Jump to content

State Says Caregiver's Patients should pay 6% Tax


Recommended Posts

The State of Michigan Treasury department just issued a tax advisory statement indicating that the Patients of Caregivers should pay a 6% "use" tax on the product they get from their caregiver.  

Seems totally wacky since their is no legal way for Treasury to identify who is a patient.   That said I wonder how twisted this could become given an overage prosecution.  Imagine a scenario where a caregiver tries a section 8 defense and claims they had more than 2.5z since their patient needed more.   Prosecutor then asks patient to produce records on how much tax they paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zap,  I like your argument, but not sure where anywhere in the MMMA there is a protection from being required to pay a "use" tax.

They seem to have taken the commercial law as establishing the idea that mmj is a "sales" taxable item.   Then they have equated a patient's use of mmj to your buying a "taxable" item online where you did not pay any "sales" tax.  While you were not charged a sales tax by the seller, you now owe Michigan a "use" tax.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the same part of the MMMA that says you dont have to pay a $10,000 fine for marijuana is the part that protects you from paying a tax on marijuana.

its also the part of the MMMA that protects you from driving with any marijuana in your system.

or the part of the MMMA that protects you from a city ordinance saying you cant grow in your city, or you have to register in your city, or you have to let the city inspect your grow.

its a catch-all protect-all line in the act to protect patients and caregivers from these kinds of things.

it looks like the treasury department either did not read the MMMA fully, or did not ask for legal consult on the MMMA case law before publishing this bulletin.


if anyone is out there reading this, keep quiet until they release that form 5098. i want that form...

Edited by bax
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bax said:

the same part of the MMMA that says you dont have to pay a $10,000 fine for marijuana is the part that protects you from paying a tax on marijuana.

its also the part of the MMMA that protects you from driving with any marijuana in your system.

or the part of the MMMA that protects you from a city ordinance saying you cant grow in your city, or you have to register in your city, or you have to let the city inspect your grow.

its a catch-all protect-all line in the act to protect patients and caregivers from these kinds of things.

it looks like the treasury department either did not read the MMMA fully, or did not ask for legal consult on the MMMA case law before publishing this bulletin.


if anyone is out there reading this, keep quiet until they release that form 5098. i want that form...
 

Its also the part of the MMMA that protects you from driving with any marijuana in your system, or the part of the MMMA that protects you from a city ordinance saying you cant grow in your city, or you have to register in your city, or you have to let the city inspect your grow.

Don't get me wrong here i do agree with the above but i've been to a lot of people court  case's for those charges and it's still going on 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way someone has to pay tax is if someone else tries to officially declare it as a write off. There's no tax between parties who keep their business completely to themselves. As it should be with the medical cannabis model of a caregiver with up to 5 patients. It's supposed to be anonymous. Don't bust moves with cannabis $$ to get a write off. It's stupid and it's not worth it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let me suggest that the basic concept of  Treasury collecting a 6% use tax from people who they have no way of identifying (protected registry) makes the basic discussion similar to discussing "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".

That said I still think that there is a potential for collateral sh.t we never thought of down the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article about this: https://www.ganjapreneur.com/michigan-treasury-patients-must-pay-6-tax-on-products-bought-from-caregivers/

MI NORML says:

"We have identified several problems with the new policy and we plan to fight this policy all the way through the Michigan Supreme Court if that’s what it takes to overturn this ill-conceived policy reversal. Until this gets straightened out, we are urging patients and caregivers to be extra careful during transactions. Even if this policy somehow remains in effect, it is not retroactive and will not apply to your 2017 taxes. Please be patient and we will continue to keep you informed as new developments become available. — Michigan NORML, on Facebook"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...