Tag Archives: labor

New Jersey Gives Curaleaf A Second Chance

No Comments

On April 13, 2023, The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) announced that Curaleaf would not be able to renew their cultivation and retail licenses for adult use cannabis for violating labor rules under the state’s cannabis regulations. In a surprise reversal, the NJ CRC voted to approve the license renewals with some caveats during an emergency meeting on April 17.

According to Commissioner Krista Nash with the NJ CRC, Curaleaf did not abide by the law when it failed to recognize workers’ vote to unionize in a timely manner. She says evidence includes testimony from workers and the union. “In my opinion, Curaleaf, in several of its locations, have not complied with the mandatory labor provisions set forth in the law,” says Nash. “And that alone was reason to deny their application for renewal.”

In a press release published by Curaleaf following the reversal, the company say they will be complying with the demands set by the NJ CRC to provide documentation of its labor practices, confirm ongoing compliance and provide evidence of good faith efforts to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. “Today’s decision by the CRC Board to vacate their unprecedented action last week is an incredible victory for our 500 NJ team members and vindication for what we knew all along: Curaleaf is in good standing with the CRC and has fulfilled every requirement necessary for the renewal of our licenses,” says Matt Darin, CEO of Curaleaf in the same statement.

While the second chance comes with a number of caveats, the decision reversal is definitely unprecedented. The Board at the NJ CRC said that if Curaleaf does not comply with those demands, they have the ability to take further action at the next meeting. “Either we hold true to the law and protect the hard-working men and women of New Jersey who want fair wages and working conditions, or we can reward bad behavior and ignore these mandates for the sake of money and profits,” says Nash. “The conditions contained in these resolutions presented today offer Curaleaf a second chance to course correct.”

The 3-Legged Stool of Successful Grow Operations: Climate, Cultivation & Genetics – Part 1

By Chris Wrenn, Phil Gibson
2 Comments

Ideal cannabis profits come from high demand/high selling prices and low production costs. The spread between those two, or margin, can determine the life or death of your business. We want to share this series of articles so that your next investment can be highly successful and high margin out-of-the-box.

Regardless of the grow method (soil, coco, rockwool, hydro or aero), every plant performs best in its own ideal environmental conditions. Experienced growers gained success through hard work, and just that, experience. Many have tried more advanced grow technologies, but shied away due to early trial failures or the complexity of maintaining chemistry across a grow facility. The wonderful thing now is that precision sensors and software controls eliminate the risk to robust healthy plants and harvest success. Growers are now able to both manage production while performing research in line with their operations.

We have learned a great deal working with our grow partners over the last 6 years. Every grow facility and location are different due to local weather, business environment and scale. This series of articles and guide, authored by our expert, Christopher Wrenn, will include recommendations of the most successful approaches we have seen here in North America and all over the world.

A 4-Layer fully aeroponic flower room using movable racking systems

Building top-quality cultivation facilities is no simple task. Cultivators are also looking for new help as they shift from older soil or media approaches to more efficient grow methods. One powerful method is aeroponics, which is very good at growing any type of plant in air in a sterile environment, with labor, nutrient and water savings.

Where possible, we will share key vendors that support healthy grow operations and (since it is World Series Time), customer examples that are knocking it out of the park. In today’s competitive business environment, it is critical to do what we can to increase profitability and survival in the face of steep headwinds. We want you to crush it and be “the last man standing.”

So, let’s get to it.

Climate: Environmental Control

We begin with a critical leg in your environment. The process of photosynthesis is more than just light, plant and moisture. We want to do more than just grow plants. We want to grow highly profitable plants. That means we have to accelerate photosynthesis so we are growing faster, bigger and more potent than our competitors.

The Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD) is the amount of “drying power” available in the air surrounding your plants. This is a useful way to understand the amount of moisture your atmosphere can remove from your plants as they digest carbon dioxide and aspirate water and oxygen into the air around your plants. A higher vapor deficit is a good thing for growth; It is also a measurement of how much nutrient you can uptake into the plant roots and convert into size and potency in the canopy. We recommend that you have resources in your grow rooms to maintain your environment to within 5% of both your humidity and temperature targets for ideal results.

Onyx Agronomics is a Tier 3 indoor cultivator in the State of Washington. This is the canopy in one of their 8 flower rooms.

In our Top Quality Cultivation Facility white paper, we review environmental settings for temperature and humidity for mother, clone/veg and flower rooms for day and night light cycles from early cuttings through to end of harvest flush. Day temperatures can be up to 20% higher than night temperatures for example.

Cooling

Managing temperature may seem straight-forward but the heat generated by LED lights, HPS lights or the sun will vary across rooms, time exposure and with the distance of the light source from the plants. Measurement sensors should be distributed across rooms to monitor and trigger temperature resources.

Humidification/Dehumidification

This is a topic that can be underappreciated by cultivators. It is important to slowly transition humidity as you move plants from cuttings to clones, to veg and to flower. Beginning in a very humid stage to motivate root start, humidity will be stepped down from an opening near 90% down to an arid 50% in your end of flush flower rooms. We detail the transitions in 5% increments in the white paper.

The 4-Layer aeroponic flower room with movable racking systems from the side with a tall human for scale. One can do a lot with 30′ ceilings.

Relative Humidity (RH) and the related VPD are the key metrics to accelerating growth throughout the stages. Not sizing dehumidifiers correctly is one of the most common mistakes our grow partners learn about as they move to full production. In the first phase of turning cuttings from healthy mothers into rooted clones, hitting your target VPD to motivate root growth is the number one success factor. This will require the addition of humidity into your clone room. It is also typical to require raise the humidity of your flower rooms when you transition clone/veg plants from the high humidity clone/veg room into an initially dry flower room, otherwise the plants may go into shock as a result of the dramatic change.

As flowering begins, if humidity remains high, and the VPD is below target, the plants will not be moving nutrients and transpiring moisture. We have seen lowering the humidity from 70% in a flower room down to 50%, results in a yield increase from 50 grams to 90 grams of dry trim bud per plant, so a smooth transition can both accelerate growth and have a big impact on your margins and profitability.

Plants in aeroponics can truly have explosive growth. This means that they will also transpire moisture at an accelerated rate. Fast automated growth in aeroponics means increased humidity output. Sizing these critical systems for humidification/dehumidification are a critical part of the design process.

Airflow

Fans combined with your cooling/heating/humidity/dehu systems need to mix the air in a room to break the boundary layer at the leaf surface for transpiration. As we covered, VPD is critical to growth success. A dry surface motivates the plants to transpire moisture. We recommend flow rates across the canopy in a 0.5-1.5 meter/second rate to align to your genetics and where you are in the flowering process.

A raw facility before it gets outfitted.

Airflow and flowering means rich beautiful aromas are generated. Every facility has to consider odor control. If you are in a populated area, you will have ordinances and neighbors to satisfy. The best way to do this is to minimize the amount of air that exits a facility. This is also the cheapest approach.

Sterile HEPA filters and scrubbing systems clean air of pathogens and odor but they also need to circulate and “condition” air to the correct temperature and humidity levels before it can be recirculated into a room. Oftentimes, this is a good place to also recapture humidity and reinject it into your pure water cleaning systems.

Key vendors to talk to about sizing air treatment systems are SURNA, Quest, Desert Aire and AGS. Each of these vendors have specialties and tend to be superior partners in different regions of the world. We would be happy to introduce you to excellent support resources for air management systems.

To download the complete guide and get to the beef quickly, please request the complete white paper Top Quality Cultivation Facilities here.

Click here to see Part 2 where we discuss water quality and management.

Soapbox

Robot Job Apocalypse? 3 Ways Robots Can Help the Cannabis Industry

By Nohtal Partansky
No Comments

In every industry, there’s an underlying threat and worry that as AI advances, jobs will be at risk. This programming is deeply instilled in labor workers who have grown accustomed to income security to maintain their expenses or quality of life. But what if we’re looking at robots all wrong?

Instead of seeing a robot job apocalypse, what if they’re the machines to lift us to our highest degree? Robots are already proving to improve efficiency and cut company costs, so it’s inevitable they’ll come to a job near you soon.

For the budding cannabis industry, everything is fresh and new as the market is in its infancy. That means new systems and new workers have the opportunity to implement robotics to get ahead of the competition and boost morale earlier than most.

So, here, let’s de-program the way we think about robots today and cover the top three ways robots can help, not hurt, the cannabis industry—and the livelihoods of its workers too!

#1 Labor Shortage Gaps Need To Be Filled

Let’s get real—the cannabis industry is feeling the labor shortage just as much as anyone. Even more, it’s extremely difficult in this day and age to only pay a minimum wage to workers. This is true from coast to coast, but especially in lucrative cannabis markets like California, which have a higher cost of living for workers to meet.

“Robots aren’t here to hurt the cannabis industry, they’re here to help”Another predicament for facility owners? You can’t pay more for low-level repetitive tasks without significantly decreasing margins for your company while remaining competitive in such a bustling market. Moreover, humans just aren’t built to sit in closed, highly regulated areas, repeating the same motions over and over, to fill pre-rolls, vape carts, package jars and beyond.

By implementing robotics and automation tools, cannabis industry owners can not only fill labor shortage gaps but also alleviate labor costs for an improved bottom line. In addition, this will allow executives to better leverage labor costs towards more valuable positions that are more rewarding for employees too.

#2 Human Productivity Declines Over Extended Periods of Time

You know how you move with speed and precision when you first begin a repetitive task? Think exercising. When you first start your set of mountain climbers, your body moves mechanically, hitting the steps on point, repeatedly. But by the end, you’re struggling to get 1 or 2 last pushes in to hit your reps.

An automated pre-roll infusion robot

Manual labor and repetitive tasks are no different. In fact, there are companies in the world that hire workers to pack cases for just one hour a day. Why? Because their analytics have shown that after just one hour of work, the employees zone out and lose focus, which decreases productivity over time and increases the chance of human error.

In cannabis, someone has to fill the pre-rolls, and someone has to pack the jars into boxes. But, scheduling one worker for one hour shifts all day every day is a logistical nightmare to get the most productivity from the time you have. With no creative minds of their own (sorry, not sorry), robots are quite literally built for this type of labor and produce accurate results, too.

This allows cannabis owners to pay one up-front investment for the ’employee’ and can rest assured, financially and operationally, that the position will always be filled with no wage raises to consider.

#3 – More Robots Allows For More Rewarding Roles 

Last but not least, there are few people in the world who actually desire or dream of the manual labor that’s required to keep the cannabis industry’s momentum moving upward for good reason. The human mind is meant to explore, create and evolve by putting it to use day in, and day out.

Hence, the uptick in investments towards upskilling in the cannabis industry and the passion for retraining employees for more technical roles. For employees, they’re more fulfilling and hold higher value. For employers, you have more human minds at work towards what matters versus the tasks that just need to get done.

Implementing robots in cannabis facilities for these mundane, repetitive, and low-level tasks help open the doors for more fulfilling roles for employees that share an interest in the plant. In the end, allowing them to put that passion and their unique skills, ideas and creativity towards helping your company prosper.

The Bottom Line – Cannabis Robots Are Here to Stay

With any new trend or shift in the labor and job landscape, it’s natural to be cautious of how it may affect you or your workers, both personally and professionally. However, as you can see, robots aren’t here to hurt the cannabis industry, they’re here to help.

As cultivators and other manufacturers struggle to turn a profit, now is the time for the overwhelmingly cottage industry to go big or go home. Because, whether you like it or not, there’s one thing we can all agree on: robots are the future of manufacturing, the cannabis industry included.

The Top 4 Things Cultivation Directors Should Discuss With Their Operations Manager Right Now

By Lucas Targos
No Comments

Communication is key for efficient interaction between cultivation and business functions at any cannabis operator. So, what are the top four things cultivation directors should be discussing with their operations manager right now, as we face an uncertain Summer 2020 and unique COVID-related challenges (product demand uncertainty, reduced workforce, and immediate response to problems and issues):

  • Labor requirements
    • Operators should be discussing “Who, and what, do I need to operate this facility and how do I make operations more streamlined without diminishing quality, consistency, and yield?”
    • Efficient operations should focus on labor workflow and circulation and document a clear understanding of how employees will move through the spaces while doing their jobs.
    • Having a “less labor” philosophy and understanding—a ‘first in and first out’ mentality—drives down cost of production.
    • By limiting employees’ need to cross paths and segregating processes (e.g. harvest, distro, packaging) in a facility, you can maintain biosecurity and limit the risks of cross-contamination
    • When working with fewer staff members, everyone should be trained to:
      A greenhouse facility that urban-gro helped bring to operation.
      • Operate all necessary equipment
      • Perform keys tasks like nutrient deliver or preventative maintenance
  • Supply chain
    • What sort of products do I use to cultivate, process, distribute and how will potential shortages affect my use/cost related to these?
      • Consider products and supplies that you can order in bulk
      • Examine and update your chemical regime to focus on products that are cheaper to freight ship, and located within the US or even your state
      • Mitigate the risk of availability by using products that are have no shelf-life or expiration issues, and those where the supply chain has not yet had disruptions
  • Automation and technology
    • What’s the availability to allow for remote monitoring and controls?
      • Cultivators can take some of the load off the reduced staff by automating critical tasks
      • Remote monitoring solutions will also allow for faster notification of crop issues
      • Integrating preventative maintenance tasks like equipment schedules and maintenance can increase efficiency
  • Yield expectations
    • Ensure that conversations on yield expectations are as transparent as possible and set realistic and achievable goals
    • Build business models based on the correct numbers that take into account productions numbers on ‘high yield’ genetics versus lower-yielding plants (yield versus price)
    • Ensure you have a detailed plan that combines both plant density and production goals

Scotland Moves Forward With Its First Cannabis Farm

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

The village of Langholm, known locally as the “Muckle Toon,” with its most famous descendent being Neil Armstrong (the first man on the moon) is about to get another first. Namely, it will be the location of the first Scottish cannabis farm.

Father and son entrepreneurs William and Neil Ewart (who also own an agricultural farm, raise Angus cattle and have a racehorse stable) have obtained permission to produce enough cannabis to create 200 liters of oils a year. The production facility is also expected to employ about 50 people – from scientists to growers and IT staff.

However, this is just the beginning. Despite being given planning permission, the Ewarts will now have to apply for a license to actually produce medical cannabis.

Reform in the UK marches on

At present, British patients are in one of the toughest situations anywhere cannabis reform has ostensibly started to happen.

Domestic production, in other words, is a vitally needed part of British reform.The UK has moved forward on cannabis reform in fits and starts – one step forward and several back, for the last several years. Late last year, a full year after the drug was approved for prescription, in an abrupt change, cannabis was denied to everyone but Epilepsy and MS patients and those suffering from nausea due to chemo treatments. NICE, the agency in the UK who sets domestic prescription policies, shamefully excluded chronic pain patients from the new guidelines. This is despite the fact that there are chronic pain patients in the UK who had received prescriptions for cannabis after the law changed in 2018. Not to mention the fact that this subset of patients represents the largest percentage of people prescribed the drug in every other jurisdiction, from Colorado to Canada.

Those who have “qualifying conditions” must now find a doctor to prescribe – still no easy task. If GW Pharmaceuticals’ products (Epidiolex and Sativex) do not work, patients must then import the drug, at great expense from overseas. Even though this importing process has gotten significantly easier in the last months, supplies are still highly expensive imports from elsewhere (mostly Holland and Canada). This runs, at minimum, about $1,000 a month.

UKflagDomestic production, in other words, is a vitally needed part of British reform. It is also seen, increasingly, as a high value crop that can be exported elsewhere. Time will tell however, if the expensive British labor market can compete with product grown in Europe (in places like Spain, Portugal and Greece).

So far, the UK has lagged behind Germany, which itself went through a torturous and expensive process to not only approve its first cultivation bid, but is also now in the process of lowering prices. The first German grown cannabis is likely to hit pharmacy shelves by the third or fourth quarter of 2020. Don’t expect any cannabis exports to the UK, at least for now however, as there is not enough domestically cultivated German product to even serve existing German patients.

An Aberdeen clinic plans to be the first Scottish private facility to prescribe
As of mid-February, the privately run Sapphire Medical Clinics announced plans to become the first Scottish private medical clinic to prescribe cannabis. The facility will require a referral from a regular GP. This has so far, not been popular with the National Health Service (NHS). Some administrators have expressed concern that the process will result in doctors using their time to funnel patients into private healthcare to receive treatments not available or recognized by the NHS.

That said, as Sapphire has pointed out, the approximately 1.4 million patients in the UK have few other options beyond the black market.

Cannabis reform, in other words, is clearly inching forward in the British Isles. One cultivation facility and prescribing clinic at a time.

The Impact of Brexit on the Global Cannabis Industry

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

HMS Great Britain has now set forth from its European home port for another intriguing and very British escapade on the high seas.

So far the jury is out.

It could be the beginning of the next British Golden Age, Spanish Armada and all that. Or could it could end up (more likely) somewhere up the Khyber Pass (a sordid misadventure of British Imperialism that did not go well in the 19th century with global implications still reverberating to this day). For Netflix fans of The Crown, think “Suez Crisis” as a more recent and apt analogy. Starting with as much as a 6.7% reduction in domestic GDP already on the horizon.

Snarky historical analogies and nostalgia aside, how will Brexit influence and shape a global cannabis industry, starting at home?

The UK Is Not Actually in Regulatory Free Fall

The first thing to realize is that most of the puffery around Brexit was that with the exception of labor conditions, there is little free choice in the world of trade anymore. The players who get export and import licenses, for anything, have to conform to basic equivalency rules, no matter what they are called.

This applies to cannabis in a big way. No matter how the UK market develops domestically in other words, and that is a separate discussion.

Currently, shamefully, the domestic medical guidelines for prescription of cannabis exclude chronic pain patients and a few other obvious groups. The NHS medical market in other words, is a monopoly, set up by the current and previous governments, mainly serving GW Pharmaceutical patients who qualify for Sativex and Epidiolex. Not to mention company shareholders.

Everyone else, including those for whom these drugs do not work well, or work less well than other alternatives, are left in an international trade negotiation in their living rooms as they and or their children suffer.

The import barriers for cannabis – both from Europe and from Canada are absolutely in the room and in a very personal way for the British right now.

How they actually define cannabis, will also clarify. This will be driven now by the UK’s biggest import partners – namely Europe, the United States and Canada (although South Africa and Australia of course, will always be in the picture).

Which regulatory scheme the UK adapts, including for cannabis and of both the THC and CBD variety (not to mention other cannabinoids), in other words, will at minimum have to be broadly equivalent with all of the above. Not the other way around. No matter how much the Food Standards Agency (FSA) wants to fuss and fiddle with “Novel Food.” That alone is a canard.

Cannabis is a plant. It is time to start acting like that. And it is no more “novel” than tomatoes in many, easy-to-understand environments, including commercial ones. Not to mention will increasingly be regulated like commercial food crops – even if those crops are then also bound for dual purpose medical use.

The regulators will eventually get there – but not without a lot of tortuous twists and turns.

A “New” Market? Not So Much…

There is a lot of consultant palaver and baloney in the room right now. There is no more a new market in the UK as there was in Germany (or Canada or Colorado). Local producers are already organizing, and on the hemp front. The big ones are hip to regulations and are getting certified to enter it. Everyone else is being left on the dangerous sharp end of police raids, even with prior local approvals.

GW logoThat said, foreign producers are of course looking at the UK right now, and in a big way. The lock GW Pharmaceuticals has on the domestic market will not hold long. European producers are absolutely in the room (starting with Tilray in Portugal and Alcaliber in Spain). Not to mention what is going on in other places right now, even if of less well-known corporate branding.

Every big Canadian company is already in the room in the UK, and many Americans are now beginning to show up in the market.

However, for the most part, such ventures are doomed outside of conference sponsorships until the regulatory questions are answered if not met.

And that includes federal certifications that are easy to find – there is no one single authority that handles cannabis internationally. And there never will be. Supply chains are already global.

A Perfect Export Market

One of the biggest, so far widely discussed questions is who in Europe will start exporting to the UK (forget Holland for the moment). Not to mention producers in Spain, Greece, Poland if not Macedonia. That conversation is also on the table now. For the first time, so is Germany, and on the medical side.

Pharmaceutical producers in particular who meet international pharma standards may be the best hope yet – although right now policy makers are still looking at cars rather than cannabis to help keep Germany’s trade export quota where it feels “comfortable” domestically.

Image credit: Flickr

That too will change. And fairly quickly. See Greece, if not South Africa.

The political roil of branding and politics afoot in Germany right now makes this new kind of export market idea as a part of economic development, an inevitability.

Not to mention, at least for the present, a reverse trade in regulated British CBD products – if producers are smart about regulations – throughout the continent right now.

Of all countries, outside Switzerland, the UK has the ability to develop a broad and intriguing market in the EU – but only if they are compliant with regulations in Europe.

And this is where the policy makers in Parliament and 10 Downing Street have already misjudged if not broadly misled, not in a regulatory environment of their own, but in fact in a diplomatic “room” where the rules are already set via international standards and certifications, not to mention treaties.

Taxes & Cannabis: 280E, R&D Credits, 199A & Qualified Opportunity Funds: Part 2

By Zachary Gordon, Jason Hoffman
No Comments

Editor’s Note: This is the second piece in a two-part series delving into tax issues. Part one discussed tax code 280E as it pertains to cannabis businesses. Part two will go into research and development credits, 199A and a discussion of risk as it relates to Qualified Opportunity Zones. 

While 280E is the most influential code section for the cannabis industry, structuring never happens in a vacuum. There are many open questions that each business must answer for themselves without court adjudication. We believe that among the riskiest of questions is whether a cannabis business can claim research and development credits.

There is no clear legal authority that either allows these credits or disallows them but certainly utilizing such credits comes at great risk. At the beginning of this article we talked about Congress and the purpose of 280E. Congress’s intention was to make sure that only the minimum required tax deductions were available to Schedule 1 and 2 sellers. A cannabis business receiving a research and development credit would not be with the intension of Congress. While the credits would be computed based on COGS expenditures, at this time we do not believe that a cannabis business should take this credit. Disallowance of COGS would create a constitutional challenge which is why Congress allowed the COGS deduction. Disallowance of Research and Development Credits does not open up the same constitutional issue since the credit is not part of COGS although calculated based on COGS expenditures. 280E states very clearly that credits arising from other code sections are disallowed in the entirety.

More recently the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) opened up new issues for cannabis companies that are still unfolding. Two of the most publicized are Qualified Opportunity Funds and Section 199A, the 20% deduction (Qualified Business Deduction).

The 199A deduction allows eligible pass-through entities to claim an additional deduction of 20% of the income (subject to certain limitations) at the individual level potentially lowering the tax rate from 37% to 29.6%. While the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and others have asked the IRS to clarify if 280E would make a cannabis business ineligible, the final regulations on the subject did not address this issue. There are other significant limitations and hurdles in 199A regulations that any business would have to first pass to be considered for the rate deduction. If a cannabis business meets all other eligibility and limitation criteria, should the pass-through income to their investors be qualified income under 199A? The answer will depend on whether the courts will treat this “deduction” as falling under the general prohibition of 280E.

We believe that there is a reasonable chance that the courts will allow the 199A deduction for cannabis companies. That does not mean, however, that we advise cannabis companies to claim this on their pass-through returns as Qualified Business Income. Much like everything else, it depends on the particular business and the risk profile that management is willing to tolerate. This is one area of tax law that is sure to be challenged in court. The more risk-averse business should pass on claiming this deduction on their returns, but monitor development with an eye to amending at a later date if favorable precedent emerges. If the amounts are large enough, consideration should be given to applying for a Private Letter Ruling, but that also has its own tax risks.

Another new tax incentive that was in the TCJA was Section 1400Z or Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ). The incentive allows for the deferral of capital gains until December of 2026. The use of 1400Z also results in up to a 15% decrease in capital gains tax- and tax-free appreciation if all requirements are met. While the IRS has only released proposed regulations and we anticipate significant changes to them when they are released as final, there was nothing in the proposed regulations limiting cannabis businesses from using Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOF) in their structure. It is interesting to note that the TCJA and proposed regulations did list other types of businesses that could not make investments under 1400Z along with all its benefits. Liquor stores, golf courses and sun tan parlors were among those listed but cannabis growers and dispensaries were not.

As the industry continues to mature, new issues and precedents will require CPAs and attorneys to find new solutions to best serve the industry.Using Opportunity Zones to entice investors sounds like a great opportunity, but there are significant risks. The first risk is that the proposed regulations, while currently proposed, may not be final. There is always a chance that the IRS will take a different position when the final regulations are released and add cannabis to the type of businesses that do not qualify. Another risk, and one that was previously mentioned as part of 199A and other areas of structuring, is that the IRS and the courts can always disagree with the taxpayer’s position. This is a new area of tax law and will eventually be litigated. The loss of the Opportunity Zone benefits can significantly change the return to the investors and lead to other issues.

All of these issues come into play when structuring businesses in this industry. These issues must be evaluated as they pertain to the business needs. This can be very complex and requires a great deal of research for each business opportunity. We have found that professionals operating in this industry like to know about all of their options. The most important thing we can do for the industry is to continue to educate the professionals working in it.

Accountants should be available to assist their clients and their clients’ attorneys with structuring techniques aimed at asset protection and minimizing 280E disallowances. Accountants should also be ready to speak to the questions outlined above and be prepared to explain the risks associated with each choice. As the industry continues to mature, new issues and precedents will require CPAs and attorneys to find new solutions to best serve the industry.

Taxes & Cannabis: 280E, R&D Credits, 199A & Qualified Opportunity Funds: Part 1

By Zachary Gordon, Jason Hoffman
3 Comments

Editor’s Note: This is the first piece in a two-part series delving into tax issues. Part one discusses tax code 280E as it pertains to cannabis businesses. Part two will go into research and development credits, 199A and a discussion of risk as it relates to Qualified Opportunity Zones. Stay tuned for Part two coming next week!

When building a knowledge base in the cannabis industry as a CPA, one’s tax research typically starts with Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 280E. For those that are unfamiliar, 280E is only three lines long. With this in mind, we at Janover realized that we needed to understand the context for this highly influential tax section.

The genesis of 280E dates back to 1981 with a Tax Court case: Jeffrey Edmonson v. Commissioner. The decision in this case was that a seller of cocaine, amphetamines and cannabis could deduct most business expenses, cost of goods sold, packaging, home, phone and automobile expenses relating to the seller’s illegal business.

In 1982, 280E was enacted to reverse the Edmonson decision and deny sellers of Schedule 1 or 2 controlled substances the right to deduct business expenses. Under the Controlled Substances Act, the federal government defined Schedule 1 drugs as drugs that have no currently acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse. Since cannabis is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, cannabis businesses were unable to deduct most business expenses.

To get a better understanding of what the legislators were trying to accomplish, House and Senate reports provided insight into what their goals might have been. Under the Explanation of Provision, the Senate Report reads:

All deductions and credits for amounts paid or incurred in the illegal trafficking in drugs listed in the Controlled Substances Act are disallowed. To preclude possible challenges on constitutional grounds, the adjustment to gross receipts with respect to effective costs of goods sold is not affected by this provision of the bill.

As the Senate Report explanation provides, 280E specifically excluded cost of goods sold (COGS) from the disallowance of deductions. This treatment was affirmed by the Tax Court in 2012 in Olive v. Commissioner (139 T.C. 19 2012).

To date, there are not many cases that have dealt with the tax issues of 280E. In a 2007 decision involving Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems (CHAMP), the Tax Court ruled that a taxpayer may deduct expenses allocable to an affiliated business that was separate from the entity “trafficking in a controlled substance.” In CHAMP, the legal caregiving business, which was a separate business, was able to deduct the allocated portion of shared expenses. This set a legal precedent that allowed a taxpayer engaged in the selling of a Schedule 1 or 2 controlled substance to distinguish expenses incurred on behalf of other non-prohibited business lines and deduct these expenses.

In addition to these court cases, tax professionals can rely on IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum CCA 201504011. The IRS Chief Counsel released this memorandum in January 2015 in order to respond to questions the IRS was receiving from practitioners.

Although Chief Counsel Memoranda, in general, may not be cited by taxpayers as precedent, this memorandum is the current and best authority outlining the IRS’s position with respect to the extent to which a cannabis business may deduct business expenses. The memorandum also refers to IRC Section 162, ordinary and necessary business expenses that would be disallowed, as well as separately identifying certain direct and indirect business expenses that would be allowed. Citing methods in Treas. Reg. 1.471, the memorandum states that a cannabis producer may allocate to inventory and COGS direct production costs, including direct material costs (Cannabis seeds or plants), direct labor costs (e.g., planting, cultivating, harvesting, sorting, etc.), and transportation or other costs to acquire of the cannabis. It also indicates certain indirect costs that may be taken as COGS.

As the industry continues to mature, more cases are finding their way to the Tax Court. On June 13, 2018, the Tax Court issued a ruling in Alterman v. Commissioner that specifically disallowed the use of 263A under 280E and applied only Section 471 to determine COGS. While we need to follow the facts and circumstances of each case, the broad language used might very well disallow capitalizing of inventoriable costs for companies subject to 280E.

IRC Section 471 is the general rule for inventory accounting for tax. IRC Section 263A is the uniform capitalization rules for tax. Most businesses need to utilize both 471 and 263A when accounting for inventory and to properly capitalize costs into COGS.This opinion may have lasting effects on the part of the industry trying to create brands associated with their cannabis products.

Many resellers and retailers of cannabis thought they could use 263A to capitalize more costs into inventory decreasing their tax burden. The Chief Counsel Memorandum disagreed and more recently the Tax Court in Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corp v Commissioner sided with the IRS and upheld some of the precedents set in Alterman v. Commissioner. In siding with the IRS, the judge concluded that a taxpayer who is subject to 280E can only deduct costs of goods sold under 471 as the IRC existed when 280E was enacted (in 1982). The taxpayer in the case used two arguments that were not new to the cannabis industry, but to no avail. The first argument was that the business was not trafficking in a controlled substance because the government had abandoned a civil forfeiture action. The second argument that was rejected was that a portion of the business involved branding, marketing and the sales of other non-illegal products. The claimant tried to convince the court that deductions related to these operations should not be subject to the same disallowance of deduction as outlined in 280E.

This second argument is very important for structuring purposes. The court used a significant portion of its opinion to address why the entire business is integrated and completely subjected to 280E. This opinion may have lasting effects on the part of the industry trying to create brands associated with their cannabis products.

This case has even more implications given part of the ruling in which the courts stated that being state licensed in no way effected the Schedule 1 determination at the federal level and, therefore, subjected them to 280E. The judge went so far as to separate the Department of Justice, which enforces the Schedule 1 status of cannabis, and the Department of the Treasury, which has full authority and enforcement rights to treat cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug subject to 280E for income tax purposes. This ruling made it clear that even if the Department of Justice is not pursing criminal charges against state-licensed cannabis businesses the IRS is not precluded from fully enforcing the Internal Revenue Code.

5 Compliance Reporting and Notification Requirements That You May Not Know About

By Anne Conn
1 Comment

New cannabis businesses must demonstrate proof of compliance to myriad laws and regulations as part of the initial license application process. And once a license is issued, it is easy to prioritize day-to-day business operations over ongoing compliance reporting requirements especially when sales are booming and compliance requirements are multi-layered, vague or obscured in non-cannabis specific programs and regulations.

But seemingly benign neglect of some minor reporting requirements can have major consequences to new and established businesses alike.

This article explores five compliance reporting requirements that cannabis businesses may not know about, and suggests ways to maintain a strong compliance posture across all regulatory agencies.

Pesticide Reporting

All licensed growers are required to prove compliance to state pesticide usage regulations. However, expectations on how and when to provide that proof of compliance vary greatly from state to state.  Furthermore, the responsibility of education and enforcement for pesticide usage in the cannabis industry often falls to non-cannabis specific agencies such as state departments of agriculture or environmental compliance.

For example in California, cultivators must report detailed monthly pesticide use reports via the State’s Agriculture Weights/Measures Division reporting portal, while Washington State regulators simply expect cultivators to keep records locally on site and provide them when requested.

With so many places to look, the best place to start your pesticide reporting requirement search is with your local agriculture department. They should be able to answer your questions and provide you with a list of resources to help you better understand how to comply with state pesticide usage and reporting regulations.

Hazardous Materials Reporting

Like pesticide use and reporting, hazardous waste handling and reporting requirements are complex and vary state to state. In fact, there may even be nuanced variations in handling requirements at the county level. The best approach to ensure compliance with a complicated set of regulations is to start by consulting your local county fire department. They will have the most specific set of rules for hazardous materials handling and reporting and can help you develop a site-specific compliance plan.

Two OSHA reporting requirements

Depending on how your cannabis business is classified, you may be required to keep injury and illness incident records and provide reports to the Occupational Health and Safety Organization (OSHA) for specific time periods.

Contact your business insurance provider’s loss prevention representative for more information about how your business is classified, which specific OSHA reporting requirements apply to you, and how to stay in compliance with applicable OSHA requirements.

Click here to learn more about how OSHA organizes reporting requirements by business type.

A note of caution here: OSHA non-compliance penalties can be steep and “I didn’t know I was supposed to do that” is not an acceptable defense when it comes to explaining any OSHA violations.

Labor Law Notification Requirements

Federal labor law requires that you notify employees of their rights. At a minimum, you post information regarding wages and hours, child labor, unemployment benefits, safety and health/workers’ compensation and discrimination in a conspicuous place where they are easily visible to all employees. Some states requires additional information be posted in a similar manner, so it’s important to be sure that those notices are posted along with the federal requirements.

This is a simple, yet easily overlooked, requirement for all businesses, regardless of industry. Ask your insurance provider for a copy of the notice to print and post right away (if you have not already) for a quick compliance win!

These five reporting and notification requirements may seem tedious, overly complicated and burdensome in the face of day-to-day business operations, but compliance to these requirements not only protects your business and employees, it also enhances the overall reputation of the industry. The good news is that regulatory agencies welcome a proactive approach and are happy to work with cannabis businesses to provide guidance and information for developing compliance plans.