Tag Archives: treasury

Making the Cannabis Industry SAFER for America

By Melissa Kuipers Blake, Osiris Morel
No Comments

After nearly a decade of conversation and education on the Hill, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee finally held a markup on the Secure and Fair Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act. Previously known as the SAFE Banking Act, the “R” was included to account for Sen. Jack Reed’s (D-RI) concerns with Section 10. The senator shared his concerns publicly on May 11 during the “Examining Cannabis Banking Challenges of Small Businesses and Workers” hearing. Sen. Reed said that Section 10’s language “would make it more difficult for federal regulators to raise the alarm about relationships with any customer that presents significant risks to the bank” and shared that such a provision is “not limited to the marijuana industry or the cannabis industry,” but that it “could allow pyramid schemes or all sorts of other interesting activity to go on without an effective response by the regulator.” Since then, he and a group of bipartisan members, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), have worked endlessly to develop language to resolve such concerns while maintaining GOP support, leading to the SAFER Banking Act.

Number of Depository Institutions Actively Banking
Cannabis-Related Businesses in the United States
(Reported in SARS)

The difference between the SAFE Banking Act and the SAFER Banking Act can mainly be found in Section 10. Changes focus on and determines:

  • How regulators terminate bank accounts;
  • How the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) develops guidance for financial institutions serving state-licensed cannabis businesses;
  • How income derived from state-legal cannabis business activity is managed;
  • That personal and political beliefs cannot impact a financial regulator’s decision making;
  • That federal banking regulators and state banking supervisors and their secretaries of Commerce and Treasury would create rules to increase access to deposit accounts and how such individuals would enhance customer relationships with rural, low- and moderate-income, unbanked and tribal communities; and
  • How the FDIC would conduct a biennial survey and report on barriers for small- and medium-sized businesses.

During the markup on Wednesday, members introduced and discussed a range of amendments related to criminal justice reform, the racial wealth gap, federal regulators and their processes, rescheduling and the opioid epidemic. In total, there were six amendments, one by Chairman Brown, as well as Sens. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Mike Rounds (R-SD) and two by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA). Sen. Brown’s amendment, which would make technical changes to the bill, was the only amendment to prevail on a 17-6 vote.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (center), Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (right) and Senator Cory Booker (left)

To begin the markup, Chair Brown said that propelling this legislation is a critical step in reversing the damage done by the war on drugs and clarified that the SAFER Banking Act would create a better financial system for small and medium-sized cannabis businesses that lack access to such traditional banking services. Sen. Daines, who served as the committee ranking member in place of Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), who was in California preparing for the Republican presidential debate, shared that although he opposes legalization or decriminalization, he agreed to sponsor and support the SAFER Banking Act because it would fix the current banking system for cannabis businesses nationwide. After hearing remarks from Sens. Lummis, Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Sinema, the committee voted on the bill, and approved its passage to the Senate floor on a 14-9 vote. Senators voting in favor of the bill were Brown, Tester, Warren, Reed, Menendez (by proxy), Smith (by proxy), Warner, Fetterman, Cortez-Masto, Sinema, Van Hollen, Lummis, Cramer and Daines, and voting against the measure were Sens. Warnock, Scott (by proxy), Crapo, Tillis, Kennedy, Haggerty, Vance and Britt.

After the vote, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) thanked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Republican Sen. Cory Gardner (CO) for their early efforts and for bringing the legislation and issue to the chamber’s attention and concluded that he hopes to have a robust discussion with the full Senate chamber.

With the bill out of committee, it heads to the Senate floor for additional input, discussion and potentially a vote. Majority Leader Schumer has said he intends to bring the SAFER Banking Act to the floor “with all due speed” and noted that he is committed to attaching Rep. Dave Joyce’s (R-OH) Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement (HOPE) Act and Rep. Brian Mast’s (R-FL) Gun Rights and Marijuana (GRAM) Act to the final legislation. Sen. Schumer also shared that such provisions would address the war on drugs, bolster social equity and criminal justice reform and protect Second Amendment rights for medical cannabis patients.

When the SAFER Banking Act will receive floor time remains unclear, but Leader Schumer has made numerous representations that he would like to see it done this year.

CARES Act – Stimulus Package Won’t Aid the Cannabis Industry

By Steve Levine, Megan Herr
3 Comments

On Wednesday, March 25, the United States Senate approved an estimated $2-trillion stimulus package in response to the economic impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. The legislation, formally known as the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (or the CARES Act), was approved by the Senate 96-0 following days of negotiations. One of the most highly anticipated provisions of the CARES Act, the “recovery rebates” for individuals, will provide a one-time cash payment up to $1,200 per qualifying individual ($2,400 in the case of eligible individuals filing a joint return) plus an additional $500 for qualifying children (§6428.2020(a)). The CARES Act, which remains subject to House approval, also prescribes an additional $500 billon in corporate aid, $100 billion to health-care providers, $150 billion to state and local governments and $349 billion in small business loans in an effort to provide continued employment and stabilize the economy. The legislation further provides billions of dollars in debt relief on existing loans.

CARES Act – Paycheck Protection Program 

Under the CARES Act, small businesses who participate in the “Paycheck Protection Program” can receive loans to cover payroll expenses, group health care benefits, employee salaries, interest on mortgage obligations, rent, and utilities (§1102(F)(i)). To qualify for these small business loans, businesses must employ 500 employees or less, including all full-time and part-time employees (§1102(D)). Eligible recipients must also submit the following as part of their loan application: (i) documentation verifying the number of full-time equivalent employees on payroll and applicable pay rates; (ii) documentation verifying payments on covered mortgage obligations, payments on covered lease obligations, and covered utility payments; and (iii) a certification that the documentation presented is true and the amounts requested will be used to retain employees and make necessary payments (§1106(e)). The CARES Act delegates authority to depository institutions, insured credit unions, institutions of the Farm Credit System and other lenders to provide loans under this program (§1109(b)). The Treasury Department will be tasked with establishing all interest rates, loan maturity dates, and all other necessary terms and conditions. Prior to issuing these loans, lenders will consider whether the business (i) was in operation as of February 15, 2020, (ii) had employees for whom the business paid salaries and payroll, or (iii) aid independent contractors as reported on a Form 1099-MISC (§1102(F)(ii)(II)).

What Does This Mean for Cannabis Businesses?

Due to the continued Schedule I status of cannabis (excluding hemp) under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), cannabis businesses are not eligible to participate in the Paycheck Protection Program intended to keep “small businesses” afloat during the current economic crisis. Because federal law still prohibits banks from supporting marijuana businesses, financial institutions remain hesitant to service the industry, as anti-money laundering concerns and Bank Secrecy Act requirements (31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.) are ever-present. As a result, even if cannabis businesses technically qualify to receive federal assistance under the Paycheck Protection Program, they will face an uphill battle in actually obtaining such loans.

Cannabis Businesses Are Also Precluded from “Disaster” Assistance

Moreover, the conflict between state and federal law continues to prevent cannabis business from receiving assistance from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 6201). In light of the COVID-19 outbreak, the SBA revised its “Disaster Loan” process to provide low-interest “Disaster Loans” to eligible small businesses. To qualify for these loans, a state must submit documented business losses for at least five businesses per county. The problem, however, is that the SBA still refuses to assist state-legal cannabis businesses in equal need of small business loans. Specifically, in a 2018 Policy Notice, the SBA reaffirmed that cannabis businesses – and even some non “plant-touching” firms who service the cannabis industry – cannot receive aid in the form of federally backed loans, as “financial transactions involving a marijuana-related business would generally involve funds derived from illegal activity.” The 2018 Policy Notice clarified that the following business are ineligible to receive SBA loans:

(a) “Direct Marijuana Business” — a business that grows, produces, processes, distributes, or sells marijuana or marijuana products, edibles, or derivatives, regardless of the amount of such activity. This applies to personal use and medical use even if the business is legal under local or state law where the applicant business is or will be located.

 (b) “Indirect Marijuana Business” — a business that derived any of its gross revenue for the previous year (or, if a start-up, projects to derive any of its gross revenue for the next year) from sales to Direct Marijuana Businesses of products or services that could reasonably be determined to support the use, growth, enhancement or other development of marijuana. Examples include businesses that provide testing services, or sell grow lights or hydroponic equipment, to one or more Direct Marijuana Businesses. In addition, businesses that sell smoking devices, pipes, bongs, inhalants, or other products that may be used in connection with marijuana are ineligible if the products are primarily intended or designed for such use or if the business markets the products for such use.

More recently, the SBA provided further clarification that cannabis businesses are not entitled to receive a cut of the federal dollars being appropriated for disaster relief because of the CSA’s continued prohibition of the sale and distribution of cannabis. Last week, the SBA reiterated that:

“With the exception of businesses that produce or sell hemp and hemp-derived products [federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill], marijuana related businesses are not eligible for SBA-funded services.” (@SBAPacificNW)

Consequently, because of the continued Schedule I status of cannabis under federal law, cannabis businesses will not be entitled to receive Disaster Loans from the SBA, regardless of whether they qualify as a struggling small business.

Resolving the Issue

While the federal government has been considering legislation, such as SAFE Banking and the STATES Act, to create a more rational federal cannabis policy, neither of these bills are likely to pass any time soon given the current COVID-19 pandemic.

At the end of the day, until Congress passes some form of federal cannabis legalization, these small businesses will remain plagued by the inability to receive financial assistance, as evinced by the Paycheck Protection Program.

NCIA Releases Guidelines for Federal Cannabis Regulation

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

On Tuesday, October 1, the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) announced the release of their whitepaper, which provides guidance to the federal government on how cannabis could be regulated at the federal level. “The paper highlights the need to have a clearly defined regulatory approach and structure prepared as the nation moves closer to making cannabis legal for adults, and identifies the existing agencies best suited to regulate the wide variety of cannabis products available in state-regulated legal cannabis markets,” according to a press release.

To view the full white paper and see how the NCIA Policy Council envisions a federal regulatory framework, click here.

The whitepaper was released on October 1. On October 2, Andrew Kline, director of public policy at NCIA, delivered the keynote presentation at the Cannabis Quality Conference in Illinois. His keynote delved into a number of issues related to the progress that cannabis legalization has made on Capitol Hill.

Andrew Kline, at the Cannabis Quality Conference, discussing the NCIA white paper.

Importantly, Kline also discussed the white paper and its four-lane approach to regulating cannabis at the federal level. “We believe rescheduling is bad public policy,” Kline mentioned during his keynote. Their stance is that cannabis should be rescheduled and regulated in a couple of different approaches. “We believe cannabis should be a public health issue and the FDA and the Department of Treasury should regulate cannabis much like they do alcohol.” Kline went into great depth later in the talk, discussing the four-lane plan for regulation, a state of affairs for cannabis bills in Congress and how members of the cannabis industry can get involved. “Right now, there is an unsustainable federalism clash, with cannabis as an illegal schedule I narcotic, while 33 states have legalized it, which leaves a lot of confusion in the marketplace and little protections for consumers; and we need to fix it.”

Lane 1 refers to pharmaceutical drugs, such as Epidiolex, where cannabis drugs can go through the new drug approval process, giving the FDA ultimate regulatory authority in this area. Lane 2 applies to ingested, inhaled or topically applied products with THC. This generally applies to all products containing THC. This lane gives regulatory authority to the Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), essentially regulating cannabis like alcohol or cigarettes. Lane 3 is for ingested and inhaled products with less than 0.3% THC. These would be regulated like dietary supplements and food ingredients, giving the FDA regulatory oversight here as well. Lane 4 applies only to topical products with less than 0.3% THC, regulating them much like the FDA does with cosmetic products.

The above summary is not thorough or detailed. We highly encourage our readers to read the full whitepaper to understand how cannabis could be regulated at the federal level and how the NCIA thinks the government should do so.

“As a country, we are starting to move past whether we should end cannabis prohibition, and need to put serious consideration into how we do that and what a post-legalization world looks like in terms of federal regulatory policy,” says Aaron Smith, executive director at NCIA, in a press release. “The recommendations outlined in this report build on successful methodologies by assigning regulatory duties to existing agencies, while avoiding restrictions that would not be appropriate for cannabis as well as some of the missteps that have occurred with other products. We look forward to working with Congress to overturn our outdated federal marijuana laws and begin implementing this structure to help ensure public safety and displace the illicit cannabis market.”

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

By Zachary Gordon, Jason Hoffman
No Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Zachary Gordon, Jason Hoffman
3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.