psilocybin - Oregon

Advocating for Flexibility: Oregon’s Psilocybin Industry Must Adapt to Stay Ahead

Advocating for Flexibility: Oregon's Psilocybin Industry Must Adapt to Stay Ahead

psilocybin - Oregon

To the Oregon psilocybin industry, the upcoming public comment period offers a critical opportunity to advocate for more flexible regulations that align with Colorado’s model and maintain Oregon’s advantage as a pioneering state in this field. As Colorado finalizes its Natural Medicine Health Act, several provisions might challenge Oregon’s first-to-market position if not addressed proactively.

Here are key points to consider:

1. Expand the Scope of Allowed Activities and Substances: Although Colorado’s framework currently focuses on psilocybin, it’s poised to expand to other natural medicines, like DMT, ibogaine, and certain forms of mescaline. Advocating for a similar framework in Oregon could position the state to support a broader spectrum of natural medicines. This could help Oregon maintain its role as a leader in plant medicine, offering diverse therapeutic options and attracting practitioners and clients from other states.

2. Allow for Flexibility in Service Settings: Colorado permits licensed facilitators to operate outside of designated healing centers, enabling them to provide services in homes, healthcare facilities, and other community settings. This flexibility enhances accessibility and affordability for clients. Oregon’s strict requirement for services to be performed exclusively in licensed service centers could limit access and create higher costs. By expanding the types of permissible service settings, Oregon can ensure broader, more equitable access across the state.

3. Local Control: Colorado’s regulations prevent local governments from entirely prohibiting healing centers but allow them to regulate time, place, and manner of operations. In Oregon, several local jurisdictions have opted out, reducing accessibility for some residents. A statewide policy preventing outright bans but allowing local time and manner restrictions could increase service availability and foster greater industry growth in Oregon.

4. Decriminalization of Personal Use: Colorado has decriminalized personal possession, cultivation, and use of natural medicines like psilocybin, which allows adults 21 and older to possess and use these substances without criminal penalties. While Oregon initially passed Measure 110, which decriminalized small quantities of controlled substances, this has since been repealed, making even small quantities of psychedelics illegal once more. To maintain Oregon’s progressive stance on natural medicine, the state should consider adopting a targeted decriminalization policy specifically for psychedelics, aligning more closely with Colorado’s approach. This move would support safe personal use, encourage responsible exploration of plant medicines, and reduce unnecessary criminalization for low-level possession.

5. Licensing Flexibility: Both states require separate licenses for cultivation, manufacturing, and administration, but Colorado allows licensed professionals from other industries (such as healthcare and mental health services) to operate within licensed healing centers. Oregon could benefit from similar provisions, allowing therapists, counselors, and other licensed professionals to offer complementary services within psilocybin centers. This could encourage a holistic approach to mental health, integrate broader professional expertise, and attract a diverse range of clients.

6. Cultural and Indigenous Sensitivity: Colorado has established a Tribal and Indigenous Working Group to prevent cultural misappropriation and promote respectful practices within the industry. Oregon could incorporate similar measures to ensure that the industry respects Indigenous traditions and involves communities in regulatory development. This approach not only acknowledges cultural heritage but also strengthens the ethical framework for natural medicine services.

By encouraging these adjustments, the Oregon psilocybin industry can leverage public feedback to adopt a more inclusive and flexible framework. This can help sustain Oregon’s competitive edge and expand its reach as other states begin to explore similar regulatory programs.

Sources: Zuber Lawler, “5 Takeaways from Colorado’s Proposition 122 – The Natural Medicine Health Act” – Highlights the provisions for personal use, flexibility in service locations, and future potential expansion to other substances under the NMHA.

Vicente LLP, “The Ultimate Guide to SB23-290, Colorado’s Natural Medicine Regulation and Legalization Bill” – Details on the regulatory framework for licensed facilitators, Indigenous and cultural sensitivity provisions, and licensing structures for natural medicines.

Healing Maps, “Psilocybin Laws in Colorado and Oregon: What’s the Difference?” – Compares Oregon’s psilocybin regulations to Colorado’s, covering topics like local control, decriminalization, and service settings.

The Cannabis Journey Back to the Supreme Court: A Conversation with Katie Scates, CPA, JD

The Cannabis Journey Back to the Supreme Court: A Conversation with Katie Scates, CPA, JD

The Cannabis Journey Back to the Supreme Court: A Conversation with Katie Scates, CPA, JD

Introducing Katie Scates and Her Unique Expertise

Join Justin Botillier, CEO of Calyx CPA, in a candid conversation with Katie Scates, CPA, JD, the newest member of the Calyx CPA team. With her extensive background in both law and accounting, and specialized knowledge of the cannabis industry, Katie brings a unique perspective on navigating complex tax and legal challenges.

Key Developments in the Cannabis Industry

In this video, Justin and Katie explore the latest developments in the cannabis industry, focusing on the recent appellate brief challenging federal prohibition, as reported by Marijuana Moment.

Cannabis and the Legal Landscape

They discuss the implications of the case’s potential journey back to the Supreme Court, the future of 280E, and the rescheduling of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act.

Insights for Cannabis Industry Professionals

Whether you’re in the cannabis space or curious about the legal landscape, this engaging discussion provides valuable insights into the future of cannabis regulation and taxation.

chatgpt Cannabis

When Will Marijuana Be Rescheduled? ChatGpt’s Prediction!

When will Marijuana be rescheduled? Chat GPT’s Prediction!

Author Chat GPT 06/21/2024

As we stand on the cusp of a historic shift in U.S. drug policy, the potential rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III is a topic of significant interest and debate. Here, I leverage the power of ChatGPT, an advanced language model developed by OpenAI, to explore the current process, provide an estimated timeline, and predict when this monumental change might occur.

The Power of ChatGPT

ChatGPT is an extraordinary tool designed to assist with a wide range of tasks, from generating text to answering complex questions. It harnesses the power of deep learning to understand and generate human-like text based on the input it receives. As the author of this blog post, ChatGPT has delved into various sources, analyzed the data, and provided a comprehensive overview of the cannabis rescheduling process. This cutting-edge technology enables us to stay informed and make educated predictions about significant regulatory changes.

The Rescheduling Process

The process to reschedule cannabis officially began on May 16, 2024, when the Attorney General submitted a notice of proposed rulemaking to the Federal Register. This initiated a formal rulemaking process involving several key steps:

Public Comment Period: Once the proposed rule is published, there is a 60-day public comment period during which stakeholders and the general public can submit their opinions and evidence. This period is crucial for gathering diverse perspectives on the proposed change (JD Supra) (Home | Holland & Knight) (Marijuana Moment).

Administrative Hearings: Following the comment period, the DEA may hold administrative hearings if requested by interested parties. These hearings are similar to federal bench trials, involving expert testimonies and detailed reviews of the evidence presented. This phase can significantly extend the timeline, often taking several months (JD Supra) (Marijuana Moment).

Review and Final Rule: After the hearings, the DEA will review all comments and evidence before drafting the final rule. This draft must then be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and submitted to Congress for a 60-day review period, as required for major rules. This step ensures that the rule undergoes thorough scrutiny before implementation (JD Supra) (Marijuana Moment).

Implementation: Assuming no significant delays or objections, the final rule can be implemented after the Congressional review period. Historically, rescheduling processes can take anywhere from several months to over a year, depending on the complexity and volume of input received (Justice) (Vicente LLP) (Marijuana Moment).

Potential Timeline

Given the expedited nature of recent political and public interest in cannabis reform, it is possible that the rescheduling process could be completed within a year. However, considering the possibility of administrative hearings and extensive public comments, the timeline might extend beyond this optimistic estimate. Comparisons with previous rescheduling efforts, such as hydrocodone combination products, suggest that a final rule could be in place by the end of the second quarter of 2025 (JD Supra) (Vicente LLP) (Marijuana Moment).

Prediction: Based on the current pace and historical precedents, ChatGPT predicts that the rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III will be finalized on July 1, 2025.

Current Debates and Challenges

The proposal to reschedule cannabis has faced significant opposition from various former DEA officials and Republican state attorneys general. These groups have requested public hearings, arguing that rescheduling would have far-reaching implications and requires a thorough review. They contend that rescheduling could undermine federal efforts to combat drug trafficking and contribute to increased drug abuse (Marijuana Moment) (Marijuana Moment).

On the other hand, proponents of rescheduling argue that it aligns federal policy with the growing acceptance of cannabis for medical use across many states. They highlight the potential benefits, such as removing barriers to research and allowing cannabis businesses to take standard business deductions, which are currently prohibited under IRS Section 280E (Marijuana Moment) (Marijuana Moment) (Marijuana Moment).

Conclusion

The rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III marks a pivotal moment in U.S. drug policy, reflecting changing societal attitudes and scientific understanding of cannabis. While the process is complex and faces significant hurdles, the move could ultimately pave the way for more comprehensive cannabis reforms in the future.

As this process unfolds, it is crucial for stakeholders to stay informed and engaged, ensuring that all perspectives are considered in shaping the future of cannabis regulation in the United States.

For more detailed updates and to participate in the public comment process, visit the Federal Register and DEA websites. Stay tuned to platforms like Marijuana Moment for ongoing coverage and analysis of this critical issue.

 
Justin

The Future of the Ordinary Business Deduction for Cannabis Businesses

 

We recently ran across an article written in May by Joseph A. Peterson, a Senior Attorney at Plunkett Cooney, called Beyond 280E: The Future of the Ordinary Business Deduction for Cannabis Businesses (Here is the link to the article). His article again highlights how 280E has damaged the cannabis business and argues that companies have the constitutional right to claw back their lost deductions. See Justin’s video, which he recorded back in March, for more details (Watch Justin’s video).

Below are the highlights of Joseph’s article. We encourage you to reach out today to verify if you qualify to amend your returns and/or file a protective claim for a refund.

Highlights of Joseph’s Article:

  1. Economic Impact:
    • Medical and recreational cannabis sales could exceed $33.6 billion, with an additional economic impact of $100.8 billion by the end of 2023.
  2. Section 280E Overview:
    • Section 280E disallows tax deductions for ordinary business expenses for businesses involved in “trafficking” controlled substances, including cannabis.
    • Cannabis businesses are only allowed to deduct the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS), leading to significantly higher effective tax rates (up to 70% or higher) compared to other businesses.
  3. Impact on Cannabis Businesses:
    • The restriction of 280E creates financial strain, reducing the ability to reinvest, hire new employees, and expand operations.
    • Efforts to reform 280E include legislative proposals like The Small Business Tax Equity Act and state-level tax relief through decoupling from federal restrictions.
  4. Recent Developments:
    • Two cannabis Multi-State Operators (MSOs), Truelieve and Ascend Wellness Holdings, successfully filed amended returns to claim ordinary business expense deductions previously excluded under 280E.
    • Truelieve received $113 million in tax refunds for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 tax years, and Ascend Wellness Holdings filed for similar refunds for 2020, 2021, and 2022.
    • Both MSOs plan to file 2023 tax returns as normal corporate taxpayers, excluding 280E.
  5. Implications for the Industry:
    • The amended returns by MSOs have set a precedent and sent shockwaves through the cannabis industry.
    • There is anticipation of additional scrutiny and potential litigation from the IRS regarding these refunds.
  6. Recommendations for Cannabis Businesses:
    • Cannabis businesses should consider filing amended protective returns to preserve the ability to claim retroactive refunds if the federal stance on 280E changes.
    • The process involves identifying the basis for the claim, providing sufficient facts, quantifying the refund, meeting filing requirements, and following up after the 280E contingency is resolved.
    • Filing a protective claim can preserve the right to a refund if 280E’s applicability changes.
  7. Legal and Regulatory Context:
    • The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the federal government’s authority to regulate cannabis under the Commerce Clause.
    • Justice Clarence Thomas and the DOJ have criticized the enforcement of 280E on medical cannabis sales.
    • Businesses should seek specialist advice and monitor legal developments closely.
    •  

We encourage you to contact us today to verify whether you qualify to amend your returns and/or file a protective claim for refund.

DEA Cannabis Rescheduling - Calyx CPA

“Is the Dea’s Response to Rescheduling Cannabis Overly Hyped?” Calyx Responds……

 

Cannabis Rescheduling and the IRS’s Response to Business Deductions

The recent decision by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to consider rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) marks a watershed moment in the history of American drug policy. Initially classified as a Schedule I drug, marijuana was deemed to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse, placing it alongside substances like heroin and LSD. This strict classification has governed its legal status, restricting not only its use but also research into its potential benefits.

The push for rescheduling comes on the heels of a comprehensive review by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which highlighted marijuana’s accepted medical use and lower abuse potential relative to other Schedule I drugs. The proposal to shift marijuana to Schedule III, which includes drugs like ketamine and some anabolic steroids, suggests a significant change in federal perspective, recognizing both medical value and a lower risk of dependency.

For businesses in the cannabis industry, this reclassification could open up several financial opportunities, particularly regarding taxation. Currently, under IRS code 280E, cannabis businesses are unable to deduct ordinary business expenses because marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance. The move to Schedule III would alleviate this issue, allowing these businesses to claim deductions that were previously disallowed. This could significantly reduce their tax burden, making operations potentially more profitable and sustainable.

The process of rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III may take longer than the media portrays. Initially, the proposal must pass through the scrutiny of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a step that ensures all legal and policy implications are thoroughly evaluated. This review can vary in length but is critical in shaping the framework under which marijuana would be regulated going forward.

Following the OMB review, the proposal enters a public comment period, where stakeholders from various sectors—medical, legal, business, and the general public—can provide feedback. This stage is vital for incorporating community and expert opinions and typically lasts several months, further extending the timeline.

Once the public comment period concludes, the DEA reviews the feedback and makes any necessary adjustments to the proposal. This step can also be time-consuming, as it may require additional rounds of revision and approval to address complex issues raised during the public comments.

The final rule is then published in the Federal Register, formalizing the rescheduling of marijuana. This publication is the trigger for the IRS to begin adjusting its policies, including the re-evaluation of tax codes such as 280E, which currently prevents cannabis businesses from deducting typical business expenses.

The IRS will likely respond by issuing new guidelines and possibly updating forms and instructions to accommodate the changes in marijuana’s scheduling. However, these adjustments won’t be instantaneous and will require time to implement. The IRS must ensure that their systems, procedures, and publications reflect these changes accurately, a process that could extend over several months post-rescheduling.

Throughout this period, businesses must stay informed and prepared for changes in compliance requirements, both from a scheduling and taxation perspective. It’s important to note that while the IRS adjustments will provide future relief, they will not apply retroactively to previous tax years before the reclassification is officially in effect. 

It is vital that you act now. As cannabis businesses anticipate the shift from Schedule I to Schedule III, it goes without saying that good advice is essential to effectively navigate the new regulatory landscape, while poor advice can result in permanent harm to your business.

Recognizing that the IRS will not allow retroactive application of tax deductions, minimally businesses should consider filing protective claims for refund to preserve the right to amend past returns based on the outcome of future legal changes. Additionally, firms like Calyx CPA are confident that the CSA’s application to states with cannabis programs will eventually be overturned. Following the example of companies like Trulieve, which received $113 million in refunds from amending their tax returns, they encourage cannabis businesses to maintain meticulous records and consider filing amended returns where feasible. They advocate for a proactive approach in managing audits and potential disputes with the IRS, emphasizing the necessity of sound legal arguments and rigorous compliance with emerging regulations.

 

 

Join our next live Q&A

Cannabis Tax Refunds

INSIGHTS ON AMENDING RETURNS & NAVIGATING LEGAL CHANGES

Insights on Amending Returns and Navigating Legal Changes

Join Justin Botillier and Jamie Jorgenstone as they delve into the complexities of amending tax returns in the cannabis industry. This timely webinar comes as cannabis businesses look to amend their returns for refunds impacted by the infamous Section 280E of the tax code. The session shines a light on the potential rescheduling of cannabis and explores the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act in state-regulated markets.

Justin and Jamie provide expert analysis on how past court decisions and the current legal landscape could impact your business’s ability to reclaim lost deductions. They discuss the critical aspect of managing audits and leveraging legal precedents effectively. The webinar is an essential resource for cannabis business owners and legal professionals seeking to optimize their tax strategies and maximize potential refunds.

Don’t miss this opportunity to gain invaluable insights from experienced professionals on navigating the evolving tax rules affecting the cannabis industry. Whether you’re refining your approach to tax liabilities or exploring ways to challenge unjust fiscal policies, this session offers practical advice and strategic perspectives.

 

Join our next live Q&A

SOFF

SOUTHERN OREGON FAMILY FARMS CO-OP

Justin Botillier, the CEO of Calyx CPA in Medford, Oregon, shares his insights and personal journey within the cannabis industry. His commitment to cannabis legalization began with his high school senior project, and has since evolved into a professional and passionate advocacy.

Calyx CPA, under Justin’s leadership, is dedicated to serving the cannabis industry, mirroring his commitment to justice and community support. He points to Southern Oregon as a historic hub for cannabis cultivation, with Southern Oregon Family Farms (SOFF) leading the charge. 

This region is celebrated for its deep-rooted knowledge, sustainable farming techniques, and the high efficacy of its cannabis products, making them some of the finest on the global stage. 

SOFF is particularly noted for its commitment to environmentally friendly outdoor cultivation, which utilizes natural resources like sunlight and soil. This method not only minimizes the environmental footprint but also highlights the unique advantages Southern Oregon offers over other regions.

Despite the flourishing industry, Justin underscores the significant challenges it faces, such as bureaucratic obstacles and widespread misinformation among consumers. These threats undermine the sustainability and growth of local cannabis farms.

Justin calls for robust community engagement and support for the industry’s mission. He emphasizes that backing this cause is more than just community investment; it’s an investment in the collective future. Such support is vital for the cannabis industry in Southern Oregon to thrive, ensuring it remains sustainable and prosperous for generations to come.

 

 

ContactUs

Simply fill out the form and we will be in touch to answer any of your queries, 

And feel free to check out our blog & video Section for more info.

calyx cannabis

COULD RESCHEDULING CANNABIS POTENTIALLY SET BACK FEDERAL LEGALIZATION BY DECADES? 

calyx cannabis

It appears that cannabis is on track for rescheduling by the end of 2024. However, the primary benefit we anticipate for our clients is the elimination of the 280E tax burden. The author of ‘Congresswoman Says Marijuana Rescheduling Could Set Full Federal Legalization Back ‘Another 50 Years’,’ published by Marijuana Moment, raises a compelling argument.

Fortunately, by employing strategies such as the 471(c) inventory method over the past decade, Calyx CPA has managed to save our clients tens of millions in taxes. This has been achieved by substantially reducing the amount of phantom income reported due to 280E, bringing our clients’ tax liabilities closer to those of fully legal businesses. Therefore, should the industry continue to focus its efforts towards achieving full federal legalization instead of settling for the short-term reward of rescheduling? This decision is more than a mere strategy; it represents a critical juncture that could significantly influence the future of the industry.

The author suggests that if the industry shifts its focus away from fighting 280E but secures some other form of federal recognition, it might still confront financial challenges. However, any federal change could offer benefits such as improved access to banking and increased investor confidence, which could potentially outweigh the ongoing tax issues.

In contrast, the prospect of full federal legalization presents a comprehensive solution. It aims to address a wide range of issues, including the repeal of 280E, simplification of banking processes, normalization of tax treatments, and resolution of legal uncertainties. The potential benefits are substantial, ranging from increased investments to advancements in research. However, achieving this requires widespread congressional support and alignment with federal policies, presenting a challenging and potentially prolonged endeavor.

Faced with this dilemma, the cannabis industry must consider the immediate advantages of a partial legislative victory against the long-term benefits of full legalization. This decision hinges on an assessment of the political landscape, the immediacy of the industry’s needs, and its long-term objectives.

In conclusion, the direction chosen by the cannabis industry at this crossroads will profoundly impact its future. This decision necessitates not only a deep understanding of the legislative environment but also a clear vision for the industry’s future. As the cannabis sector continues to expand and mature, the path it takes now could define its role in the economy and society for many years to come.

 

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/congresswoman-says-marijuana-rescheduling-could-set-full-federal-legalization-back-another-50-years/?

admin-ajax (1)

280E AND PROPER BUSINESS STRUCTURES

Businesses subject to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E must choose their business structure carefully. In this article, I will describe the pros and cons of each structure, and provide recommendations for specific business types within the cannabis and psilocybin industry.

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC)

The Limited Liability Company (LLC) is now the most recommended legal structure. Many people automatically confuse LLCs with being synonymous with partnerships and, at one point, this was true. However, about 20 years ago, awareness started to change and now LLCs are considered for multiple tax treatments. For example, the LLC can be taxed as a sole proprietorship or disregarded entity, partnership, S corporation, or C corporation.

PARTNERSHIPS

Partnerships should only be considered when holding assets for investment purposes or when the ownership structure necessitates it. Partnerships are the most flexible tax structure allowing diverse ownership types, capitalization, and distribution activities. However, it is a pass-through entity in which the business’s income is taxed at the partner level, the income can be subject to self-employment tax and, due to the relatively new Partnership Audit Regime enforced by the IRS, when partnerships are audited they can be charged tax at the partnership level at the highest individual income tax rates. For this reason, we don’t recommend partnerships unless it is necessary.

S CORPORATION

Most small businesses qualify to elect to be taxed as an S corporation if they choose. Like the partnership entity structure, the S corporation is a pass-through entity, meaning the business’s net income is taxed at the shareholder level. However, if appropriately managed, the S corporation can be more tax favorable than a partnership or C corporation. For example, the S corporation business entity must pay its officers a “reasonable wage,” subject to payroll taxes. But unlike partnership distributions, distributions paid from an S corporation are not subject to the 15.3% self-employment tax.

For this reason, the S corporation is the preferred entity structure for small businesses. For most companies in the cannabis and psilocybin supply chain, the S corporation is typically ideal. However, a pass-through entity is not recommended for companies with a significant 280E impact, specifically retailers or service centers.

C CORPORATIONS

C corporations should be considered before other entities operating in a federally illegal business, specifically those in which 280E applies. Tax is assessed at the business level, and business returns are prepared independently of the shareholders’ tax returns. In addition, due to its current Federal tax rate of 21%, it can be more tax favorable for business owners subject to higher individual tax rates. But most importantly, if a tax adjustment results in significant tax debt, the corporation is siloed from the shareholders. The corporation is responsible for the tax debts imposed by the taxing authorities, not the owners.

There is frequent pushback when suggesting the use of C corporations. There is a concern over double taxation in that C corporations pay tax on their earnings and then again when those earnings are paid out in the form of dividends. There is potential for double taxation, but those results are typically due to the mismanagement of the corporation funds or the lack of tax planning. The C corporation is only subject to the potential of double taxation when the ownership is attempting to extract value from it. Otherwise, the income of a C corporation will be taxed only once.

Most business owners intend to expand their operations and business holdings. The corporation’s earnings can be used to expand operations, purchase additional assets, or lend to other companies. Therefore, they are not likely to be subject to double taxation during the growth phase of their development. The risk of double taxation happens when the shareholders attempt to extract value from the company. Fortunately, with some planning, there are various ways that earnings can be paid out to avoid being taxed a second time. For example, value can be extracted as compensation through the payroll system or paid out as management or consulting fees; it is common for corporations to give bonuses to key employees that are also shareholders. Often the shareholders of a corporation will set up consulting or management companies that provide services to the corporation in return for fees; shareholders can be paid for simply being on the board. Finally, paying rent is a common way of extracting value without being double-taxed. The corporation leases real estate, human resources, or equipment from companies the shareholders may also own.

An ideal structure, we recommend, is to have your trafficking operations included as a C corporation and your real estate holding company structured as a partnership. Furthermore, I recommend that your real estate company do as little commingling of activities with your operating company as possible. For example, it is common practice for the real estate holding company to provide land and leasehold improvements to customize the property to address the operating company’s needs. This activity could cause the holding company to be considered “in the service of” trafficking. Therefore, to help reinforce the holding company’s position that it is simply a real estate investment company and not in the business of trafficking, we recommend that “build-outs” and other related activities be paid from the operating company and included in the operating company’s bookkeeping.

Selecting the proper business structure is vital for the success and growth of any company, especially for those operating in federally illegal businesses. While no one-size-fits-all solution exists, companies can optimize their structures with proper guidance and planning to balance their compliance, flexibility, tax, and risk mitigation needs.