Tag Archives: tax

Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Companies: Part 3

By Brent Salmons, Yuefan Wang
No Comments

Part 1 of this series discussed the lack of bankruptcy protections for cannabis companies, since bankruptcy in the U.S. is an exclusively federal procedure and cannabis remains illegal under federal law and proposed a number of alternative options for businesses struggling in the current environment. Part 2 of this series focused on state law receiverships for several states.

In this the third and final part of this series, we continue to review state law receiverships for several additional states and discuss the final non-bankruptcy option for cannabis companies, an assignment for the benefit of creditors.

Below is an overview of the laws and rules governing receiverships in several additional states which have legalized cannabis.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, receiverships are governed by statute, with numerous statutes for receivership in various industries and entity types but, in general, the appointment of a receiver is granted by a court after the filing of a complaint by third party, most frequently a secured creditor.

In keeping with its industry specific approach, the state cannabis regulator has enacted rules detailing the steps for a cannabis receivership. Most notable among these rules is a requirement to provide notice to the state regulator at least five days before filing a petition to appoint a receiver and, similar to the approach of Nevada, establishing minimum requirements for a person to serve as a receiver for a cannabis company (which generally require a person to pass a background check and have a crime-free past). In addition, because of the fairly restrictive local licensing in Massachusetts, coordination with the locality in which a cannabis company has operations is also required.

Michigan

Michigan has a broad receivership statute, in addition to both entity and industry specific statutes. The general receivership statute allows for the appointment of receivers as part of a court’s equitable powers so long as the appointment is permitted by law. In 2020, Michigan law was amended to specifically permit receivers to be appointed over cannabis companies. The state cannabis regulator’s rules require notice to such agency within 10 days following the appointment of a receiver, and Michigan law further provides that receivers may only operate a cannabis facility upon approval by the state regulator.

Anyone may seek the appointment of a receiver in Michigan, even if they have a connection to the property or business to be placed in the receivership. However, an action may not be brought solely to appoint a receiver but must instead be sought after an action for another claim has already been made. If a court determines it has cause to appoint a receiver, such receiver must have “sufficient competence, qualifications, and experience to administer the receivership estate”. Receivers in Michigan appointed under the general commercial receivership statute (including receivers over cannabis companies) are subject to the court’s equitable discretion but have broad powers, including the power to operate, restructure, liquidate, and sell the business.

Missouri

Like Michigan, Missouri has a general receivership statute as well as statutes for specific receivership situations, notably with respect to corporations. However, Missouri has not enacted any particular rules with respect to cannabis companies and as a result receiverships in Missouri have been conducted under the general receivership statute.

Receivers in Missouri are appointed by a court order following the application of a person with an interest in the assets over which the receivership is sought and an appointment may be made prior to any judgement having been rendered. In addition, the appointment of a receiver may be sought as an independent claim and not as an ancillary claim to another primary claim. Receivers may be granted powers as a general receiver (similar to “equity receivers” in other states) with powers over all of the assets of a debtor, or over specific property of a debtor.

Missouri’s cannabis regulations contain very few rules that specifically relate to a receivership, other than a requirement to provide notice to the state cannabis regulator within 5 days of a receivership filing. While some parties have cited a lack of cannabis specific rules as creating a lack of clarity regarding receivership in these states, Missouri courts and the state regulator appear to be applying the general receivership rules to the industry with at least one receivership in the state in the final stages of completion.

Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors  

To conclude this series, we want to revisit another option we discussed in Part 1 for dealing with a financially troubled firm: an assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABC). While voluntary negotiations with creditors is typically taken where the value of the underlying business clearly exceeds the liabilities of the business, and receivership is an avenue for creditors to seek a court to force a restructuring or liquidation of a business, even over the objections of the business itself, an ABC process can be appealing where the creditor and debtor maintain relatively amicable relations, but the value of the business is such that it is clear the equity holders have little to no value remaining in the business. A creditor may view the ABC process, which is generally a lower cost option as compared with a court-supervised receivership, as the superior proposition in these circumstances.

An ABC is a state common law or statutory remedy available to debtors that is roughly analogous to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy or liquidating Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Unlike a receivership, where a creditor applies to a court for the appointment of a receiver and such an appointment can be granted even over the objection of the debtor, an ABC is a step taken by the debtor itself to liquidate its assets in an orderly fashion with the proceeds paid to its creditors. While courts can be involved to resolve specific matters, and ABC process is principally undertaken without court involvement or direct supervision.

Unlike a receivership, an ABC is a step taken by the debtor itself to liquidate its assets in an orderly fashion with the proceeds paid to its creditorsTo initiate an ABC process, the debtor selects the assignee to take ownership of its assets and such assignee holds such assets in the functional equivalent of a trust for the benefit of the creditors of the debtor. As such, the assignee, while selected by the debtor, owes duties (typically fiduciary duties under state law) to the body of creditors.

Once the assignment has occurred, the assignee will engage in a relatively significant diligence effort in order to gain a clear understanding of the assets and liabilities of the debtor, to complete the assignment and to provide notice to third parties and creditors of the fact that the assignment has occurred. The assignee then generally oversees the operation of the business (if it is continuing) while moving to create a sale process for its assets, whether through some sort of public auction or a privately negotiated sale (which, as in bankruptcy proceedings, may include stalking horse bids).

One notable difference between the bankruptcy and receivership process and an ABC is that, in general, assets sold in an ABC are not sold free and clear of all underlying liens, meaning that senior secured creditors must consent to any sale, or their liens will travel with the assets.

While ABCs offer many advantages over receiverships, including a typically lower cost, flexibility in the selection of the assignee, and a generally easier and faster path to liquidation of assets, there are limitations, including the risk that a third party may seek to appoint a receiver after an ABC has been commenced or that the compensation package granted the assignee is disproportionately high, each of which could ultimately result in higher costs for all involved. Furthermore, sales of assets in an ABC are not automatically sold free and clear of all liens.

In the end, regardless of where a cannabis company may be operating, the lack of access to federal bankruptcy courts does not deprive the company or its creditors of viable avenues to restructure or liquidate a business. However, because these options are less familiar to those who typically operate in the bankruptcy-centric restructuring arena in other industries, companies and creditors in the cannabis space are well advised to consult with counsel familiar with the cannabis industry and the restructuring alternatives that remain available to them.

Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Companies: Part 2

By Brent Salmons, Yuefan Wang
No Comments

Part 1 of this series discussed the lack of bankruptcy protections for cannabis companies, since bankruptcy in the U.S. is an exclusively federal procedure and cannabis remains illegal under federal law and proposed a number of alternative options for businesses struggling in the current environment. Part 2 of this series focuses on one of these alternatives: state law receiverships.

Background

A cannabis operation facing financial difficulties may try to avail itself, on the one hand, of the contractual remedies described in Part 1 of this series, but these remedies may be flimsy given their narrow scope and reliance on voluntary negotiation between parties whose relationship is already likely tense; on the other hand, the statutory remedies described in Part 1 of this series may be too rigid and absolute, necessitating the disposition of a business as a collection of assets, instead of its continued operation as a going concern. An alternative is receivership, a flexible but powerful quasi-judicial approach paralleling federal bankruptcy able to be administered by state courts. Compared to federal bankruptcy, state receivership is both over and under-inclusive: while receivership can be used in many more situations than insolvency, such as a financially healthy business that is nonetheless subject to regulatory action, receivership provides less comprehensive protection for an insolvent business.

Receiverships have their roots in English and Welsh courts of equity, which were seen as offering fairer remedies than their contemporary common law courts, bound as they were by ponderous precedent. In contrast, courts of equity had more discretion to apply remedies which could be more tailored and “equitable” to an individual petitioner, even if such remedies were not codified. While this separation of equitable and common law courts does not generally exist in the modern U.S. legal system (except for a few hold-out states, most notably, Delaware), the legacy remains in the type of civil remedy available: while most remedies are awarded as monetary redress for a past wrong suffered by a plaintiff (e.g. liquidated damages for the discloser of confidential information or the “benefit of the bargain” for the seller of a company), equitable remedies often require prospective action (or forbearance of an action) by the defendant (e.g. an injunction on disclosure by a recipient of confidential information or specific performance by a purchaser of a company). To draw the analogy out, bankruptcy is a “legal” process to address insolvency since it is governed by a comprehensive regime of federal statutes and rules in the Bankruptcy Code (which is, ironically, applied by specialized federal courts), while receivership is the “equitable” side of the same coin: a judicially-created remedy to manage or liquidate a business, among other actions, where it would not be equitable (or, most importantly for cannabis businesses, not possible) for a bankruptcy action.

Some states with legalized cannabis have cannabis-specific receivership statutes, usually providing that the receiver either be temporarily or fully licensed similar to any other operator of a cannabis business.As an equitable remedy used by various states and federal entities, generalizations about the receivership process are difficult to make. However, broadly speaking, a typical receivership process begins with a complaint filed against the entity for which receivership is sought in state court. This filing can be made by a variety of parties outside of the standard debtor-creditor relationship (reflecting the equitable nature of receiverships), including by regulators and disputing owners of a business. After this filing, a motion to appoint the receiver (which is usually but not always a third party) is filed with the court; consent of the opposing party is generally not required in appointing a receiver but can often make the process easier. The complainant must then establish standing and the occurrence of certain events, including insolvency, but also mismanagement of a corporation or a foreclosure. The requirements of such events are fact-specific and may often be governed by statute or the contractual relationship between parties. The order appointing the receiver usually sets out the specific powers the receiver has in any given case to oversee the disposition or operation of the assets subject to the receivership (called the “receivership estate”) for the benefit of its’s creditors.

Receivership laws generally fall into two categories: some states provide for a broad general statute, sometimes accompanied by statutes specific to industries which are heavily regulated, entity types, or process, while in other states the power is an extension of the court’s powers, set forth in the state’s rules of civil procedure. States also differ as to whether a receivership is considered an independent remedy, a standalone legal action which can be pursued in and of itself (e.g. a petition by a creditor to appoint a receiver to resolve settle an unpaid debt), or an ancillary remedy, a legal action that supports a primary claim (e.g. a request to appoint a receiver in connection with a dispute over the ownership of a business). Some states provide for general receiverships, which allows receivers to take control of an entire business, while other states also allow limited receiverships, which allows the receiver take control of a portion of a business, while the owner operates the remainder. Some states with legalized cannabis have cannabis-specific receivership statutes, usually providing that the receiver either be temporarily or fully licensed similar to any other operator of a cannabis business.1

Below is an overview of the laws and rules governing receiverships in certain states which have legalized cannabis.

Arizona
In Arizona, receivership is governed by statute, with a general statute and specific statutes for certain industries and type of receivership. Arizona law recognizes that principles of equity apply to all matters relating to receivers, providing the court overseeing the receivership with additional power to decide the remedies available to the receiver. In addition, Arizona has enacted a specific statutory framework for the appointment of receivers for commercial real property and personal property related to or used in operating the real property. Arizona also uses a separate receivership statute to provide for corporate dissolution receiverships, in which a court in a judicial corporate dissolution proceeding may appoint one or more receivers to wind-up, liquidate, or manage the business and affairs of the corporation.

There are no specific statutes governing receiverships of cannabis businesses, so the general receivership statute applies to cannabis businesses, subject to Arizona’s rules governing the operation of a cannabis business. For example, Arizona cannabis regulations that require anyone volunteering or working at a medical or recreational cannabis dispensary to be registered with the cannabis regulator similarly apply to a receiver appointed over a licensed cannabis business.

California

California does not have significant entity-specific or industry-specific statutes for receiverships; rather a California court’s power to appoint a receiver is granted under the state’s rules of civil procedure. Receiverships in California are solely an ancillary remedy; a receivership is commenced once a complaint is filed and any party to the action may seek to appoint a receiver. Circumstances that allow for the appointment of a receiver are fact-specific and at the discretion of a judge, although contractual provisions for the appointment of a receiver are given weight under the rules. Sales of assets in the receivership estate must be submitted to, and approved by, the appointing court.

While the rules of civil procedure provide for the general powers of a receiver, the specific powers a receiver possesses in any given case is granted by the judicial order appointing the receiver; this appointment order is therefore, along with the court itself, the primary authority for the parties in any given receivership. California explicitly disqualifies certain persons, such as parties to the lawsuit, an attorney of a party, a person interested in an action, or any person related to any judge of the court within the third degree, as receivers.

While California’s receivership rules do not explicitly contemplate cannabis businesses, receiverships for cannabis companies have taken place, but in our experience are less common in California than assignments for the benefit of creditors (which we will address in a later article). Like other licensed businesses in California, cannabis companies must provide notice to the state regulatory agency which granted the license. It is up to the agency’s discretion whether the business may be operated under the existing license or whether the receiver must secure a new or temporary license.

Colorado

Like California, no generally applicable receivership statute exists in Colorado; instead, receiverships are governed by the state’s rules of civil procedure. Under these rules, a receiver can be appointed under a court’s general equitable powers. Appointment of a receiver is an independent remedy in Colorado, but is contingent on a lawsuit having commenced and the court having deemed the receivership as necessary and proper. In addition to the court’s general equitable powers to appoint a receiver, and unlike California, Colorado has receivership statutes that are entity and industry specific. The entity-specific statutes permit the appointment of a receiver for the judicial dissolution of for-profit corporations, non-profit corporations, limited liability companies, and cooperatives, and the industry-specific statutes permit the appointment of a receiver for the windup of failed insurance companies and the closure of long-term care facilities.

Similar to California, the court order appointing a receiver governs the entire receivership process and any disposition of the assets of the receivership estate must be submitted to and approved by the court.

As befitting the first state to legalize adult-use cannabis, Colorado’s cannabis regulations specifically address receiverships: the rules create a notice and application requirement for all court appointees, including receiverships, and require receivers to register with the regulator as a “temporary appointee” of the court.

Illinois

Illinois does not have a comprehensive receivership statute; instead, the state has industry-specific statutes, including for regulated industries such as nursing home facilities and telecommunication carriers. Illinois also provides for “equity receiverships”, which are used as an ancillary remedy in business disputes in order to stabilize a business that is adversely affected by fraud, neglect, waste, dissipation, or other misconduct during the pendency of the underlying proceeding. If the underlying matter is within the general or statutory jurisdiction of the court, then such court has jurisdiction over the receivership.

There are no specific statutes governing receiverships of cannabis businesses, but the governing statute does contemplate operation of a cannabis business by a receiver, so regulations promulgated thereunder should apply to receivers as well, including with respect to licensing.

Maryland

Adult-use cannabis sales only began in Maryland July 1, 2023. Maryland has a general receivership statute.

Receivers in Maryland are generally appointed by the person seeking appointment, including the court, and must meet certain qualifications, such as not having any material financial interest in the outcome of the receivership, and not having any debtor-creditor relationship with or equity interest in any party to the receivership. While the general receivership statute provides for broad powers of the receiver, including general management of receivership property, hiring professionals, and issuing subpoenas, the court may modify or expand the powers of the receiver via the appointment order.

While there is no cannabis-specific receivership statute, Maryland’s medical cannabis rules contemplate and authorize the transfer of licenses to a receivership; similar rules have been proposed for adult-use cannabis licenses as well.

Nevada

Nevada has a broad receivership statute, in addition to both entity and industry specific statutes. Case law is not well-developed and mostly predates the current statutory scheme, but there is support for a receiver being appointed outside of a statutory context, specifically when the situation is governed by contractual agreement.

The general receivership statute provides that a receiver may be appointed in a variety of situations, such as fraudulent property purchases, foreclosure of mortgages, or the dissolution or insolvency of a corporation.

Nevada has a statutory regime for receiverships for cannabis companies. Unlike the general statute, there are significant requirements for who can be a receiver for a cannabis business. A receiver must first secure a cannabis establishment agent registration card for a cannabis receiver issued by Nevada’s cannabis regulator. In addition, the receiver must submit an application to the regulator accompanied by, among other requirements, a statement saying the receiver has not previously had an agent registration card revoked. The receiver must also provide proof that she has (1) experience or knowledge of the cannabis industry, (2) experience as a receiver appointed by a court, (3) knowledge and skills necessary to make reasonable financial decisions, and (4) adequate financial capacity to fulfill the duties of a receiver. If the regulator is satisfied with the receiver’s application, it will issue the receiver an agent registration card which must be renewed two years after issuance. It is worth noting that Nevada’s statute governing the non-transferability of certain agent registration cards for cannabis allows the regulator to adopt regulations that give priority in the processing of transfers of licenses for transferors subject to receivership. To date, however, no such regulations allowing priority for receivership processing have been adopted.

Washington

Washington has a general receivership statute, but not any entity or industry-specific receivership statutes. Washington’s receivership structure with overhauled in 2004 with the passage of a new law, so it is not completely settled whether receivership is now an independent or ancillary remedy; however, the language of the statute language suggests that it is an independent remedy.

To be appointed a receiver in Washington, the individual must meet certain requirements, including not being a party to, or be closely controlled by a party to, the underlying action and not having materially adverse interest to the person against whom receivership is sought. The general statute specifically outlines the powers of the receiver. Certain actions by the receiver require court approval before being finalized, including the assumption or rejection of executory contracts, and sales of property outside the ordinary course of business.

Washington law specifically provides for receiverships for cannabis companies. To be a receiver, the person must satisfy the requirements of Washington’s receivership law, and either be preapproved by the cannabis regulator or else be approved post-application. In order to qualify for the regulator’s preapproved receiver list, or be approved post-application, the putative receiver must (1) submit an application, (2) have been a Washington resident for at least six months prior to submission, (3) submit to and pass a criminal background check, (4) provide financial disclosures as requested by the regulator, and (5) disclose any interests in the cannabis licensees. Once a person is appointed as receiver for a cannabis licensee, she shall not have a financial interest in, or simultaneously serve as receiver for, another licensed cannabis retailer. The receiver may not also serve as a receiver for, or be a party of interest in, more than five cannabis retail licensees or more than three cannabis producer and/or processor licensees at the same time. Finally, any person who files a receivership action involving a cannabis licensee must provide notice to the regulator.

Part 3 of this series on Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Companies continue our review of receivership in various states and other bankruptcy alternatives, including assignments for the benefit of creditors.

Reference

  1.  As cannabis legalization continues to spread, more robust industry-specific receivership rules may be promising given the heavily regulated and specialized nature of the business, similar to how a number of states have industry-specific rules for other heavily regulated industries.

Digital Insurance Solutions are Ripe for Fast-Growing Cannabis Dispensaries

By Jay Virdi
No Comments

Cannabis sales in the United States are expected to hit $100 billion by 2030, and yet dispensary owners still face hurdles before getting up and running, namely obtaining the right insurance coverage. Unlike a coffee shop or clothing store, it can be difficult to secure the insurance coverage needed to satisfy the requirements prescribed by the state and/or commercial leasing agreements.

Yet a simple answer to the dilemma exists. Increasing demand for cannabis business owner policies has prompted some retail insurance brokers to provide convenient turnkey solutions via digital commercial insurance platforms. These platforms circumvent the traditional underwriting process that could trudge on for weeks, allowing cannabis businesses to ramp up operations sooner.

Currently about 30% of insurance customers interact with and purchase from their insurance provider digitally for their business needs. This can be a game changer for a fast-growing cannabis business operator.

What do you need to obtain insurance online?

Obtaining insurance online lets dispensaries secure a complete, holistic insurance policy in one quick pass to cover the industry’s unique risks.

Increasing demand for cannabis policies has prompted some insurance brokers to offer digital solutions

Like any other commercial business package policy, you’ll need to provide details about your business and its operations when harnessing a digital insurance platform.

The first piece of information needed will be proof of licensing with the applicable state or commonwealth where the business operates. This piece is critical since cannabis is still illegal at the federal level. In addition, businesses will need to have other basic data on hand before finding coverage online, including:

  • The legal name of the business
  • Tax identification number
  • Operating locations
  • Annual or monthly sales projections
  • Number of employees

A Closer Look at Cannabis Coverages

Crime, extreme wealth conditions and legal challenges count among the risks faced by cannabis dispensaries. Here are three essential coverages important for cannabis business owners and operators.

  1. Commercial property insurance. Owned cannabis dispensary properties can face perils such as fire, storms, theft and vandalism. Buildings hold value and need to be repaired or replaced if any adverse events occur. Leased properties may contain equipment and fixtures owned by the business and subject to the very same hazards. Commercial property coverage can help cover the cost of replacing business contents and inventory if damaged through a peril covered by the policy.
  2. General liability insurance. Cannabis retail outlets experience a high volume of foot traffic from customers, vendors and technicians, for example. As such, trips, slips and falls could occur and lead to lawsuits. General liability insurance helps cover legal defense costs should any of these parties seek to recover compensatory damages from accidents and mishaps on the property or occurring elsewhere in a business-related capacity.
  3. Product liability coverage. Issues such as quality control with infused products and concentrates can be a concern for cannabis purveyors. Lawsuits arising from mislabeled or improperly tested products likewise need to be defended by cannabis businesses. Comprehensive product liability coverage can meet the needs of cannabis dispensaries promoting and selling a unique variety of product offerings.

Outside the standard commercial package offering, dispensaries can opt for coverage such as business interruption insurance, which helps pay overhead costs if the operation must temporarily cease due to a covered peril.

Cannabis businesses also often need to retain workers compensation insurance that helps pay for lost time and/or medical bills incurred by employees who become ill or injured on the job. Commercial crime policies help cover losses that may occur on premises or in transit in a cash-centric business.

If cannabis industry owners and managers use an online platform for their insurance needs, they could secure a certificate of insurance in as little as 24-48 hours. HUB’s digital commercial insurance platform, powered by Insureon, is one such direct-to-consumer solution. The platform is ideal for licensed retail cannabis dispensaries in all legal US states.

The Hot Debate Embroiling New York’s Potency Tax

By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright, Simon Menkes
No Comments

On March 31, 2021, New York legalized adult-use cannabis with the passage of the Marijuana Regulation & Taxation Act (MRTA). Perhaps the most controversial portion of the Act was Section 493(1)-(3), which established taxes on the potency of cannabis products sold by distributors to retailers. Many cannabis advocates condemn this tariff, arguing that it increases the effective tax rate to such a high level that legal cannabis businesses can no longer compete against the illegal operations. A movement to repeal this tax and substitute a flat tax of 20% is gaining momentum.

Potency Tax Rates & Official Projected Total Tax Percentage

The three potency taxes are:

  1. Edibles (food & beverages): $0.03 per mg of THC
  2. Concentrates (vapes & resins): $0.008 per mg of THC
  3. Flower (loose flower or pre-rolls): $0.005 per mg of THC

The THC tax accrues when cannabis is sold from a distributor to a retailer and is paid to the State by the distributor. If the distributor is also a licensed retailer, such as a microbusiness, the tax accrues at the time of the retail sale.

Along with the state excise tax of 9% and the local excise tax of 4%, the New York Office of Cannabis Management has projected a total tax burden of 20% on an average cannabis purchase.

Potentially Higher Total Tax Percentage

Critics of the potency tax say that it drives the total tax rate much higher than official estimates. In a recent study by the Cannabis Service Team of New York law firm Barclay Damon LLP, tax attorney Jason Klimek (Klimek is also chair of the Tax Committee for the New York State Bar Association’s Cannabis Law Section) provided an analysis showing an effective total tax percentage of 31%-41% on a typical cannabis purchase.

Potency Tax Likely to Result in Higher Tax Rates Down the Line

Rachel Wright will be discussing taxes and more on October 17 at the CQC in New Jersey. Click here to learn more. In addition to possibly burdening legal cannabis businesses with higher taxes, a major problem with a potency tax is that it is product-based, not price-based. This means that, if the retail price of a cannabis product is forced down by market conditions, the potency tax remains the same and effectively becomes a higher percentage of the sales price than it was before.

Because legal cannabis businesses are competing with illegal businesses which pay no taxes, it is likely that legal prices will be forced downward in order for those businesses to compete. This is what has taken place in California, as well as in other states with a strong illicit market. It is much harder for legitimate cannabis operators to remain competitive if they’re saddled with a potency tax. Critics of the potency tax point out that, of the 38 states in which cannabis is legal, only Connecticut has a potency tax.

Increased Costs of Compliance and Other Issues

The potency tax requires producers to pay significant lab expenses for testing of products. Plus, the tax burdens small cannabis producers with higher record-keeping and personnel costs just to manage the process.

Another concern is that today’s testing equipment is not accurate enough to provide a precise measure of THC and thus a precise tax calculation. One recent report by a New York cannabis law firm showed how current testing could result in a variance in taxation of 35% as well as in a retail user consuming 35% more THC than expected:

A lab may have a Measure of Uncertainty (MU) of 3% with a confidence interval of 95%, meaning that there is a 95% chance the true value [of THC] will be within ± 3% of the stated value. Under these hypothetical facts, a farmer that produces 1,000 pounds of cannabis that tests at 20% total THC has a product that may actually range from 17% to 23%. In terms of taxes owed, the difference would be a range of $385,560 to $521,640. Presumably, the farmer would be taxed at whatever percentage is reported on the label, but would be able to choose the percentage on the label, so long as it fell within the MU… This results in at least two  problems. The first problem is that the government may be shortchanged in its tax collection. Second, there is a public health concern resulting from underreporting… if a farmer is incentivized to report the lower percentage, that could result in a consumer consuming approximately 35% more THC than expected.

State Legislators Take Action

On March 6, 2023, Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes (D) and state Senator Jeremy Cooney (D) announced Senate Bill S4831 which would replace the potency tax with an increase in the state excise tax, from 9% to 16%. Combined with the local excise tax of 4%, New York would then have a total “flat tax” of 20%.

Cooney commented, “Replacing the potency tax with an increase in the excise tax will allow licensed operators, including social equity operators, to sell competitively-priced products and be less susceptible to undercutting by illicit market prices without sacrificing revenues.” The bill is currently in the Senate Budget and Revenue Committee.

New York’s potency tax has come to be seen by many as a burden to adult-use cannabis companies. Many believe it results in increased taxation and costs of compliance and leaves the nascent legal adult-use cannabis industry in a less competitive position vis-a-vis those companies that operate illicitly. In addition, the variability of the laboratory measurements used in the calculation of the potency tax opens the door to confusion regarding the correct amount of tax owed to the state and could lead to consumers absorbing significantly higher doses of THC than expected.

Businesses that are in favor of substituting an increased rate of excise tax for the potency tax should contact their state legislative representatives and urge support for Senate Bill S4831.

Montana Revisited: How Did Its Cannabis Gold Rush Pan Out?

By Abraham Finberg, Simon Menkes, Rachel Wright
No Comments

A little over a year ago, we at AB FinWright took a look at the newly-opened adult-use cannabis market in Montana and posed the question: Is Cannabis the Next Gold Rush for Montana? Now, with our 20-20 hindsight, we can see that cannabis sales have taken off in the Treasure State and the tax dollars are rolling in. But political infighting has arisen that threatens to derail the will of the voters who approved adult-use. In addition, arbitrary local approval has set many cannabis entrepreneurs on edge, wondering if they’ll have a business a year from now.

Sales: Predicted Versus Actual

When voters passed Initiative I-190 in 2020 and adult-use commenced January 1, 2022, the Cannabis Control Division (CCD) of the Montana Department of Revenue expected total adult-use sales in 2022 to top $130M. Montana’s imbibers blew that figure out of the water. By the end of last year, the Treasure State had notched up almost $210M of adult-use sales, alongside $93M of medical sales, for a total of almost $304M. With a state population of only 1,085,000, that translates into $280 of cannabis sales per capita. For context, Oklahoma sold $214 of cannabis per person in 2022, while California did only $135/person last year. (It’s estimated that 55% of California’s sales are made by illegal dispensaries, which would translate into a far more robust total of $301 of cannabis/person.)

How Has the Tax Situation Changed in Montana?

At the beginning of 2022, we noted that Montana charges a 4% cannabis tax on medical sales and a 20% cannabis tax on adult-use sales. A 3% maximum local tax was part of the new law, but only 3 counties had enacted it. Fast forward a year and 17 more counties have chosen to enact the local tax, all of them charging the maximum 3%. 10 states allow adult-use sales and have no local tax, which leaves 26 counties that have prohibited adult-use sales (the red counties).

The good news: wholesale sales are exempt from cannabis taxes, and there is no regular sales tax on retail sales, so there is no tax-on-tax (unlike California, which has sellers calculate and collect sales tax on the sale price of their cannabis products plus the cannabis excise tax they’re required to collect).

Montana does not follow Internal Revenue Code 280E and allows normal business deductions for licensed (legal) cannabis corporations, as well as pass-through entities and individuals with licensed cannabis operations.

As State Cannabis Tax Revenue Goes Up, Fights Break Out Over the Funds

Total cannabis tax revenue for 2022 was almost $46M and is projected to rise to $53M for the fiscal year 2023-2024, which starts this July 1, 2023.

Eyeing this revenue, Governor Gianforte (R) initiated House Bill HB 462 on February 17, 2023, whose intent is to funnel revenue away from state parks and wildlife as approved by the voters, and more towards law enforcement and the state’s general fund.

I-190, along with approving adult-use cannabis, specified that the first $6M in tax revenue would go for the state program Healing and Ending Addiction through Recovery and Treatment. All remaining funds would be split between the general fund 65%, various parks and wildlife programs (32%) and veterans and surviving spouses (3%).

HB 462 would see the general fund receiving 75%, law enforcement 7.5%, veterans and surviving spouses 5%, with parks and wildlife reduced to 12.5%. Many feel this subverts the will of the electorate.

On almost the same day as HB 462 was introduced, another bill was put forward, AB 420, which would eliminate the 4% cannabis tax and 3% local tax on medical marijuana. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Mike Hopkins, a Republican from Missoula, believes that adult-use tax revenues are “more than capable” of funding the adult-use program as well as the other addiction and parks and wildlife programs enumerated in I-190. The bill is being countered by the Montana League of Cities and Towns which believes that repealing that tax would create a $4.5M dent across those communities who instituted the local tax.

Both bills have been tabled in committee and will continue to be debated in the second half of the 2023 legislative session.

Retail, Cultivation & Manufacturing – Grandfathered Licenses Only, for Now

Original adult-use legislation stated that, from January 1, 2022, until July 1, 2023, only Montana medical licensees who were licensed on November 3, 2020 (or had an application pending with DPHHS on that date) might be issued a license for cultivation, manufacture or sale of adult-use marijuana. In an explicit effort to give current Montana-based dispensaries a temporary advantage over out-of-state players, the new law imposed an 18-month moratorium on all new licenses. Once the moratorium expires, new license holders will be limited to a small Tier 2 license, which restricts the amount of cannabis they can grow.

New license holders will need to show one year of Montana residency in order to even apply. That being said, there’s nothing stopping an out-of-state business from buying an existing business from a current Montana resident.

Near the North entrance of Yellowstone in Park County, Montana

In an update to this legislation, a rider was recently added to HB 128 that would extend the licensing moratorium two more years, to July 1, 2025. The bill was approved by committee on February 14, 2023 and will come before the House later in this legislative session. In a recent presentation on cannabis in Montana, Bozeman cannabis attorney Christopher Young commented, “I’ve talked to Jason Ellsworth (R, Senator, President of the Montana Senate), and I’ve been told HB 128 is going to pass.”

HB 128 Has Many Medical Cannabis Businesses Worried

The number of medical cannabis cardholders has dropped drastically since adult-use became legal, from 40,522 registered cardholders on January 1, 2022, to 22,325 on January 1, 2023, a reduction of 45%. For those dispensaries that initially chose to remain exclusively medical (18% of all dispensaries), as well as those that, for one reason or another, missed the boat to sell adult-use, they have seen a significant decline in revenue. Consequently, a significant number have been eagerly awaiting the July 1, 2023 to apply to sell adult-use cannabis. The possibility of having to wait an additional two years has them very concerned.

At a hearing on HB 128, Norman Huynh of Pacific Valley told lawmakers he believes he can’t continue to sell only to medical cannabis cardholders because he doesn’t make enough. “There are only a finite amount [sic] of cardholders left,” he stated.

An adjustment in HB 128 is being debated which would allow 16 medical shops to become adult-use that had applied for adult-use before January 1, 2022 but who didn’t complete the process. Without this adjustment, many of these medical dispensaries believe they’ll face bankruptcy.

Opt-In, Opt-Out – Fickle Counties Have Cannabis Companies Nervous

Initiative 190 legalized adult-use cannabis by default in the counties that voted for it. In 2021, the Montana legislature hammered out implementation of adult-use cannabis in House Bill 701, and one provision of this bill allows counties and municipalities to vote to opt-out of legalization.

Pray, a town near Livingston, Montana

Granite County, which became a green county when nearly 55% of voters approved I-190, chose to do just that, opting-out of adult-use sales on June 7, 2022. The county’s sole dispensary, Top Shelf Botanicals, had begun selling to recreational users and estimates 80% of its customers are now adult-use. It has responded to the opt-out by drafting a new initiative to get voters to opt-back-in to adult-use sales. Their struggle to re-win the hearts of Granite County’s voters is ongoing and appears to be an uphill battle.

While Granite is the first county to opt-out of adult-use sales, changing them from a green county to a red county, movement is under way to opt-out in Cascade County, Carbon County, Ravalli County and Flathead County, among others. The opt-out movement is gaining strength in the state and has Montana dispensaries concerned. “The opt-out provision is very problematic, and I think it’s more problematic than people recognized at the time,” says Kate Cholewa, lobbyist with the Cannabis Industry Association. “What other business would people accept being in the position of potentially losing their business every two years?”

Taxability of Discounted Products – Department of Revenue Parses the Details

Initially, it was thought that the Department of Revenue required cannabis tax to be assessed on the regular retail price of a product, even though that product might be discounted. However, the DOR now says this is not always the case. “If the discount is offered to all customers, as opposed to a discount that is offered to only a particular individual or group, the established retail price can change.”

Examples where the discounted price becomes the new, lower established retail price: every Friday you offer everyone a 20% discount on certain products, or, you offer discounts to medical cardholders only. An example of when you must charge cannabis tax on the original, non-discounted price: a discount offered to a particular group, such as veterans or students. (Why medical cardholders are not considered a particular group is unclear, but this information is from the state’s website.)

Tax Comparison to Other States

We stand by our original assessment that Montana is actually a low-tax state for cannabis operators. First of all, it doesn’t follow federal statute 280E, but instead allows the deduction of regular operating expenses on state income taxes. In addition, unlike some states like California, Montana does not charge sales tax on top of cannabis taxes i.e., it doesn’t charge tax-on-tax.

If one examines tax rates, while Montana’s adult-use tax is high at 20%, its medical tax of 4% is a low one. The local tax of 3% (compared with Los Angeles’s 10% adult-use local tax, for example) is quite low and is not charged by 37% of the counties that have adult-use sales.

And if AB 420 is passed and the medical and local cannabis taxes are repealed, Montana will truly enter the ranks of low tax cannabis states.

New Jersey Moves to Remove State’s 280E Tax Code

By Jason K. Gross, Esq.
No Comments

The New Jersey legislature recently approved legislation that would allow licensed cannabis businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses on their state tax return that they are prohibited from deducting on their federal tax return, and such legislation has been sent to Governor Phil Murphy to potentially sign into law. This relates to the universally dreaded (among those in the cannabis industry, at least) Section 280E prohibition. This legislation is important because it would change current law to allow legal cannabis businesses in New Jersey to operate on more of a level playing field with other businesses in the state.

Cannabis operators and applicants are penalized by their inability to deduct certain expenses on their state and federal tax returns. The cause for this frustration is twofold. First, under federal law, cannabis is considered a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 (CSA). Second, under IRS Tax Code Section 280E, cannabis businesses that are legal under state law are still considered drug traffickers for the purposes of federal tax law. While a related issue that is often considered along with Section 280E is whether or not it is sound public policy to continue to classify cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, that is beyond the scope of this article.

It is important to understand the history and purpose behind Section 280E. The history is unusual in that Section 280E was enacted in 1982 as a reaction to a court case in which a convicted cocaine trafficker asserted his rights under federal tax law to deduct certain business expenses, including a portion of his rent, the cost of a scale and packaging expenses. The court agreed that the cocaine trafficker should be legally able to deduct his ordinary business expenses as part of his criminal enterprise. The federal government then created Section 280E to punish drug traffickers by removing the profit out of drug deals. Section 280E provides, generally, that no deduction or credit will be allowed in running any business that consists of trafficking any controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act).1

Fast forward several decades and New Jersey has legalized medical and adult-use commercial cannabis activities. Still, because cannabis remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance, federal law prohibits legal cannabis companies from deducting ordinary business expenses and New Jersey has similarly applied the Section 280E prohibitions. New Jersey’s legislators understand the inequity in having legalized, State-compliant cannabis cultivation, processing and retail businesses, where those same businesses cannot take advantage of standard expense deductions applicable to other legal businesses.

If enacted, this New Jersey legislation would decouple New Jersey’s business tax provisions from the Section 280E rule barring deductions for cannabis businesses. Under the proposed New Jersey tax code revisions, a licensed cannabis business’s gross income would be determined without regard to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code.2 The legislation was approved overwhelmingly in both chambers: by the New Jersey Senate in a vote of 32-3; and by the New Jersey assembly in a vote of 69-8. It would apply to tax years beginning on January 1 of the year following the date the Governor enacts the legislation.

The State Capitol in Trenton, New Jersey

Under Section 280E, a business may not deduct expenses unrelated to its costs of goods sold (COGS), which are, generally, the costs to a cannabis business of producing cannabis products and inventory, including transportation costs to purchase the wholesale cannabis. Virtually everything else is subject to the Section 280E prohibition and non-deductible. So, all other typical costs, such as wages and salary, overhead, advertising, insurance, travel expenses and depreciation do not reduce taxable income. These ordinary expenses are still necessary for the operation of all businesses (to varying degrees). If businesses cannot legally deduct such expenses on their tax returns, their tax liabilities will increase and they will have less money to invest in their facilities and equipment, pay higher salaries and expand their operations.

The impacts of Section 280E are dramatic. An example helps to illustrate this. Consider a hypothetical C Corp. with gross sales of $1 million, COGS of $600,000 and other expenses of $300,000. Such business has a gross profit of $400,000 and net income of $100,000. If the business is normally taxed as a C Corp. at the 21% Federal tax rate, it would pay $21,000, or 21% of $100,000 net income and also $9,000 in State taxes (applying 9% State tax rate on $100,000 net income), for a total tax liability of $30,000. However, that same business in the cannabis industry would pay $120,000 in combined Federal and State taxes, with 21% Federal tax on $400,000 gross profit plus 9% State tax on $400,000 gross profit. As this demonstrates, a cannabis business may be taxed on 100% of the expenses a non-cannabis business could write off. Instead of a 30% effective income tax rate, the cannabis business in this example would have a 120% effective income tax rate. Such business that would otherwise have a profit instead would have a deficit.

Section 280E places a significant tax burden on legal cannabis operators that does not exist for other businesses. While New Jersey’s legislators cannot change the Federal tax code, they are taking action to revise New Jersey’s tax code to level the playing field. Let’s hope the Governor signs into law the pending New Jersey legislation to decouple its tax law from Section 280E.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

References

1.  The relevant text of Section 280E provides: No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

2. The full text of the legislation provides: In the case of a taxpayer that is a cannabis licensee, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to any expenditure that is eligible to be claimed as a federal income tax deduction but is disallowed because cannabis is a controlled substance under federal law, and income shall be determined without regard to section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. s.280E) for cannabis licensees.

Adult Use Cannabis Begins in Compassionate Connecticut

By Abraham Finberg, Simon Menkes, Rachel Wright
3 Comments

On January 10, 2023, Connecticut joined those states in our union that have opened their doors to adult use cannabis sales. Seven dispensaries stepped through those doors and by January 31, Connecticut had recorded $5.1 million in adult use sales, plus an additional $8.2 million in medical sales for a total of $13.3 million.

Like other states now embracing adult use, Connecticut has enacted a strong social equity program, with mixed results so far. Also, perhaps more than any other state, Connecticut has committed to protecting its existing medical cannabis patients and has put in place various mechanisms to guard their access to cannabis.

Slow Roll-Out of Retail Cannabis Licenses

Like other recently-legal states, Connecticut’s rollout of its retail licenses has not been rapid. The state’s initial goal has been to issue twelve retail licenses by lottery, with six reserved for social equity applicants. Also, the eighteen already-operating medical licensees were given the option to upgrade to a hybrid medical-adult use license, a process separate from the lottery.

Governor Lamont at a press conference on January 9, discussing the social equity focus

As of the end of February 2023, there appear to be only twelve current (approved to do business) retail licenses, with eleven of those twelve belonging to medical-adult use hybrids. The majority of the 39 retail licenses listed on the state website are still in the provisional phase, which allows them to “work toward securing a final license.”

Connecticut Social Equity

Connecticut has committed to a robust social equity program and provided an early application opportunity for social equity applicants ahead of non-social equity applicants. In addition, the Nutmeg State has reduced fees for adult-use licenses by 50% for Equity Joint Venture applications, which is where investors agree to partner with a social equity applicant. Further, the state has eliminated 43,754 low-level cannabis convictions.

Connecticut’s social equity requirements are less rigorous than those of neighboring New York and New Jersey, which may provide additional entry opportunities for both in-state and out-of-state entrepreneurs. Connecticut defines a social equity applicant as requiring that at least 65% of a business be owned by an individual with less than 300% of the state median household income in the past three tax years. Since the median household income was $79,855, that individual would need to have earned less than $239,565 annually.

Subversion of the Lottery Process

The lottery for the six initial social equity licenses was held in May 2022 followed by the lottery for the initial six general licenses, which took place in September 2022. Both were administered by a professor and department head at the UConn School of Pharmacy (the state law stipulated the lottery operator must be part “of the state system of higher education”).

15,605 applications were received for both lotteries. Unfortunately, many of the winning applicants flooded the lottery system with hundreds of applications, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so. One example, SLAP ASH LLC, accounted for 850 of the 8,360 applications submitted to the social equity lottery, winning 2 provisional retail licenses. Another company, Jananii LLC, spent over $200,000 to submit 807 entries, receiving one provisional retail license. “There were individuals applying for licenses who submitted 50 applications or more to enter the lottery,” said House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford. “That wasn’t our intent.” Rojas and others are looking at other options for the next lottery to try and combat the problem.

Protecting Medical Cannabis Patients

Perhaps what makes Connecticut’s adult use cannabis program most unique is its outsized commitment to protecting medical patients’ continued access to cannabis. Concerned that adult use sales wouldn’t leave enough supply for patients, the state mandated a cap of ¼ ounce of cannabis for all adult use purchases. Lieutenant Governor Susan Bysiewicz commented that this action emphasized the importance of “not losing sight of a very robust medical program.”

Lt. Gov. Bysiewicz speaks to an audience on the day adult sales became legal, outside of the ZenLeaf Meriden dispensary.

With the recent strong sales of adult use cannabis, however, patients have expressed concern about access, and now the Nutmeg State is considering further action. A bill is being considered in the state legislature which would create a state cannabis ombudsman. This individual would act as a liaison between patients and the state and would, in effect, be there to put pressure on the four licensed growers. These cultivators are required to submit a medical cannabis preservation plan to “ensure against supply shortages of medical marijuana products” and are in many ways responsible for continued patient access to cannabis.

Licensing Fees

Connecticut lottery winners’ license fees will vary from $1,000 for a micro, to $25,000 for a retail, to $75,000 for a cultivator, subject to a 50% reduction if the applicant is deemed social equity. However, once the field is open to regular applicants, the fees will become sizeable.

Retail license fees will be $1 million and cultivation license fees will be $3 million, and even with a 50% reduction for an Equity Joint Venture application, the investment will be significant. The $1 million fee also applies to any existing medical dispensary that wishes to convert to a hybrid license without going through the lottery process. The four existing cultivation companies that wish to service the adult use market and avoid a lottery process will have to pay the $3 million as well.

Tax Issues

Connecticut cannabis-businesses are obligated to pay a sales tax of 6.35%, a gross receipts tax of 3% and a privilege tax of $0.00625-$0.0275 per mg of THC, depending on the item. Other than New York, Connecticut is the only state to have a tax based on the potency of the cannabis product.

Federal Tax Subject to Section 280E

On the federal level, cannabis businesses are subject to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, which disallows deductions and credits for expenditures connected with trafficking in controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, schedule 1 or 2. As cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, cannabis companies are only permitted to reduce their sales by cost of goods sold when determining their taxable income. By example, a cannabis dispensary would only be allowed to deduct the cost of the product purchased and the cost to transport the product to the dispensary, while disallowing such significant expenses as rent and payroll. All cannabis businesses must forgo expense deductions related to selling, general and administrative expenses, as they are disallowed under the tax code.

While some states like California have not conformed to 280E and allow their cannabis businesses the same deductions as other businesses, Connecticut is not one of those states. Personal income tax starts with Federal Adjusted Gross Income while corporate income tax starts with Federal taxable income as reported on line 28. There are no provisions that say Section 280E does not apply. This will mean a significantly heavier state tax burden for cannabis businesses.

Labor and Employment Issues

Connecticut state flag

Cannabis is expected to fuel significant employment growth in Connecticut, and experts project more than 11,000 cannabis jobs will be added once the market reaches full capacity. These jobs are expected to include full time and temporary positions in all cannabis verticals: cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, retail, marketing, testing, finance, accounting, legal, compliance and C-suite.

As part of its social equity program, the state has made it clear it would like to see cannabis businesses employ individuals from those communities that have been disadvantaged by the war on cannabis. Connecticut has also made it a requirement that every approved licensee enter into a “labor peace agreement” with a labor union, and that such an agreement shall be an “ongoing material condition of licensure.”

The state is focused on maintaining quality control on all aspects of its adult use cannabis businesses, including the people involved. Licenses are needed for all cannabis employees along with a special license for key employees in managerial positions. Additionally, financiers must be licensed, with a Backer license required for individuals with direct or indirect financial interests in a cannabis establishment totaling 5% or more.

Connecticut cannabis employees must be pre-trained through the state’s Social Equity Council. The state also requires that each license recipient have a workforce development plan approved by the Council “to reinvest or provide employment and training opportunities for individuals in disproportionately impacted areas.”

In Summary

No adult cannabis state has come close to having a smooth opening for it adult use sales program, and Connecticut is no exception. With well-funded groups gaming the license lotteries and medical patients concerned about their continued access to cannabis, the Nutmeg State has its work cut out for it. But with its strong commitment to social equity and its outsized commitment to protecting its medical cannabis patients, Connecticut can serve as a role model for compassionate cannabis capitalism. 2023 will reveal how the state rises to its challenges and matures its cannabis marketplace.

New Jersey’s Careful Approach to Cannabis: Part Two

By Abraham Finberg, Simon Menkes, Rachel Wright
No Comments

Click here to read Part One where we examined the state of the market, licensing, approvals and sales. Part Two delves into all things taxes.

A “Raft” of Taxes

Like New York, New Jersey cannabis companies will be dealing with a raft of taxes:

Federal Section 280E: Will It Apply in New Jersey? Well … Sometimes

Section 280E disallows deductions on federal returns for expenditures connected with the illegal sale of drugs, requiring retail cannabis businesses to add back such significant expenses as rent and wages for sales staff.

Much like New York, cannabis companies in New Jersey can expect a lot of taxes

Unlike New York, New Jersey’s recent cannabis legislation did not state that cannabis businesses were exempt from 280E. However, the state’s individual tax laws do not conform to the internal revenue code, and accountants are inferring that 280E won’t apply to sole proprietorships. Conversely, the state’s corporations must start their tax calculations using Federal taxable income, meaning 280E would apply.

Sales Tax

Retail sales of adult use cannabis are subject to a 7% sales tax. Beginning July 1, 2022, medical cannabis sales are exempt from sales tax.

Purchases by cultivators of farming equipment and related property, such as plants, fertilizer and drip irrigation, are exempt from sales tax. Purchases by all cannabis businesses of materials used to contain, protect, wrap and deliver adult use cannabis are exempt from sales tax.

Excise Tax

The CRC has been empowered to collect a “Social Equity Excise Fee”, to be adjusted annually. The fee is currently $1.10 per ounce, but the CRC is able, but not mandated, to amend the fees to between $10 and $60 an ounce after nine months of adult use sales. At least 70 percent of all cannabis tax revenue is earmarked for investing into impact zones.

The fee is imposed on any sale or transfer of cannabis from a cultivator (or alternative treatment center that also cultivates) to any other cannabis business. The fee is not imposed on transfers from one cultivator to another, or from a cultivator to an alternative treatment center. The facility that purchases the cannabis is responsible for collecting the fee and remitting it to the NJ Division of Taxation.

Local Cannabis Transfer and User Taxes

Each municipality is authorized to impose a Local Cannabis Transfer Tax on sales from one cannabis establishment to another (including from one cultivator to another), and on the sale of cannabis to retail consumers. The allowed rate is capped at 2% of receipts, with the exception of cannabis wholesaler sales, which are capped at 1%.

Atlantic City, which considers itself friendly toward cannabis, passed an ordinance in September 2021 authorizing the collection of a 2% tax on retail adult use cannabis sales and a 1% tax on wholesale sales. Many cities with alternative treatment centers already have a 2% tax on medical cannabis. It is assumed they’ll be enacting the 2% transfer tax on adult use sales if approved to operate.

Other Unique Points About New Jersey Cannabis

  1. Adult use sales are limited: adults may possess up to one ounce total of cannabis products and can only purchase one ounce at a time.
  2. New Jersey is the only state that has legalized cannabis, but kept it illegal for a cannabis consumer to grow their own weed. Growing even one cannabis plant can land the offender in prison for up to five years and incur a $25,000 fine.
  3. About 400 municipalities have opted not to have retail cannabis shops; 98 have said yes. The new law has caused battles between mayors and their city councils, including the city of Paramus. 60% of Paramus residents voted in favor of adult use sales, and the mayor has stressed the benefit of the 2% transfer tax. Paramus city council unanimously rejected adult use cannabis, however. Some council members are against any sales, while others want to wait and see how other towns fare. Says Council Member Maria Elena Bellinger, “Ultimately … I feel that getting more data will only help us come to the right solution.”

Time Will Tell

New Jersey believes its careful approach will create the best adult use cannabis environment for its citizens. Only time will tell if the Garden State ends up avoiding some or all of the problems faced by states like California and New York.