Cannabis excise tax: remittance and collection.
The amendment proposed by AB828 is intended to simplify the remittance process for distributors who may face challenges in collecting taxes within the designated time frame. This change recognizes the operational realities of the cannabis market and aims to reduce the administrative burden on distributors and retailers. By permitting flexibility in tax remittance, the bill has the potential to enhance compliance among cannabis businesses, ensuring that tax revenue is more reliably collected while also contributing to the ongoing regulation of cannabis in California.
AB828, introduced by Assembly Member Bonta Cooper, aims to amend Section 34015 of the Revenue and Taxation Code regarding the collection and remittance of the cannabis excise tax. This legislation aligns with the existing framework established by the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which imposes taxes on the sale and cultivation of cannabis products. The bill primarily provides that if a distributor does not collect the excise tax from a cannabis retailer during a given quarter, it can remit that tax in the return for the following quarter, effectively allowing for greater flexibility in how taxes are remitted to the state.
The sentiment surrounding AB828 has been largely positive among stakeholders in the cannabis industry, who view the flexibility in tax remittance as a supportive measure that could enhance operational stability. Supporters argue that addressing the timing of tax collection reflects an understanding of the market's dynamics, while critics may still express some concerns over ensuring that tax revenues are secured for state programs. Overall, the changes proposed are seen as a practical response to existing challenges faced by distributors.
While the discussion around AB828 has largely been constructive, some stakeholders might raise concerns regarding the potential for delayed tax collections affecting state revenues. However, the flexibility introduced in this bill is generally seen as a necessary adjustment rather than a contentious point. The key contention lies in striking a balance between efficient tax collection and offering support to cannabis businesses navigating a complex regulatory environment.