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

Defense attorneys seek fed inquiry of MSP crime labs

Defense attorneys seek fed inquiry of MSP crime labs

Southfield — Three defense attorneys are asking the federal government to investigate the Michigan State Police crime laboratories, alleging misconduct in their testing for pending drug cases.   Southfield defense attorneys Neil Rockind and Michael Komorn, along...

read more
Attorney: Crime labs ‘falsified’ marijuana reports

Attorney: Crime labs ‘falsified’ marijuana reports

A Southfield lawyer alleges the Michigan State Police crime labs have “falsified lab reports on marijuana statewide” and he’s asking a judge to dismisses charges lodged against a client.   Michael Komorn, who also represents defendants in Livingston County, said...

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

Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION

Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION

FORFEITURE OF 2006 SATURN IONMichigan Supreme Court Ruling - July 25, 2025 The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that Detroit police can no longer seize cars through civil asset forfeiture unless they can demonstrate that the vehicle was used for drug trafficking.The...

read more
The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)

The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)

Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your criminal history privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and...

read more
Michigan DNA Collection – The Law

Michigan DNA Collection – The Law

Chapter 750Act 328 of 1931328-1931-LXXVI THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)Act 328 of 1931Here's the website info750.520m DNA identification profiling; chemical testing; manner of collecting and transmitting samples; existing DNA identification profile; assessment;...

read more
The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...

read more
The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law Cases

The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law Cases

The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law CasesChallenges to Federal Gun Laws the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Updated July 8, 2024 Ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the...

read more
Do Passengers in a Vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do Passengers in a Vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do Passengers have 4th Amendment Rights?Michigan Supreme Court Limits Police Ability to Search Passenger Property in CarsBackground Mead was a passenger in a car and had just met the driver, who offered him a ride. When the police stopped the vehicle and ordered both...

read more
Do Students Have 4th Amendment Rights in Schools

Do Students Have 4th Amendment Rights in Schools

Students and 4th Amendment RightsStudents are entitled to a right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures even within school premises, as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, these rights are somewhat limited for students, allowing...

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.

Nevada Judge Rules Cannabis Can No Longer Be A Schedule 1 Drug

Nevada Judge Rules Cannabis Can No Longer Be A Schedule 1 Drug

A Nevada judge has ruled on a closely-followed lawsuit that could have precedent setting influence on a federal level. He determined that the Nevada Board of Pharmacy can no longer list cannabis as a schedule one drug. It was a clear victory for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada, which filed the lawsuit back in April 2022.

On Wednesday, District Judge Joe Hardy Jr. sided with the ACLU’s argument that marijuana has an accepted medical use, because voters amended the state constitution in 2000 to legalize medical marijuana. He ordered the Board of Pharmacy to remove cannabis from the list of Schedule 1 drugs, although the timeline for such action is unclear.

Read the complete article here

The original basis for the lawsuit alleged that despite the passage of the Nevada Medical Marijuana Act and the Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana, the state—specifically Nevada State Board of Pharmacy—failed to comport with the will of Nevada voters, the state Constitution and revised statutes. Instead of removing cannabis and cannabis derivatives from its list of controlled substances (NAC 453.510), the Board has continued to regulate them as Schedule 1 substances—similar to that of hardcore drugs with no medicinal benefit.

By definition, a Schedule 1 drug is classified as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. With medical cannabis programs deeply entrenched in the state of Nevada, cannabis’ designation appears to fly in the face of well-established known medicinal uses of the drug. This is the exact contradiction that the ACLU sought to force a ruling on:

The ruling today that cannabis cannot be scheduled as a Schedule 1 substance by Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy without violating the Nevada Constitution reaffirms what the people of this state have known for decades, that marijuana has medicinal value and can be safely distributed to the public.Legal Director for ACLU of Nevada Chris Peterson.

While The Board of Pharmacy has had every opportunity to remove marijuana from its Schedule 1 list on its own, it has persistently resisted to reschedule cannabis in Nevada. Despite the will of the people, it appears to be taking its cues from federal (DEA) guidelines, which continues to list cannabis as a schedule 1 drug. In this hearing, the lawyer representing the Board of Pharmacy argued that federal agencies had not determined that marijuana has an accepted medical use.

While judge Hardy sided with the ACLU on cannabis reclassification, he stopped short of ruling on any issues related to overturning convictions for marijuana-related crimes, because the ACLU’s lawsuit did not address the topic.

There was an attempt at a similar lawsuit in Michigan by Komorn Law, the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), John Sinclair and several others that was denied back in 2019

Nevada Controlled Substance List

Click here

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

The Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA)
Public forums for guests and members of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association
This is an open forum related to a variety of topics from legal issues to growing for medical use to strains and more.

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.