Tag Archives: tax

Illinois Governor Announces Plan to Legalize Adult-Use Cannabis

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Last weekend, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker announced the introduction of a bill that would legalize adult-use cannabis, allowing medical dispensaries to begin sales for anyone over the age of 21. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the major focus for Governor Pritzker on legalizing cannabis is on things like social equity and criminal justice.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker

Rather than touting the tax dollars that could be raised, like other state governments are often eager to highlight, Governor Pritzker’s announcement was about racial equality and helping those disproportionately affected by the drug war. “We are taking a major step forward to legalize adult use cannabis and to celebrate the fact that Illinois is going to have the most equity-centric law in the nation,” Governor Pritzker told members of the media during a press conference. “For the many individuals and families whose lives have been changed, indeed hurt, because the nation’s war on drugs discriminated against people of color, this day belongs to you, too.”

The legislation includes a provision for automatically expunging about 80,000 convictions related to cannabis, allowing those with convictions to work in the newly-legal Illinois cannabis industry. It also includes a provision for license applicants to be designated as social equity applicants, where lawmakers are hoping to encourage minority-owned business growth. They plan on waiving fees as well as helping social equity applicants get better access to capital and business loans.

This is not the first time that Democrats in the Illinois state legislature have attempted to legalize adult-use cannabis. Back in 2017, state Representative Kelly Cassidy and state Senator Heather Steans, the two lawmakers sponsoring this bill, sponsored a legalization bill that failed to garner support. Back in late January of 2019, Governor Pritzker, Rep. Cassidy and Sen. Steans announced their plans for legalization. Introducing this bill to the legislature this week takes their plans and the state of Illinois one step closer to adult use legalization.

During the press conference, Sen. Steans mentioned they want to make sure revenue from the new market will benefit residents of Illinois. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the bill allows for 25% of tax revenue would go to helping those disproportionately affected by the drug war and 20% would go to mental health and substance abuse treatment.

That revenue, an estimated $170 million, will mainly come from licensing fees in 2020. Cannabis products with less than 35% THC content would be taxed at a fixed 10% rate, while products with more than 35% THC would be taxed at 20%. The bill would also allow people in Illinois to grow up to five plants at home.

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
No 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.

Legalization & Regulation Recap: This Week’s News

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Across the country, a handful of states are expected to move forward with a number of bills making their way each state’s legislature. Here is a quick recap on some of the more newsworthy bills from this week.

Arizona

When Arizona legalized medical cannabis use, there was no provision in the legislation that required laboratory testing to insure the safety of cannabis products. To this day, Arizona is one of the few states left that has legalized medical cannabis, but does not require lab testing. A bill, SB 1494, that just passed through the state’s Senate could very well change that. According to azmarijuana.com, the bill passed unanimously through the Arizona Senate and would require the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) to implement regulations for laboratories to test for contaminates like pesticides.

They need at least 75% of the House to vote in favor in order for it to pass. If that happens, testing could be required as soon as June 1, 2020.

New Hampshire

In the Northeast, New Hampshire and Vermont have bills related to cannabis making their way through the state legislatures. A committee in the New Hampshire House of Representatives just backed a bill to legalize recreational cannabis.

The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted 10-9 to recommend HB 481, which would legalize recreational cannabis, including growing up to 12 plants, imposing a tax of $30 per ounce on cannabis sold through retail. It would also set up a regulatory agency in charge of licensing and regulating the industry.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy

New Jersey

Governor Phil Murphy met with lawmakers earlier this week to discuss the legalization of recreational cannabis. According to CBS New York, the Governor reached a deal with Senate President Steve Sweeney, Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, Sen. Nicholas Scutari and Assemblywoman Annette Quijano to introduce a bill that he would sign into law.

The deal would legalize and regulate recreational cannabis, expunge previous cannabis-related convictions, levy a $42 tax per ounce of cannabis sold, along with setting up a commission to issue licenses and regulate the market. When Governor Murphy ran for office, his campaign included a pledge to legalize recreational cannabis, A previous attempt to get a bill through the legislature failed to get enough votes last year.

Vermont

Back in February, the Vermont Senate passed a bill to regulate and tax recreational cannabis with a veto-proof majority. SB 54 is now in committee review in the House, where it is expected to see more hurdles, according to Burlington Free Press.

Another bill was introduced in the Vermont Senate, SB 117,which would reportedly open up more access to the medical cannabis program, including increasing possession limits, allowing patients to grow more plants at a time and set up a lab testing program as well.

Wyoming

Last week, Governor Mark Gordon signed a bill into law that legalizes and regulates the cultivation and sales of hemp-derived CBD. The state is now working with the WY Department of Agriculture to submit plans to the federal government for regulating the industry.

Why Comply: A Closer Look At Traceability For California’s Cannabis Businesses

By Scott Hinerfeld
3 Comments

Compliance should be top of mind for California’s cannabis operators. As the state works to implement regulations in the rapidly-growing cannabis industry, business owners need to be aware of what’s required to stay in good standing. As of January 1, 2019, that means reporting data to the state’s new track-and-trace system, Metrc.

What Is Track-and-Trace?

Track-and-Trace programs enable government oversight of commercial cannabis throughout its lifecycle—from “seed-to-sale.” Regulators can track a product’s journey from grower to processor to distributor to consumer, through data points captured at each step of the supply chain. Track-and-trace systems are practical for a number of reasons:

  • Taxation: ensure businesses pay their share of owed taxes
  • Quality assurance & safety: ensure cannabis products are safe to consume, coordinate product recalls
  • Account for cannabis grown vs. cannabis sold: curb inventory disappearing to the black market
  • Helps government get a macro view of the cannabis industry

The California Cannabis Track-and-Trace system (CCTT) gives state officials the ability to supervise and regulate the burgeoning cannabis industry in the golden state.

What Is Metrc?

Metrc is the platform California cannabis operators must use to record, track and maintain detailed information about their product for reporting. Metrc compiles this data and pushes it to the state.

Who Is Required To Use Metrc?

Starting January 1, 2019, all California state cannabis licensees are required to use Metrc. This includes licenses for cannabis: Proper tagging ensures that regulators can quickly trace inventory back to a particular plant or place of origin.

  • Cultivation
  • Manufacturing
  • Retail
  • Distribution
  • Testing labs
  • Microbusinesses

How Does Metrc Work?

Metrc uses a system of tagging and unique ID numbers to categorize and track cannabis from seed to sale. Tagged inventory in Metrc is sorted into 2 categories: plants and packages. Plants are further categorized as either immature or flowering. All plants are required to enter Metrc through immature plant lots of up to 100/plants per lot. Each lot is assigned a lot unique ID (UID), and each plant in the lot gets a unique Identifier plant tag. Immature plants are labeled with the lot UID, while flowering plants get a plant tag. Metrc generates these ID numbers and they cannot be reused. In addition to the UID, tags include a facility name, facility license number, application identifier (medical or recreational), and order dates for the tag. Proper tagging ensures that regulators can quickly trace inventory back to a particular plant or place of origin.

Packages are formed from immature plants, harvest batches, or other packages. Package tags are important for tracking inventory through processing, as the product changes form and changes hands. Each package receives a UID package tag, and as packages are refined and/or combined, they receive a new ID number, which holds all the other ID numbers in it and tells that package’s unique story.

Do I Have To Enter Data Into Metrc Manually?

You certainly can enter data into Metrc manually, but you probably won’t want to, and thankfully, you don’t have to. Metrc’s API allows for seamless communication between the system and many of your company’s existing tracking and reporting tools used for inventory, production, POS, invoices, orders, etc. These integrations automate the data entry process in many areas.As California operators work to get their ducks in a row, some ambiguity and confusion around Metrc’s roll out remains. 

Adopting and implementing cannabis ERP software is another way operators can automate compliance. These platforms combine software for point of sale, cultivation, distribution, processing and ecommerce into one unified system, which tracks everything and pushes it automatically to Metrc via the API. Since they’ve been developed specifically for the cannabis industry, they’re designed with cannabis supply chain and regulatory demands in mind.

As California operators work to get their ducks in a row, some ambiguity and confusion around Metrc’s roll out remains. Only businesses with full annual licenses are required to comply, leaving some temporary licensees unsure of how to proceed. Others are simply reluctant to transition from an off-the-grid, off-the-cuff model to digitally tracking and reporting everything down to the gram. But the stakes of non-compliance are high— the prospect of fines or loss of business is causing fear and concern for many. Integrated cannabis ERP software can simplify operations and offer continual, automated compliance, which should give operators peace of mind.

California Midterm Ballots To Bring Green Wave of Cannabis Tax Regulations

By Jasmine Davaloo
No Comments

As state and local jurisdictions rake in millions of dollars in tax revenue from the state’s legal cannabis industry, new states, counties and cities are piling onto the cannabis tax bandwagon. There are currently hundreds of local cannabis business taxes in place in California. On the November ballots, there are 47 new local cannabis tax measures. In fact, even some local jurisdictions that outlaw cannabis operations want a piece of the green pie and are asking voters to impose cannabis business taxes.

More cannabis tax measures being passed means more regulations and compliance responsibilities for cannabis businesses. This is especially taxing (pun intended) for multi-licensed and multi-location cannabis businesses. With hefty monetary penalties and even revocation of business licenses as consequences of noncompliance, adherence to state and local tax regulations is of paramount concern to cannabis businesses. Below is a list that Taxnexus has put together showing all of the cannabis tax measures on the November 6 ballots in California:

Taxnexus is an automated transaction-to-treasury cannabis tax compliance solution for the entire cannabis supply chain that provides point-of-sale state and local cannabis sales and use tax calculation, tax data management as the authority of record, and timely filing of returns with all applicable taxing authorities.

California City and County Cannabis Tax Measures November 6, 2018 Ballots

City County Measure Name Proposal
Adelanto San Bernardino S Adelanto Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $5.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 5% on other businesses.
Atascadero San Luis Obispo E-18 Atascadero Cannabis Business Tax To impose a tax on cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation, 10% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, 2.5% for testing laboratories, 3% for distribution businesses, and 6% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses.
Atwater Merced A Atwater Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a 15% tax on marijuana businesses.
Benicia Solano E Benicia Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax of up to $10 per square foot for marijuana nurseries and 6% of gross receipts for other marijuana businesses.
Capitola Santa Cruz I Capitola Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a rate of up to 7% with no expiration date to fund general city purposes.
Chula Vista San Diego Q Chula Vista Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: 5% to 15% of gross receipts or $5 to $25 per square foot for cultivation.
Colfax Placer C City of Colfax Cannabis Business Tax To tax cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses.
Colton San Bernardino U Colton Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $25.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 10% on other businesses.
Emeryville Alameda S Emeryville Marijuana Business Tax To enact a marijuana business tax at a rate of up to 6% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Fresno Fresno A Fresno Marijuana Business Tax To tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to $12 per canopy square foot and up to 10% of gross receipts for medical dispensaries and other marijuana businesses, with revenue dedicated to the city’s general fund an a community benefit fund.
Goleta Santa Barbara Z2018 Goleta Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following initial rates with a cap at 10% of sales: 5% for retailers; 4% for cultivators; 2% for manufacturers; and 1% for distributors/nurseries.
Hanford Kings C Hanford Cannabis Business Tax To tax cannabis businesses at an annual maximum rate of $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using artificial lighting only, $4 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using a combination of artificial and natural lighting, $2 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using natural lighting only, and $1 per square foot of canopy for nurseries, 1% of gross receipts of laboratories, 4% of gross receipts of retail sales, 2% of gross receipts of distribution and 2.5% of gross receipts of all other types of cannabis businesses.
Hesperia San Bernardino T Hesperia Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $15.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 6% on other businesses.
La Mesa San Diego V La Mesa Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to 6% gross receipts and up to $10 per square foot of cultivation.
Lassen Lassen M Lassen County Commercial Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the county to enact a tax on commercial marijuana at rates of between $0.50 to $3.00 per square foot for cultivation and 2.5% to 8% on gross receipts for other businesses, such as retail, distribution, manufacturing, processing, and testing.
Lompoc Santa Barbara D2018 Lompoc Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: $0.06 per $1 of non-medical retail sales proceeds; $0.01 per $1 of cultivation proceeds; $15,000 for net income less than $2 million of manufacturing/distribution proceeds; $30,000 for net income $2 Million or more of manufacturing/distribution proceeds; a total aggregate tax of $0.06 per $1.00 of microbusinesses proceeds; and no tax on testing.
Malibu Los Angeles G Malibu Marijuana Business Authorization and Tax To authorize the sale of recreational marijuana in the city and imposing a general tax at the rate of 2.5% of gross receipts on the sale of recreational marijuana.
Marina Monterey V Marina Marijuana Business Tax To authorize marijuana businesses to operate in the city and authorizing the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to 5% of gross receipts, with revenue funding general city purposes.
Maywood Los Angeles CT Maywood Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a maximum rate of 10% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Moreno Valley Riverside M City of Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax To enact a tax on cannabis sales and cultivation, not exceeding 8% of gross receipts and $15 per square foot of cultivation.
Morgan Hill Santa Clara I Morgan Hill Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at annual rates up to $15.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 10% of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses.
Mountain View Santa Clara Q Mountain View Marijuana Business Tax To enact a tax on marijuana businesses of up to 9% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Oakland Alameda V Oakland Marijuana Business Tax Amendments To amend the marijuana business tax law to: allow marijuana business to deduct the cost of raw materials from their gross receipts and to pay taxes on a quarterly basis; and allow the city council to amend the law in any manner that does not increase the tax rate.
Oroville Butte T Oroville Marijuana Tax To authorize an annual gross receipts tax on cannabis businesses at rate not to exceed 1%, with initial rates of 5% on retailers and manufacturers; 4% on cultivators; 3% on distributors; 2% on nurseries; 0% on testing laboratories; and 7% on microbusiness to generate approximately $300,000 to $600,000 in annual revenue.
Paso Robles San Luis Obispo I-18 Paso Robles Cannabis Business Tax To impose a maximum tax rate on every person or entity operating or conducting a cannabis business within the City a cultivation tax of up to$20.00 per square foot of space utilized in connection with the cultivation and processing of cannabis; a gross receipts tax of up to 10% for all cannabis transportation; a gross receipts tax of up to 15% for all cannabis manufacturing, testing, and distribution; and a gross receipts tax of up to 10% for dispensaries.
Pomona Los Angeles PC Pomona Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 6% of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses to fund general city purposes.
Riverbank Stanislaus B City of Riverbank Cannabis Business License Tax To authorize the City Council of the City to impose a business license tax at a rate of up to 10% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses and dispensaries, to help fund general municipal services.
San Bernardino San Bernardino W San Bernardino Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $10.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 6% on other businesses.
San Diego San Diego AA City Council Marijuana Business Tax Measure To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: $14 per square foot; up to 8% on manufacturing and distribution; up to 10% on medicinal retail; up to 12% on adult-use retail; and up to 3.5% on testing.
San Francisco San Francisco D San Francisco Marijuana Business Tax Increase To tax marijuana businesses with gross receipts over $500,000 at a rate between 1% and 5%, exempting retail sales of medical marijuana, and expanding the marijuana business tax to businesses not physically located in San Francisco.
Santa Ana Orange Y Santa Ana Recreational Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $0.25 to $35.00 for gross square footage and up to 10 percent for cultivating, manufacturing, distributing, selling, or testing.
Santa Clara Santa Clara M Santa Clara Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax commercial marijuana businesses up to 10% of gross receipts and up to $25 per square foot for cultivation.
Simi Valley Ventura Q Cannabis Business Tax To enact a maximum tax on gross receipts of cannabis businesses in the City after January 1, 2019, as follows: for testing, 2.5%; for retail sales, retail delivery, or microbusiness retail, 6%; for distribution not to consumers, 3%; for manufacturing, processing or nonretail microbusiness, and any other type of business not otherwise specified, 4%; and for cultivation, a tax per square foot of canopy ranging from $2.00 per square foot of canopy to $10.00 per square foot of canopy, depending on the type of lighting (artificial or natural) used.
Solvang Santa Barbara F2018 Solvang Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at an initial rate of 5 percent of gross receipts with a cap of 10 percent and a maximum annual increase of 1 percent.
Sonora Tuolumne N City of Sonora Cannabis Business License Tax To enact a business license tax at a rate of up to 15% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses, to help fund general municipal services; and increasing the City’s appropriations limit for the Fiscal Years 2019-2023 by the amount of tax proceeds received.
Suisun Solano C Suisun Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax of up to $25 per square foot and 15% gross receipts for marijuana businesses.
Union City Alameda DD Union City Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $12.00 per square foot for cultivation and 6 percent of gross receipts for other businesses to fund general municipal services.
Vista San Diego Z Vista Retail Medical Marijuana Sales and Tax Initiative (November 2018) To authorize commercial retails sales of medicinal marijuana for up to 11 retailers and enacting a 7% tax on the business’ gross receipts.
Contra Costa R Contra Costa County Marijuana Business Tax To authorize Contra Costa County to tax commercial marijuana businesses in the unincorporated area in the amount of up to $7.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 4 percent gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses to fund general County expenses.
El Dorado N, P, Q, R, S Commercial Cannabis Tax Measures To impose a general tax on any independently authorized commercial cannabis activity in the unincorporated areas of El Dorado County at rates up to: $30 per square foot or 15% for cultivation; 10% for distribution, manufacturing, and retail; and 5% for testing laboratories, effective until amended or repealed, with estimated annual revenue of $1,900,000 to $52,800,000.

To authorize outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for medicinal use on parcels of at least 10 acres zoned Rural Lands, Planned Agricultural, Limited Agricultural, and Agricultural Grazing that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for recreational adult use on parcels of at least 10 acres zoned Rural Lands, Planned Agricultural, Limited Agricultural, and Agricultural Grazing that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for medicinal use on parcels zoned Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial High, and Industrial Low that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for recreational adult use on parcels zoned Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial High, and Industrial Low that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

Lake K Lake County Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the county to enact a marijuana business tax at the rates of $1.00 per square foot for nurseries and cultivators and between 2.5% and 4% for other businesses.
San Joaquin B Unincorporated County of San Joaquin Cannabis Business Tax To impose a special tax on commercial cannabis businesses in unincorporated San Joaquin County at a rate of 3.5% to 8% of gross receipts, with an additional cultivation tax of $2.00 per square foot of cultivation space.
Tuolumne M Tuolumne County Commercial Cannabis Business Tax The County to impose a 0%-15% gross receipts tax on commercial cannabis businesses (but no less than $0-$15 per square foot for cultivation businesses as annually increased by a consumer price index) in the unincorporated area of Tuolumne County, and to authorize the Board of Supervisors to implement and adjust the tax at its discretion, with funds staying local for unrestricted general revenue purposes, including but not limited to public safety, health,environmental protection and addressing industry impacts, unless repealed or amended by voters.
Laura Bianchi
Soapbox

Jeff Sessions’ Latest Moves Should be a Wake-Up Call for the Cannabis Industry

By Laura A. Bianchi
2 Comments
Laura Bianchi

The legal cannabis industry was recently rocked to its core by the announcement that Attorney General Jeff Sessions would be rescinding the so-called “Cole memo” and several other Obama-era legal directives suggesting the federal government would leave state-by-state cannabis reforms more or less alone. Suddenly, it seemed the entire cannabis movement was in jeopardy. Laws legalizing medical and recreational cannabis could be at risk. A booming industry predicted to be worth $50 billion annually by 2026 could instead be going down in flames.

Here’s the good news: As a business transactions attorney who’s been working in the cannabis industry for eight years, I don’t see any cause for panic. The Cole memo and the other directives the Justice Department are rescinding were not laws, orders or even legal precedents – they were simply legal guidance, and murky at that. The memos provided guidance to federal prosecutors regarding cannabis enforcement under federal law, suggesting that federal prosecutors not focus resources on state-legal cannabis operations that weren’t interfering with other federal priorities, such as preventing the distribution of cannabis to minors and preventing revenue from the sales from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels. Yes, federal prosecutors could take Sessions’ recent moves to mean it’s open season on medical and recreational cannabis businesses. But with medical cannabis programs of one form or another up and running in 29 states and Washington D.C., and recreational cannabis now legal in eight states and Washington D.C., dismantling the entire legal cannabis industry would require a Herculean federal effort that would come at the expense of a cornerstone of the Republican Party now in power: The vital importance of states’ rights.The best way to stay on top of those rules? Form relationships with your state program regulators

In other words, I don’t see the termination of the Cole memos as the end of the nascent cannabis industry. But I do think the development should be a wake-up call for all those people in the cannabis industry who have been playing fast and loose with their business operations. After all, if federal prosecutors do decide to make examples of certain cannabis operations, they’re going start with those who are not operating within the confines of the applicable state rules and regulations.  Any business that smells even slightly of tax evasion, interstate trafficking or the allocation of cannabis-derived revenue to benefit a criminal enterprise will end up at the top of that target list.

So how should well-meaning cannabis operators stay off the feds’ radar? Simple: Follow all the rules.

Unless you want orange to be your new black, you can’t afford to be sloppy with your business structure and financial records.For starters, you need a CPA who’s not just at the top of their game, but who also understands the very specific – and potentially debilitating – nuances of cannabis-specific tax liabilities. That’s because thanks to a quirk in the tax code called IRS section 280E, cannabis companies are utterly unique in that they are not allowed to deduct expenses from their business income, save for the costs of goods sold. You want an accountant who thoroughly grasps this issue, so they can help you plan for and (to the extent possible) minimize your tax liability. And you want to address such matters before you start to realize positive revenue, so you’re ready to handle an effective tax rate that can be upwards of 70 percent. Last I checked, the IRS doesn’t consider “But I can’t afford to pay my taxes!” a valid excuse.

Along the same lines, you need a business corporate attorney who’s well-versed in the world of cannabis. That’s because while it might seem exciting to jump headlong into the cannabis green rush, you’re not going to get very far if you don’t deal with the boring stuff first. I’m talking about start-up financing strategies, business contracts and agreements, profit and loss forecasts, cash-flow analysis, and long-term financial plans. Properly structuring your business from the get-go isn’t just important if you ever plan to seek capital or sell your business. It’s also necessary if you want to keep the feds happy. In other industries, regulators might cut first-time business owners some slack. Not so in cannabis. Unless you want orange to be your new black, you can’t afford to be sloppy with your business structure and financial records.

Jeff Sessions and Eric Holder
AG Jeff Sessions (left), the man responsible for the recent uptick in worries

Finally, make sure you’re playing by all the cannabis rules, regulations and requirements of your state and jurisdiction. While this suggestion might seem like a no-brainer, far too often cannabis brands hire hotshots from Fortune 500 companies who don’t know anything about cannabis regulations and how they apply to their business.

The best way to stay on top of those rules? Form relationships with your state program regulators. Here in Arizona, I am in constant contact with our regulators discussing nuances and new business concepts for which the rules are unclear, convoluted or simply silent. Working with the enforcers might not come naturally to many folks in the cannabis business, but we’re dealing with a new and evolving industry where there’s little or no business, regulatory or judicial precedent. We’re all in this together.

It’s exciting to be at the bleeding edge of a bold and booming new industry like cannabis, but to do so safely and legally, cannabis industry pioneers need to make sure they’re striking the right balance between daring innovation and sensible business security.

We shouldn’t expect Jeff Sessions to launch a new army of prohibition agents around the country to kick down doors of cannabis businesses. But it wouldn’t be a bad idea for cannabis entrepreneurs to start acting like he might.

Growing Pains a Month Into California’s Market Launch

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

For about a month now, California’s adult use market has been open for business and the market is booming. About thirty days into the world’s largest adult use market launch, we are beginning to see side effects of the growing pains that come with adjusting the massive industry.

Consumers are also feeling sticker shock as the new taxes add up to a 40% increase in price.While the regulatory and licensing roll out has been relatively smooth, some municipalities are slower than others in welcoming the adult use cannabis industry. It took Los Angeles weeks longer than other counties to begin licensing dispensaries. Meanwhile, retailers in San Diego say the first month brought a huge influx of customers, challenging their abilities to meet higher-than-expected demand.

Businesses are struggling to deal with large amounts of cash, but California State Treasurer John Chiang may have a solution in store. Yesterday, his department announced they are planning to create a taxpayer-backed bank for cannabis businesses.

Reports of possible supply shortages are irking some businesses, fearing that the state hasn’t licensed enough growers and distributors to handle the high demand. Consumers are also feeling sticker shock as the new taxes add up to a 40% increase in price.

CA cannabis testing chart
California’s plan for phasing in testing requirements.

In the regulatory realm, some are concerned that a loophole in the rules allows bigger cultivation operations to squeeze out the competition from smaller businesses. The California Growers Association filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Food and Agriculture to try and close this loophole, hoping to give smaller cultivators a leg up before bigger companies can dominate the market.

The Bureau of Cannabis Control (known as just “The Bureau”) began holding meetings and workshops to help cannabis businesses get acquainted with the new rules. Public licensing workshops in Irvine and San Diego held last week were designed to focus on information required for licensing and resources for planning. The Bureau also held their first cannabis advisory committee meeting, as well as announcing new subcommittees and an input survey to help the Bureau better meet business needs.

On the lab-testing front, the state has phased in cannabinoids, moisture content, residual solvent, pesticide, microbial impurities and homogeneity testing. On July 1, the state will phase in additional residual solvent and pesticide testing in addition to foreign material testing. At the end of 2018, they plan on requiring terpenoids, mycotoxins, heavy metals and water activity testing as well.

Hoban Law Group Expands Internationally

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Last week, Hoban Law Group announced a major international expansion, with new offices in Latin America and the European Union. The Denver-based law firm said they will have four new offices across the EU by late fall and two new offices in Latin America by spring of 2018.

BobHobanAttorney
Bob Hoban, managing partner

Bob Hoban, managing partner and co-founder of Hoban Law Group, says they have already been working internationally for years. “HLG steps in to global markets quickly as our direct work with government officials on policy and regulation has kept us in this important global curve,” says Hoban. “We have accepted the challenge of being global cannabis industry leaders & experts and will work with strategic industry-leading partners, such as New Frontier Data, to move the industry forward across six countries.”

The press release says the law firm has been advising governments around the world on cannabis policy for several years, as well as working on a handful of international business transactions in the past. These new offices will work mainly with structured finance, mergers and acquisitions, worldwide trade, regulatory law and equity placement in the cannabis (including industrial hemp) industry. “Combining the firm’s corporate practice, with our intellectual property and tax practice groups will position our firm’s client’s to succeed at the highest levels in this international marketplace,” says Hoban.

The press release also announced they have added Andrew Telsey, an experienced securities attorney, to their firm. He has helped take more cannabis businesses public in the U.S. than any other attorney.

Hoban Law Group, founded in 2009, is the nation’s largest cannabis business law firm. They have attorneys in every state that has legalized cannabis in the United States.

What’s Happening on Capitol Hill? Part 4: Banking & Tax Reform

By Brian Blumenfeld, J.D., M.A.
No Comments

To round out our federal reform review, we look at the bills introduced into the 115th Congress that attempt to resolve the banking and taxation problems faced by state-legal cannabis businesses. As this is perhaps the biggest thorn in the side of the cannabis industry, any movement by the feds on these issues will be welcomed. As it turns out, there are four proposals currently pending for fixing the broken cannabis financial services system, with each proposal comprising a pair of House-Senate companion bills. We look at each pair in turn.

Group 1

S. 1156 – SAFE Act; or, Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act

HR. 2215 – SAFE Act; or, Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act

Policy: These SAFE Acts would prohibit federal prosecutors and federal regulators from preventing or disciplining in any way a depository institution simply because that depository institution serviced a cannabis-related business.

Impact: The impact of these bills would be widespread for both the cannabis industry and for financial service institutions looking to capitalize on the cannabis industry. For banks, the bills would remove all of the barrier-risks that are now keeping them out of the cannabis business. Currently, the feds have handed down policy guidance to banks stating that as long as they submit what are called “Suspicious Activity Reports, or “SARs” for cannabis-related accounts, and conduct their due diligence to ensure such accounts are complying with state law, then those banks will not be pursued by federal law enforcement. The problem with this guidance is that it is only policy, it is not law, and so it can change on as little as an administrative whim. The protection from cannabis business risk, most banks have determined, is therefore temporary at best and illusory at worst. Passage of the SAFE Act would instantly change all of that and initiate a banking bonanza. Banks will be racing to profit off of what is amounting to a newly minted billion dollar industry. Cannabis businesses will benefit greatly from all of this. Not only will they be able to stop operating strictly in cash and have access to all the traditional financial services that other businesses heavily rely on, but they will also be the beneficiaries of a highly competitive, and therefore affordable and efficient, cannabis banking market.

Procedural Status:

S. 1156

  • Introduced: May 17, 2017 by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

    Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
    Image: Medill DC, Flickr
  • Cosponsors: 3 Republicans, 7 Democrats, 1 Independent
  • Referred to Senate Committee on:
    • Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

HR. 2215

  • Introduced: April 27, 2017 by Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)
  • Cosponsors: 7 Republicans, 44 Democrats
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Financial Services

Group 2

S777 – Small Business Tax Equity Act of 2017

HR 1810 – Small Business Tax Equity Act of 2017

Policy: These bills would carve out an exception to IRC 280E allowing cannabis businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses from their federally taxable revenues.

Impact: If enacted these bills will dramatically ease the tax burden for cannabis businesses. Currently, even when they are in perfect compliance with state law, cannabis businesses are not permitted to deduct ordinary business expenses. This means that net taxable revenues are, and are going to continue to be, substantially higher than net taxable revenues for businesses in any other industry. If enacted, profit margins—and therefore product quality, operational efficiency and innovation—are going to uptick across all states that have legalized.

Procedural Status:

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Image: JD Lasica, Flickr

S. 777

  • Introduced: March 30, 2017 by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
  • Cosponsors: 1 Republican, 4 Democrats
  • Referred to Senate Committee on:
    • Finance

HR. 1810

  • Introduced: March 30, 2017 by Representative Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
  • Cosponsors: 10 Republicans, 24 Democrats
  • Referred to House Committee on:
    • Ways and Means

Group 3

S. 780 – Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act of 2017

HR. 1824  Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act of 2017

Policy: These bills combine to accomplish what each of the foregoing pairs accomplish separately. IRC 280E would no longer apply to state-legal cannabis businesses, and banking would become available for them as well. Additionally, advertising prohibitions in the CSA and the Communications act of 1934 would be removed, with the one exception that advertisements inducing travel from a state where cannabis is not legal to a legal cannabis state would be prohibited. Under Title II of the acts, barriers to federal bankruptcy proceedings would be removed. These bills would also reform the CSA as it relates to criminal liability for individuals, criminal record expungement and medical research for institutions, all of which are noteworthy but neither of which directly impact the legal cannabis industry.

Impact: For the impact of IRC reform, see “Impact” section under S.777/HR.180. For the impact of banking reform, see “Impact” section under S.1156/HR/2215.

By leaving advertising guidelines completely up to the states, we would probably witness the easing of advertising restrictions by the states. Currently, states have tight advertising rules because, after protecting consumers, they do not want their state’s legal cannabis industry to draw attention from the feds in any way. That concern would become moot and we could see more advertising in and across legalized states. This would drive competition across larger markets, in terms of both product and service quality and branding/marketing strategy.

Access to federal bankruptcy proceedings would clarify the landscape for all potential financial scenarios in the lifecycle of cannabis businesses, which in turn will ease uncertainty concerns of potential investors. The bankruptcy provision, combined with the banking provisions will undoubtedly open access to capital for cannabis businesses looking to grow operations and market presence.

Procedural Status:

S. 780

  • Introduced: March 30, 2017 by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
  • Cosponsors: None
  • Referred to Senate Committee on:
    • Finance

HR. 1824

Representative Earl Blumenaur (D-OR)
Photo: Bridget Baker, 92bridges.com
  • Introduced: March 30, 2017 by Representative Earl Blumenaur (D-OR)
  • Cosponsors: 0 Republicans, 8 Democrats
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
      • Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
      • Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law
      • Immigration and Border Security
    • Energy & Commerce
      • Health
    • Ways and Means
    • Financial Services
    • Natural Resources
      • Indian, Insular, and Alaskan Affairs
    • Education and the Workforce
    • Veterans’ Affairs
      • Health
    • Oversight and Government Reform

Group 4

S. 776 – Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act

HR. 1823 – Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act

Policy: Subchapters A and B of these bills would impose two additional federal tax requirements on cannabis businesses. The first would be an excise tax on all producers, beginning at a rate of 10%, and growing each year that a producer is in business to a cap of 25% at five years. The second tax would be an occupational tax of $1,000 per year, to be paid by the principals of any cannabis producer or warehouse proprietor. Significantly, these bills would also authorize the federal government to regulate operations in the industry.

Impact: The tax impact of these bills would be a straightforward additional tax that cannabis businesses would have to pay, on top of state and local taxes. The burden of additional taxes will inevitably impact profit margins, initial decisions on whether or not to enter the market and strategies for expansion and innovation. The impacts of federal authorization and regulatory requirements was discussed in the second article of the series, specifically under the “Impact” section of HR1841

Procedural Status:

S. 776

  • Introduced: March 30, 2017 by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
  • Cosponsors: None
  • Referred to Senate Committee on:
    • Finance

HR. 1823

  • Introduced: March 30, 2017 by Representative Earl Blumenaur (D-OR)
  • Cosponsors: 0 Republicans, 8 Democrats
  • Referred to House Committee on:
    • Ways and Means