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.