[0]: http://www.denverpost.com/2013/08/29/federal-government-wont...
Edit: For the record, it would still block you from getting a US Government security clearance, and you can still run drug tests on employees and decline them for failing.
In a way, Microsoft getting involved raises the cost of changing the policy; do they want to prosecute or otherwise upset a major corporation?
Federal enforcement is carried out by the DOJ, which is an agency of the Executive Branch. The DOJ serves at the pleasure of the President, so while Obama chooses not to enforce this law currently, he (or the next President) could change their minds at any moment.
In practice, Microsoft is betting on their lobbyists to ensure a stable regulatory climate.
Edit: as others have pointed out, I was incorrect in lumping in the IRS with the rest of the federal banking system. The IRS does indeed accept money from marijuana businesses. There are other parts of the federal banking system that are not so "accepting", for instance: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/01/05/judge-tosses-denver-mar...
"Illegal activities. Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity."
"If you steal property, you must report its fair market value in your income in the year you steal it unless in the same year, you return it to its rightful owner."
So you might actually be able to deduct that, if you could justify returning the property as a business expense.
In some cases proving tax evasion is easier than proving other crimes. This is what got Al Capone -- because the crime was perpetrated through his organization and not by him directly, it would have been difficult to hold him directly responsible for the crimes. However, once his ledger was discovered it was straightforward to prove that he received significant income without making the required income tax payments.
You have to buy them and place them on your drugs so if you get raided, you can prove that you paid taxes on your supply. There are even folks who collect the stamps.
That's not even remotely true, as even 30 years ago the IRS happily took my money, and did so without telling anyone else where the money came from. I mean, maybe it's changed since, but when it comes to "IRS won't take my money", ima gonna have to pull the "citation needed" card.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=702348433062253... [2] https://newrevenue.org/2013/03/13/marijuana-tax-code-section...
Is there a checkbox on US tax forms for "illegally earned money"? Or are you expected to put that in a free-text field?
One should also note that (as far as I can tell) the IRS does little more than a cursory glance at most returns to make sure the numbers add up, especially back then. Point being is that it's entirely possible one could have put "income from trafficking under-aged children into white slavery", deducted the cost of acquiring said children, and never gotten flagged because the numbers add up and it doesn't hit the "trying to weasel out of paying what's owed" flag in the computer. Dunno, I'm just relaying an anecdote with a lot of details left out, you sure as hell don't want to take this as tax advice.
Bold move.
Is there a statutory prohibition on the IRS sharing this info with other law enforcement agencies? Where is the line, i.e. would you expect confidentiality if you reported proceeds from your work as a hitman?
In the mid-80s I had income that would not ordinarily go on a W2 or a 1099. I had reason to take them at their word and file. All I'm saying is that the IRS doesn't care where the money comes from, as long as they get their cut, and I have experience to back this up.
All it takes is one story to the contrary to turn this into urban legend, and the IRS doesn't get as much money anymore. They're a debt collection agency, I had/have little reason to doubt that they just want their money.
Remember, what they ultimately got Al Capone on wasn't racketeering, bootlegging or murder, it was tax evasion.
>> Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence.[0]
Cocaine and methamphetamine are both schedule II.
Now I understand the difference is that Schedule II means there are some medical uses but to lump marijuana in with "the most dangerous" but not meth? That just seems ridiculous.
Sidenote (not from this study): Mushrooms are supposedly the least harmful to the human body... Who'da thought?
Schedule I drugs have no known medical use and high abuse potential, which marijuana currently falls under. Whether or not you agree with that classification is an entirely seperate issue.
The scheduling of cannabis is crap, and literally everybody knows it. The DEA has to embarrassingly dodge the question whenever it's brought up.
What does that mean? Surely the IRS still wants their money? It would seem to put the IRS and marijuana businesses in an awkward position...
Banks, now that's a different story.