californian, there are few things that seem more immediately pressing than addressing the increasing severity of wildfires. The current administration's efforts harm everyone by failing to address these systemic issues, and rural communities will bear the brunt of the impact. 

The carcinogenic classification of glyphosate faces new pressure

Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, is a controversial product in agriculture due to its potential carcinogenic effects. In 2015, the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC) published a monograph concluding that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” However, in February 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an interim registration review decision (ID) finding glyphosate poses “no risks of concern to human health when used in accordance with its current label.”

© Kristy Ardalan 2024.

On March 20, 2020, the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the EPA’s ID in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In May 2021, the EPA requested—and the court granted--a partial voluntary remand without vacatur of the ecological portion. The EPA later withdrew the entire ID, and the status of glyphosate remains under reconsideration.

As of 2026, the EPA maintains that there is no evidence glyphosate causes cancer in humans; there is no indication glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor; that residue on food items are safe for consumption; and that ecological risks are low, with the exception of potential harm to bees.

Despite these conclusions, public skepticism remains high. The widely publicized Monsanto Roundup litigation—through which Monsanto has paid nearly $11 billion to tens of thousands of plaintiffs alleging cancer caused by Roundup—has intensified doubts about the EPA’s classification. Additionally, organizations such as the Environmental Sciences Europe and the World Health Organization have criticized the EPA for failing to adequately consider individuals with heightened exposure, such as farmworkers and nearby residents. The Center for Food Safety has also cited emails between an EPA scientist and a Monsanto officer that suggest “coordinated efforts to undermine the legitimacy of IARC’s… determination.”

White House Easter celebration 2023.

© Kristy Ardalan 2024.

On February 18, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides.” A related fact sheet states that the order is intended to “protect domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides” which are “essential to military readiness and America’s agricultural strength.” The fact sheet emphasizes that currently only one domestic company produces elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. It also notes that the demand in the U.S. far exceeds current output, which “gravely endangers national security and defense” including food-supply security.

A particularly controversial provision of the order grants immunity to domestic producers that comply with federal law.

The famously polluted Potomac River in Washington, D.C.

© Kristy Ardalan 2023.

Environmental groups, such as the Waterkeeper Alliance, have strongly criticized the order arguing that “it puts chemical industry profits above public health and clean water.” Granting immunity for industrial chemical producers that follow federal directives makes it harder to hold them accountable for harm to human and environmental health. As discussed in this prior blog post, critics also point to broader legislative trends—such as provisions in the recent farm bill—that may weaken environmental protections, including removing dozens of pesticides from health and environmental safety reviews, granting the USDA power to block EPA health and environmental safeguards, removing Clean Water Act protections that limit pesticide pollution, etc.

However, there are signs of legislative pushback. On February 20, 2026, Representatives Thomas Massie (KY) and Chellie Pingree (ME) introduced the bipartisan “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” to Congress in effort to undo the February 18 executive order. Representative Pingree stated “If there was ever any doubt about whose side this Administration is on, this Executive Order makes it crystal clear: Big Chemical comes first, and the health of Americans comes last.” Representative Massie similarly argued that “If the goal is to 'Make America Healthy Again,' the federal government should not be using its authority to promote or protect the production of glyphosate.”

© Iowa Environmental Council and The Harkin Institute, Environmental Risk Factors and Iowa’s Cancer Crisis, p. 9. Data from the National Cancer Institute state cancer profiles.

The No Immunity for Glyphosate Act was introduced to Congress shortly before a disruptive report from the Iowa Environmental Council and the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement titled “Environmental Risk Factors and Iowa’s Cancer Crisis” was released on March 25, 2026. The report focuses on pesticides, PFAS, Nitrate, Radon, and other industrial contaminants in Iowa. The Executive Director of the Iowa Environmental Council stated that the report “demonstrates clear links between environmental pollution and our health and well-being.” As found in the 2020 census, the majority of Iowans live in rural areas and the rural areas are surrounded by endless fields of corn all likely sprayed with glyphosate. The graph below shows that rural residents in Iowa experience and live around the most dense pesticide application areas in the United States and the cancer rates reflect that.

A map of counties depicting high and low cancer rates

© Investigate Midwest, National Cancer Institute, and the CDC

Iowa’s cancer rate exceeds the national average by more than 10%, with a particularly elevated rates among individuals under 50. The state has the highest number of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the country, a number more than 2.5 times as many CAFOs than the next highest state. With emerging research linking glyphosate and other environmental contaminants to adverse health outcomes, pressure is mounting for legislative action—and soon.

The SAVE Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (“SAVE Act”) has returned to Congress and sits before the Senate after passing the House. This bill would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by requiring every eligible voter to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote or updating a registration.

The bill would require individuals to appear in person at an election and present approved documentation even for routine updates. These updates can include address changes, name changes, or party affiliation adjustments. Each federal election cycle, approximately 80 million people either register to vote for the first time or update their voter registration information. This bill would impose new logistical hurdles on all of them. Acceptable documentation would include a valid U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate paired with a photo ID, or a naturalization certificate. If a person’s legal name does not match their birth certificate, they must also provide additional legal documents to prove the change.

Supporters of the bill, including many Republican lawmakers, argue that stricter verification requirements will prevent non-citizen voting. Arguing that Joe Biden’s “reckless open-border policies” necessitate this bill as without it we can’t be sure that Americans are the only ones voting in federal elections.

What does the White House say about the SAVE Act? The official White House website refers to it as a “common sense, bipartisan bill,” emphasizing that all it “simply” requires is a valid ID to register to vote in a federal election, proof of citizenship, and no mail-in ballots. The website then goes on to list other countries that enforce stricter voter identification laws.

The SAVE Act is not new. Last year it passed the House but failed to advance in the Senate due to nationwide public opposition. It was reintroduced this January. Critics, previously and this time, argue that the SAVE Act solves nothing. Numerous studies and audits have shown that non-citizen voting occurs at extremely low rates. In fact, many view this bill as a way for Republicans to hammer Trump’s narrative of widespread election fraud.

Additionally, the act will determinately impact rural America, which particularly relies on mail-in and online methods for voter registration. Rural Americans already face long travel distances and fewer government service offices. A Center for American Progress analysis found that in some cases rural Americans would need to drive hours to an election office in order to meet the requirements of the act. In states like Alaska, the burden will be even more pronounced. Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski is one of the only Republicans to join in opposition of this bill arguing that it will disenfranchise thousands of Alaskans and their ability to vote.

Credit: Center for American Progress, 2025

Furthermore, while the act imposes no direct fee to vote it requires Americans to provide documentation that can only be obtained by paying a fee. Obtaining documentation that requires payment will discourage low-income rural residents from even participating. Under this act, rural voters will face longer travel time, higher costs, and fewer alternatives. These barriers will not just inconvenience voters but will prevent participation in the voting process.