Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

Jun 5, 2024 | USA news

The Rights of Nature

Seattle settled a lawsuit brought by the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe on behalf of salmon harmed by dams on the Skagit River. This is one of the first “rights of nature” cases in the US, and the tribe argued that the lack of fish passage measures violated the salmon’s rights. Seattle agreed to include fish passage facilities in its application to renew its license to operate the dams.

A Lake Erie Bill of Rights adopted by Toledo, Ohio, in 2019 was intended to protect the lake from pollution. The law gave Lake Erie legal standing and gave Toledo, Ohio, and its residents the right to sue on the lake’s behalf.

Here are some relevant articles:

  • Press Release: City of Seattle Settles “Rights of Nature” Case Filed by the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe – Agrees to Create Fish Passage Through Skagit River Dams Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights
  • Seattle settles case involving ‘rights of nature,‘ a theory gaining steam in other countries ABA Journal
Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Viridis Labs Barred from Michigan’s Cannabis Industry

Viridis Labs Barred from Michigan’s Cannabis Industry

The Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) has announced a landmark settlement, permanently banning three former law enforcement officials from participating in Michigan's cannabis market. The agreement mandates the immediate closure of Viridis Laboratories and its sister...

read more
Tap Here to Call Us

Other Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

Jun 3, 2024 | USA news

It’s their corner now

“This punishment should serve as a clear warning for all unlicensed cannabis stores in the state: we will enforce the law and shut down your operations,” state Attorney General Letitia James said

The owner of seven unlicensed cannabis shops in New York, known for hosting an Easter egg hunt as part of their promotions, has been fined over $15 million by state officials for repeatedly disregarding orders to cease operations without proper approval.

A state Supreme Court justice in Lyons, New York, levied a fine against David Tulley on Wednesday. Acting Justice Richard Healy ordered Tulley to pay 90% of his gross sales from February 2022 to May 2023, along with $10,000 for each day he operated without licenses.

Read more at the Associated Press

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Tap Here to Call Us

Other Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

May 31, 2024 | Federal Laws, USA news

IRS 280E and Cannabis Businesses

What is IRS Section 280E?

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code restricts businesses from deducting typical business expenses from their gross income related to the distribution of Schedule I or II substances per the Controlled Substances Act.

But you still have to pay taxes on it.

Komorn Law PLLC: Your Partner in Strategic Growth

At Komorn Law PLLC, we understand the importance of aligning business strategies with the latest regulatory and tax developments. Our expertise in cannabis law enables us to provide tailored advice that anticipates shifts in the regulatory landscape and leverages them for our clients’ benefit. We encourage cannabis businesses to consult with our team to navigate these changes effectively, ensuring they are positioned to capitalize on new opportunities in a more favorable legal environment.

Strategic Tax Planning for Cannabis Businesses in the New Regulatory Era

As legal professionals at Komorn Law PLLC deeply engaged with the evolving landscape of cannabis law, we are at the forefront of advising and representing businesses navigating these changes.

The recent recommendation by Attorney General Merrick Garland to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance marks a pivotal shift, promising significant legal and financial implications for the industry.

Decoding the Reclassification Benefits

Cannabis, currently grouped with substances like heroin under Schedule I, has faced disproportionately stringent regulations. This reclassification to Schedule III, which includes less stringently controlled substances such as ketamine and testosterone, rectifies a longstanding regulatory misalignment. It acknowledges cannabis’s lower risk compared to many Schedule II drugs that have contributed to widespread public health issues.

For cannabis businesses, the most immediate benefit of this shift is the potential alleviation from the severe limitations imposed by Internal Revenue Code Section 280E. Currently, businesses involved with Schedule I substances are denied the ability to deduct typical business expenses, drastically increasing their tax burden. The reclassification promises to normalize tax treatments, significantly reducing effective tax rates and enhancing overall business profitability.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Navigating Beyond IRC 280E

While overcoming IRC 280E is a significant victory, it is just one piece of the tax puzzle for cannabis businesses. Many such businesses operate as C corporations, subjecting them to a flat 21% federal income tax rate on profits, with an additional tax on dividends paid to shareholders. This double taxation framework can lead to an effective tax rate nearing 44.8% at the federal level alone, not including potential state and local taxes.

Given the inherent tax challenges in the C corporation structure, especially regarding asset sales, Komorn Law PLLC advises a strategic reassessment of business structures. The sale of assets by a C corporation incurs federal, state, and local taxes on gains, followed by further taxation of the distributed dividends, compounding the financial burden.

Viridis Labs Barred from Michigan’s Cannabis Industry

Viridis Labs Barred from Michigan’s Cannabis Industry

The Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) has announced a landmark settlement, permanently banning three former law enforcement officials from participating in Michigan's cannabis market. The agreement mandates the immediate closure of Viridis Laboratories and its sister...

read more

Advising on Strategic Business Realignments

With the regulatory changes on the horizon, it’s critical for cannabis businesses to reevaluate their entity structure. Transitioning from a C corporation to an S corporation or a partnership offers several advantages, primarily the elimination of double taxation on distributions. This can be significantly more tax-efficient, particularly when considering the sale or transfer of business assets.

For businesses anticipating an increase in value following the reclassification, it is crucial to implement these structural changes before this appreciation occurs. Such proactive adjustments can optimize tax efficiencies and enhance the business’s long-term financial health.

Contact Komorn Law for More Insight

At Komorn Law we specialize in cannabis law, providing strategic advice that anticipates regulatory shifts and leverages them for our clients’ advantage.

Consult with our team to navigate changes effectively and position yourself to capitalize on new opportunities in a more favorable legal environment.

Tap Here to Call Us

Other Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

May 30, 2024 | Your Rights

Borders and Cannabis and Money

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #41. Profit is its own reward.

If you bring your own cannabis to Canada. How does the Canadian government profit? 

They don’t so they will punish you if you get caught.

It’s simple. It’s about the money. That is the only reason it is now legal.

Cannabis Legalization in Canada

On October 17, 2018, Canada made a significant policy shift by legalizing marijuana for recreational use. The Cannabis Act came into effect, allowing Canadians to possess and use cannabis for non-medical purposes. However, there are still some important considerations:

Possession and Use: Canadians can legally possess and consume weed, subject to restrictions on the amount and how it was purchased. This includes various forms of cannabis, such as dried flower, edibles, extracts, and topicals.

Transportation Across the Border: Despite legalization within Canada, it remains strictly prohibited to transport cannabis across the Canadian border. This applies whether you’re entering Canada from another country or leaving Canada for another destination.

The ban includes all forms of cannabis products, even if you’re authorized to use it for medical purposes.

It’s essential to understand that this law applies even if cannabis is legal in both the source and destination countries.

You’re Not Welcome Here in Canada

Inadmissibility Due to Cannabis Conviction: If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and there aren’t that many. If you have a prior arrest or cannabis conviction, there’s a chance you may be turned away at the Canadian border. A DUI? Just stay home.

If you really must go. Seeking legal advice from an immigration expert is advisable in such cases.

Cannabis Legalization in Michigan

Michigan, too, has embraced cannabis legalization. However, there are nuances to be aware of:

  1. Legalization Status: As of now, it’s no longer against the law to own or grow marijuana in Michigan. However, retail stores didn’t open until 2021. Michigan citizens can legally cultivate up to 12 cannabis plants, compared to the limit of four in Ontario, Canada.
  2. Crossing the Border: Despite both Michigan and Canada legalizing cannabis, it’s still illegal for those in Michigan to buy cannabis in Canada and cross the border with marijuana. This issue affects Americans living near the border who might be tempted to take advantage of Canada’s nationwide legalization.

Conclusion

While cannabis enthusiasts can enjoy legal weed in both Canada and Michigan, crossing the border with it remains a complex matter. Whether you’re traveling north or south, leave your cannabis behind to avoid legal complications. Remember, the laws differ between countries, and what’s permissible in one place might not be in another. Stay informed and enjoy responsibly!

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and should not be considered legal advice. Always consult legal professionals for specific guidance.

Learn more

 

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Traffic FAQs – Traffic Crashes & Reports

Traffic FAQs - Traffic Crashes & Reports Know the laws if you get pulled over. Know who to call if you need legal defense if a violation turns into a DUI or worse. That would be us. Traffic Crashes & Reports Beginning in July 2005, the State of Michigan...

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

From Canada.ca  The official website of the Government of Canada

Drugs, alcohol and travel

It is illegal to take cannabis – including products containing cannabis, such as edible cannabis, cannabis extracts and cannabis topicals, and all products containing CBD – across the Canadian border, whether you are entering or leaving the country:

  • No matter how much cannabis you have with you.
  • Even if you use cannabis for medical purposes in any form, including cannabidiol (CBD), unless authorized by Health Canada.
  • Even if you are travelling to or from a municipality, state or country where cannabis has been legalized or decriminalized.

At your destination

If you travel to other countries, including the United States, with any amount of cannabis in your possession, you could:

  • be charged with a criminal offence (This applies to all countries, whether cannabis is legal there or not.)
  • be denied entry at your destination if you have previously used cannabis or any substance prohibited by local laws
  • be denied entry to other countries in the future

It is your responsibility to learn about the laws, including the legal status of cannabis use and possession, in your destination country.

If you are travelling for business related to the cannabis industry, contact the foreign government office in Canada of the country you plan to visit.

For more information, consult our Travel Advice and Advisories.

Returning to Canada

It is illegal to enter Canada with cannabis, unless you have a prescription for a medication containing cannabis authorized by Health Canada.

If you are entering Canada and have cannabis with you in any form, you must declare it to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Not declaring cannabis in your possession at the Canadian border is a serious criminal offence. You could be arrested and prosecuted.

This information is taken directly from the Canadian Gov website section Drugs, alcohol and travel.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.
    (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Other Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

Another Case Dismissed

Another Case Dismissed

December 6, 2022 - Through the diligence and tenacity of trial attorney Michael Komorn and the team at Komorn Law. We are proud to announce - another case dismissed.

read more
News Scrape November 2022

News Scrape November 2022

Search Results Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorneys Featured Attorney Award winning Attorney Michael Komorn owner and Trial Attorney for his firm Komorn Law PLLC is based...

read more
The Right to a Jury Trial

The Right to a Jury Trial

When facing criminal charges you have the right to have a trial by jury. The justice system will offer you the right to a jury trial. It's just a matter if you can...

read more
Squatters in Michigan

Squatters in Michigan

May 28, 2024 | Michigan Laws, Your Rights

Squatters

Squatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the relevant laws and procedures is crucial for regaining possession of your property.

Squatting vs. Adverse Possession: Key Differences

Michigan law differentiates between squatting and adverse possession. Squatting refers to the unlawful occupation of a property without the owner’s consent. In contrast, adverse possession allows someone who isn’t the legal owner to gain ownership rights under specific circumstances, as outlined in MCL § 600.5801. To establish adverse possession, an occupant must demonstrate:

  • Continuous occupancy: Occupying the property for at least 15 consecutive years (MCL § 600.5801(1)).
  • Color of title: Possessing a document, though potentially flawed, that suggests ownership (MCL § 600.5801(2)). However, simply paying rent or utilities doesn’t constitute color of title.
  • Payment of property taxes: Paying property taxes for at least ten consecutive years (MCL § 600.5801(2)).

Open, notorious, and hostile possession: Occupying the property openly, demonstrably, and claiming it as their own, even if mistakenly (MCL § 600.5801(3, 4)).

The burden of proof lies with the squatter to establish adverse possession. Notably, Michigan courts have interpreted these requirements strictly, making it difficult for squatters to gain ownership rights.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

News Articles and Information

Squatters evicted from Michigan home, neighbor details ‘chemical’ smell, cash-bearing criminals in hiding

MML-Michigan Communities and Squatting: What You Need to Know (PDF)

Here’s how homeowners can fight against squatter insanity

Squatter Squad Videos

And now for something completely different…

American Airlines blames girl, 9, who ‘should have known’ flight attendant planted hidden cameras under toilet seat: court docs

 

Self-Help Eviction: A Unique Feature in Michigan

Michigan offers a unique remedy for property owners facing squatters: self-help eviction. Unlike most states, Michigan law allows owners to take specific steps to make the property unappealing for squatters, encouraging them to leave voluntarily.

Important Caveats: It’s crucial to note that self-help eviction has limitations:

No removal of belongings: Owners cannot remove the squatter’s belongings or physically force them out.

Tenant vs. squatter: This method only applies to squatters, not tenants with a valid lease agreement. Evicting tenants requires a formal eviction process through the court system.

Potential legal repercussions: Improper use of self-help measures could result in legal action from the squatter. Consulting an attorney before taking any steps is highly recommended.

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

Getting Rid of Squatters

If you discover that someone unauthorized is occupying your property, contact the police. However, be aware that the police may consider it a civil issue and advise you to pursue eviction through the courts. It is important to note that squatting is considered a misdemeanor in Michigan, even if law enforcement may not be fully aware of this fact.

Instead of waiting on or dealing with the police, property owners in Michigan can take action to remove illegal occupants within the limits of the law:

 

  • Kindly request the squatter to vacate the premises within a specified timeframe.
  • Notify the squatter that legal measures will be pursued if they fail to comply promptly.
  • While the squatter is away from the property, consider changing the locks, securing entry points, boarding up windows, and implementing additional barriers like fences to prevent re-entry.

Traffic FAQs – Traffic Crashes & Reports

Traffic FAQs - Traffic Crashes & Reports Know the laws if you get pulled over. Know who to call if you need legal defense if a violation turns into a DUI or worse. That would be us. Traffic Crashes & Reports Beginning in July 2005, the State of Michigan...

Criminal Trespass: Legal Ramifications of Squatting

Squatting in Michigan is considered criminal trespass under MCL 750.553. This statute classifies trespassing as a misdemeanor for first offenses, punishable by fines up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 180 days, or both. Subsequent offenses become felonies with steeper penalties.

There are additional trespassing classifications based on the property type:

  • Residential property: Trespassing on a single-family or two-family dwelling is typically a misdemeanor.
  • Commercial property: Trespassing on commercial buildings, industrial sites, construction zones, or utility property can be charged as a felony.

Property owners who suspect squatting should contact law enforcement. Officers can remove squatters if they lack a legal right to be on the property.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.
    (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Other Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

Another Case Dismissed

Another Case Dismissed

December 6, 2022 - Through the diligence and tenacity of trial attorney Michael Komorn and the team at Komorn Law. We are proud to announce - another case dismissed.

read more
News Scrape November 2022

News Scrape November 2022

Search Results Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorneys Featured Attorney Award winning Attorney Michael Komorn owner and Trial Attorney for his firm Komorn Law PLLC is based...

read more
The Right to a Jury Trial

The Right to a Jury Trial

When facing criminal charges you have the right to have a trial by jury. The justice system will offer you the right to a jury trial. It's just a matter if you can...

read more