State Board of Equalization: counties: cannabis-related business: cash payments.
The legislation significantly impacts state laws governing cannabis by requiring the State Board of Equalization to accept cash payments within specified timeframes—50% of its offices by January 1, 2019, and 75% by January 1, 2020. It provides a framework for counties to enter agreements with state agencies to manage cash collection of fees and taxes imposed on cannabis-related businesses. The financial structure outlined in the bill ensures that the Board or counties may be compensated for collection expenses, which could alleviate some financial burdens on state resources while also ensuring compliance from cannabis businesses.
Senate Bill 148, introduced by Senators Wiener and Atkins, aims to facilitate the collection of cash payments by cannabis-related businesses for various state fees, fines, taxes, and penalties. The bill establishes the Cannabis State Payment Collection Law, allowing counties and the State Board of Equalization to accept cash transactions from licensed cannabis businesses, moving away from an exclusive reliance on electronic funds transfer. This change is intended to ease financial operations for cannabis businesses that may face banking challenges, enabling them to meet their tax and regulatory obligations more easily.
Overall sentiment regarding SB 148 appears to be supportive among advocates of cannabis businesses, as it represents a progressive step towards accommodating the operational realities of these businesses. However, there are concerns from some stakeholders regarding the potential risks associated with increased cash transactions, including security issues and the administrative burden on local governments. The bill has sparked discussions about the intersection of cannabis regulation, financial services, and compliance, revealing a nuanced landscape of support and apprehension among legislators and public stakeholders.
While the bill primarily addresses the logistical aspect of cash transactions in the cannabis industry, it raises questions about local versus state governance in tax collection. Some local entities may be wary of the implications of ceding collection authority to the state, which could affect local revenue streams. Additionally, issues surrounding the safety and security of cash handling in the cannabis sector, particularly amid federal banking restrictions, underline a critical point of contention that requires ongoing attention from policymakers and regulators.