Partially Up In Smoke

The Tax Court today looked into whether a non-profit corporation that provides help to the terminally ill and provides medical marijuana to the terminally ill is allowed to deduct its operating costs.

The non-profit, Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc., was a San Francisco based corporation that helped the terminally ill. In its view, as a secondary service the provided medical marijuana to their patients; in the view of the IRS, it was intertwined with its other goal—and the non-profit only had one line of business.

A few tax facts first. If you are in an illegal occupation or you sell illegal or illicit drugs, you must report the income from your occupation; illegal income is just as taxable as legal income. Medical marijuana is in a curious category; under California law, properly prescribed medical marijuana is a legal line of business. However, for federal purposes marijuana—even marijuana legally prescribed—is considered a Schedule I controlled substance for tax purposes. And §280(E) of the Code prohibits deductions or credits for trafficking in controlled substances (Schedule I or II).

The IRS did not dispute the actual amounts of the expenses. So the Tax Court was left with two questions to answer: (1) Could the non-profit deduct expenses related to the distribution of medical marijuana; and (2) Could the non-profit deduct the expenses related to providing care for the terminally ill or were the two lines of business one?

The Court held

“…that section 280E does not preclude petitioner from deducting expenses attributable to a trade or business other than that of illegal trafficking in controlled substances simply because petitioner also is involved in the trafficking in a controlled substance…We define and apply the gerund “trafficking” by reference to the verb “traffic”, which as relevant herein denotes “to engage in commercial activity: buy and sell regularly”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2423 (2002). Petitioner’s supplying of medical marijuana to its members is within that definition in that petitioner regularly bought and sold the marijuana, such sales occurring when petitioner distributed the medical marijuana to its members in exchange for part of their membership fees.”

The Court then turned to the second question: Was there one line of business or two?

“Petitioner was regularly and extensively involved in the provision of caregiving services, and those services are substantially different from petitioner’s provision of medical marijuana. By conducting its recurring discussion groups, regularly distributing food and hygiene supplies, advertising and making available the services of personal counselors, coordinating social events and field trips, hosting educational classes, and providing other social services, petitioner’s caregiving business stood on its own, separate and apart from petitioner’s provision of medical marijuana.”

The Court then held that the expenses will be allocated, and the expenses allocated to the caregiving will be allowed but the expenses allocated to medical marijuana will not be allowed.

Thus, for federal tax purposes, even if you legally supply medical marijuana, you can’t deduct related expenses. However, if you have another line of business, those expenses are deductible. Note that it is very likely that the expenses related to medical marijuana are deductible on the California tax return.

Case: Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc. v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. No. 104

Posted in California, IRS, Tax Court | Tagged | Comments Off on Partially Up In Smoke

Some Good News for California…But Will the Legislature Spend the Money?

State tax collections in April have exceeded projections, a pleasant change for California fiscal authorities. As of April 19th, the Central Valley Business Times reported that California has a $1.9 billion surplus compared to a $1 billion deficit in January. The big question: Will the Legislature and Governor reduce California’s structural deficit or will it be spend, spend, spend (as usual)?

California requires a balanced budget, and a budget passed by June 30th. The latter has rarely happened in the last few years; the former has happened through gimmicks and the movement of funds rather than fixing California’s structural deficit.

Governor Schwarzenegger has said,

“I have an obligation, which is a promise to the people of California that I will bring down this structural deficit to zero, and that we will be fiscally responsible. So there is two choices: one is to create extra revenue through all the various different means that I have proposed, or the other one is to go and start making those cuts.”

The Governator released his new budget today, and the structural deficit is still around at $1.4 billion. And that’s before the Legislature gets their hands on the budget.

The news story from the Associated Press indicates that no one is happy with the budget. Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) is upset with the cuts to social programs. Assembly Minority Leader Dick Ackerman (R-Tustin) wants more cuts so that the state isn’t running a structural deficit.

The budget requires a 2/3 vote to pass meaning that Republicans must consent. I think the spending cuts in social programs are d.o.a. and we’ll see yet another year with magical movement of money so that everyone can announce that the budget is balanced…but where the structural deficit increases. I hope I’m wrong but I doubt it.

Posted in California | Comments Off on Some Good News for California…But Will the Legislature Spend the Money?

Why I Haven’t Been Covering the Conrad Black Trial

Because Mark Steyn is.

You haven’t hear of Mark Steyn? You haven’t read Mark Steyn? His daily column is available on his web site. His column is carried by many newspapers, including the Orange County Register. He appears weekly on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show every Wednesday. And he’s a much better writer than I am.

Macleans magazine, the Canadian newsweekly, is paying Mark Steyn to write a blog on the Conrad Black trial. It’s extremely entertaining, and quite worth reading.

So if you want a Conrad Black fix, go to Mark Steyn’s Macleans Conrad Black blog.

Posted in Tax Fraud | Tagged | Comments Off on Why I Haven’t Been Covering the Conrad Black Trial

Holy Housing in Los Angeles?

Back in 2005, I reported on the Orange County Sewage District’s hiring of a spiritual counselor. The idea of spiritual sewage made me laugh…at least, I’m not in the OCSD so the tax dollars didn’t come out of my pockets. I couldn’t imagine any other government agency in California repeating the OCSD’s mistake.

I should never overestimate the intelligence of bureaucrats.

The Los Angeles Times reported today that the Los Angeles Housing Department has paid over $18,800 to a Hawaii Zen Buddhist priest. According to the story, Norma Wong has conducted management training, “…that includes teaching breathing with sphincter control, learning ‘how to stand’ and playing with wooden sticks.”

Of course private industry sometimes does things like this. I’ve seen and participated in outdoors training, team-building exercises, etc. in my career in private industry. However, I’ve never done stick exercises.

Residents of the City of Los Angeles will be happy to know that the L.A. City Council has approved a new contract with Ms. Wong for $15,000. Your tax dollars at work….

Posted in California | Tagged , | Comments Off on Holy Housing in Los Angeles?

Tax & Spend Doesn’t Have to Happen

The Presidential election in still 18 months away, but campaigning is in full swing. I haven’t decided who I’m going to vote for, but I have decided on one candidate I won’t vote for.

Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) is offering a lot of policy proposals. Unfortunately, when you spend money, you’ve got to get it from somewhere. Edwards’ proposals appear to cost at least $1 Trillion. Edwards is also against continuing the Bush tax cuts, and is for increasing tax rates except for the lower class. Given that most of the income tax paid in the United States comes from the middle and upper class, that means that you and I will be seeing more of our money go for a big bureaucracy should Mr. Edwards be elected President.

Meanwhile, CNN correspondent Jack Cafferty reported that, “John Edwards says he worked for a hedge fund primarily to learn more about financial markets and their relationship to poverty. Do you see any contradiction there?”

I notice that Professor Bainbridge saw the same things that I did. I don’t know if he saw the news from Illinois, though.

Governor Blagojevich proposed a huge business tax—a gross receipts tax that would have cost Illinois businesses $7.6 billion. Now, if that tax had passed who do you think would have paid it in the long-run? Consumers, of course; taxes get passed on. As Joe Kristan reported this morning, the tax didn’t pass…it was a “missed it by that much” moment: it failed 0 to 107.

If you’re a politician, you may want to look at what happened in Illinois and apply it to your next race. Taxes aren’t popular. There’s a perception that government is bloated, and, imho, there’s at least an element of truth in that. Taxpayers want lower taxes and tax simplification. Politicians who want to win elections should take this message to heart.

Posted in Legislation | Comments Off on Tax & Spend Doesn’t Have to Happen

Los Angeles Cell Phone Tax Increase Invalid

The California Court of Appeals upheld a District Court ruling that the City of Los Angeles increase in their tax on cellular phone service was invalid. The City will likely appeal the decision to the State Supreme Court. The case is interesting because the Court told California cities that if you change the methodology of a tax, you need to submit it to the voters under Proposition 218.

The decision involves two issues: Proposition 218 and the methodology used in the tax. Proposition 218, passed by the voters in 1996, states that voters must approve all new taxes (and extensions of existing taxes) by a majority vote (a 2/3 vote is required for “special” taxes). As the Court noted, “In 1997, the Legislature passed the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Omnibus Act) (Gov. Code, § 53750 et seq.) and, in Government Code section 53750, subdivision (h)(1)(B), provided that a tax increase occurs when a decision by an agency revises the methodology by which a tax is calculated and the revision results in increased taxes being levied on any person or parcel. [footnote omitted]”

The methodology of the tax changed in 2002 after Congress passed the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act. The City of Los Angeles felt that, “…it had the authority to unilaterally impose the cell tax on all airtime and thereby increase cell taxes.”

The City argued that the goal was to have the tax cover everything permissible; given that the law changed, it was the City’s right to change the methodology of the tax. The Court noted that the City could do this…if they submitted the change to the voters, as per Proposition 218. “And if Proposition 218 had not passed, the City could collect an increased cell tax based on the evolved constitutional parameters. But Proposition 218 was passed, and it arrested the cell tax’s maturation over time. This restriction on local tax authority is of course characterized by the City as an unreasonable policy that is sure to create numerous administrative headaches. This fear is unjustified.”

The Court’s conclusion is worth printing in full:

“In sum, the City wants us to interpret Proposition 218 so that it permits a fluctuating local government tax if the fluctuation is due to expanding constitutional boundaries. The voters of California stand in the City’s path. They demanded the right to approve increased local taxes after finding that such increases “threaten . . . the California economy.” We are obligated to uphold that right and adhere to that finding despite the City’s protestations. To be sure, the City must be credited for offering thoughtful arguments on a complex issue, but those arguments cannot carry the day, which leaves us to but one conclusion: The trial court properly granted the carriers’ petition for writ of mandate.”


Appeals Court Decision: AB Cellular LA, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, B185373

News Story: Metropolitan News-Enterprise

Posted in California | Tagged | Comments Off on Los Angeles Cell Phone Tax Increase Invalid

IRS Mailing Incorrect CP2000 Notices

The IRS announced that they have mailed some incorrect CP2000 notices. The notices state that the impacted individuals are not including their state tax refund as income when they were impacted by the AMT in the prior year; the notices are wrong.

The IRS is attempting to stop the mailing of these incorrect notices, and is working with programmers to get to the root of the problem. Should you receive such a notice, you will need to respond as directed in the notice…even though the notice is wrong.

Posted in IRS | Comments Off on IRS Mailing Incorrect CP2000 Notices

A Bad Story with (Hopefully) a Good Ending

In February, Steven Green pleaded guilty to not filing tax returns from 2001 to 2003 and to using a fake social security number when applying for a loan. He was sentenced to 2 years and nine months in prison, with the sentence to commence in June.

Normally, it would be just another story of tax fraud that I’d highlight—a real estate mogul who made some mistakes.

However, last night Mr. Green was walking out of Club Posh in midtown Manhattan when he was hit by a hit and run driver. His attorney, Louis Cherico, told the Associated Press that the prognosis for recovery is good (he had surgery earlier today).

Hopefully, the NYPD will catch what the New York Daily News calls “the cowardly driver.”

Associated Press Story

Posted in New York, Tax Evasion | Comments Off on A Bad Story with (Hopefully) a Good Ending

Some Rather Blatant Fraud

If you were going to commit tax fraud, would you and your partner in crime exchange checks for the same exact amount to the penny? That’s among the evidence that caused Inn-Chung Chen (aka Daniel Chen) to plead guilty to tax fraud.

Mr. Chen was president of Top Line Electronics, a contract electronics manufacturer in San Jose, from 1997 until 2000. Mr. Chen, along with three alleged accomplices, moved money from his business to other bank accounts he controlled so that he could use the money for his personal needs.

Mr. Chen wrote a check for $43,965.75 to a company controlled by one of his accomplices. Amazingly enough, days later a check was written for $43,965.75 to another bank account controlled by Mr. Chen.

The scheme wasn’t for peanuts, as the total amount involved was over $2 million (resulting in a tax loss of over $900,000). Mr. Chen pleaded guilty to two counts: one each of conspiracy and filing a false tax return. He’ll likely spend some time at ClubFed. His three alleged accomplices have warrants out for their arrest.

News Story Here

Posted in Tax Fraud | Comments Off on Some Rather Blatant Fraud

A Horror Story (Averted) From Bill Leonard

Once a week I receive the Leonard Letter. Bill Leonard, a member of California’s Board of Equalization, each week states his views on what’s going on in the tax world in California. It’s essential reading for anyone in California concerned about their taxes. You can subscribe here.

On April 25th Bill Leonard reported on a case that almost was argued in front of the Board. In California, a taxpayer appealing a decision of the Franchise Tax Board first must move through that agency. If he can’t get a satisfactory result through that appeals process, he then can appeal to the Board of Equalization. After that, a taxpayer can then take their case to the courts.

You can find the case in question from Bill Leonard’s blog entry of April 25th. A taxpayer hadn’t filed his return in some time, and the FTB estimated his income and then added his W-2 to it. But the W-2 was all of his income, so they double-counted his income. He went through the FTB and got nowhere, so he appealed to the BOE. Amazingly enough, on the morning of the appeal the FTB “…changed their story and returned the gentleman his money.”

There are many good people at the FTB, but this case spotlights some of the bureaucratic shortcomings that I have seen. Bill Leonard (rightly) noted, “Had this situation not been presented in public before the Board I am doubtful this taxpayer would have received justice.” Unfortunately, that’s the problem.

Yes, the taxpayer didn’t file returns, and that was a cause of the problem. But it shouldn’t take an appeal to the BOE for the FTB to realize there’s a problem with double counting of income.

There’s a moral here—actually two morals. First, if you’re a Californian, file your tax returns. Second, the Franchise Tax Board can become adversarial instead of working to resolve problems.

Posted in California | Tagged , | Comments Off on A Horror Story (Averted) From Bill Leonard