Printable Format79-5202. Same; imposition of tax; rates; measurement. (a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon marijuana, domestic marijuana plants and controlled substances, as defined by K.S.A. 79-5201, and amendments thereto, at the following rates:
(1) On each gram of marijuana, or each portion of a gram, $3.50;
(2) on each gram of a wet domestic marijuana plant, $.40;
(3) on each gram of a dry domestic marijuana plant, $.90;
(4) on each gram of controlled substance, or portion of a gram, $200; and
(5) on each 50 dosage units of a controlled substance that is not sold by weight, or portion thereof, $2,000.
(b) For the purpose of calculating the tax hereunder, an ounce of marijuana or other controlled substance is measured by the weight of the substance in the dealer's possession. The weight of the marijuana or controlled substance includes all material, mixture or preparation that is added to the marijuana or controlled substance.
History: L. 1987, ch. 366, § 2; L. 1990, ch. 359, § 2; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Constitutionality of act and uses of information obtained thereunder determined. State v. Durrant, 244 Kan. 522, 526, 769 P.2d 1174 (1989).
2. Cited in opinion holding that Kansas drug tax act does not violate due process provisions of U.S. Constitution. State v. Berberich, 248 Kan. 854, 862, 811 P.2d 1192 (1991).
3. Whether Kansas department of revenue is bound by state's plea bargain regarding drug stamp tax owed examined. Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 846, 847, 848, 849, 863 P.2d 364 (1993).
4. Taxpayer must have possession of controlled substance for sufficient time to affix stamp to incur tax liability under KDTA (79-5201 et seq.). In re Burrell, 22 Kan. App. 2d 109, 113, 912 P.2d 187 (1996).
5. Plea agreement estopping additional tax collection hereunder distinguishable from plea agreement involving inmate trust account administrative fee. Roark v. Graves, 262 Kan. 194, 198, 936 P.2d 245 (1997).
6. Amount of controlled substance in defendant's possession insufficient to sustain drug tax stamp violation. State v. Lockhart, 24 Kan. App. 2d 488, 494, 947 P.2d 461 (1997).
7. Habeas corpus relief denied where state supreme court ruled charges did not constitute double jeopardy. Jensen v. Bouker, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1168 (2000).
8. Drug tax stamp provisions apply to possession of marketable controlled substances, but not to possession of partially manufactured items or by-products of process. State v. Capps, 33 Kan. App. 2d 37, 99 P.3d 138 (2004).