Arizona Legislators Introduce HB 2557 to Overturn Voters Approval of Proposition 203

The voters of Arizona spoke when a majority approved Proposition 203.  Now a group of elected elites who know what is best for the people of Arizona introduced House Bill 2557 (aka the “Don’t Divert Money from the Drug Cartels Act”) on January 26, 2011, for the sole purpose of killing Arizona’s medical marijuana industry before it begins.  Maybe the goal of the elites is to kill the dispensary industry so that under Proposition 203 nobody will live within 25 miles of a dispensary so all licensed patients can grow their own throughout the entire state.

Yesterday Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne issued a press release that said Arizona could impose a sales tax on medical marijuana and he estimated Arizona would collect $40 million in badly needed revenue.  If HB 2557 passes, Arizona can kiss the medical marijuana industry good bye, which means no need for the 125 would be dispensaries to hire thousands of employees, security personnel, growers, transporters and the many other types of ancillary jobs that the industry would generate.

Here is the key language in HB 2557.  It will amend Arizona Revised Statutes Section 42-5010 by adding the following as new subsection A.5 to read:

The tax imposed by this article is levied and shall be collected at the following rates:

THREE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE TAX BASE AS COMPUTED FOR THE BUSINESS OF EVERY PERSON ENGAGING OR CONTINUING IN THIS STATE IN THE NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY CLASSIFICATION DESCRIBED IN SECTION 42-5077.

HB 2557 will add the following new section 42-5077 to Arizona’s statutes:

42-5077. Nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary classification

A.  THE NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY CLASSIFICATION IS COMPRISED OF THE BUSINESS OF SELLING OR DISPENSING MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO  QUALIFYING PATIENTS PURSUANT TO TITLE 36, CHAPTER 28.1.

B.  THE TAX BASE FOR THE NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY CLASSIFICATION IS THE GROSS PROCEEDS OR GROSS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS.

C.  IF A PERSON WHO IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AS A NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY ALSO SELLS OTHER TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AT RETAIL, THE PERSON’S BOOKS MUST SEPARATELY ACCOUNT FOR SALES OF THE OTHER TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND IF NOT SO KEPT THE TAX UNDER THIS SECTION APPLIES TO  THE TOTAL OF THE PERSON’S ENTIRE GROSS PROCEEDS OR GROSS INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS.

If you want Arizona to have legalized medical marijuana, you must tell your legislators to impose a reasonable tax on medical marijuana of 5% – 7%.  Here’s the contact information for the Arizona legislators who introduced this bill (more…)

By |2017-02-11T17:28:53-07:00January 27th, 2011|AZ Legislation, Legal Issues, Tax Issues|Comments Off on Arizona Legislators Introduce HB 2557 to Overturn Voters Approval of Proposition 203

Medical Marijuana Will be Taxed Says Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne

Here is the text of a January 26, 2011, press release by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne:

HORNE TO RECOMMEND TAXATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Phoenix (Wednesday January 26, 2011) – Attorney General Tom Horne today announced that he is recommending to the Arizona Department of Revenue that medical marijuana, made legal in a recent initiative, be taxed by the State.

Horne stated, “I was opposed to the medical marijuana initiative during the 2010 election, but it was passed by the voters and the issue now presented is whether it should be taxed under existing law.”

He added, “Normally, there would be no tax on prescriptions. However, the legislation refers to doctors giving a ‘written certification’ rather than a prescription, an apparent effort, copied from other states, to protect doctors from discipline for giving prescriptions of substances prohibited under federal law. Since these are ‘written certifications’ rather than prescriptions, the sale of the substance can be taxed by the State, and we are recommending to the Department of Revenue that it tax the sales accordingly. We are informed by the Department of Revenue that they will take this advice, and tax the sales.”

The taxes are estimated to yield revenues to the State of Arizona in the approximate amount of $40 million per year. This number is projected, on a pro rata basis, to the Arizona population the statistics for Denver County, as reported by the Denver Post using the Phoenix sales tax rate.

By |2011-01-26T21:09:26-07:00January 26th, 2011|Legal Issues, Tax Issues|Comments Off on Medical Marijuana Will be Taxed Says Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne

Medical Cannabis Dispensaries: Minimizing the Cost of IRC Section 280E

Luigi Zamarra, CPA is the Chief Financial Officer of Harborside Health Center, recognized as one of the largest medical cannabis dispensaries in the United States.  Mr. Zamarra has written an interesting article entitled “Medical Cannabis Dispensaries: Minimizing the Cost of IRC Section 280E” that is a must read for all prospective owners of Arizona medical marijuana dispensaries.  The article explains how a medical marijuana business that is legal under state law can allocate its expenses between deductible and nondeductible expenses so as to comply with the Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Tax Court case and also deduct a substantial portion of its “nontrafficking” expenses.  Mr. Zamarra says:

“Making a 280E calculation is a three-step process. First, allocate all occupancy costs between Retail (this term is used herein to denote those operations, a portion of which would ordinarily be considered “trafficking” as this term is used in Section 280E) and Non-Retail operations. Second, make the same allocation for all payroll-related costs. Third, apply the ‘Transactional Factor’.”

Circular 230 Notice:  Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department regulations, I am required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including  links, is not intended or written to be used, and  may not be used, for the purpose of  (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

By |2015-04-06T18:49:23-07:00December 27th, 2010|Tax Issues|Comments Off on Medical Cannabis Dispensaries: Minimizing the Cost of IRC Section 280E

Internal Revenue Code Section 280E

How to Calculate the Taxable Income of a Medical Marijuana Dispensary Business Under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code

In the U.S. Tax Court case of Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 128 T.C. No. 14 (2007), the issue before the court was whether the Petitioner (CHAMP) could deduct ordinary expenses of $213,000 incurred in its medical marijuana business, a business that was legal under California law.  The Tax Court held that Internal Revenue Code Section 280E prohibited the deductions.  Here are some relevant statements made by the Court in its opinion:

Accrual method taxpayers such as petitioner may generally deduct the ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business. See sec. 162(a).

Items specified in section 162(a) are allowed as deductions, subject to exceptions listed in section 261. See sec. 161. Section 261 provides that“no deduction shall in any case be allowed in respect of the items specified in this part.”

The phrase “this part” refers to part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1, entitled “Items NotDeductible”. “Expenditures in Connection With the Illegal Sale of Drugs” is an item specified in part IX. 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.”

In the context of section 280E, marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance. See, e.g., Sundel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-78, affd. without published opinion 201 F.3d 428(1st Cir. 1999). Such is so even when the marijuana is medical marijuana recommended by a physician as appropriate to benefit the health of the user.

As a result of the CHAMP case and Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, it is very easy to calculate the taxable income of a business that’s only business is growing or selling medical marijuana.  Here’s how it works:

Gross Income – Cost of Goods Sold = Taxable Income

By |2012-08-05T10:31:54-07:00December 27th, 2010|Tax Issues|Comments Off on Internal Revenue Code Section 280E

Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

In 2007 the U.S. Tax Court held that Internal Revenue Code Section 280E prevents expenses incurred in a business of growing or selling medical marijuana that is legal under California law from being deductible in determining the taxable income of the business for federal income tax purposes.

128 T.C. No. 14

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

CALIFORNIANS HELPING TO ALLEVIATE MEDICAL PROBLEMS, INC., Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
, Respondent

Docket No. 20795-05
Filed May 15, 2007

P provided counseling and other caregiving services (collectively, caregiving services) to its members, who were individuals with debilitating diseases. P also provided its members with medical marijuana pursuant to the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.5 (West Supp. 2007). P charged its members a membership fee that generally reimbursed P for its costs of the caregiving services and its costs of the medical marijuana. R determined that all of P’s expenses were nondeductible under sec. 280E, I.R.C., because, R determined, the expenses were incurred in connection with the trafficking of a controlled substance.

Held: Sec. 280E, I.R.C., precludes P from deducting its expenses attributable to its provision of medical marijuana.

Held, further, P’s provision of its caregiving services and its provision of medical marijuana were separate trades or businesses for purposes of sec. 280E, I.R.C.; thus, sec. 280E, I.R.C., does not preclude P from deducting the expenses attributable to the caregiving services.

Matthew Kumin, Henry G. Wykowski, and Willian G. Panzer, for petitioner.

Margaret A. Martin, for respondent.

LARO, Judge: Respondent determined a $355,056 deficiency in petitioner’s 2002 Federal income tax and a $71,011 accuracy related penalty under section 6662(a) . (Note 1)  Following concessions by respondent, including a concession that petitioner is not liable for the determined accuracy-related penalty, we decide whether section 280E precludes petitioner from deducting the ordinary and necessary expenses attributable to its provision of medical marijuana pursuant to the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.5 (WestSupp. 2007).   (Note 2)  We hold that those deductions are precluded. We also decide  whether section 280E precludes petitioner from deducting the ordinary and necessary expenses attributable to its provision of counseling and other caregiving services (collectively, caregiving services). We hold that those deductions are not precluded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Certain facts were stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference. When the petition was filed, petitioner was an inactive California corporation whose mailing address was in San Francisco, California. Petitioner was organized on December 24, 1996, pursuant to the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, Cal. Corp. Code secs. 5110-6910. (West 1990). (Note 3)  Its articles of incorporation stated that it “is organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational and scientific purposes” and “The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes”. Petitioner did not have Federal tax-exempt status, and it operated as an approximately break-even (i.e., the amount of its income approximated the amount of its expenses) community center for members with debilitating diseases. Approximately 47 percent of petitioner’s members suffered from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS); the remainder suffered from cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other serious illnesses. Before joining petitioner, petitioner’s executive director had 13 years of experience in health services as a coordinator of a statewide program that trained outreach workers in AIDS prevention work. (more…)

By |2010-12-27T19:00:28-07:00December 27th, 2010|Tax Issues|1 Comment

Must My Nonprofit Arizona Medical Marijuana Dispensary Be a Federal Tax-exempt Organization?

Question:  Must My Nonprofit Arizona Medical Marijuana Dispensary Be a Federal Tax-exempt Organization?

Answer:  No and thankfully no!  Arizona Revised Statutes Section 36-2806.A states: “A registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary need not be recognized as tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service.”  If Proposition 203 required dispensaries to become tax-exempt organizations, the IRS would deny every application because it would not allow any business engaged in violating federal law to become exempt from federal income taxes.  In addition, even if it were possible for a dispensary to obtain a tax exemption, the consequences would be disastrous for most dispensaries.  Tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from paying excess benefits to owners, directors, officers and insiders.  If excess benefits are paid, the tax penalties are severe – 100% of the excess benefit PER YEAR since the payment until the penalty is paid in full.

By |2017-02-11T17:03:09-07:00December 20th, 2010|Legal Issues, Questions People Ask, Tax Issues|Comments Off on Must My Nonprofit Arizona Medical Marijuana Dispensary Be a Federal Tax-exempt Organization?

IRS Auditing Harborside Health Center Oakland’s Biggest Pot Dispensary

The Bay Citizen:  “In an ominous portent of the clash between federal and state law over medical marijuana, the IRS is auditing the Bay Area’s largest medical pot dispensary, Harborside Health Center . . . . a Nov. 15 letter that Harborside sent to Sen. Barbara Boxer asking for tweaks in tax laws that can result in near-crippling taxes on pot dispensaries . . . . Harborside has exploded in popularity with 58,000 members . . . . The dispensary brings in around $20 million in revenue each year”

By |2017-10-07T09:54:49-07:00December 10th, 2010|Stories & Articles, Tax Issues, Video|Comments Off on IRS Auditing Harborside Health Center Oakland’s Biggest Pot Dispensary
Go to Top