BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Bill No: |AB 2243 |Hearing |6/22/16 | | | |Date: | | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Author: |Wood |Tax Levy: |No | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Version: |6/15/16 |Fiscal: |Yes | ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Bouaziz | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Medical cannabis: taxation: cannabis production and environment mitigation Enacts the Medical Cannabis Tax Law, and imposes, for the privilege of distributing medical cannabis, an excise tax upon all licensed distributors. Background Prior to 1996, both federal and state law prohibited the possession, possession with intent to sell, cultivation, sale, transportation, importation, or furnishing of marijuana. However, in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate use Act of 1996 (CUA). Under CUA, qualified patients with specified illnesses, and their primary caregivers, cannot be prosecuted for possessing or cultivating medical marijuana upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of an attending physician. Thus, CUA allowed qualified patients and primary caregivers to obtain and use medical marijuana. The Legislature clarified CUA in 2003 by enacting SB 420 (Vasconcellos, 2003). SB 420 exempted qualified patients and caregivers from prosecution for using or from collectively or cooperatively cultivating medical marijuana, and established a medical marijuana card program for patients to use on a voluntary basis. SB 420 provides a safe harbor for qualified AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 2 of ? patients as to the amount of marijuana they may possess and the number of plants they may maintain. It also protects patients with valid identification cards from both arrest and criminal liability for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of marijuana. Thus, California's estimated one billion dollar medical marijuana industry exists amid a conflict between federal and state law, and within state law itself. The industry remained largely unregulated at the same level until 2015. Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. In 2015, the Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), a package of legislation that comprehensively regulates many aspects of medical marijuana including cultivation, manufacturing, transportation, distribution, sale, and product safety. The MMRSA comprises three bills-SB 643 (McGuire, 2015), AB 243 (Wood, 2015), and AB 266 (Bonta, 2015). Among other provisions, MMRSA: Creates the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (the Bureau) within the Department of Consumer Affairs to oversee and enforce the state's medical marijuana regulations, in collaboration with the Board of Equalization (BOE), the California Department of Public Health, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA); Establishes categories of licenses for various medical marijuana activities, such as cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and sale, and provides certain state agencies with the authority to issue those licenses and enforce their terms. Requires BOE and CDFA to implement a program that allows regulators to uniquely identify each legally cultivated medical marijuana plant and trace that plant throughout the distribution chain. Prohibits licensees from commencing activity under the authority of a state license until the applicant has obtained a license or permit pursuant to the applicable local ordinance. Protects the ability of local governments to pass and AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 3 of ? enforce laws, licensing requirements, and zoning ordinances. Authorizes local governments to establish a licensing system for the cultivation of medical marijuana through their current or future land use authority, and prohibits the cultivation of medical marijuana without obtaining both a state license-issued by CDFA-and a local license. Requires the Medical Board of California to consult with the California Marijuana Research Program on developing and adopting medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of medical cannabis. Prohibits the recommendation of medical cannabis to a patient unless the physician is the patient's attending physician. Declares that recommending medical cannabis to a patient for a medical purpose without an appropriate prior examination and a medical indication constitutes unprofessional conduct. Declares that it is unprofessional conduct for an attending physician recommending medical cannabis to be employed by, or enter into any other agreement with, any person or entity dispensing medical cannabis. Requires any distribution of any form of advertising for physician recommendation for medical cannabis in California to include a consumer notice. Requires advertising for attending physician recommendations for medical cannabis to meet all the requirements of existing law related to medical advertising, and states that price advertising shall not be fraudulent, deceitful, or misleading, including statements or advertisements of bait, discounts, premiums, gifts, or statements of a similar nature. State law imposes a sales and use tax on retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property, absent a specific exemption. The tax is based upon the retailer's gross AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 4 of ? receipts from sales in this state. Generally, medicine is exempt from the sales and use tax, but medical marijuana does not satisfy the following elements to qualify for the exemption. To be exempt, medication must be: Prescribed by an authorized person and dispensed on a prescription filled by a pharmacist; Furnished by a licensed physician to his or her own patient, or; Furnished by a health facility for treatment pursuant to a licensed physician's order, or sold to a licensed physician. Thus, the sale of medical marijuana is subject to both the state and local sales and use tax. Proposed Law Assembly Bill 2243 enacts the Medical Cannabis Tax Law (Law), and imposes, for the privilege of distributing medical cannabis, an excise tax upon all licensed distributors. Specifically, AB 2243: Imposes a tax of an unspecified amount on medical cannabis flowers cultivated by a small specialty cultivator. Imposes a tax of $9.25 per ounce of medical cannabis flowers cultivated by a small cultivator. Imposes a tax of an unspecified amount on medical AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 5 of ? cannabis flowers cultivated by a medium cultivator. Imposes a tax of $1.25 per immature medical cannabis plant. Requires BOE to administer and collect the tax from medical marijuana distributers. The bill also requires BOE to issue permits to every retailer. The permits are not assignable and are valid only for the person whose name it is issued and the place of business listed. Allows BOE to revoke or suspend a permit after the retailer is given 10 days' notice in writing detailing the reason for suspension or revocation. The notice shall also specify a time and place for a hearing so the retailer may have an opportunity to show why the permit should not be revoked or suspended. Allows BOE to refuse to issue a permit if the retailer has an outstanding final liability due for any amount under the bill, unless the retailer has entered into an installment agreement with BOE. Requires BOE to collect the tax quarterly, on or before the last day of the month succeeding each quarterly period. Authorizes BOE to prescribe, adopt, and enforce regulations relating to administration and enforcement. In addition, the Law authorizes BOE to prescribe, adopt, and enforce any emergency regulations as necessary for implementation, including utilizing tax stamps or state-issued product bags. Establishes the Marijuana Value Tax Fund in the State Treasury. The bill requires that all revenues, less refunds, collected from the Marijuana Value Tax must be deposited into the Marijuana Value Tax Fund, as follows: o 30% to the Board of State and Community Corrections for disbursement for local law enforcement-related activities pertaining to illegal cannabis cultivation. Funds must be allocated on a competitive grant process. Applicants may include AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 6 of ? local entities that support enforcement activities related to unpermitted activity. o 2% to the Department of Justice to fund and create Regional Marijuana Enforcement Officers who shall coordinate enforcement efforts, related to illegal cannabis cultivation, between the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Marijuana Enforcement Team, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, and local law enforcement. o 30% to the Natural Resources Agency for environmental cleanup restoration and protection of public and private lands that have been damaged by illegal cannabis cultivation. o 8% to the Open Space Subvention Payment Account of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. o 30% to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Water Resources Control Board, to address the environmental impacts of cannabis cultivation on public and private lands in California and fund other state enforcement-related activities pertaining to illegal cannabis cultivation. AB 2243 defines terms for purposes of the Medical Cannabis Tax Law, and only becomes operative if Secretary of State Initiative Number 1762 is not approved by the voters on November 8, 2016. AB 2243 takes immediate effect as an urgency measure and sunsets on January 1, 2025. State Revenue Impact Unknown. Comments AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 7 of ? 1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, "We are seeing unpermitted land grading and road construction, illegal stream diversions, discharge of sediments, and pollutants into waterways, as well as contamination of water and soil by pesticides, rodenticides, fertilizers and fuels. Mammals, birds and fish are dying horrible deaths from poisons used to protect crops and left behind long after the growers leave an area. These toxins seep into our water supply. Water is being held from traditional agriculture to ensure there is water in the streams for endangered fish, but instead it is being pumped onto illegal marijuana farms and poisoned by chemicals. Last year, Sproul Creek, in Humboldt County, ran dry for the first time and officials believe it was due in large part to illegal diversions of water for marijuana. The Medical Marijuana Regulation Safety Act, specifically AB 243, created an environmental regulatory structure to address many of these environmental damages, such as the establishment of a permanent and statewide Watershed Enforcement Team (WET), but the funding component was removed in AB 243 before the bill reached the Governor's desk. AB 2243 reestablishes an excise tax for medical marijuana that is charged to a licensed medical cannabis cultivator and collected by a licensed medical marijuana distributor. The funds collected will pay for environmental remediation, local law enforcement, and the WET program to address illegal marijuana related activities." 2. The Colorado and Washington Experience. In November 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington approved legal recreational retail sales of marijuana, with Colorado sales starting January 1, 2014 and Washington sales on June 1, 2014. Currently, Colorado collects tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales through a 15% excise tax on the average wholesale market rate, a 10% state tax on retail marijuana sales, a state sales tax of 2.9%, and varied local sales taxes, such as the 3.5% marijuana tax in Denver. A $30 sale of recreational marijuana in Denver, CO results in $8.59 in taxes, or about a 29% overall tax rate. Beginning on July, 1 2017, the 10% state tax rate will be reduced to 8%. The rate change was to prevent over-taxation, although even with these layers of taxation, Colorado has not seen additional black market activity that can be attributed to higher costs due to taxation. Medical marijuana is only subject to the 2.9% state sales tax and any AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 8 of ? local sales taxes. In the first year of taxation, Colorado's revenue from marijuana taxes and fees was about $76 million, which includes fees on the industry, plus the pre-existing sales taxes on medical marijuana products. Initially, Washington collected tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales through a 25% tax on producer sales to processors; a 25% tax on processor sales to retailers; a 25% tax on retailer sales to customers; a state sales tax of 6.5%; and varied local sales taxes. The total effective tax rate is about 44%. However, due to complaints from marijuana farmers, processors, and retailers, that heavy state and federal tax burdens and competition from an unregulated medical marijuana market have made it difficult for them to do business, the tax rate and administration was revised. A single tax rate of 37% on retail customers took effect on July 1, 2015. The excise tax applies only to recreational marijuana sales, but medical marijuana is subject to the state sales tax. However, beginning on July of 2016, medical marijuana will be subject to the 37% excise tax, but patients listed in a registry would be exempt from sales tax on medical marijuana purchases. In the initial year of taxation, Washington's revenue from marijuana excise taxes was $62 million. The state's original forecast was $36 million. Additionally, when the state and local sales tax is included, the total revenue from marijuana taxes was over $70 million. 3. Medical versus recreational. Although informative, the Colorado and Washington experiences are distinguishable from AB 2243 in one crucial way: California has not legalized the use of recreational marijuana. AB 2243 imposes an excise tax on medical marijuana, while Colorado and Washington currently exempt medical marijuana from almost all taxes imposed on recreational marijuana. However, in July of this year, Washington plans to exempt medical marijuana from that state sales tax but impose the recreational 37% excise tax. While this bill will not go into effect if marijuana is legalized this November, if legalization does not occur, how will having a high tax rate impact patients, especially those who are low-income? If legalization occurs in the future, should taxation apply to recreational use only? What incentive exists for marijuana users to purchase recreational marijuana if medical marijuana is vastly cheaper? AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 9 of ? 4. How high is too high? Both Washington and Colorado have reduced their marijuana tax rates, which can serve as a lesson to California when attempting to determine the right tax rate. Taxes increase product prices, and higher prices can exacerbate tax evasion and foster illegal marijuana sales. Tax evasion will also reduce state revenues that marijuana products taxes generate. Alternatively, setting the rate too low may be a missed opportunity to generate new state and local revenue. Under Article XIII A Section 3 of the California Constitution, a 2/3 vote is required to enact a new tax or to raise an existing tax. Thus, if AB 2243 sets the excise tax too high, the Legislature can reduce the rate with a majority vote, but, if the rate is too low, a 2/3 vote is required to raise the rate. Additionally, setting a tax rate that is too high can diminish revenues for local entities if they are unable to tax the same base as a result. On the other hand, local entities and the state already tax the same base in many instances. 5. Point of Taxation. It is important to consider the point of taxation in the distribution chain. Generally, the higher the tax is imposed in the distribution chain, the fewer the taxpayers. This is advantageous because the fewer the taxpayers collection is less burdensome, and tax evasion is reduced. But in a new previously unregulated, quasi-legal market such as marijuana cultivation, determining the new taxpayers, and establishing a relationship between the taxpayer and BOE can be difficult. Also, when a tax is imposed on a distributer, the tax can be passed on in the purchase price to the retailer. The consumer pays a sales tax with the distributer tax included in the sale price, leading to a tax on a tax. Imposing the tax at the retail level can be advantageous for the consumer by eliminating the hidden tax. Also, BOE currently collects sales tax from dispensaries, so BOE already has a relationship with the intended taxpayers. However, currently dispensaries are not isolating medical marijuana sales versus other sales subject to sales tax, thus a point of sale excise tax would require separating the amount of medical marijuana sales versus other sales. 6. November ballot. AB 2243 only becomes operative if Secretary of State Initiative Number 1762, also known as the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act is not approved the voters on November 8, 2016. AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 10 of ? The initiative imposes a marijuana excise tax upon purchasers of marijuana or marijuana products sold in this state at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross receipts of any retail sale by a dispensary. The sales and use tax would not apply to the sale of medical marijuana. Additionally, the initiative would establish a cultivation tax at the following rates: The tax for marijuana flowers shall be $9.25 per dry-weight ounce. The tax for marijuana leaves shall be $2.75 per dry-weight ounce. BOE may adjust the tax rate for marijuana leaves annually to reflect fluctuations in the relative price of marijuana flowers to marijuana leaves. The cultivation tax would not apply to marijuana cultivated for personal use or cultivated by a qualified patient or primary caregiver in accordance with the Compassionate Use Act. 7. Related Legislation. SB 987 (McGuire) establishes the Marijuana User Fee Act, which imposes a 10% excise tax on medical marijuana. SB 987 (McGuire) is currently pending in the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. 8 Missing something? AB 2243 does not specify all of the tax rates for medical cannabis flowers. The author's intent is to create a tiered tax system for small versus medium cultivators. The author intends to continue working with stakeholders to determine the appropriate tax rate amounts. 9. Let's get clear. Several terms in the bill may need to be clarified. For example, "distribution" is defined as both of the following in AB 2243: The sale of untaxed medical cannabis flowers, medical cannabis leaves, and immature medical cannabis plants, and medical cannabis product in this state The use or consumption of untaxed medical cannabis flowers, medical cannabis leaves, and immature medical cannabis plants, and medical cannabis product in this state. AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 11 of ? However, under MMRSA "distribution" is defined as the procurement, sale, and transport of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products between licensed entities. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to reduce potential disagreements between taxpayers and BOE. 10. Technical amendments. Replace "medical cannabis flowers" with "medical cannabis flower" throughout the bill. Replace "immature medical cannabis plants" with "immature medical cannabis plant" throughout the bill. On page 9, line 37, strike out "the multiagency task force," On page 9, line 38, strike out "Wildlife," and replace with "Wildlife's" On page 9, line 38, strike out "Board," and replace with "Board's" On page 9, line 38, add "multiagency task force, the Watershed Enforcement Team," after "Board." Assembly Actions Assembly Revenue and Taxation 8-0 Assembly Appropriations 13-1 Assembly Floor 60-12 Support and Opposition (6/16/16) Support : Andrew Mills, Eureka Police Chief; Bill Dobberstein, Fortuna Police Chief; Butte County Sheriff's Office; California Association of Professional Scientists; California Cattleman's Association; California Growers Association; California League of Conservation Voters; California Trout; Center for Biological Diversity; Central Coast Forest Association; Environmental Protection Information Center; George Runner, Board of Equalization Member; Gerardo Gonzalez, Willits Police Chief; AB 2243 (Wood) 6/15/16 Page 12 of ? Humboldt County Sheriff's Office ; Lassen County Sheriff's Office; Mendocino County Sheriff's Office; Monterey County Sheriff's Office; Professional Engineers in California Government; Rural County Representatives of California; Sierra Club California ; Sonoma County Sheriff's Office; The Nature Conservancy; Trust for Public Land. Opposition : Americans for Safe Access; California NORML; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; UCBA Trade Association. -- END --