Connect with us

One-Hit Wonders

Holland & Hart: Cannabis Taxation: Where Does the Money Go?

Published

on


Cannabis tax revenue remains a central argument for legalization. In the decade since adult-use markets first launched, local, and state governments have allocated billions of dollars in collected cannabis taxes to fund educational infrastructure, substance abuse prevention and treatment programs, public safety and many other initiatives designed to improve the lives of those living in states with legal cannabis markets.

There is an irony here. It is almost as if the drug war has turned in on itself, with money from the once demonized cannabis plant being used on treatment and support of individuals addicted to pharmaceutical opioids, alcohol, and other “legal” drugs.

It’s also important to scrutinize how cannabis taxes are structured and acknowledge the harms of overregulation and overtaxation, something we have seen at Holland & Hart time and again helping licensed operators navigate complex cannabis regulations for tax collecting, license transfers, reporting, and other compliance matters. One thing is clear: while the goals are noble, cannabis taxation has its flaws and unforeseen consequences.

Types of Taxes on Cannabis

Tax structures governing cannabis sales vary across legal markets. Some states levy multiple taxes (such as an excise tax on wholesale transfers), and local governments commonly impose their own separate taxes. Of course, all of these cannabis taxes get passed to the consumer, who may also pay general state and local sales taxes on their purchases.

The complexity doesn’t end there. States tax various cannabis products in different ways, including: a percentage-of-price tax, a weight-based tax, and a potency-based tax. For example, Washington levies a 37% sales tax on cannabis purchases, while Illinois does not have any sales tax but does levy a 7% excise tax of value at the wholesale level, a 10% tax on cannabis flower or products with less than 35% THC, a 20% tax on products infused with cannabis, such as edible products, and a 25% tax on any product with a THC concentration higher than 35%.

Cannabis Tax Revenue Funding

All of those percentages of sale add up quite quickly and are allocated in different ways. Some of the cannabis tax revenue goes to education-related initiatives like school construction, school food programs, before- and after-school enrichment programs, and public libraries. Other funding is directed toward public health and community programs like alcohol and drug treatment, job training, conviction expungement, and services for veterans. Investment in traditionally underserved or underdeveloped communities is also common in some states.

It’s important to note that tax structures are subject to change due to sunsetting legislation, ballot initiatives, and other bureaucratic maneuvers. Here is where the money currently goes in some of the states with the highest returns from cannabis taxation.

Colorado

Colorado voters legalized adult use of cannabis in 2012 and state-licensed dispensaries started sales in 2014. Colorado levies a standard state sales tax (2.9%), a retail marijuana sales tax (15%), and a retail marijuana excise tax (15%) on wholesale sales/transfers of retail marijuana. In 2021, Colorado recorded $423,486,053 in cannabis tax revenue.

The state allocates 10% of the collected marijuana retail tax to local governments, apportioned according to the percentage of sales occurring within city and county boundaries. The remaining 90% is allocated as follows:

  • 15.56% of the revenue goes to the General Fund
    • Education
    • Health care
    • Human services
    • Corrections
  • 12.59% goes to the Public School Fund
  • 71.85% goes to the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund
    • Health care
    • Health education
    • Substance abuse prevention and treatment programs
    • Law enforcement
    • Education
      • The School Health Professional Grant program to address behavioral health issues in schools.
      • A grant program to help schools and districts set up initiatives to reduce the frequency of bullying incidents.
      • Grants to fund drop-out prevention programs.
      • Early Literacy Competitive Grants to ensure reading is embedded into K-3 curriculum.
      • A grant to expand concurrent enrollment programs.
      • Grants to fund physical education courses and social-emotional health programs for K-5 students.

Revenue from the excise tax of wholesale sales goes to the Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) fund. The first $40 million collected annually is earmarked for capital construction projects “to repair or replace Colorado’s most needy public school facilities.” The cannabis money is commingled with State Land Board proceeds, Colorado Lottery spillover funds, and interest accrued in the Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund. Matching funds are required by statute and calculated based on a series of factors, from the particular district’s bond election efforts over the past 10 years to the district’s assessed value per pupil. School projects completed thanks to the BEST fund include HVAC and electrical upgrades, fire and safety improvements, roof replacements, adding ADA-compliant restrooms and abating hazardous materials.

In Denver, the City Council recently announced approval to use approximately $15 million of Denver’s cannabis sales tax for the city’s first investment program focused on minority and women-owned businesses. Establishing quality job opportunities, a pipeline of entrepreneurs and small business startups, and generational wealth for Denver-based business owners who have historically lacked investment opportunities, are the goals of the Malone Fund.

Washington State

Washington launched adult-use sales in 2014, a few months behind Colorado. With its 37% cannabis retail tax coupled with a 6.5% standard retail sales tax, the state pulled in $559.5 million in 2021. Some of the funds directed to public health and research include:

  • The state health authority for an annual healthy youth survey
    • Measure drug use and other behaviors that contribute to morbidity, mortality, and social problems
  • The University of Washington for marijuana-related educational programs
  • The state’s health professions account
    • Provides an accounting and resource allocation vehicle for licensing activity of health professions
  • Various state departments for research related to pesticides, licensing, accreditation, and testing

California

The largest legal market in the nation adopted laws for legal adult use in 2016 and collected staggering $1.3 billion in revenue in 2021. The initial taxation arrangement for cultivators was $10.08 per ounce for flower, $3.00 per ounce for leaves, and $1.41 per ounce for fresh plant. But, on July 1, 2022, through AB 195 California announced it would remove cultivation taxes and instead impose a 15% excise tax on retail purchases of cannabis or cannabis products beginning in January 1, 2023. Beginning in the 2025–26 fiscal year and every two years thereafter, California will determine whether the cannabis excise tax rate should be adjusted to ensure revenue generated is in line with what would have been collected through the cultivation tax to a maximum of 19% of the gross receipts of retail sales.

This is how the California distributes its cannabis taxes:

  • All regulatory and research costs must be covered first
  • 60% goes to anti-drug programs
    • Youth Education Prevention, Early Intervention and Treatment Account (YEPEITA)
      • Prevention and early intervention services including outreach, risk survey and education to youth, families, schools, primary care health providers, behavioral health and SUD service providers, community and faith-based organizations, foster care providers, juvenile and family courts, to recognize the reduce risks related to substance use, and the early signs of problematic use.
      • Grants to schools to develop and support Student Assistance Programs, designed to prevent and reduce substance use, and improve school retention and performance. Schools with higher than average drop-out rates will be prioritized for grants.
    • 20% goes to environmental programs
      • Combat illegal grows and wildland restoration
      • Road improvement
      • Local park investment
    • 20% goes to public safety
      • Science and policy research
      • Law enforcement
      • Fire protection
      • Local programming to address public health and safety associated with the implementation of Proposition 64.

Elsewhere, Missouri voters in 2018 adopted Constitutional Amendment 2, known now as Article XIV, which includes a provision requiring that fees and taxes generated by the medical marijuana program, less operational expenses, be transferred to the Missouri Veterans Commission for health and care services for military veterans. Since dispensary sales began in October 2020, more than $335 million in sales have occurred—with almost $9 million going to veterans as of the end of 2021—thanks to a sales tax rate of 4% on medical marijuana.

In Oregon, police and mental health treatment centers receive funding, but the biggest recipients are the state’s schools, which receive 40% of the state’s cannabis tax revenue.

At the national level, cannabis remains illegal, but among various bills in Congress, the MORE Act (Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement) has passed the House and if (ever) approved by the Senate, would establish a sales tax at 5% which would increase to 8% over three years. The tax would be imposed on the retail sales of cannabis and proceeds from the tax would go to a newly established Opportunity Trust Fund. A new governmental organization, the Cannabis Justice Office, would be tasked with overseeing the social equity provisions of the MORE Act.

50% of the money would support a Community Reinvestment Grant Program, 10% would support substance misuse treatment programs, and 40% would go to the federal Small Business Administration to support implementation of a newly created equitable licensing grant program. The Community Reinvestment Grant Program would provide eligible entities with funds to administer services and programs for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.

While the industry has worked with governments to establish reasonable taxation regimes, excessive taxes will drive consumers to the black market. Using cannabis taxes as a resource to fill budget gaps created by tax favoritism of other industries is not a solid approach to responsible fiscal policy. In order for the legalization of cannabis to be a long-term success, the industry, legislatures, regulators, and even prohibitionists need to work together to make sure the safer legal cannabis market is not overtaxed to the point that it can no longer survive.

Source: JD Supra

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cannabis-taxation-where-does-the-money-6588066/



Source link

Continue Reading

One-Hit Wonders

Alert: December 2024 Cannabis Regulation in Mexico: Navigating the New COFEPRIS Permitting Process Under the Judicial Reform

Published

on

By



Alert: December 2024 Cannabis Regulation in Mexico: Navigating the New COFEPRIS Permitting Process Under the Judicial Reform



Source link

Continue Reading

One-Hit Wonders

Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management Issues Rejections to Majority of Social Equity Applicants

Published

on

By


The Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (“OCM”) has begun issuing final denials to the overwhelming majority of previously qualified social equity applicants (“SEA”s) ahead of its first statewide cannabis lottery on December 2 for 280 available “preapproval” cannabis licenses.

Flag of Minnesota in Marijuana leaf shape. The concept of legalization Cannabis in Minnesota. Medical cannabis illustration.

Per reporting from MJ Biz Daily, “The applicants who are barred from the lottery failed to complete the application process or acted improperly by submitting multiple applications or disguising the true investors in their companies, according to [OCM].” Obviously applying for more licenses than is allowed and/or concealing owners or financial interests are clear grounds for SEA application rejection. Other alleged “deficiencies” though may not be so cut and dry.

While state law does not permit appeals from denied applicants (which is not uncommon for states with cannabis licensing programs), impacted SEAs can still secure a review of their records submitted to the OCM within seven days of the rejection decision (by logging into their Accela Citizen Portal and pulling the internal record there).

The main issue emerging as a result of these rejections is the fact that the OCM did not consistently issue deficiency notices to rejected applicants if there was a material problem with their submitted applications (although as of October 16, the OCM had sent out deficiency notices to over 300 SEAs). In turn, there are instances here where SEAs were rejected for minor, seemingly non-material deficiencies in their applications (things like submitting incorrect corporate documentation that still contained the same information the OCM sought, or re-submitting documents upon request by the OCM only to be rejected for lack of the same document after-the-fact, or even blank denials altogether with no stated reason for rejection).

In an interview with the Brainerd Dispatch, Charlene Briner, the interim director of the OCM, cast these denied SEA applications into four categories:

  • Failure to meet the basic qualifying standards under state law (i.e., social equity applicant owning at least 65% of the business among others)
  • Failure to provide the requisite verification documents (i.e., legitimate business plans, source of funds, ID, etc.)
  • Hidden or inconsistent ownership or true parties of interest
  • Fraudsters (i.e., those trying to game the system by flooding it with multiple applications via proxy or otherwise by using the same address or phone number tied to the same person on multiple applications)

The first and second bullet points above are going to be the ripest ground for rejected SEAs to try to stop the OCM prior to the December 2 lottery, but that’s only if those rejected SEAs can very quickly obtain copies of their submitted documents (within 7 days of the rejection) and start the administrative litigation process and/or seek injunctive relief at the same time against the OCM.

What was once more than 1800 qualified social equity applicants for the lottery has been winnowed down to around 640. The OCM rejected applicants for a multitude of reasons, some of which are clearly legitimate and some of which appear to be questionably enforceable from the perspective of complying with Minnesota’s state constitution and its administrative procedure act.

If you’ve been impacted by an OCM rejection, you do not have much time to act ahead of the December 2 lottery. If you have questions about your potential civil or administrative claims against OCM due to a questionable SEA rejection, contact Jeffrey O’BrienHilary Bricken, or Nick Morgan.

Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management Issues Rejections to Majority of Social Equity Applicants



Source link

Continue Reading

One-Hit Wonders

Wait? My CBD Business May Be Racketeering? A Potential Existential Crisis We Have Been Warning About

Published

on

By


Even the most responsible hemp operator should understand that it operates in a world full of risk. But I doubt many of them believe they might be accused of racketeering. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether to sanction a commercial trucker’s attempt to bring a racketeering claim against CBD companies, whose allegedly mislabeled products the trucker claims led to his firing.

As always, Sam Reisman at Law360 distills the issue nicely:

The case concerns an allegation that companies sold CBD products with detectable amounts of THC, purportedly costing plaintiff Douglas J. Horn his job as a commercial trucker after he tested positive on a drug test. Oral arguments on Tuesday hinged largely on whether Horn’s claims stemmed from a personal injury — which would be excluded from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO — or whether his firing was an economic injury and therefore redressable under RICO.

In taking the case, the U.S. Supreme Court could resolve a 3-2 circuit split over whether the civil prongs of the RICO statute allow a plaintiff to seek damages for economic harms stemming from injuries to their person.

Again, from Reisman:

During oral arguments on Tuesday, the liberal wing of the high court expressed skepticism with the CBD companies’ rendering of the case, which they said foregrounded Horn’s ingestion of the product as the source of the injury, as opposed to his firing for a positive drug test.

Lisa Blatt, an attorney for the CBD companies, told the justices that agreeing with Horn’s interpretation of the statute would open the door for virtually limitless personal injury cases under civil RICO, as long as plaintiffs could allege some connection between their ingestion of a product and a loss to their business or property: “Respondent’s rule also leaves the personal exclusion [in civil RICO] toothless, since virtually all personal injuries result in monetary loss,” Blatt said. “It is utterly implausible that Congress federalized every slip-and-fall involving RICO predicates. Personal injuries are serious and may support state tort claims, but they are not the stuff of RICO.”

On the other side, conservative justices attempted to discern how to draw a line between bona fide economic claims and personal injury claims pleaded as economic claims.

Easha Anand, arguing on behalf of Horn, said the vast majority of personal injury claims, such as those alleging pain and suffering or emotional distress, would still be excluded even if Horn was permitted to pursue his RICO claim against the CBD companies: “In your average slip-and-fall case, you’re not going to be able to prove a predicate act, let alone a pattern of predicate acts, let alone a pattern carried on through a racketeering enterprise,” Anand said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch observed, “There’s a failure to warn that this product contains ingredients that your client didn’t know about and should have known about and had a right to know about. I would have thought that that would have been kind of a classic personal injury.”

The Takeaway

This is pretty scary stuff for CBD and other hemp operators. RICO is no joke and carries very serious penalties (both civil and criminal depending on who is bringing the suit).

From the perspective of a CBD manufacturer, it seems unfair to hold the manufacturer responsible to control how its products are used and, as in this case, the implications of that use (here, an alleged economic injury).

If the Court rules that CBD and other hemp manufacturers are subject to RICO charges simply by selling their products to people who do things outside of the manufacturers’ control, it could pose an existential crisis to the industry with potentially unlimited civil (and maybe even criminal) liability. We have warned about this before.

That said, while it’s always difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will vote on any issue, I do not believe the Court will push the hemp industry to the brink. I suspect the Court will either rule that the claims in the present case are personal injury claims excluded from RICO and/or provide guidance for how lower courts should examine such “mixed” claims.

We’ll of course provide additional information once we hear from the Court. Stay tuned.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media