In the days of the Armada, a fleet of warships, the scuttlebutt was the rumor or gossip that would spread throughout the ship. Today, Armada Law Corp presents The Scuttlebutt, a daily summery of news articles that people within the cannabis, hemp and plant medicine industries are chatting about along with links to the full articles.
In today’s news:
#californiacannabis – “Changes in fees — mostly increases — charged to those seeking cannabis business licenses were unanimously approved Tuesday by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in the first reading of an ordinance amendment.
The amendment, designed to recover the full costs involved in processing the license applications, will have to return for approval, likely on the administrative agenda at the June 6 board meeting, before becoming effective….
Currently, the initial application fee — essentially a deposit on the final fees — ranges from $3,380 to $5,758, depending on the type of license being sought, the location of the operation and whether energy conservation applies to the operation.
But under the new schedule, the application fee will rise to $5,180 to $10,450.”
#cannabisindustry – “As many familiar with the current status and issues facing New York State cannabis and specifically the conditional adult use retail dispensary (“CAURD
”) licenses know, there are a multitude of problems that CAURD Licensees are facing and some of them are fed up. To that extent, on May 9, 2023, at least eight (8) CAURD Licensees sent an open letter to the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (“DASNY”), the Office of Cannabis Management (“OCM”) and the Cannabis Control Board (“CCB”) voicing their concerns in the hopes of getting a meeting with those authorities to iron out some issues that have arisen since the awarding of their respective CAURD licenses.”
#californiabusiness – “In California, even when employees do not incur additional expenses associated with working remotely (i.e., when the employee pays a flat rate for internet and/or cell phone usage and business use does not increase the employee’s costs), employers still must reimburse their employees for a reasonable percentage of the employee’s cell phone and/or internet plan(s). The duty to reimburse employees for a portion of their personal cell phone and Internet charges exists when the employees have no practical alternative to using their personal resources for business purposes, even if the employer does not maintain a policy specifically mandating the use of the personal resources or devices.
Although California Courts have not defined “reasonable percentage,” employers must reimburse employees for all expenses actually incurred for business purposes. Where the employee is paying a fixed amount for their cell phone and/or internet use, the employer must reimburse its employees for the percentage of the cell phone and/or internet expense(s) that can be attributed to the employee’s mandatory use of the internet and/or their cell phone for work-related purposes. Alternatively, employers may elect to provide their employees with a company cell phone, and/or a device that also has unlimited internet access.”
#CBD – “A Tennessee county and its sheriff can’t evade claims it violated a CBD shop owner’s civil rights by orchestrating a multistore raid that resulted in the retailer’s arrest and the shutdown of his store, the Sixth Circuit ruled in a published opinion that said the operation “had an obviously illegitimate purpose.”
The trial court got it wrong when it excused Rutherford County and Sheriff Mike Fitzhugh from trial over claims they “ignored” multiple indications that the CBD products James Swain Rieves sold at Cloud 9 Hemp were actually legal and still moved forward with the raid of Rieves’ store, the three-judge panel said Tuesday.
The raid of the shop was part of a police action called “Operation Candy Crush” that also hit 22 other locations.”
6th Circ. Revives Suit Over Tenn. Sheriff’s ‘Illegal’ CBD Raid: https://www.law360.com/articles/1678412?utm_source=android&utm_medium=android&utm_campaign=android-shared
#californiacannabis – “The new rates would maintain the current tax structure on cultivators, which calculates the amount owed based on the square footage of canopy permitted to be grown.
A third-party consultant hired by the county, HdL Companies, advised changing the tax structure to a gross receipts model, which calculates taxes based on a percentage of revenue. The county’s Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector, Erick Roeser, opted to keep the square footage model, but used an estimated rate of 2.5 percent of gross receipts to calculate the new tax rate.
The new rates per square foot of canopy will be $0.75 for outdoor growers, $3.00 for growers using mixed-light, and $12.50 for indoor cultivators.
Those rates replace what was a complex structure that included ranges even within those three types of growers, with outdoor cultivation rates per square foot between $0.62-$1.24, mixed-light from $1.39-$4.02 and indoor rates between $2.32-$6.96.”
#californiacannabis – “State law recently shifted the burden for paying cannabis excise taxes from distributors to retailers, with the first tax payments due May 1. Retailers have historically had the most trouble paying their bills, and it appears that many shops lack the cash to pay their state excise taxes, according to new state tax data obtained by SFGATE.
Over 13% of California’s retailers, or 265 pot shops, failed to make any tax payment by the May 1 deadline, according to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Those businesses are now facing a 50% penalty on the taxes they owe, which could be a death blow to many shops….
“There’s a debt bubble that’s been building over the last few years that’s getting close to bursting,” Mabugat said. “I do anticipate a lot of retailers going out of business this year, just like we saw a lot of cultivators go out of business last year.””