The Latest on Taxation of New Jersey Cannabis
Multistate operators must remain current on updates to the IRS tax code, as well as state and municipal taxes applicable to their cannabis businesses.
August 03, 2022 at 11:43 AM
6 minute read
The New Jersey sales tax on medicinal cannabis sales was eliminated, effective July 1, 2022, reducing the ultimate costs for patients enrolled in the New Jersey Medicinal Cannabis Program (NJMCP). Meanwhile, the sales tax on retail purchases of recreational cannabis will remain at 6.625%. This article discusses the current state of taxation on both medicinal and recreational cannabis, along with the additional municipal nuances related to recreational cannabis.
Taxation on Medicinal Cannabis
The Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act of 2019 provided guidelines to the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) delineating that while medicinal cannabis would initially be taxed at 6.625%, it would be reduced to 4% on sales made between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, then additionally reduced to 2% on sales between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, and now finally eliminated. The elimination of the sales tax on cannabis sales only applies to patients who have registered with the NJMCP. Registration under the NJMCP requires the patient to show that they:
- Have a bona fide relationship with a physician who is a part of the program, as defined by the CRC;
- Are a New Jersey resident; and
- A registered physician has diagnosed the patient with a medical condition that qualifies for medicinal cannabis as a remedy.
This elimination of the sales tax on medicinal marijuana is one of the many ways in which New Jersey and the CRC have prioritized medicinal cannabis patients. Furthermore, since the opening of the recreational market, three cannabis purveyors have been fined for not meeting the standards required by the CRC towards their medicinal cannabis patient customers. New Jersey fined these cannabis retailers $10,000 per infraction, which resulted in a combined total of $360,000 in fines for all three retailers for their sales to recreational cannabis customers during hours of operation strictly reserved for medicinal cannabis patients. With the increase in cannabis sales, operators must stay keenly aware of the state's requirements to prioritize medicinal cannabis access or they may face more severe penalties.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMcCarter & English Hires 10 Former Burns & Levinson Lawyers in Boston
Is Your Award Taxable? A Look at the Taxation of Judgments and Settlements
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250