Trulieve seeks $143M federal refund for 280E taxes

Trulieve seeks $143M federal refund for 280E taxes

Would enforcing payment and accepting money from a federally illegal business cause you to be caught up in RICO, CCE and conspiracy charges that would put you away for decades? For you yes – For the government a big NO.

Multistate marijuana company Trulieve Cannabis Corp. is currently seeking a federal tax refund amounting to $143 million. The company firmly maintains that it does not owe the taxes it had diligently paid over a span of three years.

“This determination is supported by legal interpretations that challenge the company’s tax liability under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code,” Florida-based Trulieve announced through a recent news release.

Section 280E poses a significant obstacle for state-legal marijuana companies, as it prohibits them from deducting their standard business expenses. Consequently, these companies are burdened with substantially increased tax bills.

26 U.S. Code § 280E – Expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs

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.

More Posts

Lawyer slams decision to deny cannabis to autistic kids

Lawyer slams decision to deny cannabis to autistic kids

"Allowing medical marijuana for those with autism was supposed to be the clinical trial," Komorn said. "Instead, we're going to have criminal trials."   Lawyer slams decision to deny cannabis to autistic kids The Detroit News Article August 28, 2015 - Lansing —...

read more
Father fighting to use medical marijuana concentrates

Father fighting to use medical marijuana concentrates

  April 23, 2015 -  In Western Michigan yet another Michigan Medical Marijuana patient is fighting for his freedom in a system of confusing laws.  He is also fighting for the right to see his child all while the State of Michigan possibly destroys his family and...

read more
Prosecutors drop marijuana charges against Michigan mom

Prosecutors drop marijuana charges against Michigan mom

Aug 5, 2015 - After a year long battle,  Michigan Attorney Michael Komorn and his staff have chalked up another positive conclusion for a client caught up in the medical marijuana and forfeiture debacle. Some may consider it  a win, but this slow ruination of a family...

read more
Security Systems – You should have one!!

Security Systems – You should have one!!

For most... a security video system is a tool to protect themselves from liability, false accusations and identify activities around their home or business.  For some,  such as thieves, those who make false accusations and liars...it works against them.   There...

read more
What’s required of you in a Michigan traffic stop?

What’s required of you in a Michigan traffic stop?

July 24, 2015 Dashcam video released this week from a traffic stop shows how a confrontation between a Texas woman and the arresting officer escalated. Given the circumstances in the aforementioned Sandra Bland case, we wanted to find out what is allowed and not...

read more
Detroit police make arrests at marijuana dispensary

Detroit police make arrests at marijuana dispensary

The Detroit police raided and made arrests at marijuana dispensary in an article in the Detroit Free Press from July  14, 2015. Detroit police arrested two people and confiscated two firearms and drugs during a raid on a marijuana dispensary Tuesday afternoon. Police...

read more
Michigan Medical Marihuana Patient Bill of Rights

Michigan Medical Marihuana Patient Bill of Rights

On November 8th, 2008, by a majority of 63 percent, the citizens of the State of Michigan voted into law the constitutional initiative, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, ratified into law December 4, 2008, herein referred to as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421...

read more
Reform Today’s Forfeiture Laws

Reform Today’s Forfeiture Laws

Everyday, I get calls to my office from medical marijuana patients and caregivers who have been raided or pulled over by police. Often times, these individuals are not arrested, and little if any paperwork is left behind by the various Narcotics Enforcement Teams....

read more
Feds Clarify Doctor Prescribed Medical Cannabis Is No Excuse

Feds Clarify Doctor Prescribed Medical Cannabis Is No Excuse

The revised federal workplace drug testing guidelines, issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are intended to provide clarity. These guidelines emphasize that individuals who use medical marijuana under a doctor’s recommendation in a legal state cannot use it as a valid justification for a positive THC test.

In notices published in the Federal Register, SAMHSA announced that it had amended guidance of saliva and urine testing to include the cannabis policy clarification, despite receiving comments opposing the proposal after they were first announced last year.

In the new notices, SAMHSA acknowledges receiving numerous comments advocating for reconsideration of the marijuana testing policy, with many individuals seizing the opportunity to advocate for federal cannabis legalization. Nevertheless, SAMHSA maintains that the current law justifies the revised guidance.

Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs

A Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 10/12/2023

AGENCY:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION:

Issuance of mandatory guidelines.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS” or “Department”) has revised the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs using Oral Fluid (OFMG) which published in the Federal Register of October 25, 2019.

DATES:

The mandatory guidelines are effective October 10, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene D. Hayes, Ph.D., MBA, SAMHSA, CSAP, DWP; 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N02, Rockville, MD 20857, by telephone (240) 276–1459 or by email at .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

These revised Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs using Oral Fluid (OFMG) establish a process whereby the Department annually publishes the authorized drug testing panel ( i.e., drugs, analytes, or cutoffs) to be used for Federal workplace drug testing programs; revise the definition of a substituted specimen to include specimens with a biomarker concentration inconsistent with that established for a human specimen, establish a process whereby the Department publishes an authorized biomarker testing panel ( i.e., biomarker analytes and cutoffs) for Federal workplace drug testing programs; update and clarify the oral fluid collection procedures; revise the Medical Review Officer (MRO) verification process for positive codeine and morphine specimens; and require MROs to submit semiannual reports to the Secretary or designated HHS representative on Federal agency specimens that were reported as positive for a drug or drug metabolite by a laboratory and verified as negative by the MRO. In addition, some wording changes have been made for clarity and for consistency with the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs using Urine (UrMG) or to apply to any authorized specimen type.

The Department is publishing a separate Federal Register Notification (FRN) elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register with the revised UrMG, which include the same or similar revisions as the OFMG, where appropriate.

Background

Pursuant to its authority under section 503 of Public Law 100–71, 5 U.S.C. 7301, and Executive Order 12564, HHS establishes the scientific and technical guidelines for Federal workplace drug testing programs and establishes standards for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing for Federal agencies.

Using data obtained from the Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs and HHS-certified laboratories, the Department estimates that 275,000 urine specimens are tested annually by Federal agencies. No Federal agencies are testing hair or oral fluid specimens at this time.

HHS originally published the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (hereinafter referred to as Guidelines or Mandatory Guidelines) in the Federal Register (FR) on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11979). The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) subsequently revised the Guidelines on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908), September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118), November 13, 1998 (63 FR 63483), April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644), and November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858). SAMHSA published the current Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs using Urine (UrMG) on January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920) and published the current Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs using Oral Fluid (OFMG) on October 25, 2019 (84 FR 57554). SAMHSA published proposed Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs using Hair (HMG) on September 10, 2020 (85 FR 56108) and proposed revisions to the UrMG (87 FR 20560) and OFMG (87 FR 20522) on April 7, 2022.

There was a 60-day public comment period following publication of the proposed OFMG, during which 53 commenters submitted 204 comments on the OFMG. These commenters were comprised of individuals, organizations, and private sector companies. The comments are available for public view at https://www.regulations.gov/​. All comments were reviewed and taken into consideration in the preparation of the Guidelines. The issues and concerns raised in the public comments for the OFMG are set forth below. Similar comments are considered together in the discussion.

Summary of Public Comments and HHS’s Response

The following comments were directed to the information and questions in the preamble.

Some submitted comments were specific to transportation industry drug testing which is regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The Department has noted these comments below, but responded only to comments that are relevant to these Guidelines. DOT issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on February 28, 2022 (87 FR 11156). Subsequently, DOT extended the comment period to April 29, 2022 (87 FR 16160), and published the final rule on May 2, 2023 (88 FR 27596).

Authorized Drug Testing Panel

The Department requested comments on its proposal to publish the drug testing panel separately from the OFMG in a Federal Register\[[[[p Notification (FRN) each year. Fifteen commenters submitted a total of 40 comments on this topic for the OFMG.

Nine commenters disagreed with publishing a revised drug testing panel without a public comment period, expressing concerns that stakeholders including individuals subject to federally regulated drug testing would not be given the opportunity to provide comment and that the Department would miss valuable input including information on costs and burden. Some of these commenters suggested alternate ways to permit public comment while enabling a quicker response to testing panel changes ( e.g., setting a shorter comment period, publishing the Guidelines as an interim final rule or issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking). The Department has reviewed these comments and suggestions and determined that no changes to the proposed Guidelines are needed. The Department has developed procedures which will allow review and comment before testing panel changes are published, as described below.

Consistent with current procedures, prior to making a change to the drug or biomarker testing panel, the Department will conduct a thorough review of the scientific and medical literature, and will solicit review and input from subject matter experts such as Responsible Persons (RPs) of HHS-certified laboratories, Medical Review Officers (MROs), research scientists, manufacturers of collection devices and/or immunoassay kits, as well as Federal partners such as DOT, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Further, the Department plans to provide notice and opportunity for public comment regarding any proposed changes to the drug and biomarker testing panels as part of Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) meetings and procedures.

Information regarding any proposed changes to the drug and biomarker testing panels and a request for public comment will be included in an advance notice of the DTAB meeting published in the Federal Register , along with the timeframe and method(s) for comment submission. During the meeting, the Department will present the basis for adding or removing analytes ( i.e., including technical and scientific support for the proposed changes), as well as a discussion of related costs and benefits. This information will be provided in advance to DTAB members. The Department will review all submitted public comments and will share information during a DTAB session prior to DTAB’s review of SAMHSA’s recommendation to the Secretary regarding each proposed change.

The Department will make the final decision on any panel changes and include the effective date(s) in the annual Notice, to allow time for drug testing service providers ( e.g., immunoassay kit manufacturers, oral fluid collection device manufacturers) to develop or revise their products, and for HHS-certified laboratories to develop or revise assays, complete validation studies, and revise procedures.

Three commenters specifically agreed with the need to streamline and improve processes for making changes to the testing panels, but expressed concern over the process for testing panel review and who would be involved. These commenters suggested involving other stakeholders ( e.g., HHS-certified laboratories, DTAB, FDA). As noted above, the Department will use multiple methods and involve subject matter experts from various stakeholder groups to determine testing panel changes, and will provide opportunity for public review and comment before changes are made. FDA, DOT, and other Federal partners will have opportunities to review and provide input.

More Posts

Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

The Rights of NatureSeattle 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...

read more
NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

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 saidThe owner of seven unlicensed cannabis shops in New...

read more
When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

IRS 280E and Cannabis BusinessesWhat 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...

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

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

Borders and Cannabis and MoneyFerengi 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...

read more
Squatters in Michigan

Squatters in Michigan

SquattersSquatting, 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...

read more
US Cannabis Industry-Just Another Sinking Ship?

US Cannabis Industry-Just Another Sinking Ship?

Is the cannabis industry just another sinking ship in the US? This story was picked up out in the cannabis news world. Read it for yourself.

Have the end times have begun for US weed companies as the first South American imports are approved by the DEA.

The US Federal Government Gives Approval for South American Cannabis Imports into the USA.

In an exclusive announcement from Benzinga, a breakthrough partnership between MMJ International Holdings and Global Cannabis Production (GCP) has just been announced – one that has the potential to alter how the worldwide marijuana industry operates entirely.

The two companies announced a joint partnership to get the enable the first-ever importation of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products into the United States from Uruguay. In addition, they are also inking a deal to produce cannabis-based pharmaceuticals to sell internationally. Once established, this will revolutionize patient access to cannabinoid medicines while also marking a milestone in cannabis medicine and cannabis research.

Read the rest of the article here

More News from Cannabis.net

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime or DUI.
Call Komorn Law and turn the odds in your favor.
Call Now 248-357-2550

Komorn Law Social Media

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

Blog Cannabis Science Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Driving DUI Forfeiture Health Benefits of Marijuana Hemp Know Your Rights Komorn Law Blog LARA-MMFLA Info Legalization Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan Laws Michigan Medical Marhuana Regulation Michigan Medical Marijuana Act Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan News Michigan Supreme Court News Planet Green Trees Radio Recent Victories Supreme Court Uncategorized USA news Victories Project Your Rights

DISCLAIMER
This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.

The Marijuana Industry Paid an Extra $1.8 Billion in Federal Taxes Because of the 280E Tax Code

The Marijuana Industry Paid an Extra $1.8 Billion in Federal Taxes Because of the 280E Tax Code

News from the internet

Why legalize cannabis when 280E is the gift that keeps on giving to the Federal government?

Whitney Economics, a cannabis research firm, recently conducted a comprehensive analysis of the impact of federal taxes on the cannabis industry. The findings revealed that in 2022, cannabis operators incurred an astonishing $1.8 billion in additional taxes compared to conventional businesses. Looking ahead, it is projected that this excess burden will rise even further to reach $2.1 billion in 2023.

The Reason Behind The Higher Tax Burden for Cannabis Operators

Despite the growing number of states that have legalized medicinal or adult-use cannabis operations, cannabis’ classification as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) remains unchanged.

Under this classification, cannabis businesses that operate per state law are deemed criminal enterprises engaged in the trafficking of a controlled substance under federal law. This label treats law-abiding business owners and operators as drug dealers peddling substances as harmful as cocaine and heroin. As such, these businesses are subjected to Section 280E.

Section 280E is a provision that punishes those involved in the trafficking of Schedule I or II drugs by prohibiting the deduction of “ordinary and necessary” business expenses. This includes below-the-line deductions, even after reducing gross receipts by the cost of goods sold (COGS). This results in federal income tax liability being calculated based on gross income rather than net income.

Read the rest of the article here

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime or DUI.
Call Komorn Law and turn the odds in your favor.
Call Now 248-357-2550

Komorn Law Social Media

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

Blog Cannabis Science Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Driving DUI Forfeiture Health Benefits of Marijuana Hemp Know Your Rights Komorn Law Blog LARA-MMFLA Info Legalization Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan Laws Michigan Medical Marhuana Regulation Michigan Medical Marijuana Act Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn Michigan News Michigan Supreme Court News Planet Green Trees Radio Recent Victories Supreme Court Uncategorized USA news Victories Project Your Rights

DISCLAIMER
This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.

Federal Court Strikes Down Gun Ban For People Who Use Marijuana

Federal Court Strikes Down Gun Ban For People Who Use Marijuana

The federal government’s justification for upholding the law is “concerning,” according to a federal judge, who ruled that the ban on marijuana users owning firearms is unconstitutional.

A man was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police found marijuana and a handgun in his car while he was driving, and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the indictment on Friday.

 Judge Patrick Wyrick concurred with the attorneys that the Second Amendment of the Constitution is violated by the law that forbids “unlawful” cannabis users from owning firearms.

This ruling comes as the ban is still being contested in a separate federal court by several medical cannabis patients and former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (D).

The Trump-appointed judge in this case heavily relied on an interpretation of a recent Supreme Court decision in which the justices generally set higher standards for policies that seek to restrict gun rights.

According to the ruling, any such limitations must be in line with the Second Amendment’s original ratification in 1791.

The judge said in his decision on Friday that the historical analogies the Justice Department relied on to support the ban, including allusions to outdated case law prohibiting Catholics, allies, slaves and Indians from owning weapons, “misses the mark” and “cannot provide the basis for a historical analogue.”

The government’s position that marijuana users who use it illegally are “both unvirtuous and dangerous” was also addressed. A user of marijuana does not automatically fall into that category, according to Wyrick, “because the mere act of using marijuana do not involve violent, forceful, or threatening conduct.”

Similar arguments have been made by the government in the Florida-based case, in which medical cannabis patients are actively contesting a federal district court’s decision that dismissed their DOJ lawsuit in November.

Because the state’s cannabis laws had made it possible for “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified people to obtain firearms illegally, the ATF issued an advisory in 2020 that specifically targeted Michigan and mandated that gun sellers conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers.

The Department of Justice will likely appeal Wyrick’s ruling to a higher federal court.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving. Call Komorn Law and turn your defense into an offense.
Call Now 248-357-2550

Komorn Law Social Media

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

2021 BMMR cannabis CBD corruption. prosecutors dispensary Driving DUI forfeiture gun rights hemp komornlaw lara law enforcement abuse laws Legalization marijuana Medical Marijuana Michigan michigan laws michigan news MMFLA MRA news police politics science usa news us supreme court Your Rights

DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on “Official Government and State Sites”, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain. You’re on the internet.

US court upholds ban on selling guns to marijuana card holders

US court upholds ban on selling guns to marijuana card holders

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court’s jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon.

It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who said she tried to buy a firearm for self-defense in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card. The gun store refused, citing the federal rule banning the sale of firearms to illegal drug users.

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Wilson said she was not a marijuana user, but obtained the card in part as an expression of support for marijuana legalization.

She challenged guidance issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2011 that said gun sellers should assume people with medical marijuana cards use the drug and not sell them firearms.

It’s illegal for a licensed firearm dealer to sell a gun to an Oregon medical or recreational marijuana consumer, said Portland lawyer Leland Berger. He noted that the ruling is focused on sales and doesn’t affect medical marijuana consumers who already have guns.

The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said it was reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder was more likely to use the drug.

The court also said Congress had reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”

“The notion that cannabis consumers are violent people is absurd,” Berger said, calling the notion that classifying medical card holders who use marijuana to treat debilitating medical conditions as violent people is “even more absurd.”

Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, a nonprofit that works to reform marijuana laws, called on Congress to “amend cannabis’ criminal status in a way that comports with both public and scientific opinion, as well as its rapidly changing legal status under state laws.”

“Responsible adults who use cannabis in a manner that is compliant with the laws of their states ought to receive the same legal rights and protections as do other citizens,” he said in a statement published on the nonprofit’s website.

Wilson’s attorney, Chaz Rainey, said there needs to be more consistency in the application of the Second Amendment. He planned to appeal the decision and his options include submitting the appeal to the same panel of judges that issued the ruling, a larger panel of the circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if you’re on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,” he said.

The 9th Circuit also rejected other constitutional challenges to the ban that were raised by Wilson, including her argument that her gun rights were being stripped without due process.

Armentano said the idea that marijuana users were more prone to violence is a fallacy.

“Responsible adults who use cannabis in a manner that is compliant with the laws of their states ought to receive the same legal rights and protections as other citizens,” he said.

Alex Kreit, a marijuana law expert at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, said the ruling was significant — but may not be the last time the 9th Circuit addresses medical marijuana and gun rights.

“It seems like the court did not foreclose the possibility of a challenge by actual medical marijuana users that they shouldn’t be lumped with other drug users in terms of concerns about violence,” he said.

— The Associated Press

September 01, 2016