79-5204.
Same; evidence of payment required; purchase of stamps; validity; tax payable, when.
(a) No dealer may possess any marijuana, domestic marijuana plant or controlled substance upon which a tax is imposed pursuant to K.S.A. 79-5202, and amendments thereto, unless the tax has been paid as evidenced by an official stamp or other indicia.
(b) Official stamps, labels or other indicia to be affixed to all marijuana, domestic marijuana plants or controlled substances shall be purchased from the director of taxation. The purchaser shall pay 100% of face value for each stamp, label or other indicia at the time of purchase. Each such stamp, label or other indicia shall only be valid for three months after its date of issuance. The director shall issue the stamps, labels or other indicia in denominations in multiples of $10. Any person may purchase any such stamp, label or other indicia without disclosing such person's identity.
(c) When a dealer purchases, acquires, transports, or imports into this state marijuana, domestic marijuana plants or controlled substances on which a tax is imposed by K.S.A. 79-5202, and amendments thereto, and if the indicia evidencing the payment of the tax have not already been affixed, the dealer shall have them permanently affixed on the marijuana, domestic marijuana plant or controlled substance immediately after receiving the substance. Each stamp or other official indicia may be used only once.
(d) Taxes imposed upon marijuana, domestic marijuana plants or controlled substances by this act are due and payable immediately upon acquisition or possession in this state by a dealer. Interest on tax liabilities shall accrue at the rate prescribed by subsection (a) of K.S.A. 79-2968, and amendments thereto, from the date the tax was due until paid.
History:
L. 1987, ch. 366, § 4; L. 1990, ch. 359, § 3; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Exclusion of evidence on grounds of remoteness that substantially impairs state's case examined. State v. Griffin, 246 Kan. 320, 787 P.2d 701 (1990).
2. Test to determine whether search warrant meets constitutional requirements discussed; specificity, technical irregularities, search by affiant examined. State v. LeFort, 248 Kan. 332, 334, 806 P.2d 986 (1991).
3. 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).
4. 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, 852, 863 P.2d 364 (1993).
5. Assessments ordered pursuant to drug tax act (K.S.A. 79-5201 et seq.) do not constitute criminal punishment for double jeopardy purposes. State v. Gulledge, 257 Kan. 915, 896 P.2d 378 (1995).
6. Taxpayer must have possession of controlled substance for sufficient time to affix stamp to incur tax liability under KDTA (K.S.A. 79-5201 et seq.). In re Burrell, 22 Kan. App. 2d 109, 113, 117, 912 P.2d 187 (1996).
7. 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).
8. Prosecution failure to prove defendant qualified as drug dealer constituted reversible error in drug tax stamp charge. State v. Hutcherson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 501, 503, 968 P.2d 1109 (1998).
9. No grace period to purchase and affix drug tax stamp; tax is payable immediately upon possession. State v. Alvarez, 29 Kan. App. 2d 368, 28 P.3d 404 (2001).
10. Drug tax stamp; no grace period to obtain and affix. State v. Curry, 29 Kan. App. 2d 392, 28 P.3d 1019 (2001).
11. Conviction under statute valid whether or not controlled substance was in usable form. State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 512, 133 P.3d 48 (2006).
12. Defendant had sufficient access and control over methamphetamine to immediately affix drug tax stamps. State v. Unruh, 281 Kan. 520, 536, 133 P.3d 35 (2006).
13. Drug tax stamp must be affixed immediately upon possession of the controlled substance. State v. Sykes, 35 Kan. App. 2d 517, 535, 132 P.3d 485 (2006).
14. Convictions hereunder vacated; trial court to conduct hearing to determine whether evidence is fruit of poisonous tree. State v. Poulton, 286 Kan. 1, 4, 179 P.3d 1145 (2008).
15. Cited; conviction hereunder reversed; impoundment of vehicle by law enforcement held unreasonable. State v. Branstetter, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1167, 1169, 199 P.3d 1272 (2009).
16. Defendant who fails to participate in ordered drug abuse treatment program is subject to serve underlying prison sentence. State v. Bee, 288 Kan. 733, 207 P.3d 244 (2009).
State v. Pribble, 375 P.3d 966 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 20דBut in the very next statute, the legislature again speaks as if there is but a single tax being assessed: "At such time as the director of taxation shall determine that a dealer has not paid the tax as provided by K.S.A. 79-5204, and amendments thereto, the director may…”
State v. Schoonover, 133 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 5ד79-5204(c), which requires that a dealer affix a drug tax stamp “immediately after receiving the substance,” in holding that there is no grace period to purchase and affix a drug tax stamp. 29 Kan. App. 2d at 372. Curry similarly held: “Evidence that a defendant had actual…”
State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 2ד65-4161); four counts of possession of cocaine without a drug tax stamp (K.S.A.79-5204); and four counts of the unlawful use of a communication facility to arrange a drug transaction (K.”
State v. Martin, 544 P.3d 820 (Kan. 2024). · cites it 5דOn the other hand, K.S.A. 79-5204 and K.S.A. 79-5208 target the omission of failing to pay the tax imposed on marijuana and controlled substances.”
State v. Gulledge, 896 P.2d 378 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 3דK.S.A. 1993 Supp. 79-5204(a) prohibits a dealer from possessing marijuana unless the tax has been paid.”
United States v. Haltiwanger, 637 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2ד§ 21-4704 (a) (setting forth a sentencing range of five to seven months for defendants who have a criminal history category of I (one misdemeanor or no prior record) and are convicted of nondrug [1] offenses classified as level 10 felonies); and b) the tax stamp offense being…”
State v. Moore, 154 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2007). “65-4163(a)(3), and the failure to affix a drug stamp, in violation of K.S.A. 79-5204(a) and K.S.A. 79-5208. A later search revealed a total of 55 pounds of marijuana hidden in the vehicle.”
State v. Lockhart, Jr., 947 P.2d 461 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2ד65-4127a; one count of possession of drugs without a *489 drug tax stamp, contrary to K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 79-5204; one count of obstruction of official duty, contrary to K.”
State v. Diaz-Ruiz, 211 P.3d 836 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2ד65-4163(a)(3) and one count of no drug tax stamp in violation of K.S.A. 79-5204(a) and K.S.A. 79-5208. Prior to trial, both defendants moved to suppress evidence seized in the search, claiming (1) the initial traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion; (2) the stop…”
State v. Anderson, 136 P.3d 406 (Kan. 2006). “65-4163(a), and failure to affix a drug tax stamp, contrary to K.S.A. 79-5204. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and ordered the drug evidence suppressed, accepting Anderson’s arguments that his detention was unlawful after the search of the truck yielded no drugs,…”
Simpson v. Bouker, 249 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2דSee Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-5204 . The fact that the tax is essentially self-assessed, and many dealers refuse to pay the tax, does not transform the tax into one assessed only upon criminal prosecution.”
State v. Pribble, 375 P.3d 966 (Kan. 2016). “But in the very next statute, the legislature again speaks as if there is but a single tax being assessed: "At such time as the director of taxation shall determine that a dealer has not paid the tax as provided by K.S.A. 79-5204, and amendments thereto, the director may…”
State v. Martin, 544 P.3d 820 (Kan. 2024). “On the other hand, K.S.A. 79-5204 and K.S.A. 79-5208 target the omission of failing to pay the tax imposed on marijuana and controlled substances.”
State v. Moore, 154 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2007). “65-4163(a)(3), and the failure to affix a drug stamp, in violation of K.S.A. 79-5204(a) and K.S.A. 79-5208. A later search revealed a total of 55 pounds of marijuana hidden in the vehicle.”
State v. Diaz-Ruiz, 211 P.3d 836 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “65-4163(a)(3) and one count of no drug tax stamp in violation of K.S.A. 79-5204(a) and K.S.A. 79-5208. Prior to trial, both defendants moved to suppress evidence seized in the search, claiming (1) the initial traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion; (2) the stop…”
State v. Pribble, 375 P.3d 966 (Kan. 2016). “But in the very next statute, the legislature again speaks as if there is but a single tax being assessed: "At such time as the director of taxation shall determine that a dealer has not paid the tax as provided by K.S.A. 79-5204, and amendments thereto, the director may…”
State v. Gulledge, 896 P.2d 378 (Kan. 1995). “K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 79-5204(a) prohibits a dealer from possessing marijuana unless the tax has been paid.”
— K.S.A. § 79-5204(c) — 7 cases
State v. Schoonover, 133 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). “79-5204(c), which requires that a dealer affix a drug tax stamp “immediately after receiving the substance,” in holding that there is no grace period to purchase and affix a drug tax stamp. 29 Kan. App. 2d at 372. Curry similarly held: “Evidence that a defendant had actual…”
State v. Pribble, 375 P.3d 966 (Kan. 2016). “But in the very next statute, the legislature again speaks as if there is but a single tax being assessed: "At such time as the director of taxation shall determine that a dealer has not paid the tax as provided by K.S.A. 79-5204, and amendments thereto, the director may…”
State v. Lockhart, Jr., 947 P.2d 461 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “65-4127a; one count of possession of drugs without a *489 drug tax stamp, contrary to K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 79-5204; one count of obstruction of official duty, contrary to K.”
State v. Pribble, 375 P.3d 966 (Kan. 2016). “But in the very next statute, the legislature again speaks as if there is but a single tax being assessed: "At such time as the director of taxation shall determine that a dealer has not paid the tax as provided by K.S.A. 79-5204, and amendments thereto, the director may…”
State v. Gulledge, 896 P.2d 378 (Kan. 1995). “K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 79-5204(a) prohibits a dealer from possessing marijuana unless the tax has been paid.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.