ӣ����Ƶ

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that ӣ����Ƶ County and St. Charles County cannot add their own tax on the sale of marijuana on top of local municipal sales taxes.

In a 6-1 decision, the high court reversed a lower court’s 2024 ruling allowing both Florissant and ӣ����Ƶ County to both impose a 3% sales tax on marijuana products.

“The counties’ ordinances are valid to the extent they impose a 3 percent sales tax on non-medical marijuana sold in unincorporated areas, but they cannot be enforced within incorporated cities, towns, and villages,” Judge Mary Russell wrote for the majority.

At issue is a concept called “tax stacking.”

In April 2023, 65% of ӣ����Ƶ County voters approved collecting a 3% sales tax on marijuana sales; in St. Charles County, 72% did.

The aim of the counties was to scrape some money from an industry projected to generate $1.4 billion in sales annually.

But, a marijuana dispensary in Florissant sued ӣ����Ƶ County, accusing it of unconstitutionally collecting the tax when Florissant already was. The shop, identified in the suit as Robust Dispensary on Howdershell Road, argued the county is only allowed to collect the levy in unincorporated territory. St. Charles County later joined the suit.

The dispensary’s attorneys argued the term differentiates between municipalities and unincorporated county territory. Either could impose a tax within its borders, but not both.

ӣ����Ƶ County Circuit Judge Brian May determined that if Robust’s interpretation of the law were accepted, it would lead to “absurd outcomes,” because “a municipality or city would essentially be given carte blanche to ignore any county ordinance or regulation, including those related to public health and safety wholly unrelated to the taxing issue.”

But Russell said the plain language of the state constitution is unambiguous.

“In an incorporated area, the ‘local government’ is an incorporated village, town, or city, and, in an unincorporated area, the ‘local government’ is a county,” she wrote.

The high court’s decision will mean a loss of millions of dollars in revenue affecting an estimated 70 local jurisdictions where both city and county governments are imposing the tax.

The Missouri Cannabis Trade Association, which represents the pot industry, hailed the ruling, saying it will save consumers $3 million in added taxes.

“Missouri customers already pay their fair share, with sales tax revenue from cannabis in Missouri now tripling original state estimates. We applaud the Court for upholding the constitution and call on all jurisdictions and the Missouri Department of Revenue to implement this decision without delay so Missouri can keep leading the way,” said Andrew Mullins, executive director of the trade group.

St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann said the tax had been projected to generate $2 million annually.

“I’m disappointed with the outcome, but I respect the court’s decision, and we will abide by it,” Ehlmann said.

He said the decision will be hard to unwind because the marijuana legalization effort was done via a constitutional amendment approved by Missouri voters, rather than a change in state statutes.

“One thing this shows is how we need to stop putting everything that comes along into the state constitution,” Ehlmann said. “Had this been just a regular law passed by voters, then the legislature could have come back and fixed the question of who can do the tax. But instead, we find ourselves bound by a final decision from the Missouri Supreme Court.”

In a dissent, Supreme Court Judge Zel Fischer called the decision “absurd.”

He said the state constitution clearly says a county is a “local government” in both incorporated and unincorporated areas.

“And as a ‘local government’ —regardless of whether the area is incorporated and unincorporated — a county can impose a 3-percent sales tax on recreational marijuana,” Fischer wrote.

“Because the circuit court correctly determined that a county can impose an additional three percent sales tax in an incorporated area, I would affirm the circuit court’s judgment in all respects,” Fischer added.