Jean Smith-Gonnell

Subscribe to Jean Smith-Gonnell's Posts

Among the two most widely reported federal changes to cannabis regulation are the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed regulation for the federal rescheduling of marijuana (the Proposed Rescheduling) and amendments to the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act (the Farm Bill). The Proposed Rescheduling would result in the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I[1] of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III[2] of the CSA.[3] The proposed amendments to the Farm Bill would change the definition of “hemp” to remedy a loophole currently utilized by hemp manufacturers who manufacture and sell intoxicating cannabis products.

The rapid evolution of intoxicating cannabinoids has brought forth significant changes and challenges to both the agricultural and commercial cannabis sectors across the U.S. These new cannabinoids have exposed gaps in state and federal regulatory frameworks, allowing intoxicating substances to be marketed without the stringent level of oversight applied to state-legal cannabis products. These hemp-derived cannabinoids are often sold in gas stations and convenience stores, posing significant risks to consumers, especially minors. The lack of clear federal guidelines has left state attorneys general (AG) grappling with this gray market, leading to calls for legislative action to address the issue comprehensively.

Introduction

The medicinal and recreational use and popularity of marijuana has continuously grown throughout the U.S. since Oregon became the first state to decriminalize marijuana in 1973. To date, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have implemented medical marijuana programs, twenty-five of which have also expanded into adult-use.

Only one day after reports surfaced that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will proceed with rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) reintroduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA or the Act), a nearly 300-page bill that would create a framework for the comprehensive regulation and taxation of cannabis in the United States. Then, on May 16th, the Department of Justice issued its notice of proposed rulemaking to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III. Administrative and legislative approaches to cannabis reform each have their own strengths and weakness that must be carefully considered. In addition, these competing approaches offer an opportunity to highlight the political differences between administrative and legislative policy reform at the federal level.

Just before the close of the Colorado legislature’s 2024 session, lawmakers approved a bill aimed at streamlining several deficiencies in the state’s regulation of marijuana businesses. While not all the bill’s intended fixes were passed, certain provisions will facilitate significant changes for businesses, including for licensing processes, contaminant testing protocols, reporting obligations, compliance procedures, and operations management practices. Several notable changes are discussed below.

A recent lawsuit in Alabama, challenging the award of medical cannabis licenses by regulators, underscores the potential pitfalls in licensing regimes where applicants are selected based on specific enumerated factors. Below, we examine the Alabama lawsuit in greater detail and consider the alternative policy of utilizing a lottery system to award licenses.

Recent developments in the Massachusetts cannabis industry, significant legislative changes, and legal actions have spotlighted the contentious issue of so-called community impact fees. These fees, which are intended to offset municipal costs associated with hosting cannabis businesses, have sparked debate regarding their fairness and implementation.

In January, we published an article in this newsletter on the state of cannabis taxation, including a discussion of the crippling impact of Internal Revenue Code §280E (IRC §280E) on the industry. Since that article was published, the industry has been shaken and encouraged by the news that Trulieve Cannabis Corp. received refunds totaling $113 million from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). To date, Trulieve has refused to divulge the specific basis for the refunds, citing competitive, trade-secret, and pending litigation reasons. In an article in Cannabis Business Times posted on February 29, however, it was reported that Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers responded “yes” to a question on X (formerly Twitter) on whether the refund was related to IRC §280E.[1] In addition to Trulieve, another cannabis business, Ascend Wellness Holdings, has also reported it has amended federal tax returns for several years and is expecting to receive refunds.[2] Before jumping into the speculation as to what the specific basis of the refunds are, it is helpful to briefly review IRC §280E.

The various forms of information reporting required by the Internal Revenue Code form the backbone of both voluntary compliance with tax laws and the starting point for audits by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). One form that is particularly relevant in the cannabis space is IRS Form 8300, which implements the law that requires a business to report transactions involving cash payments of more than $10,000.

Attorneys general (AG) from 20 states and the District of Columbia have submitted a letter to Congress requesting that federal lawmakers close the “loophole” created by the 2018 Farm Bill that is widely understood to prohibit state regulation of intoxicating hemp products, including delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products.