vote on common law grand jury ends in tie

[bmxninja357]

Most jurisdictions reject the common law grand jury concept, which has long been a goal of the sovereign citizen movement, MacNab said. However, at their meeting in May, Sarasota County's Charter Review Board deadlocked in a 4-4 vote on forming a special committee to study the proposal, which they claim would allow private citizens to, on their own, indict government officials for corruption without any official assistance or oversight — even though the concept would violate state law.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... ?p=1&tc=pg

peace,
ninj

[ArthurWankspittle]

ninj - I'm sure we have this covered somewhere (unless it's on the Fogbow) because we are already aware of the nutter(s) behind raising the issue.

[notorial dissent]

I don't think there has been any coverage of Dowdell and his merry band of sovrunidjits here, they are well covered over at Fogbow though.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Typically these kinds of local/county/municipal charter review boards have to have a two-thirds vote to put forward anything that might eventually appear on a ballot.

The reality of life is, if ordinary, responsible and informed people don't participate in their local politics, a tiny minority of nit-wits could, over time, salt these boards with their plants and maneuver any number of lunatic sovrun things onto ballots. Not that those would ultimately be voted into effect, but ignorance on the part of a local electorate is not something easily corrected. Unfortunately, most people simply don't pay any attention.

I have, and others here might as well have, seen organizations fall into this kind of apathy trap. I've been involved in property owners disputes and have seen apathy be taken advantage of by people with not only questionable, but outright vindictive motives; in one instance it escalated beyond litigation into deliberate destruction of property and into aggravated assault.

But what some of these part-time, non-professional quasi-legal entities don't often realize is there are legal limits as to what they can or can't do. Some of them function without the benefit of counsel unless a member raises the issue and it gets tabled for an actual legal opinion (which can cost money).

They can authorize a measure to be put on the ballot - but there are usually well-drawn limits. For example, a proposal to amend a charter in a way that would be considered unconstitutional could be rendered moot; a simple challenge to the ballot proposal would grind it to a halt - IF someone decided to mount a challenge to it.

Vigilance belongs to all of us who give a damn.

[Gregg]

For what its worth, I consider the marijuana legalization votes in the several states to be not too far removed from this kind of lunacy. Its not that I'm against making it OK for you or anyone else having a little chronic around the house, its just that the PROPER way to do this is to get our federal government to change their laws/regulations first.

So far, at least one of the Federal Reserve Banks has bent over to accommodate something that, under federal law, and under the very few things the government tells the Fed that they cannot or must do, they cannot legally do.

Most banks operate under federal level regulation, and those that do are specifically prohibited from accepting for deposit funds they know or suspect come from criminal activity. I'm sorry, but making an exception for pot shops is dangerously close to making an exception for money launderers, and by that I mean someone who flat out advertises their business as "Bring in you hard to explain wadded up 20s, 50s and 100s and we'll issue you a traceable check to prove its legitimate income!"

If "dispensaries" get a bank to take their money (and many do in fact have trouble with this) how should the IRS handle it? How can they be allowed to deduct as business expenses on their taxes, something that is blatantly illegal? If they can, how can your local hitman not have an argument that he should be able to deduct travel expenses, ammunition, disposal fees, blackmail payments and the percentage that gets kicked up to the capo and the boss of the local mob?

And this is being promoted, championed and supported not by the local Sov/Cit crazy brigade, but by our regular politicians, motivated by the lure of a few tax dollars and not at all concerned with the costs that only become apparent farther down the road.

I'll stop, I'm getting a little close to a line here....

[KickahaOta]

If "dispensaries" get a bank to take their money (and many do in fact have trouble with this) how should the IRS handle it? How can they be allowed to deduct as business expenses on their taxes, something that is blatantly illegal? If they can, how can your local hitman not have an argument that he should be able to deduct travel expenses, ammunition, disposal fees, blackmail payments and the percentage that gets kicked up to the capo and the boss of the local mob

Separating out this tax-related piece from the rest: The entertaining answer to your question is that marijuana dispensaries are, in fact, treated worse than hitmen from a tax perspective. In the unlikely event that a hitman were to actually file a tax return disclosing all hit-related income (perhaps describing his occupation as "security services"), then the hitman would be allowed to deduct all ordinary and necessary business expenses, provided he kept the receipts. However, when a marijuana dispensary files its tax return, they run into IRC Section 280E:

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

No matter which side of the marijuana debate you're on, the phrasing of this law has a perverse effect. A marijuana dispensary cannot deduct any of the ordinary, unobjectionable sort of expenses -- employee salaries, rent, advertising, etc. -- that a more conventional business would. However, a marijuana dispensary is still not taxed on the cost of obtaining the illegal marijuana itself, because "cost of goods sold" is considered a reduction in income, not a deduction or a credit.

If you want a very interesting discussion of this law, in the context of an organization that provided caregiving and other utterly-aboveboard services in addition to a medical marijuana dispensary, have a look at C.H.A.M.P. v. Commissioner from 2007. A very recent opinion, Canna Care Inc. v. Commissioner, covers very similar ground, but with a different result. C.H.A.M.P. was able to establish that the caregiving was separate enough from the dispensary that it should be considered a separate "trade or business", so that the caregiving expenses could be deducted even though the dispensary expenses couldn't. Canna Care fared rather worse. It was unable to establish that its activities were separate, instead arguing that C.H.A.M.P. was wrongly decided -- a terrible argument, since even by its own logic, it would have established that both C.H.A.M.P. and Canna Care should have lost. But the Tax Court rejected the argument anyway.

[AndyK]

1 -- Legalize MJ at the federal level

2 -- Tax it at the same level as tobacco

Results:

1 -- cut off 50% of drug trade

2 -- Make a giant step towards a balanced budget

[Gregg]

1 -- Legalize MJ at the federal level

2 -- Tax it at the same level as tobacco

Results:

1 -- cut off 50% of drug trade

2 -- Make a giant step towards a balanced budget

The problem with #2, or one problem anyway, is that I can grow some pretty good pot all by myself in the privacy of my back garden, or indeed my basement, which effectively makes it immune to taxation. This is something I've long said to the "tax it and balance the budget" crowd.

And the problem that follows from this is several layers of interested parties are no longer interested because the interest in the whole thing for most of them is what percentage of the cut they're going to get, a cut that is nil when I'm growing my own in the laundry room hydroponic farm.

On Tuesday, Ohio is voting on 2 separate issues that relate to legalizing it. The first is a straight up, legalize it vote with a twist, in that it grants 10 franchises for the exclusive growing rights in the state (to parties already established who, for reasons unknown are sponsoring the amendment)
The second is a different kind of animal, a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would void any other amendment, including the one mentioned above, that establishes any state sanctioned franchise rights that are proposed for the ballot by anyone who will benefit from it passing.
I'm sorry, the two amendments above are Issues 2 and 3, but I discussed them out of order. The "no amendments that promise to make named persons a monopoly" is Issue 2, and the "legalize pot and make it so only these ten people/corporations can legally grow and sell it" is Issue 3. To get a legal bong, we must vote NO on 2 and YES on 3, which, Ohio voters being only slightly smarter than Palm Beach County Florida voters, will likely screw up unintentionally.
And still, neither issue addresses the very simple fact that part of the Ohio Constitution cannot just say "we'd rather not" to the Federal government.

I'm further kerfluffled by the advertising campaign the "Pro-Pot 10" are running against Issue 2.
The commercials they run do not mention, even in passing, marijuana. The talk about "greedy corporate interests attempting to take away our right to vote on future issues. Issues that could potentially include voting to reduce your taxes" which is true, it could also include issues to declare "Sympathy For the Devil" the official state song (because doing so would give Mssrs Jagger and RIchards royalties on it being played at state functions) which is misleading at the very least and, well, from here in the Bunker a flat out lie....

ANd here I have to stop again, but I really thought we had fought a war that settled this issue once before. I'm certain that a lot of the old hardware around my other home had something to do with the whole "state's rights" thing.

[Gregg]

If you want a very interesting discussion of this law, in the context of an organization that provided caregiving and other utterly-aboveboard services in addition to a medical marijuana dispensary, have a look at C.H.A.M.P. v. Commissioner from 2007. A very recent opinion, Canna Care Inc. v. Commissioner, covers very similar ground, but with a different result. C.H.A.M.P. was able to establish that the caregiving was separate enough from the dispensary that it should be considered a separate "trade or business", so that the caregiving expenses could be deducted even though the dispensary expenses couldn't. Canna Care fared rather worse. It was unable to establish that its activities were separate, instead arguing that C.H.A.M.P. was wrongly decided -- a terrible argument, since even by its own logic, it would have established that both C.H.A.M.P. and Canna Care should have lost. But the Tax Court rejected the argument anyway.

Was not one of these the subject of a reality TV show?

[Burnaby49]

Our new federal government made a campaign promise to legalize marijuana in Canada. They got elected less than two weeks ago so there is as yet no idea of the priorities to be given to their various promises. However, since they have a comfortable majority government, they can legislate whatever they want. Colorado and Oregon have already been warning our new government about the problems of legalizing it. Not ethics or morality but the practical difficulties of implimenting it. Both states found the legislation and rules much more difficult to devise than thought and it is still a work in process. So I assume that our government will be sending people down to the two states to consult on how they are doing.

I'm personally affected by one Liberal campaign promise. Trudeau says that he will end the income splitting tax break for married couples. I transferred $20,000 of income over to my wife last year and saved over $1,000 in taxes.

[k1w1]

The problem with #2, or one problem anyway, is that I can grow some pretty good pot all by myself in the privacy of my back garden, or indeed my basement, which effectively makes it immune to taxation. This is something I've long said to the "tax it and balance the budget" crowd.

You could also easily grow tobacco in your back yard or your basement. So what makes you think that being able to privately grow cannibis will make it immune to taxation?

You can also privately brew your own alcohol and so avoid the tax on that, but that doesn't make alcohol effectively immune from taxation. So why only pot?

[notorial dissent]

The problem with #2, or one problem anyway, is that I can grow some pretty good pot all by myself in the privacy of my back garden, or indeed my basement, which effectively makes it immune to taxation. This is something I've long said to the "tax it and balance the budget" crowd.

Which is pretty much what Colorado, and I think it is Oregon or WA did. The last report I saw for Colorado was a whopping big chunk of sales tax and tax money. IIRC their pot tax is pretty stiff and it is still selling like hotcakes.

[Arthur Rubin]

I'm tempted to split off the MJ subthread and move it to "Tax Practice & Policy and Tax Shelters"; it's discussing real tax issues, not tax protestors or sovereigns.

As for "legal" MJ dispensaries under state law; it's dangerous for those tax preparers willing to work on the returns, as the payments for tax preparation might also be seized by the Federal authorities.

[GlimDropper]

Which is pretty much what Colorado, and I think it is Oregon or WA did. The last report I saw for Colorado was a whopping big chunk of sales tax and tax money. IIRC their pot tax is pretty stiff and it is still selling like hotcakes.

From what I'm told from an old high school friend now living in Colorado, the actual tax haul is lower than hoped. One reason being is that their isn't really any remaining enforcement pressure to keep doctors from writing prescriptions for medical pot to people who may not have a legitimate medical need. Medical pot is not taxed nearly as high as recreational weed so scripts are being used as tax dodges.

[grixit]

I suspect that pot is a lot easier to grow in your backyard than tobacco simply because tobacco is a modern result of lots of careful breeding, while marijauna (aside from a few choice varieties like sinsemilla) is still pretty much a weed. You could grow one of tobacco's primitive cousins, though. They all have nicotine, just beware of what else they have,

[morrand]

I suspect that pot is a lot easier to grow in your backyard than tobacco simply because tobacco is a modern result of lots of careful breeding, while marijauna (aside from a few choice varieties like sinsemilla) is still pretty much a weed.

The State of Illinois begs to differ on C. sativa being "pretty much" a weed:

The following plants within the sovereign territory of the State of Illinois are designated and declared noxious weeds:

a) Marihuana (Cannabis sativa L.);

20 Ill. Adm. Code 220.60. I suspect many other states (particularly those in the Middle West and the Plains) designate it likewise. One more hurdle for the home grower to get over.

[k1w1]

I suspect that pot is a lot easier to grow in your backyard than tobacco...

You suspect wrongly. Tobacco is incredibly easy to grow -- I know a couple of people who grow it -- at least as easy to grow as pot, and, no, it isn't some sort of "primitive cousin" of the modern plant. You can purchase the seeds from any number of different places. (The tricky-ish part is curing the leaves before smoking.)

Anyway, my point is that being able to personally grow pot does not make it immune from taxation as Greg apparently believes.

[The Observer]

Ok, the discussion has gotten away from the forum description so I am moving it to Tax Practice & Policy and Tax Shelter forum. Please keep the discussion from changing into a political discussion.