Comment by derefr

Yes, the amount grown in excess of the law was for his own use; but the amount grown conformant to the law was for sale.

There may not have been an incorporated entity beyond just the farmer as farmer; but, sole proprietorship+ or corportation, there was still a separate abstract entity from the federal government’s perspective whose function was to trade in wheat (a “trading entity” or “Doing Business As” entity.) The farmer was—again, from the federal government’s perspective—the employee and sole shareholder of that entity; and that entity did business selling wheat.

+ (Sole proprietorships are a “hack” of the public API by which individuals interact with the tax system, allowing them to track their DBA revenue and expenses as part of their individual income and expenses. From the government’s perspective, though, when it comes to trade law rather than tax law, there’s always a company on both sides of each trade. In the case of sole proprietorships—including the case of, say, two neighbouring farmers bartering—the trade is just being executed by two "companies" whose identities are foreign-keyed to the individual sole shareholders' identities.)

Under this model, the amount grown in excess of the law was, effectively, grown by a business that sells wheat, and then given to the business’s sole shareholder in place of pay. That transaction caused the shareholder to not have to buy wheat on the market, which means the business made a choice to make this deal, when the business—as an entity that sells wheat—had a responsibility to know that it was breaking the excess law by doing this.