Holder Announced A Major Shift On U.S MJ Policy

posted in: Cannabis News 0

U.S. treasury and law enforcement agencies will soon issue regulations opening banking services to state-sanctioned marijuana businesses even though cannabis remains classified an illegal narcotic under federal law, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Thursday.

Holder said the new rules would address problems faced by newly licensed recreational pot retailers in Colorado, and medical marijuana dispensaries in other states, in operating on a cash-only basis, without access to banking services or credit.

Proprietors of state-licensed marijuana distributors in Colorado and elsewhere have complained of having to purchase inventory, pay employees and conduct sales entirely in cash, requiring elaborate and expensive security measures and putting them at a high risk of robbery.

It also makes accounting for state sales tax-collection purposes difficult.

“You don’t want just huge amounts of cash in these places,” Holder told the audience at the University of Virginia. “They want to be able to use the banking system. And so we will be issuing some regulations I think very soon to deal with that issue.”

Holder’s comments echoed remarks by his deputy, James Cole, in September during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

Colorado this month became the first state to open retail outlets legally permitted to sell marijuana to adults for recreational purposes, in a system similar to what many states have long had in place for alcohol sales.

Washington state is slated to launch its own marijuana retail network later this year, and several other states, including California, Oregon and Alaska, are expected to consider legalizing recreational weed in 2014.

The number of states approving marijuana for medical purposes has also been growing. California was the first in 1996, and has since been followed by about 20 other states and the District of Columbia.

But the fledgling recreational pot markets in Colorado and Washington state have sent a new wave of cannabis proprietors clamoring to obtain loans and make deposits in banks and credit unions.

The Justice Department announced in August that the administration would give new latitude to states experimenting with taxation and regulation of marijuana.

But with the drug still outlawed at the federal level, banks are barred under money-laundering rules from handling proceeds from marijuana sales even in states where pot sales have been made legal.

The lack of credit for marijuana businesses, however, poses its own criminal justice concerns, Holder said.

“There’s a public safety component to this,” he said. “Huge amounts of cash – substantial amounts of cash just kind of lying around with no place for it to be appropriately deposited – is something that would worry me just from a law enforcement perspective.”

Holder did not offer any specifics on a timeline for action on banking services for marijuana. Cole in September said the Justice Department was working on the issue with the Treasury Department’s financial crimes enforcement network.

Critics of liberalized marijuana laws have said the lack of credit faced by pot retailers was beside the point.

“We are in the midst of creating a corporate, for-profit marijuana industry that has to rely on addiction for profit, and that’s a much bigger issue than whether these stores take American Express,” said Kevin Sabet, co-founder of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Reporting by David Ingram in Charlottesville, Virginia; Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Steve Gorman and Lisa Shumaker

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: David Ingram, Reuters
Published: January 24, 2014
Copyright: 2014 Thomson Reuters

Colorado’s Crazy Marijuana Tax

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Taxing what you can’t measure is nonsense. But Colorado voters were poised Tuesday to do just that, by taxing wholesale marijuana sales at 15 percent — when no wholesaler exists. That’s right: Most Colorado adult-use marijuana sales must go directly from producer to consumer with no wholesaling allowed, and no wholesale price as a measure for the wholesale tax! That’s because Colorado law, at least at first, requires vertical integration of marijuana businesses.

Vertical integration? Here’s an example: A wine company owns land, vines and a winery, and sells to consumers only at its own outlet store. Substitute “marijuana grow area” for land and vines, “marijuana production facility” for winery and “marijuana retailer” for outlet store, and you understand the Colorado model. Colorado law will require that at least 70 percent of marijuana sales follow that model, with the supply chain integrated vertically (from top to bottom) — and with no wholesaler.

So how do you apply a wholesale level tax when no wholesaler exists? With great difficulty. Colorado regulatory authorities are struggling for answers.

Basing a tax on a fictitious price means no one will ever know the correct tax. Taxpayers will spend time and money trying to beat the system, and government will spend time and money in self-defense. Government and business are likely to grow irritated with one another as they argue about unanswerable questions.

Our dysfunctional international income tax system should have taught us that taxing what we can’t measure is crazy. Multinational corporations like Google, Amazon and Starbucks pay little tax anywhere as they transfer assets among subsidiaries. What do they charge themselves for those assets? (How much does the right hand charge the left hand?) Current transfer pricing rules allow multinational corporations to construct artificial prices for sales between related parties, sales that almost never occur in the marketplace. “Fabled tax wizards” working for multinationals come up with a “tax return position” — the company’s view of how much tax it should pay. (Not much, and often zero.) Why make the same mistake — opening the door to artificial pricing — in taxing marijuana?

Back to Colorado’s tax mess, and its warnings: Vertical integration (the no-wholesalers rule), imposed by the Legislature in 2013, could coexist easily with a tax based on weight or potency. That is, to tax marijuana at so many cents per gram, you never need to know the price. But a price-based, wholesale level tax was locked into place by Colorado’s 2012 initiative (which did not require, forbid or address vertical integration at all). Colorado’s wholesale, price-based tax would be administrable without vertical integration, because without it, real, separate wholesalers want to receive high prices, and their real, separate customers want to pay low prices. With that tension, there’s a real, bargained-for market price to base taxes on.

Meanwhile, Washington State’s law taxes newly-legal marijuana at wholesale, too, but Washington avoids Colorado’s problem by forbidding vertical integration — so related-party sales can’t happen. That is, wholesalers are separate from retailers, so the wholesaler will get an arm’s length, fair market value price from the retailer. That means the Washington State price-based wholesale tax will be related to reality. No fuss, no muss.

We are just at the beginning of figuring out how to regulate and tax marijuana. Other states thinking about legalization need to study the primitive example of Colorado’s tax, and avoid the pitfall. The obvious answer is to forget price and adopt a surer tax base like weight or potency, following Federal precedents for alcohol and tobacco. Or, if states want a price-based tax for some reason, they can delay measuring it until there’s an actual arm’s length sale to an unrelated party. But here’s the clear lesson for future legalizing states: If you require or allow vertical integration, a wholesale tax on prices — when there is no actual sale — is crazy. It’s the kind of tax whose only fans will be tax professionals, billing by the hour.

Pat Oglesby: Lawyer; Former Congressional Tax Staffer.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Pat Oglesby
Published: November 7, 2013
Copyright: 2013 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Conservatives Fight Marijuana Taxation

posted in: Cannabis News 0

In front of the U.S. Capitol Thursday, two congressmen discussed H.R. 2240, the Small Business Tax Equity Act, a little known bill introduced in June by Oregon Democrat Earl Blumenauer to allow deductions and credits relating to expenditures for marijuana sales conducted in compliance with state law.

The bill, according to GovTrack.Us, has a 0% chance of being enacted and has a tiny chance of even getting out of the House Ways and Means committee. The main reason it has reached national attention is Grover Norquist, the President of Americans for Tax Reform, who has corralled 219 Representatives and 39 Senators to pledge to oppose any and all tax increases. He has taken up the no-tax-penalty-for-pot cause. Norquist—who has “No, absolutely not” ever smoked the stuff—believes that federal encroachment on the nascent field of state regulation of marijuana is a deeply serious topic, irrespective of the drug’s effects.

“There’s always a slight giggle factor on the issue dealing with marijuana,” said Norquist. “That said, this is tax policy, this is real stuff. This is important. This is everything from jobs to whether the federal government comes in and writes rules that upsets the apple cart in many, many different states.”

The fact that taxing marijuana has become an issue of debate is a sign of the success of cannabis advocates. In August, the Administration said it would not challenge laws legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington, so long as the they implement “strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana,” according to a Justice Dept. memo. Marijuana is still, however, illegal under U.S. federal law.

Norquist, who says the “double taxation” of marijuana dispensaries received his attention a couple of months ago, says the legal issue should be decided state by state, but as a tax issue there should be no doubt: legal cannabis dispensaries should be able to claim the expense deductions that any other legal business can claim. ” In Colorado and some of these other states, marijuana dispensaries are just legal businesses. They should be treated that way. But federal law makes that difficult to impossible,” says Norquist. “We’ve got to take the IRS out of this issue.”

The press briefing, sponsored by National Cannabis Industry Association, also featured Blumenauer and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican. Blumenauer believes that this issue could be a stepping stone for a greater goal: comprehensive tax reform. ”I think comprehensive tax reform is not something that is beyond our reach, but it is a heavy lift,” said Blumenauer. “It would be nice to do a little momentum building, and have people work together on things that are common sense and have bipartisan support. And this is a classic example.”

While Blumenauer believes this is a “simple fix,” he admits that it could be awhile before a business can claim a tax deduction in its sale of marijuana. “What we’re doing first is building the understanding of this issue and its support,” says Blumenauer. “But I think that this is a perfect item that can be dropped into any tax vehicle going forward.”

Source: Time Magazine (US)
Author: Alex Rogers
Published: September 12, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Time Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.time.com/time/

Democrats Promote Bills to Loosen Restrictions on Marijuana Industry

posted in: Cannabis News 0

During a press conference on Wednesday, Democratic congressmen from Oregon, Colorado, Washington, and California announced that they will push for legislation to loosen the restrictions on state-legal marijuana businesses.

The five representatives sponsoring reforms hope to ease the burden for businesses in the cannabis industry by allowing them to file for federal tax deductions, open bank accounts, and operate without fear of property or forfeiture claims. They plan to introduce three bills — the Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking Act, the States’ Medical Marijuana Property Rights Protection Act, and an amendment to the IRS code relating to state-legal marijuana sales — and will seek to attach these measures to other legislation moving through Congress.

“These are relatively minor technical adjustments,” said Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, “and in times past, things like this would find their way to be part of larger pieces of legislation.” The Hill reported that the sponsors believe the bills have “little chance at moving on their own,” but that they may make it to the president’s desk if they are included in, say, the broader farm bill being debated before Congress.

The Democratic representatives were joined by businessmen involved in the sale of legalized marijuana for the announcement. Aaron Smith of the National Cannabis Industry Association told the press, “We are asking to be taxed. We are one of the only industries in the country coming to D.C. asking, ‘Tax us, but tax us fairly.’”

Supporters of the legislation claim that it will help end the dangerous “cash only” nature of state-legal marijuana businesses as well as solving conflicts between state and federal laws on the issue.

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350273/democrats-promote-bills-loosen-restrictions-marijuana-industry-lindsey-grudnicki#comments

Source: National Review Online

Author: Lindsey Grudnicki

Marijuana Taxes Prove Sticking Point in Colorado

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Marijuana as a potential tax bonanza has Colorado lawmakers wrestling with a question both sides say they don’t know how to answer: How much will people pay for legal weed?

The state House advanced a taxing measure Monday to levy a pot tax in excess of 25 percent, a reduction from the 30 percent rate lawmakers considered last week.

The proposal sparked a lively floor debate over the proper tax rate for a drug that’s never been taxed before. Democrats argued that voters want high pot taxes, and that consumers will gladly pay a premium for the assurances that would come from a regulated and legal drug supply.

“We need to responsibly tax it,” said the measure’s sponsor, Rep. Jonathan Singer, D-Longmont.

He predicted Colorado voters would happily sign off on marijuana taxes. Colorado law requires voters to approve new taxes.

Republicans argued against the taxes, though. They pointed out that Colorado voters have a history of rejecting tax hikes, even for popular public programs, and that the public’s desire for a marijuana windfall may not materialize unless the tax rate is lower.

“Taxation of marijuana is right, just, and proper. But we have make sure this passes,” said House Republican Leader Mark Waller.

Other Republicans noted that marijuana taxes would be in addition to hefty licensing and application fees to enter the business. The result, they feared, could be the retention of a black market for pot. The measure approved by voters last year allows not just retail pot sales, but also home marijuana growing, raising the specter of plentiful homegrown weed to compete with the taxed marijuana.

“The consensus has always been that the industry needs to pay for itself … but whether we like it or not, there’s already an entrenched black market in place,” said Rep. Dan Nordberg, R-Colorado Springs.

The tax debate came after a largely party-line vote on a separate marijuana bill to regulate how the newly legal drug can be grown, packaged and sold.

Among other things, that bill requires potency labels, serving-size limits on edible pot and purchasing limits for out-of-state buyers. The regulation bill also revives a marijuana blood-limit standard for drivers, a proposal that has failed four times in the Senate. The House vote Monday to revive the DUI standard renews the battle.

A third marijuana bill awaits action in the Senate. That measure includes less controversial pot regulations, such as a new crime of providing marijuana to people under 21.

Washington and Colorado, the only two states that have legalized pot for recreational use, are still awaiting federal response to the votes. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, even for medical use.

Online:

Marijuana regulation bill: http://bit.ly/11RIeiY

Marijuana tax bill: http://bit.ly/12ekKlF


Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Kristen Wyatt, Associated Press
Published: April 29, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

Marijuana Repeal Considered In Colorado

posted in: Cannabis News 0

” Marijuana legalization could be going back to the ballot in Colorado — a prospect that infuriated pot legalization activists Friday.

The proposal for a marijuana ballot measure came as the House started debate Friday evening on bills to regulate and tax pot. One bill would state how pot should be grown and sold, and the other would tax recreational marijuana more than 30 percent.

A draft bill floating around the Capitol late this week suggests that a new ballot question on pot taxes should repeal recreational pot in the state constitution if voters don’t approve 15 percent excise taxes on retail pot and a new 15 percent marijuana sales tax. Those would be in addition to regular state and local sales taxes.
Lawmakers have only a few days left to finish work deciding how to regulate the newly legal drug.

Marijuana activists immediately blasted the proposal as a backhanded effort to repeal the pot vote, in which 55 percent of Coloradans chose to flout federal drug law and declare pot legal in small amounts for adults over 21.

“It’s clear that the intent … is to prevent marijuana from being legal and being regulated and being controlled,” said Mason Tvert, who led last year’s campaign to add recreational pot to the state constitution, which has allowed medical marijuana since 2000.

Sen. Larry Crowder, R-Alamosa, said the whole purpose of legalizing recreational marijuana was to raise money for education and other programs. “So if there’s no money, we shouldn’t have marijuana,” Crowder said.

A volunteer group that has been critical of proposed marijuana regulations, Smart Colorado, praised the effort to get rid of recreational pot without approval of the taxes.

A spokesman for the group, Eric Anderson, said in a statement that marijuana activists “sold the ballot issue to Colorado voters as a way to pay for state priorities like education, but increasingly it’s looking like it could be a net drain on the state budget.”
The marijuana measure approved last year won more votes than President Barack Obama, who carried the state. The pot measure directed lawmakers to come back to the ballot with a tax proposal, with much of the money going to school construction. Because of Colorado’s Byzantine tax laws, the recreational pot taxes can’t be levied until voters again sign off on them.

In Washington state, the only other place where voters last year approved recreational pot, the ballot measure set taxes at 75 percent, settling the question. Both states are still waiting to find out whether the federal government plans to sue to block retail sales of the drug, set to begin next year.

The Colorado repeal effort wouldn’t apply to medical marijuana, which voters approved in 2000.

Lawmakers from both parties have expressed worry this year that Colorado won’t be able to afford to give recreational pot the kind of intense oversight and regulation many expect. From labeling and potency standards to making sure pot taxes are collected, the regulatory scheme under consideration in Colorado wouldn’t be cheap.

The state House started debate Friday on the tax ballot question. The repeal provision, if it appears, would come later, likely when the pot tax shifts to the Senate.

Some lawmakers said Friday they doubt lawmakers would send pot legalization back to voters this year.

“That’s almost like saying to voters, ‘Vote for this, or else,’” said Sen. Cheri Jahn, D-Wheat Ridge. “I don’t think you threaten voters like that. When over 55 percent of the people vote for something, I think we have to respect that.”

Marijuana repeal debate could dominate the Legislature’s closing days. The path to repeal would be uncertain, but some lawmakers say it’s only fair to ask again if voters are willing to legalize pot and risk federal intervention in exchange for a tax windfall projected to exceed $100 million a year.

“I think that’s why the people supported it,” Crowder said.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/04/2…in-colorado-2/

Marijuana reform high on electorate’s list

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Here’s something you won’t see happen on Saturday: Christy Clark or Adrian Dix’s campaign buses rolling up to the north lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery to the cheers of thousands of marijuana activists. Neither Mr. Dix nor Ms. Clark will push their way through the happy crowds and skunk-scented smoke, glad-handing potential voters. It is even less likely that either will make their way to the stage brandishing a freshly rolled spliff, spark it up and declare 4/20 officially “on.”

Neither will inhale deeply, nor extol the virtues of weed, nor pass the dutchie to the left-hand side. And you certainly won’t hear them making speeches calling for the decriminalization, legalization, or the regulation and taxation of pot.

A pair of polls released this week suggests that the party leaders are lagging behind their constituents when it comes to attitudes about the decriminalization and eventual legalization of marijuana in B.C.

In fact, if the poll numbers are right, not driving the campaign buses on to the art gallery lawn with Bob Marley blaring from the speakers and waving marijuana-leaf flags out the windows might be something of a missed opportunity.

The first poll comes from the Sensible Change Society of B.C., a group headed by one-time federal NDP candidate Dana Larsen, who withdrew from the 2008 race after a video showing him with a mouthful of joints surfaced on the Web. Three years later, Mr. Larsen ran for the leadership of the BC NDP and won just 2.7 per cent of the vote.

Mr. Larsen has proposed what he calls “The Sensible Policing Act,” which would, first, direct police to ignore minor marijuana offences, and second, call on the federal government to repeal the prohibition on marijuana so the province could legally regulate pot the same way it regulates alcohol and tobacco.

The poll shows that roughly 70 per cent of respondents support both parts of the plan. It also shows that just under half of those surveyed say they would be more likely to support a political leader who called for marijuana reform.

A second poll, also timed to coincide with the annual 4/20 “cannabis celebration,” shows that nearly three-quarters of British Columbians would support further research into the regulation and taxation of marijuana. The Ipsos Reid poll shows significant support for leaders who would endorse such research.

In both polls, support for marijuana reform crosses all political stripes, geographic boundaries, age groups and levels of education.

This is, of course, not a new issue in our province. Stop the Violence B.C., a coalition of law enforcement, health and academic experts which commissioned the Ipsos Reid poll, has been arguing for marijuana reform since the coalition was founded in 2011.

Along with many others, Stop the Violence contends that regulating and taxing marijuana production and distribution would take the profits out of the hands of criminal gangs, and result in not only safer streets but also in a potential tax windfall for the province.

But so far, even with numbers that show support for reform, even with the arguments that regulation would curb violence and contribute significantly to provincial coffers, both Christy Clark and Adrian Dix have ducked the issue. When questioned, both have repeatedly pointed to the fact that drug enforcement is a federal responsibility.

Dana Larsen notes that neither leader has had trouble commenting on other issues that are regulated by the federal government.

“We take action and talk about federal issues all the time, whether it’s the Coast Guard station being closed or pipelines, or the long-gun registry back in 2003, so there’s really no reason the province can’t take action on this issue as well,” Mr. Larsen said in an interview.

Indeed, “Pressing for new Coast Guard resources to be placed in Vancouver” even appears in the Liberal Party’s platform.

As for the NDP, Mr. Larsen suspects that while the party may be sympathetic, it would be folly to tackle an issue as controversial as marijuana legalization during an election campaign.

Professor Neil Boyd, who teaches criminology at Simon Fraser University, agrees that making marijuana reform an issue during a provincial election campaign is difficult.

But like Mr. Larsen, Prof. Boyd says the province can play a part. “The province does have power over the administration of justice and could certainly decide not to spend, for example, the $10-million a year it currently spends enforcing marijuana possession laws,” he said.

Given that it happens to fall on Saturday, and in the middle of an election campaign, organizers of this year’s 4/20 rally estimate it will be the biggest gathering of its kind Vancouver has ever seen.

But it may have little impact once the smoke clears.

Source: Globe and Mail

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/marijuana-reform-high-on-electorates-list/article11436140/

Author: STEPHEN QUINN