On June 7, 2018, a supermajority of the Washington Legislature blessed financial institutions and accountants providing services for the licensed marijuana industry. The new law is comfort legislation for a special class in Washington. It is also a protest against impressions about the threat of federal prosecution. But what comfort is the legislation for persons falling outside the protected group? Does it provide any comfort or is it the proverbial cold comfort? The answer may be economics and politics (limited funds to target violent crime, federal/state relations and votes) should reduce the threat of prosecution, regardless of the new legislation.
Continue Reading 2018 Washington State Comfort Legislation for the Financial Industry and Accountants Dealing With Licensed Marijuana Businesses
Where’s My Money? Oregon Sales Tax Refunds
In our last installment, we discussed the reasons why Oregon’s cannabis sales tax should not apply to cannabis seeds. So what do you do if you believe that a retailer wrongfully charged you sales tax on seeds or any other cannabis item? There’s a law for that!
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 475B.740 requires that
The Price Is Wrong: Oregon Wrongfully Asserts Cannabis Sales Tax Applies to Seeds
The Oregon Department of Revenue (ODOR) recently issued a permanent administrative rule relating to the retail sales tax imposed on certain marijuana items. OAR 150-475-2100. The rule itself provides guidance to retailers on how certain types of marijuana items should be classified and how such items should be subject to the retail sales tax imposed
Congress Mutes the Impact of 280E
Sometimes the best place to hide something is in plain sight. That’s what Congress did in December when they passed the tax reform. In plain sight they (inadvertently?) muted the impact of 280E for corporate taxpayers.
How? Why? Because Congress lowered the corporate tax rate to 21%. IRC 280E denies deductions for costs associated with
Making a Difference: Public Comment on Oregon Proposed Rulemaking
Most government agencies rely on an informal rulemaking process when drafting and finalizing rules interpreting the law. This process generally requires the appropriate government agency to notify the public of the proposed new rule or proposed modifications to existing rules. The government agency generally must consider all comments received before finalizing a rule.
An exception
IRS Rifles Through Cannabis Records
A federal judge in Colorado recently upheld a summons issued by the IRS to the Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) of the Colorado Department of Revenue. Rifle Remedies, LLC v. U.S., 120 AFTR 2d 2017-5447, (DC CO), 10/26/2017. The ruling contains very few facts but suggests that a taxpayer actively engaged in the cannabis industry
Cashed Cannabis: Required Reports for Amounts Exceeding $10,000
Is your cannabis business ready for an IRS exam? IRS examinations are increasingly focused on IRS Form 8300 reporting requirements. These requirements are the result of USA PATRIOT Act provisions requiring all trades or businesses to report their receipt of more than $10,000 in currency in a single transaction or in two or more related transactions. 31 USC §5331 and 31 CFR §1010.320.
The required currency filing must be made in accordance with IRS Form 8300 instructions. The instructions provide that the form must be mailed to the IRS Detroit Computing Center or electronically filed within 15 days of receipt of the currency. Filers must also provide each person named on its filed Forms 8300 with a specified written statement by January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the currency was received. The statement must show the name, telephone number, and address of the information contact for the business, the aggregate amount of the reportable cash received, and note that the information was furnished to the IRS.Continue Reading Cashed Cannabis: Required Reports for Amounts Exceeding $10,000
DEA Just Said No to Rescheduling Cannabis: Why It Matters
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) recently denied a petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Thus, cannabis will remain a Schedule I substance under the CSA. Prior to the announcement, there was a good deal of speculation that the DEA was considering rescheduling cannabis to Schedule II.
Continue Reading DEA Just Said No to Rescheduling Cannabis: Why It Matters
Recreational Cannabis — Section 280E and Tax Efficient Structuring
I. The Conflict: The Long Arm of Federal Law
Recreational cannabis businesses operate in a world of conflicting state and federal laws. Several states have legalized recreational cannabis, yet, under federal law, cannabis remains an illegal Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The CSA created five classifications of controlled substances. These classifications range from Schedule I to Schedule V, with varying qualifications for a substance to be included in each. The criteria for a Schedule I controlled substance includes a high potential for abuse, a lack of currently accepted medical use, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Controlled substances in Schedules II through V generally have a lower potential for abuse and/or some degree of currently accepted medical use. On April 4, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy issued a letter indicating the DEA intends to reconsider the classification of cannabis in the first half of 2016. It is unclear if the DEA will continue to classify cannabis as a Schedule I drug, reclassify it to a different schedule, or remove it from the five schedules of controlled substances. Legalization at the state level does not protect recreational cannabis businesses from federal prosecution. The federal government continues its war on drugs and drug trafficking. This war currently includes cannabis. Cannabis businesses need cannabis to be removed from the schedules of controlled substances in order to eliminate the threat of federal prosecution.
State legalization rules are limited in scope to in-state purchase and consumption in an effort to “legitimize” the legislation and avoid federal intervention. For instance, state laws in Oregon and Washington do not permit a recreational cannabis consumer to acquire cannabis in Washington and later consume it in Oregon. States have carefully drafted their laws to prohibit importing or exporting cannabis. It is not so easy, however, to prevent federal intervention in all respects, and the long arm of federal law is felt most deeply in two areas: taxation and banking. This article addresses the tax challenges.Continue Reading Recreational Cannabis — Section 280E and Tax Efficient Structuring