County Reps: Appeal Likely Following State Court's Sales Tax Ruling for Retail Marijuana
In Robust Missouri Dispensary 3 v. St. Louis County, the court sided with the plaintiff, concluding that only one local government is permitted under state law to impose an additional 3% sales tax on the retail sale of marijuana.
November 14, 2024 at 11:34 AM
6 minute read
Rejecting a lower court's ruling this week, a Missouri appellate court determined that a marijuana retail tax on dispensaries cannot be stacked and collected by both a local municipality and county entities.
In a Tuesday opinion, authored by Judge John P. Torbitzky for the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals, the three-judge panel reversed the St. Louis County Circuit Court's holding that St. Louis County and St. Charles County were authorized to impose a sales tax on marijuana dispensaries located in incorporated areas within their counties.
In Robust Missouri Dispensary 3 v. St. Louis County, the court sided with plaintiff Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, concluding that only one local government is permitted under state law to impose an additional 3% sales tax on the retail sale of marijuana. Judges Robert M. Clayton III and Michael S. Wright concurred.
"The constitutional provision authorizes 'any local government' to impose a three percent sales tax on marijuana sold at retail after putting the issue to a vote. A 'local government' is defined as 'in an incorporated area, a village, town, or city and, in the case of an unincorporated area, a county.' The definition of 'local government' unambiguously provides that, in an incorporated area, the municipality is the 'local government' authorized to impose a sales tax while in unincorporated areas the county is the 'local government' authorized to impose a sales tax," Torbitzky wrote.
Following legalization of recreational marijuana in Missouri, legislation required licensed retail marijuana businesses to collect a 6% state tax on the retail sale of nonmedical marijuana. Florissant city voted to impose a 3% sales tax on retail sales of marijuana. St. Louis County similarly passed a proposition to impose a 3% sales tax on retail sales of marijuana sold in the county.
Robust, which operates a dispensary in Florissant, an incorporated city in St. Louis County, collected and remitted the sales tax imposed by Florissant. However, the Missouri Department of Revenue issued Robust a sales tax change notification letter, informing the company that "it was required to remit the three percent St. Louis County sales tax in addition to the three percent sales tax imposed by Florissant," according to the opinion.
Robust filed a declaratory judgment suit against the county and director of revenue, seeking a declaration that Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution doesn't authorize a county to impose an additional sales tax when the dispensary is located within the boundaries of an incorporated village, town or city. The plaintiff further sought an injunction prohibiting the director of revenue from collecting St. Louis County sales tax. St. Charles County later filed a motion to intervene, looking to defend the lawfulness of the tax ordinance after a similar law was passed in that county.
Robust, St. Louis County and St. Charles County each filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court held that the 3% tax can be simultaneously collected by both the county and municipal entities.
On Tuesday, the appellate court disagreed, finding the taxes cannot be "stacked" by more than one entity.
While Article XIV, Section 2.6(5) of the state's constitution grants the relevant "local government" the power to impose a 3% tax, the appellate court determined that the county wasn't a "local government," as that term is used in Article XIV, Section 2, within an incorporated area. The court concluded that the definition of "local government" depends on whether an area is incorporated or unincorporated, noting that Article XIV, Section 2.2(12) states that "local government" regarding an incorporated area means a village, town or city. However, in the case of an unincorporated area, the phrase means a county. Therefore, in an incorporated area such as Florissant, the village, town or city is the "local government," not the county.
The counties argued "that Article XIV, § 2.2(12) makes both the incorporated municipality and the county in which the incorporated entity is located the local governments because the provision uses the conjunction 'and.'" The appellate court concluded that that argument failed because it discounts the phrase “in the case of an unincorporated area” that appears immediately before “the county.”
"Were this court to read Article XIV, § 2.2(12) as the counties urge, the phrase would be rendered superfluous. Second, the counties’ argument forgets that the provision contains a list of the entities that can be a local government within an incorporated area," Torbitzky said, noting that the list doesn't include a county but includes a “village, town, or city,” which are the three types of incorporated municipal entities recognized by state law.
"Article XIV, § 2.6(5) provides 'the governing body of any local government is authorized to impose, by ordinance or order, an additional sales tax in an amount not to exceed three percent on all tangible personal property retail sales of adult use marijuana sold in such political subdivision.' While 'any' can relate to either singular or plural nouns, in this amendment, it modifies the singular noun 'subdivision.' Consistent with the constitutional definition of 'local government,' the word 'any' refers to the singular local government with taxing authority, not all local governments in general," Torbitzky said.
In a statement, St. Charles County executive Steve Ehlmann said the government plans to ask the Missouri Supreme Court to reconsider the ruling.
"People voted to approve this tax because the language read ‘any’ local government could assess the tax and the industry led others to believe that included counties,” Ehlmann said. “When the County Council asked the voters to approve the tax, we heard nothing from anyone in the industry. This constitutional amendment was written by the marijuana industry, and they could have made it clear counties were excluded but that would have created opposition to their proposal."
Since the law took effect, St. Charles County said it has raised more than $1.4 million, which will be used to fund school resource officers when funding runs out next year.
Neither Robust's attorney, Eric M. Walter of Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis, nor St. Louis County representatives immediately responded to requests for comment.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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 AllIllicit Marijuana Business Operator Is Ordered to Pay New York $9.5M
Judge Fast-Tracks Hemp Operators' Lawsuit Against New York
Suit Claims NY Hemp Retailers Are Collateral Damage in State Sweep of Black-Market Marijuana
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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