• 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

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.

Can you back that up?

My pharmacist told me that Lunesta (widely advertised sleeping med) is a controlled substance. What you're saying is that the pharmacy can't deduct the cost of wholesale purchase of Lunesta for resale at the retail level. If that is really so, then it's a wonder that any pharmacy sells it. The difference between wholesale and retail would have to be huge in order to make it pay.

So, do you really have a link to back up your statement?
 
Can you back that up?

My pharmacist told me that Lunesta (widely advertised sleeping med) is a controlled substance. What you're saying is that the pharmacy can't deduct the cost of wholesale purchase of Lunesta for resale at the retail level. If that is really so, then it's a wonder that any pharmacy sells it. The difference between wholesale and retail would have to be huge in order to make it pay.

So, do you really have a link to back up your statement?

Will the State of Georgia lose it's tax exemption status for purchasing it's execution drugs from organized crime? If not, then I don't see why marijuana producers in California need to be singled out either.
 
Can you back that up?

My pharmacist told me that Lunesta (widely advertised sleeping med) is a controlled substance. What you're saying is that the pharmacy can't deduct the cost of wholesale purchase of Lunesta for resale at the retail level. If that is really so, then it's a wonder that any pharmacy sells it. The difference between wholesale and retail would have to be huge in order to make it pay.

So, do you really have a link to back up your statement?



Red. The. Tax. Code. What does it say?
 
Red. The. Tax. Code. What does it say?

It says that retail businesses pay taxes on the difference between the wholesale price of the goods they buy and the retail price of the resale. That's what it said.

Oh, and the tax code is in black and white, not in red.
 
It says that retail businesses pay taxes on the difference between the wholesale price of the goods they buy and the retail price of the resale. That's what it said.

Oh, and the tax code is in black and white, not in red.

The tax code says that businesses that peddle controlled substances can't deduct the purchase price of those products. That's what it says...note the present tense, because it didn't stop saying it.
 
The tax code says that businesses that peddle controlled substances can't deduct the purchase price of those products. That's what it says...note the present tense, because it didn't stop saying it.

280E?
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.

or are you talking about a different section?
 
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.

Can't really blame Obama for this:

This isn’t the first time the IRS has attempted to use this clause to go after medical marijuana dispensaries. In 2007, the agency assessed that San Francisco-based dispensary Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems (CHAMP) owed nearly half a million dollars in back taxes. The IRS argued at the time that Section 280E of the U.S. Tax Code, created in the early ‘80s to prevent drug dealers from writing off “business” expenses, meant that because CHAMP’s business was built on a drug that is illegal under federal law, the business deductions it made that year were invalid. CHARM took its case to U.S. Tax Court and won, cutting its payments from $426,000 to $4,905.

So if there’s already a court precedent for the IRS losing a case just like this, why are they suddenly, vigorously pursuing it again? That’s not entirely clear — and the IRS refuses to comment on any audits it undertakes. And yet, Steve Fox, lobbyist for the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), says that he’s heard that up to a dozen dispensaries throughout California have been put through the audit process (and there could be untold dozens more who haven’t made it known outside of their organizations). Just three have gone public with their audits: the Harborside Health Center in Oakland, The Farmacy in Los Angeles and the much smaller Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana (MAMM) in the northern town of Fairfax, which has the distinction of being the longest-standing licensed medical marijuana dispensary in the country, according to founder and director Lynette Shaw.

Shaw says that her dispensary is also the first in the country to be handed a “final determination” demanding back taxes from the IRS. The final determination, handed down earlier this month, rules that MAMM owes nearly $800,000 from 2009 alone because its businesses deductions are now considered invalid. Shaw has been filing tax returns with business deductions since MAMM’s foundation in 1997, but this is the first year that the IRS has taken issue with them. If the IRS goes back and audits MAMM’s books dating back to ’97, the dispensary would owe millions — millions Shaw says neither she nor her organization has.

Shaw believes that the end goal in all this is to hit her and other dispensary owners with astronomical back taxes that they will be unable to pay, a situation that would inevitably shutter every dispensary that gets audited. The Obama administration had issued a Justice Department directive in 2009 to not take action against medical marijuana dispensaries, and while Shaw has faith that the administration itself remains committed to honoring that plan, she’s convinced that “the DEA is using the IRS to get rid of us while Obama’s busy.”

It's not like he made a phone call and said, "Sic 'em!" The IRS uses fear and intimidation on businesses so that individuals can settle their back-tax debts for 20-cents-on-the-dollar. http://asheham.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/irs-to-go-after-medical-marijuana-vendors/
 
280E?


or are you talking about a different section?

No, that's the one I'm talking about. Doesn't that mean that businesses that peddle controlled substances can't write off the expense of those substances?

Now I know why most pharmacies are half pharmacy and half gift shop.
 
No, that's the one I'm talking about. Doesn't that mean that businesses that peddle controlled substances can't write off the expense of those substances?

Now I know why most pharmacies are half pharmacy and half gift shop.

Not quite. It means that those selling those substances illegally can't write off their expenses. And, since California is flying in the face of Federal laws, these shops are selling Federally-illegal substances. They'll probaby lose -- but only after they've put a number of shops out of business that can't afford the litigation.
 
This is a struggle between the State of California and the federal government over the legalization of pot, pure and simple.
Just where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to carry on the war on drugs in the first place? Shouldn't it be a state issue?
 
No, that's the one I'm talking about. Doesn't that mean that businesses that peddle controlled substances can't write off the expense of those substances?

Now I know why most pharmacies are half pharmacy and half gift shop.
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.
Only if the controlled substance is illegal is it not allowed to be deducted from taxes. You're whole point about how drugs cost so much because the IRS wants them to be or whatever the hell you're arguing quite possibly is the most retarded statement on the forums today.
 
No, that's the one I'm talking about. Doesn't that mean that businesses that peddle controlled substances can't write off the expense of those substances?

Now I know why most pharmacies are half pharmacy and half gift shop.

I believe that is correct. Like I said earlier on in this thread, essentially, the medical pot shops in Ca are being told by Ca that their business is legal, but being punished by the Feds (tax wise) for running an illegal business.

It's kinda f-ed.
 
Not quite. It means that those selling those substances illegally can't write off their expenses. And, since California is flying in the face of Federal laws, these shops are selling Federally-illegal substances. They'll probaby lose -- but only after they've put a number of shops out of business that can't afford the litigation.

Drug dealers don't files taxes. :lamo
 
I believe that is correct. Like I said earlier on in this thread, essentially, the medical pot shops in Ca are being told by Ca that their business is legal, but being punished by the Feds (tax wise) for running an illegal business.

It's kinda f-ed.

I think you're totally misinterpreting what the Federal government is doing.
 
Can't really blame Obama for this:



It's not like he made a phone call and said, "Sic 'em!" The IRS uses fear and intimidation on businesses so that individuals can settle their back-tax debts for 20-cents-on-the-dollar. IRS To Go After Medical Marijuana Vendors « Path To Well-Being

No, you don't understand, Obama personally gives individual instructions to every IRS employee on every case.
Also every law enforcement employee nationwide, down to investigating a drug dealer on the street corner.
 
No, you don't understand, Obama personally gives individual instructions to every IRS employee on every case.
Also every law enforcement employee nationwide, down to investigating a drug dealer on the street corner.

Absolutely. As the messiah, he is omnipotent, and omnipresent. Surely, no one thinks he is merely a politician, do they?
 
This dispensery owner is fuggin STUPID. She would have been wise to set aside % of all profits in preperation for taxes anyways. Either you're serious about it becomeing fully legalized and accepted or not. Cover your own ass. Sounds like she thought she had a free pass, splurged and wants to keep the $$$.
 
This dispensery owner is fuggin STUPID. She would have been wise to set aside % of all profits in preperation for taxes anyways. Either you're serious about it becomeing fully legalized and accepted or not. Cover your own ass. Sounds like she thought she had a free pass, splurged and wants to keep the $$$.

Surely, you must understand the concept of paying taxes on net profits vs gross receipts, don't you?
 
Super literal X-lation or functional translation? Net taxes are for fishing stores and Gross receipts are aquired at porno stores? And dont call me Sherley. And wouldn't net profit be AFTER tax? If this place hasnt been taxxed then whats the point of even bringing up re-taxxing after net profit?
 
Back
Top Bottom