• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS Tells Medical Marijuana Dispensary It Owes Millions In Taxes

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The IRS disallowed the Alliance's deductions -- for buying marijuana, hiring employees, securing office space and more -- based on Section 280E of the federal tax code, which says no deductions are allowed for any business "trafficking in controlled substances."

Here's the deal - Obama says that the Federal government will not enforce Federal drug laws on marijuana dispensaries in California. But, if the deductions for doing business as a marijuana dispensary are not allowed, the Feds will be able to put them out of business as tax evaders.

Very sneaky move, Barack.

I would like to see some responses from the Tea Party in here. It is my belief that they will denounce this move by Obama's administration for what it is - An abuse of Federal power. In fact, I believe that we may even find some agreement from people on opposite sides of the political spectrum here.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Here's the deal - Obama says that the Federal government will not enforce Federal drug laws on marijuana dispensaries in California. But, if the deductions for doing business as a marijuana dispensary are not allowed, the Feds will be able to put them out of business as tax evaders.

Very sneaky move, Barack.

I would like to see some responses from the Tea Party in here. It is my belief that they will denounce this move by Obama's administration for what it is - An abuse of Federal power. In fact, I believe that we may even find some agreement from people on opposite sides of the political spectrum here.

Article is here.

If they're operating a legitimate business, then they owe some ****ing corporate income taxes.

How much you wanna bet that all those Obama voters that are operating this businesses are pissed of as hell right now?
 
If they're operating a legitimate business, then they owe some ****ing corporate income taxes.

Sounds to me like you didn't even understand the issue. As usual.
 
Last edited:
Here's the deal - Obama says that the Federal government will not enforce Federal drug laws on marijuana dispensaries in California. But, if the deductions for doing business as a marijuana dispensary are not allowed, the Feds will be able to put them out of business as tax evaders.

Very sneaky move, Barack.

I would like to see some responses from the Tea Party in here. It is my belief that they will denounce this move by Obama's administration for what it is - An abuse of Federal power. In fact, I believe that we may even find some agreement from people on opposite sides of the political spectrum here.

Article is here.

What a dumb law. It's bad enough that we have the war on drugs in the justice system at all, but they actually wrote it into the tax code? Gah. It's most definitely an abuse of federal power.
 
Here's the deal - Obama says that the Federal government will not enforce Federal drug laws on marijuana dispensaries in California. But, if the deductions for doing business as a marijuana dispensary are not allowed, the Feds will be able to put them out of business as tax evaders.

Very sneaky move, Barack.

I would like to see some responses from the Tea Party in here. It is my belief that they will denounce this move by Obama's administration for what it is - An abuse of Federal power. In fact, I believe that we may even find some agreement from people on opposite sides of the political spectrum here.

Article is here.

I agree its horse****.......liberal politicians talk about legilization in order to gain support from millions of pot smokers, many of whom seem to have legilization and decriminalization as their two top political priorities in life. But in reality, the statists just want pot and all things stemming from it.....to be placed under complete control of the state.....just like everything else.
.
.
.
.
 
Not surprising in the least, the IRS always cracks down when the state is loosing it's money flow. Another reason why an overall of the federal tax system is sorely needed. When you cant crush your opponents the free market way, use fear/propaganda in order to convince the state jackboots and it's thugs to crush your opponents for you.
 
It sounds to me like the IRS claims are bogus. None of that has been tested in court, of course. If it is, and if the court upholds the IRS position, then medical marijuana will be a thing of the past. The winner in that scenario, of course, would be the drug traffickers.
 
If they're operating a legitimate business, then they owe some ****ing corporate income taxes.

How much you wanna bet that all those Obama voters that are operating this businesses are pissed of as hell right now?

I think you missed the point. Try reading the article. The marijuana dispensaries are being denied the tax deductions entitled to every other business. It's not about taxes themselves, nor is it about one type of business attempting to avoid taxes, nor is it about Obama voters who want to get out of paying taxes.

Reading is fundamental, so read the article, then post again.
 
Last edited:
I think you missed the point. Try reading the article. The marijuana dispensaries are being denied the tax deductions entitled to every other business. It's not about taxes themselves, nor is it about one type of business attempting to avoid taxes, nor is it about Obama voters who want to get out of paying taxes.

Reading is fundamental, so read the article, then post again.

They are being denied due to that of a controlled substance. States right in the article why they are being denied. I don't see the problem here other than that some individuals think that MJ shouldn't be classed as what it is classed at. Point of fact though is that it is.
 
IRS Tells Medical Marijuana Dispensary It Owes Millions In Taxes - Toke of the Town

This is just stupid. They weren't required to collect sales tax???? We are talking about Ca., the state that's going bankrupt? I thought the financial gain was a reason to legalize it.

As for that state sales tax, "The State of California issued the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana a permanent exemption from collecting sales taxes in 1997 that was reaffirmed and reissued in 2002," Shaw said. "We were told NOT to collect sales taxes, as they did not wish to create a new category for taxing marijuana. We were never notified that our exemption had been changed. In 2008 we were contacted for the first time regarding our exemption. The state then claimed we owed them money they had told us to not charge nor collect
 
IRS Tells Medical Marijuana Dispensary It Owes Millions In Taxes - Toke of the Town

This is just stupid. They weren't required to collect sales tax???? We are talking about Ca., the state that's going bankrupt? I thought the financial gain was a reason to legalize it.

Of course they should have to collect sales tax, just like every other business. Like other businesses, they should also have to pay taxes on their net profits. Saying that they have to pay on gross profits because they are selling a controlled substance is just not a supportable position. Do pharmacies pay on gross profits? They also deal in controlled substances.
 
First, I don't know if this is an "abuse" of government power. They're enforcing the laws and rules that are on the books. I don't see this any more of an "abuse" of government power than any other government action against individuals using illegal drugs.

Second, I think those laws on the books are idiotic. And I think that if you're going to state that you're going to let California operate those businesses without federal pressure from law enforcement you should do similarly with regards to the taxes. However, I don't think its an "abuse" not to do that...I just think its underhanded and typical of a career politician who is more concerned about public image than anything else. On one hand, you can seem like you're being lienent with regards to it, on the other hand you can act like you're curtailing it.
 
If you are operating a legal business under the law and are legally allowed to dispense a 'controlled substance' under that law, but then you are denied the same tax deductions that other legal businesses are afforded because you distribute a 'controlled substance' (which you're legally allowed to do mind you), you're getting ****ed.

How the **** can the federal government tell you on one hand, your business is legal, and on the other hand tell you it isn't???
 
Well, why don't you educate me then?

No one claimed that they shouldn't have to pay corporate tax. The issue is that the IRS doesn't want them to deduct the cost of goods sold, like every other corporation does.
 
No one claimed that they shouldn't have to pay corporate tax. The issue is that the IRS doesn't want them to deduct the cost of goods sold, like every other corporation does.

Oh, I see; well that's exactly what I thought the issue was. Allow me to rephrase my earlier post: They should have to pay taxes, in accordance with the tax code, just like any other corporation has to do.

Feel better?
 
Oh, I see; well that's exactly what I thought the issue was. Allow me to rephrase my earlier post: They should have to pay taxes, in accordance with the tax code, just like any other corporation has to do.

Whether or not the tax code should carve out special exceptions for businesses dealing in controlled substances is the very issue being debated. Sorry, you fail.
 
Whether or not the tax code should carve out special exceptions for businesses dealing in controlled substances is the very issue being debated. Sorry, you fail.

And, you say I'm the one that doesn't get it? Did you even read my post? Do you know what, "in accordance with", means?
 
Of course they should have to collect sales tax, just like every other business. Like other businesses, they should also have to pay taxes on their net profits. Saying that they have to pay on gross profits because they are selling a controlled substance is just not a supportable position. Do pharmacies pay on gross profits? They also deal in controlled substances.

What's going on here, isn't taxing 100% of the gross profit, but rather not allowing these businesses to deduct the cost of purchasing product from a wholesaler. No doubt this applies to pharmacies who purchase cocaine, morphine, etc.

Anyone wann take a stab at why meds are so ****ing high?
 
What's going on here, isn't taxing 100% of the gross profit, but rather not allowing these businesses to deduct the cost of purchasing product from a wholesaler. No doubt this applies to pharmacies who purchase cocaine, morphine, etc.

Anyone wann take a stab at why meds are so ****ing high?

I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't apply to pharmacies. The taxing gross profits ploy is just the latest salvo in the California vs federal government battle over pot.

Did you know that someone caught with pot in California pays a small fine (maybe), but if they get caught on National Forest land in California, they go to jail?
 
First, I don't know if this is an "abuse" of government power. They're enforcing the laws and rules that are on the books. I don't see this any more of an "abuse" of government power than any other government action against individuals using illegal drugs.

Second, I think those laws on the books are idiotic. And I think that if you're going to state that you're going to let California operate those businesses without federal pressure from law enforcement you should do similarly with regards to the taxes. However, I don't think its an "abuse" not to do that...I just think its underhanded and typical of a career politician who is more concerned about public image than anything else. On one hand, you can seem like you're being lienent with regards to it, on the other hand you can act like you're curtailing it.

Liberals did it, therefore it's abuse.

The law has probably been on the books for 20 years, but it's definitely Obama's fault.

I agree that the law is stupid, though.
 
Liberals did it, therefore it's abuse.

The law has probably been on the books for 20 years, but it's definitely Obama's fault.

I agree that the law is stupid, though.

I don't care whether it was Bush or Clinton or even Reagan where the law was made. Obama is the one enforcing it now. Therefore, at this time, it IS Obama's fault.
 
I don't care whether it was Bush or Clinton or even Reagan where the law was made. Obama is the one enforcing it now. Therefore, at this time, it IS Obama's fault.

But many conservatives threw a fit when Obama decided not to defend DOMA because he was not enforcing the law in their view. So what we have is he is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I am not going to criticize a president for enforcing the law, especially when they are already getting a break in terms of the law and enforcement.
 
I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't apply to pharmacies. The taxing gross profits ploy is just the latest salvo in the California vs federal government battle over pot.

Did you know that someone caught with pot in California pays a small fine (maybe), but if they get caught on National Forest land in California, they go to jail?

I'd be willing to bet that you're wrong. The tax code specifically states that corporations that sell controlled substances cannot deduct the cost of purhcasing those controlled substances, so, if a business deals only in controlled substances, then there's no write-off for inventory purchases. I mean, hey, there it is!

Ya'll wanted pot legalized and taxed; well, you got it.
 
Back
Top Bottom