Don't look now, but the Feds and the IRS are on the way to stop it.
Well, if they don't pay taxes on it then they should.
(04-27-2012 02:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, if they don't pay taxes on it then they should.
Do some research on what the Feds and IRS have been doing in Cali to see what they are actually doing.
(04-27-2012 02:10 PM)GrayBeard Wrote: [ -> ]Don't look now, but the Feds and the IRS are on the way to stop it.
I know that the Feds said that the state wouldn't be raided or anything if they kept the operation small. So I guess the IRS may have other ways of getting at you.
Who'd have thought that Obama's administration is cracking down on dispensaries and a Republican governor is allowing them.
(04-27-2012 02:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, if they don't pay taxes on it then they should.
From what I've seen that's not the case. Dispensaries can't deduct normal business expenses due to an old addition to the tax code. I took one dispensary from $500,000 in tax liability from 2007-2008 to $2.5 MM for that same period of time.
(04-27-2012 03:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-27-2012 02:10 PM)GrayBeard Wrote: [ -> ]Don't look now, but the Feds and the IRS are on the way to stop it.
I know that the Feds said that the state wouldn't be raided or anything if they kept the operation small. So I guess the IRS may have other ways of getting at you.
Who'd have thought that Obama's administration is cracking down on dispensaries and a Republican governor is allowing them.
The Feds more or less changed the deal. They claimed that their change of stance is because the medical marijuana laws in California were a joke. Which, to be fair, is absolutely true; the alternative weeklies have advertisements where doctors offer Marijuana certification office visits for less what the local clinic charges to talk to a nurse and I have heard a student claim that marijuana is displacing alcohol at some California campuses because there is less risk (students are getting prescriptions for 'lower back pain').
Now, the Federal Government is putting pressure on property owners to kick out dispensaries by threatening them with property seizure. From the articles that I have seen out here it is the DEA and Attorney General's office that is behind the push, as far as I know the IRS has not been involved at all. I believe that, as long as you report it, the IRS really doesn't care how you earn your income.
I know that the dispensaries were putting together a lawsuit, but I'm not sure what happened to it. It would be interesting to hear which of the delegated powers was being used; since sales across state lines are prohibited the 'inter-state commerce clause' might be a bit more difficult to apply, but I'll bet that we have a drugs enforcement agreement with some country that will allow the Feds to claim 'treaty powers.'
(04-27-2012 11:47 PM)rice09 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-27-2012 03:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-27-2012 02:10 PM)GrayBeard Wrote: [ -> ]Don't look now, but the Feds and the IRS are on the way to stop it.
I know that the Feds said that the state wouldn't be raided or anything if they kept the operation small. So I guess the IRS may have other ways of getting at you.
Who'd have thought that Obama's administration is cracking down on dispensaries and a Republican governor is allowing them.
The Feds more or less changed the deal. They claimed that their change of stance is because the medical marijuana laws in California were a joke. Which, to be fair, is absolutely true; the alternative weeklies have advertisements where doctors offer Marijuana certification office visits for less what the local clinic charges to talk to a nurse and I have heard a student claim that marijuana is displacing alcohol at some California campuses because there is less risk (students are getting prescriptions for 'lower back pain').
Now, the Federal Government is putting pressure on property owners to kick out dispensaries by threatening them with property seizure. From the articles that I have seen out here it is the DEA and Attorney General's office that is behind the push, as far as I know the IRS has not been involved at all. I believe that, as long as you report it, the IRS really doesn't care how you earn your income.
I know that the dispensaries were putting together a lawsuit, but I'm not sure what happened to it. It would be interesting to hear which of the delegated powers was being used; since sales across state lines are prohibited the 'inter-state commerce clause' might be a bit more difficult to apply, but I'll bet that we have a drugs enforcement agreement with some country that will allow the Feds to claim 'treaty powers.'
The IRS was recently involved with taking down Oaksterdam, which never even sold marijuana itself.
Just look who the state has put in charge of despencing a class 1 drugs. And such a blow to the cartels . Oh and tax revnue is thru the roof to boot
(04-28-2012 09:10 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]Just look who the state has put in charge of despencing a class 1 drugs. And such a blow to the cartels . Oh and tax revnue is thru the roof to boot
Yep. Christy Kreme has to go to medical mj in order to grow the states revenue because he gave away the store to corporations with all the tax breaks he gave out.
(04-28-2012 12:25 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]The IRS was recently involved with taking down Oaksterdam, which never even sold marijuana itself.
I stand corrected. I hope they are only involved because of some undeclared income. Having the Treasury Department enforce drug laws sounds like something straight out of the 20s.
(04-28-2012 07:21 PM)rice09 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2012 12:25 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]The IRS was recently involved with taking down Oaksterdam, which never even sold marijuana itself.
I stand corrected. I hope they are only involved because of some undeclared income. Having the Treasury Department enforce drug laws sounds like something straight out of the 20s.
The method is the same. California's own Boardwalk Empire.
Marijuana prohibition must end eventually. These are all baby steps, but welcome. It's still a taboo issue at the federal level, hopefully someone has the courage there in Washington to do what must be done.
(04-28-2012 07:27 PM)wvucrazed Wrote: [ -> ]Marijuana prohibition must end eventually. These are all baby steps, but welcome. It's still a taboo issue at the federal level, hopefully someone has the courage there in Washington to do what must be done.
Been hearing that for the last 30 years, maybe another 30 or so......
(04-28-2012 07:27 PM)wvucrazed Wrote: [ -> ]Marijuana prohibition must end eventually. These are all baby steps, but welcome. It's still a taboo issue at the federal level, hopefully someone has the courage there in Washington to do what must be done.
It's going to be difficult to change things on the federal level without real pressure from the states. I know that the feds have over 55 years of drummed up "evidence" on why marijuana should stay sched 1.