Up up up_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Leonardk
2021-06-29

Up up up

Do Cannabis Stocks Need Tax Reform More Than Legalization?

Pot companies may do better dealing with a fairer tax code than navigating a regulatory labyrinth.

Do Cannabis Stocks Need Tax Reform More Than Legalization?

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

关于我们·老虎社区守则·老虎社区账号管理规范·老虎社区服务协议·老虎社区隐私政策

公司名称：北京至简风宜信息技术有限公司

违法和不良信息投诉：010-5681-3562（工作时间9:30-18:30）

邮箱：service@laohu8.com

营业执照：91110105MA01A4U55R

ICP备：京ICP备18016422号

网安备：京公网安备11010502036490

关注我们

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":159070617,"tweetId":"159070617","gmtCreate":1624933264939,"gmtModify":1631885586714,"author":{"id":3582686134372532,"idStr":"3582686134372532","authorId":3582686134372532,"authorIdStr":"3582686134372532","name":"Leonardk","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/676f5d832122882228ccbdd0362da858","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":6,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Up up up</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Up up up</p></body></html>","text":"Up up up","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/159070617","repostId":2146831625,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2146831625","pubTimestamp":1624932300,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2146831625?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-29 10:05","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Do Cannabis Stocks Need Tax Reform More Than Legalization?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2146831625","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Pot companies may do better dealing with a fairer tax code than navigating a regulatory labyrinth.","content":"<p>The patchwork, state-by-state legalization of marijuana in the U.S. has created a market for cannabis companies that is less than ideal, leaving many people hoping the federal government will finally decriminalize pot, as Canada has.</p>\n<p>Yet the rollout of legal weed north of the border has also been marked by bureaucratic bungling that has inhibited cannabis stocks from realizing their full potential. Legalizing marijuana at the federal level in the U.S. might create a regulatory burden that's even more prohibitive than what legal pot companies already experience from the individual states.</p>\n<p>What the marijuana industry might need more than legalization is tax reform, because the current code is at odds with how legal cannabis businesses operate -- and with common sense.</p>\n<h2>Carrying a heavy burden</h2>\n<p>To prevent drug traffickers from profiting off their illegal activity, the federal government naturally prohibits them from taking tax deductions.</p>\n<p>While you wouldn't think that was necessary since what traffickers are doing is against the law, the tax court in the 1970s actually allowed a cocaine and amphetamines trafficker to deduct his \"business expenses,\" and Congress ended up enacting a law to prevent traffickers from doing that again.</p>\n<p>People don't consider their local marijuana dispensary owner to be anything like the guy hauling kilos of cocaine across the ocean in a cigarette boat and evading the Coast Guard. But because cannabis remains a Class I controlled dangerous substance, the Internal Revenue Service doesn't make any such distinctions.</p>\n<p>So legal cannabis companies like <b>Trulieve</b> (OTC:TCNNF) and <b>Cresco Labs</b> (OTC:CRLBF) are not permitted to deduct legitimate business expenses like marketing and advertising, health insurance premiums, interest, rent, or even employee salaries.</p>\n<p>Those deductions could be the difference between being profitable and running ruinous losses -- or for companies that do manage to turn a profit, from having additional resources to invest in their business.</p>\n<h2>Double jeopardy</h2>\n<p>The offending section of the tax code is Section 280e, which allows a cannabis business to deduct only the expenses directly related to sales of product, and not those associated with carrying on the actual business. So they're able to deduct the cost of goods sold, but not expenses related to selling, general, and administrative efforts.</p>\n<p>All this means a marijuana company is being taxed on its gross profits rather than operating income, which could make its effective tax rate well more than double a similarly structured business not in the cannabis industry. In short, marijuana companies might be taxed on more income than they actually make.</p>\n<p>Tim Winkler, controller at Ferro Cannabis, a Michigan-based cultivator of pot for medical and adult use, says the problem is more acute for dispensaries than for grow operations, but \"this is cash, so EBITDA [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization] takes the hit as well.\"</p>\n<p>EBITDA is a metric many investors use to compare businesses, as it largely focuses on how a company is operating, its profitability, and its cash flow. While not perfect, it serves as shorthand for investors evaluating a business -- and since marijuana companies are not able to deduct any of the listed expenses, they are put at a disadvantage. And obviously, the bigger the business, the bigger the hit it takes in taxes.</p>\n<h2>The high cost of success</h2>\n<p>All this is why many marijuana companies don't operate in the U.S. <b>Canopy Growth</b>, <b>HEXO</b>, <b>Tilray</b>, and others remain firmly ensconced in Canada so that they're not subject to Section 280e oversight.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, some companies -- such as multistate dispensary operators like <b>Curaleaf Holdings</b>&nbsp;(OTC:CURLF), <b>Green Thumb Industries</b> (OTC:GTBIF), Trulieve, and <b>Harvest Health &amp; Recreation </b>(OTC:HRVSF) (which Trulieve is acquiring) -- actually have it worse.</p>\n<p>Even though they're Canadian companies subject to Canadian taxes, because they operate state-level legal cannabis businesses in the U.S., they are taxed a second time as U.S. corporations. And in states that align their local tax codes with the IRS code, they can't deduct normal business expenses locally, either.</p>\n<p>The results are evident in their financial statements: As their business grows, their tax liability often increases exponentially.</p>\n<table>\n <thead>\n  <tr>\n   <th><p><b>Company</b></p></th>\n   <th><p><b>2019-2020 Revenue Increase %</b></p></th>\n   <th><p><b>2019-2020 Income Tax Provision Increase %</b></p></th>\n   <th><p><b>No. of States Where It Operates</b></p></th>\n  </tr>\n </thead>\n <tbody>\n  <tr>\n   <td><p>Cresco Labs</p></td>\n   <td><p>292%</p></td>\n   <td><p>232%</p></td>\n   <td><p>18</p></td>\n  </tr>\n  <tr>\n   <td><p>Curaleaf</p></td>\n   <td><p>160%</p></td>\n   <td><p>247%</p></td>\n   <td><p>23</p></td>\n  </tr>\n  <tr>\n   <td><p>Green Thumb Industries</p></td>\n   <td><p>157%</p></td>\n   <td><p>802%</p></td>\n   <td><p>12</p></td>\n  </tr>\n  <tr>\n   <td><p>Harvest Health</p></td>\n   <td><p>98%</p></td>\n   <td><p>230%</p></td>\n   <td><p>5</p></td>\n  </tr>\n  <tr>\n   <td><p>Trulieve</p></td>\n   <td><p>106%</p></td>\n   <td><p>87%</p></td>\n   <td><p>6</p></td>\n  </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p>Data source: Company websites.</p>\n<h2>Paying their fair share</h2>\n<p>Federal legalization of marijuana would obviously eliminate the undue burden cannabis companies face when calculating their taxes, but as noted previously, it could unleash a regulatory burden that might be just as bad as the current system.</p>\n<p>There's a reason the black market in marijuana still proliferates even where states have legalized it: The government has made the cost of doing business too expensive, which shows up in prices. It's often just cheaper to buy illegal weed.</p>\n<p>It's a testament to their businesses that Cresco and Trulieve have been able to grow sales faster than their taxes, but if cannabis companies had their druthers, they might just prefer the government to enact tax reform over marijuana legalization.</p>","source":"fool_stock","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Do Cannabis Stocks Need Tax Reform More Than Legalization?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDo Cannabis Stocks Need Tax Reform More Than Legalization?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-29 10:05 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/06/28/do-cannabis-stocks-need-tax-reform-more-than-legal/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The patchwork, state-by-state legalization of marijuana in the U.S. has created a market for cannabis companies that is less than ideal, leaving many people hoping the federal government will finally ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/06/28/do-cannabis-stocks-need-tax-reform-more-than-legal/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"CRLBF":"Cresco Labs Inc.","TCNNF":"Trulieve Cannabis Corporation"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/06/28/do-cannabis-stocks-need-tax-reform-more-than-legal/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2146831625","content_text":"The patchwork, state-by-state legalization of marijuana in the U.S. has created a market for cannabis companies that is less than ideal, leaving many people hoping the federal government will finally decriminalize pot, as Canada has.\nYet the rollout of legal weed north of the border has also been marked by bureaucratic bungling that has inhibited cannabis stocks from realizing their full potential. Legalizing marijuana at the federal level in the U.S. might create a regulatory burden that's even more prohibitive than what legal pot companies already experience from the individual states.\nWhat the marijuana industry might need more than legalization is tax reform, because the current code is at odds with how legal cannabis businesses operate -- and with common sense.\nCarrying a heavy burden\nTo prevent drug traffickers from profiting off their illegal activity, the federal government naturally prohibits them from taking tax deductions.\nWhile you wouldn't think that was necessary since what traffickers are doing is against the law, the tax court in the 1970s actually allowed a cocaine and amphetamines trafficker to deduct his \"business expenses,\" and Congress ended up enacting a law to prevent traffickers from doing that again.\nPeople don't consider their local marijuana dispensary owner to be anything like the guy hauling kilos of cocaine across the ocean in a cigarette boat and evading the Coast Guard. But because cannabis remains a Class I controlled dangerous substance, the Internal Revenue Service doesn't make any such distinctions.\nSo legal cannabis companies like Trulieve (OTC:TCNNF) and Cresco Labs (OTC:CRLBF) are not permitted to deduct legitimate business expenses like marketing and advertising, health insurance premiums, interest, rent, or even employee salaries.\nThose deductions could be the difference between being profitable and running ruinous losses -- or for companies that do manage to turn a profit, from having additional resources to invest in their business.\nDouble jeopardy\nThe offending section of the tax code is Section 280e, which allows a cannabis business to deduct only the expenses directly related to sales of product, and not those associated with carrying on the actual business. So they're able to deduct the cost of goods sold, but not expenses related to selling, general, and administrative efforts.\nAll this means a marijuana company is being taxed on its gross profits rather than operating income, which could make its effective tax rate well more than double a similarly structured business not in the cannabis industry. In short, marijuana companies might be taxed on more income than they actually make.\nTim Winkler, controller at Ferro Cannabis, a Michigan-based cultivator of pot for medical and adult use, says the problem is more acute for dispensaries than for grow operations, but \"this is cash, so EBITDA [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization] takes the hit as well.\"\nEBITDA is a metric many investors use to compare businesses, as it largely focuses on how a company is operating, its profitability, and its cash flow. While not perfect, it serves as shorthand for investors evaluating a business -- and since marijuana companies are not able to deduct any of the listed expenses, they are put at a disadvantage. And obviously, the bigger the business, the bigger the hit it takes in taxes.\nThe high cost of success\nAll this is why many marijuana companies don't operate in the U.S. Canopy Growth, HEXO, Tilray, and others remain firmly ensconced in Canada so that they're not subject to Section 280e oversight.\nMeanwhile, some companies -- such as multistate dispensary operators like Curaleaf Holdings (OTC:CURLF), Green Thumb Industries (OTC:GTBIF), Trulieve, and Harvest Health & Recreation (OTC:HRVSF) (which Trulieve is acquiring) -- actually have it worse.\nEven though they're Canadian companies subject to Canadian taxes, because they operate state-level legal cannabis businesses in the U.S., they are taxed a second time as U.S. corporations. And in states that align their local tax codes with the IRS code, they can't deduct normal business expenses locally, either.\nThe results are evident in their financial statements: As their business grows, their tax liability often increases exponentially.\n\n\n\nCompany\n2019-2020 Revenue Increase %\n2019-2020 Income Tax Provision Increase %\nNo. of States Where It Operates\n\n\n\n\nCresco Labs\n292%\n232%\n18\n\n\nCuraleaf\n160%\n247%\n23\n\n\nGreen Thumb Industries\n157%\n802%\n12\n\n\nHarvest Health\n98%\n230%\n5\n\n\nTrulieve\n106%\n87%\n6\n\n\n\nData source: Company websites.\nPaying their fair share\nFederal legalization of marijuana would obviously eliminate the undue burden cannabis companies face when calculating their taxes, but as noted previously, it could unleash a regulatory burden that might be just as bad as the current system.\nThere's a reason the black market in marijuana still proliferates even where states have legalized it: The government has made the cost of doing business too expensive, which shows up in prices. It's often just cheaper to buy illegal weed.\nIt's a testament to their businesses that Cresco and Trulieve have been able to grow sales faster than their taxes, but if cannabis companies had their druthers, they might just prefer the government to enact tax reform over marijuana legalization.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":253,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":6,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}

Do Cannabis Stocks Need Tax Reform More Than Legalization?

评论（1）

热议股票