►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Yeah
all
right
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
call
the
senate
committee
Revenue
to
order
Madam
Secretary.
Please
call
the
roll.
A
C
A
D
C
E
Thank
you
so
much
good
afternoon,
chair
Neal
and
members
of
the
senate
committee
on
Revenue
Shay,
Backus,
assemblywoman
Backus
is
on
the
floor
right
now,
and
so
she
asked
Daniel,
Stewart
and
I
to
assist
in
the
presentation
of
this
bill.
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
Nevada
cannabis,
Association
and
Daniel
Stewart
is
here
from
Brownstein
high
at
fiber,
Shrek
and
I
hope
I
believe
we
should
have
Shelly
Hughes
director
of
the
Department
of
Taxation
available
to
answer
any
questions.
E
Thank
you.
This
bill
addresses
two
issues:
clarifying
the
taxation
of
cannabis,
vaping
products
and
the
wholesale
excise
tax
on
sales
of
cannabis
and
cannabis
products,
because
they're,
two
distinct
issues,
we're
going
to
address
them
separately,
and
so
first
I
will
kick
it
over
to
Mr
Stewart.
To
present
the
first
section
of
the
bill.
F
Thank
you,
chair
members
of
the
committee.
Sorry
I
need
to
fix
my
setting
on
this
here,
real
quick,
all
right.
There
we
go
Daniel
Stewart
for
the
record
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
my
client,
puffco
and
I.
Just
quickly
want
to
go
through
section
one.
It's
about
the
Cannabis
vaporizer,
so
in
the
world
of
of
cannabis
law,
Precision
matters
quite
a
bit
and
there
are
devices
out
there
that
can
only
be
used
for
cannabis
products.
F
F
It's
burned
at
a
higher
temperature
than
nicotine
and
there's
been
some
concern
in
the
industry
that
at
some
point
somebody
might
determine
that
these
are
the
same
as
nicotine
vaporizers
and
pull
them
in
rather
than
being
regulated
by
the
CCB,
and
so
they
asked
for
this
clarifying
language
to
to
the
state
that
cannabis
vaporizers,
and
these
are
the
things
that
can
only
be
used
for,
can
campus
and
they're
clearly
marked
for
that
are
not
included
in
the
the
otherwise
Vape
tax
vaporizing
tax,
yeah,
the
OTP
right
and
I
will
say
for
the
most
part,
no
one's
paying
this
tax
right
now.
F
They
believe
that
under
the
law,
it's
they
since
they're
not
involved
with
OTP,
but
they
want
Clarity
in
the
law.
They're
just
they're
just
worried,
given
the
federal
overlay
of
cannabis
and
so
forth
that
that
they
get
this
clear
and
with
that
I'd
answer
any
questions
but
I
think
like
like
we'll
go
into
the
next
part.
If
you.
E
Thank
you,
so
the
remainder
of
the
bill
8430
addresses
the
wholesale
excise
tax.
The
wholesale
excise
tax
of
15
is
not
based
on
actual
sales
prices,
but
what
on
what
is
called
the
fair
market
value?
The
fair
market
value
calculation
doesn't
accurately
reflect
the
current
market
and,
as
a
result,
Growers
independent
cultivators
are
paying
taxes
on
a
number,
that's
often
more
than
double
their
actual
sales
price.
E
So
in
the
in
this
bill,
presentation
which
I'll
keep
very
short,
we'll
discuss
the
existing
fair
market
calculation,
how
the
bill
would
fix
what's
broken
with
it
using
a
model,
that's
been
in
place
for
years
in
Colorado,
there's
two
excise
taxes
for
Nevada
cannabis
products,
a
retail
excise
tax
and
a
wholesale
excise
tax.
We
have
a
slideshow
that
we
submitted
as
well
that
tracks
this.
The
retail
excise
tax
is
a
tax
at
the
point
of
sale
of
10
of
the
sales
price
which
applies
to
adult
use
products.
E
Only
the
revenue
generated
by
this
tax
goes
directly
to
the
State
education
Fund
in
fiscal
year.
2022,
the
amount
generated
by
the
retail
excise
tax
was
89
million
dollars.
The
wholesale
excise
tax
is
a
15
tax
on
the
fair
market,
value
of
a
transfer
of
cannabis
or
cannabis
products
by
a
cultivation
facility
to
another
cannabis
licensee.
It's
not
a
sale
directly
to
a
consumer,
so
it's
usually
a
sale
of
a
bulk
product
to
either
production
licensee,
who
might
take
that
flower
and
produce
pre-rolls
or
directly
to
a
retail
store
hold
on,
sell
it
to
Consumers.
E
So
the
revenue
generated
by
this
tax
goes
to
pay
the
operating
budget
of
the
season.
Cb
then
5
million
goes
to
counties
as
a
payment
for
the
cost
of
local
enforcement,
and
the
remainder
goes
to
the
State
education
Fund
in
fiscal
year
2022,
the
revenue
generated
by
this
tax
was
63
million
dollars.
In
the
past
two,
two
years
alone-
300
million
dollars
in
excise
tax
revenue
went
to
the
State
education
fund
from
these
two
taxes.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
wholesale
excise
tax
isn't
15
of
the
sales
price.
E
It's
based
on
the
fair
market
value,
which
is
a
number
that's
published
twice
a
year
by
the
department
of
tax
based
on
the
median
prices
of
all
wholesale
sales
for
a
period
of
six
months
starting
nine
months
prior.
So
the
fair
market
value
as
a
result
has
remained
steadily
and
significantly
above
the
actual
price
market
prices
of
the
products.
The
calculation
itself
is
flawed,
which
results
in
cultivators
paying
a
higher
tax
than
the
actual
sales
price.
E
So,
for
example,
when
the
fair
market
value
was
2072
dollars
per
pounds
in
July
2022,
the
actual
average
market
price
in
Nevada
was
closer
to
a
thousand
dollars
a
pound.
So,
as
a
result,
cultivators
are
paying
taxes
as
if
they
sold
the
pound
for
two
thousand
dollars
when
they
actually
sold
it
for
a
thousand
dollars,
which
is,
as
you
can
imagine,
extremely
difficult,
but
it
cuts
both
ways.
E
So
we
also
have
a
handful
of
cultivators
who
sell
the
pound
for
more
than
the
fair
market
value
and
actually
paid
less
than
the
15
tax
under
the
current
system
than
if
they
were
taxed
on
actual
sales.
So
we've
been
working
with
Department
of
tax
to
see
what
changes
we
could
be
made
either
in
regulation
or
those
changes
that
would
require
a
legislative
fix.
E
The
current
statute
doesn't
provide
much
guidance
to
tax
on
how
to
calculate
fair
market
value
and
they
said
to
us
that
they
would
like
more
direction
from
the
legislature,
which
is
why
why
we
brought
this
bill.
So
we
we
didn't
have
far
to
look
for
a
solution
to
fix
the
for
market
value.
Colorado
is
the
state
with
the
Cannabis
excise
tax
structure,
that's
most
similar
to
ours
and
their
modifications,
if
we
adopt
them,
will
result
in
a
wholesale
excise
tax.
That's
more
accurate
and
fairly
taxes.
E
The
actual
sales
price
Susie
mentioned,
because
the
fair
market
value
applies
to
all
wholesale
transfers.
The
current
issue
is
that
we're
not
tracking
the
actual
sales
price,
so
the
solution
in
the
bill
will
tax
the
transactions
for
those
transactions
that
are
at
arm's
length.
So
the
parties
don't
share
ownership
again,
it
will
be
a
15
tax
on
the
actual
sales
price.
E
I
want
to
do
a
quick
walkthrough
of
the
bill
and
which
will
cover
I
think
any
remaining
changes
that
that
I'm
discussing
so
section
one
as
Mr
Stewart
referenced
defines
canvas
vaporizer
to
describe
a
product
solely
designed
to
be
used
for
vaporizing,
ingesting
and
hailing
or
otherwise
introducing
cannabis
into
the
human
body.
It
must
be
include
a
clear
label
that
is
for
cannabis
only
and
does
not
include
product
that
may
also
be
used
for
nicotine.
E
Section.
1.7
revises
the
definition
of
Vapor
Products
to
exclude
cannabis
Vapor
Products,
section
two
is
deleted
to
correct
an
error
in
the
original
draft
of
the
bill,
and
section
3
deletes
references
to
the
deleted
section.
Two
section:
four
revises
the
definition
of
sales
price
to
exclude
excise
tax.
This
will
address
the
issue
that
we
referenced
earlier
about
the
wholesale
sales
price.
It's
a
constant
issue.
A
wholesale
sales
price
includes
the
amount
of
tax
being
passed
to
the
customer,
and
then
the
fair
market
value
is
calculated
on
that
amount.
E
So
if
you
are
a
cultivator
and
you're
selling
a
you
know
your
your
cost,
what
you're
selling
for
is
a
thousand,
then
you
would
pass
along
the
additional
300
that
you'd
be
expected
to
pay
in
taxes
to
the
customer.
When
you
report
that
amount,
the
sales
price
you
were
reported
as
thirteen
hundred.
So
when
the
taxes
aggregating
the
data
and
calculating
the
fair
market
value,
they
don't
know
that
the
actual
sales
price
exclusive
of
tax
was
a
thousand.
E
It
looks
like
thirteen
hundred,
so
this
will
this
again
following
the
Colorado
model,
will
reflect
the
sales
price
exclusive
of
that
tax.
So
it
would
be
reflective
of
a
thousand,
not
thirteen
hundred
section
five
and
six
correct
an
error.
In
the
original
draft
of
the
bill.
E
Section
seven
clarifies
the
excise
tax
applies
to
the
first
wholesale
sale
of
cannabis
from
a
cultivation
to
another
canvas
establishment.
It
replaces
the
word
each
with
first
and
that's
the
practice
and
has
always
been
the
practice.
So
there's
no
change
to
anticipate
Revenue.
The
section
also
spells
out
that
if
a
sale
is
between
Affiliated
entities,
then
the
fair
market
value
applies,
and
if
it's
between
unaffiliated
entities,
then
the
excise
is
15
of
the
sales
price.
E
The
section
also
cleans
up
an
issue
regarding
the
retail
excise
tax
of
the
Department
of
tax
recently
addressed
by
adding
the
language
but
maybe
recovered
from
the
purchaser.
It
makes
clear
that
the
retail
excise
tax
can
be
broken
out
on
the
receipt
that
the
purchaser
sees
and
doesn't
need
to
be
baked
into
the
sales
price
section.
7
subsection
8B
defines
affiliate.
So
the
goal
for
this
is
to
be
as
clear
as
possible
that
the
fair
market
value
applies
to
transition
between
vertically
integrated
licenses.
E
The
term
vertically
integrated
licenses
isn't
defined
in
statute,
but
it's
commonly
recognized
in
the
industry
and
that's
where
there's
common
ownership
of
licenses
across
the
supply
chain.
So
in
this
case
we're
a
cultivation.
Licensee
sells
to
a
dispensary
where
there's
shared
ownership,
then
the
fair
market
value
applies.
E
It's
because
often
in
those
cases
they
may
not
be
charging
market
prices
to
their
own
Affiliated
entity.
So
it's
trying
to
capture
actual
sales
prices,
but
not
add
any
any
prices
into
the
calculation
that
don't
reflect
actual
sales
between
arm's
length
in
arms
like
transactions.
So
this
section
also
removes
the
deletion
that
shouldn't
have
been
deleted
under
the
definition
of
wholesale
sale.
E
Section
8
in
the
a
correct
scenario
in
the
original
Bill
draft
and
section
9
gives
additional
guidance
to
the
Department
of
tax
to
adopt
regulations
to
calculate
the
fair
market
value
according
to
the
Colorado
model,
which
is
quarterly
instead
of
a
six-month
period
using
the
median
of
wholesale
sale
transactions
between
unaffiliated
parties.
E
Also
because
the
Cannabis
compliance
board
contracts
with
an
outside
company
called
metric
to
provide
seat
to
sale
tracking
services
to
the
state.
It
requires
the
board
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
method
denoted
in
the
tracking
software
to
indicate
whether
it's
an
Affiliated
or
an
affiliate
transaction,
and
this
is
going
to
result
in
much
more
clarity
in
the
data
set.
That
goes
from
the
CCB
from
metric
to
taxation,
for
them
to
determine
the
fair
market
value
calculation
they'll
be
much
easier
and
quicker
to
weed
out
irrelevant
data.
E
Section
10
is
the
effective
date
which
is
upon
passage
and
approval
for
the
purposes
of
adopting
any
regulations
and
administrative
tasks
and
then
on
January
1st
2024
for
the
rollout
to
licensees
and
again,
this
bill
is
intended
to
fix
some
issues
with
the
fair
market
value
calculation
and
give
direction
to
the
Department
of
Taxation
on
some
modifications
that
have
been
successfully
implemented
in
Colorado
and
I'm.
That
concludes
our
presentation
and
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Senator
Ganser.
G
G
The
sales
price,
the
way
the
cell
sales
price
has
applied
in
a
net
manner
for,
for
both
the
excise
for
the
wholesale
retail.
H
H
I
am
not
here
to
support
or
oppose
the
bill,
but
I
just
for
the
record
want
to
make
it
clear
that
the
definition
change
to
the
sales
price
in
section
four
of
the
bill
would
have
potential
Revenue
effects
on
both
the
15
wholesale
tax,
as
well
as
the
10
retail
tax,
because
the
the
same
definition
of
sales
price
is
used
for
both
as
the
bill
is
drafted,
both
the
the
wholesale
tax
as
well
as
the
retail
tax.
H
It
would
allow
the
current
establishments
who
are
selling
cannabis
to
the
public
in
calculating
that
10
tax
to
deduct
the
amount
of
15
tax
that
is
paid,
thereby
potentially
reducing
or
in
fact
it
would
reduce
the
amount
of
Revenue
that
would
go
to
the
State
education
fund.
I
can
answer
any
questions
on
that.
If
I
am
asked,
thank
you.
G
So
so,
thank
you
so
I
think
I
don't
know
if
that
was
the
intent
or
not
I
guess
that
was
one
of
my
questions
because
it
seemed
like
maybe
that
wasn't
the
intent
based
on
the
explanation,
but
that
the
net
of
it
is
is
there's
a
reduction
and
then
I
wasn't
sure.
If
you
had
pointed
out
right
now,
I
gotta
go
back.
I,
don't
have
hard
copy
of
the
bill
where
it
talks
about
the
excise
tax.
G
I
Hello
will
Adler
for
the
record
with
the
Sierra
cannabis
Coalition.
Looking
at
those
sections
of
the
bill,
Senator
Ganser,
you
are
not
incorrect.
I
I
there.
There
is
a
direct
linkage
between
the
the
canvas
wholesale
tax
collected
and
the
revenues
generated
from
that
and
what
would
go
to
the
accounts
from
the
canvas
contributions
to
the
state
education
account.
I,
I
think
what
is
being
said
today
or
what
is
being
said
by
Miss
Martin.
I
If
I
I
don't
want
to
overspeak
is
the
intent
of
Nevada's
law
has
always
been
to
tax
our
cannabis
wholesale
at
15.
So
back
in
2016,
when
the
ballot
initiative
did
pass,
we
said
to
the
voters
and
everyone
else
who
voted
on
it.
There
shall
be
15
tax
on
all
wholesale
cannabis
sold
in
Nevada.
We
didn't
have
a
definition
for
wholesale
cannabis
at
the
time.
I
Not
everything
sold
in
Nevada
is
sold
from
a
person
in
the
third
party
to
some
other
person.
Third
party
dispensary
wise.
Some
people
have
vertical
integration
so
to
calculate
the
fair
market
value.
To
make
sure
it
was
fair
for
everyone.
The
concept
was,
we
would
create
a
15
average
or
fair
market
value
based
upon
the
weeded
out
metric
scores
are
sort
of
a
leveled
metric
score
that
would
get
to
a
average.
That
is
similar
to
15
for
everyone.
What
we
found
out,
though,
was
there's
a
lot
of
differences
in
operations.
I
You
have
bulk
operators
who
can
grow
large
large
amounts
of
marijuana
that
can
come
out
to
be
about
600
of
value
because
the
the
sophistication
and
the
savings
of
those
operations
you
have
smaller,
more
meticulous
operations
that
can
grow
it
and
get
to
about
three
thousand
dollars
a
pound.
It's
still
one
pound
of
cannabis,
whether
it's
six
hundred
dollars
or
three
thousand
dollars.
I
Today,
though,
this
amendment
is
just
saying
one
thing:
if
you
are
a
third
party
grower
and
you're
selling
it
to
a
dispensary,
whatever
you
sell,
that
for
shall
have
a
15
tax
levied
upon
it.
So
it's
no
longer
saying
we're
going
to
estimate
the
tax
and
then
ask
you
all
to
pay
the
same
estimate
if
you're
a
third
party
grower
selling
it
to
a
dispensary
the
new
changes,
whatever
you
sell
it,
for
we
will
then
take
that
receipt
and
charge
you
only
15
on
that.
I
The
new
fair
market
value
will
be
an
average
of
that
for
all
third
party
transactions
will
be
the
15,
but
all
vertical
transactions
for
people
selling
internally,
so
they
can't
just
make
it
for
one
penny.
We
will
have
a
new,
fair
market
value
based
upon
the
average.
That
is
a
true
15
of
real
sales
of
cannabis.
That
is
the
intent
of
the
bill.
What
we
were
trying
to
get
done
in
this
provision
today,
I
believe,
if
that
helps.
G
H
Senator
receivers,
Cancer,
Center
or
Madam
chair
Michael
Nakamoto
for
the
record
it's
correct,
but
there
are
multiple
moving
pieces
in
the
bill.
The
first
moving
piece
is
the
change
in
the
15
tax
that
has,
as
Mr
Adler
described,
the
change
in
how
the
tax
is
calculated
depending
on
whether
the
taxpayer
is
vertically
integrated
or
not
or
whether
that
wholesale
transaction
is
vertically
integrated
or
not.
H
The
issue
that
I
was
talking
about
was
a
separate
issue
dealing
with
the
change
in
the
definition
of
sales
price,
because
the
definition
of
sales
price
in
the
bill
is
drafted
applies
to
both
the
15
for
those
the
non-vertically
integrated,
where
there
is
the
contract
that
you
can
actually
see
the
price
there,
as
well
as
the
10
retail
price.
H
The
exclusion
of
that
15
price
would
reduce
the
sales
price
for
both
the
10
and
the
15
transactions
as
a
consistent
across
the
board
feature
and
therefore
would
result
in
Revenue
reductions
to
the
State
education
fund.
From
from
both
the
10
and
the
15
tax.
E
If
I
can,
if
I
can
to
that,
and
it
should
respond
to
Senator
Ganser,
no
for
it
to
apply
to
the
retail
tax-
and
this
is
this-
is
the
way
it
came
back
drafted
and
we'd
be
happy
to
correct
that,
because
there
is
no
intent
to
impact
the
the
retail
excise
tax.
Through
this.
I
Will
Adler
for
the
record
I
believe
Mr
knockerbot
is
saying
and
I
I
do
agree
with
you
in
in
your
reading
this,
possibly
that
any
change
to
the
the
retail
wholesale
price
will
automatically
have
a
downstream
effect
on
the
10
or
that
we
are
directly
asking
for
the
10
to
go
down
because
I
see
that
as
a
fixed
retail
cost
that
you
fix
10
whatever
comes
to
that
register
has
a
fixed
sales
price,
but
10
will
be
added
to
that,
because
that's
how
we
operate
today
in
the
Cannabis
Market
with
our
current
sales
operations,
this
was
just
to
clarify
that
10
could
be
charged
to
the
customer.
I
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Michael,
Nakamoto
for
the
record
Mr
Adler.
The
way
that
the
bill
is
drafted
says
that
the
taxpayer
or
the
calculation
of
the
sales
price
for
which
the
tax
applies.
The
there
is
an
explicit
reduction
of
the
amount
of
any
tax
paid
pursuant
to
that
chapter,
which
would
be
both
the
10
and
the
15.
Therefore,
let's
say
that
there
was
if
I
went
to
any
cannabis
establishment
in
the
state
of
Nevada
and
I
spent
a
hundred
dollars
the
the
wholesale
price
for
which
it
was
paid.
H
Let's
just
say
there
was
it
was
fifty
dollars
and
there
was
a
tax
of
seven
dollars
and
fifty
cents.
The
amount
of
tax
that
would
be
calculated
for
that
would
be
92.50
and
I
would
pay
9.25
in
tax
rather
than
ten
dollars.
Even
though
it
was
a
hundred
dollar
sale.
A
I
I
I'm
will
either
of
the
Sierra
canvas
Coalition,
but
I
I
did
help
with
the
origination
of
this
bill.
With
someone
with
Shay
Backus,
we
we
worked
together
on
the
the
base
of
what
was
wrong
with
fair
market
value.
I
did
a
lot
of
background
work
on
that
and
I've
submitted
some
documents
to
taxation.
Other
departments
around
this,
so
I
I
do
I'm,
not
a
tax,
expert
or
attorney,
but
I
didn't
quite
agree
with
the
reading
of
that.
I
Just
as
today
in
the
the
Cannabis
Market,
we
charge
a
10
excise
tax
at
the
point
of
sale
retail
today
we
we
charge
it
as
a
separate
charge
from
sales
tax
entirely
today
as
its
own
separate
line
item,
but
the
intent
was
to
clarify.
We
can
continue
to
do
that
going
forward.
The
intent
was
not
to
have
a
reduction
in
that
10
or
have
that
ability
to
be
reduced.
So
if
that
could
be
clarified-
or
it
should
be
yes,
but
we
intend
to
continue
with
a
full
10
at
retail
for
all
sales.
A
So
Michelle
Miss
Hughes.
Would
you
like
to
join
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day
right,
if
it's
a
23.5
million
dollar
loss
over
the
biennium,
we're
not
doing
that
so
we'll
just
put
out
there?
So
whatever
we
need
to
fix,
we
need
to
fix
I
believe
on
the
assembly
side.
It
was
not
calculated
what
that
loss
was
before
it
left
committee.
Now
we
know
what
the
loss
is
so
we're
in
different
spaces
in
terms
of
information
and
I've,
been
texting.
A
J
Shelley
Hughes
for
the
record.
Yes
Madam,
chair
from
my
understanding,
with
working
with
Miss
Martin.
The
intent
was
just
to
allow
for
a
separate
line
reimbursement,
basically
not
to
eliminate
at
the
wholesale
tax
from
the
sales
price.
G
That
they
can
actually
so
I
think
they
need
to
amend
it
to
be
able
to
fix
that,
because
that's
what's
happening
right
now,
the
way
that
it's
written
and
then
the
pass
along
I
mean
most
of
the
conversations
that
I've
heard
about
this
is
really
about
what
the
sales
price
is
supposed
to
be
not
about
the
pass
along
the
the
excise
because
am
I.
Reading
that
correctly
now
the
part
that's
on
the
wholesale
could
be
passed
along
to
the
consumer
right.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
I
just
wanted
to
ask
once
again
for
and
I
know,
Miss
Martin
say
that
said
it
during
her
presentation,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
on
the
same
page
for
section
one
of
the
bill
with
the
so
that's
the
definition
of
cannabis,
vaporizer
and
then
in
later
provisions
of
the
bill.
It
exempts
it.
So
once
again,
can
you
explain
to
us
and
clarify
what
was
the
rationale
behind
this
and
I
guess?
The
second
question
would
be
based
on
how
you
have
the
bill
written.
F
So
Daniel
Stewart
for
the
record,
as
you
can
see,
we
have,
we
all
have
different
pieces
of
the
spell.
This
is
the
piece
that
I
worked
on.
They
do
currently
pay
taxes.
They
would
they
would
pay
sales
and
use
tax,
as
is
they
would
pay
the
whatever
the
product
they
use
cannabis
product
would
be
taxed
at
the
Cannabis
price,
was
it
30
or
whatever,
whatever
it
is
at
the
retail
store,
so
they
currently
do
pay
sales
and
use
tax
on
that?
F
What
the
what
this
question
is
simply
whether
or
not
they
they
should
pay
the
tax
that
was
meant
for
the
for
the
tobacco
to
make
sure
that
cigarettes
and
vaporizers
were
were
in
parity
or
cigarettes
and
vape
nicotine
were
at
parity.
So
we
lose
state
revenue
and
people
transitioned
from
say
a
normal
cigarette
to
a
to
a
vape
cigarette.
K
F
Daniel
Stewart
for
the
record,
and
if
you
note,
there's
already
some
exceptions
that
show
like,
including
if
you
look
at
what
it
talks
about
it
talks
about
you
can
use
Vapor
cartridges
these
these.
These
devices
can't
use
Vapor
cartridges.
There's
no
nicotine.
We
made
it
clear
that
somehow
they
develop
a
product
that
could
do
both
they
would
be
taxed
as
a
vape
as
a
as
a
nicotine
vaporizer.
F
At
that
point,
this
is
only
cannabis
exclusive
and
if
you
look
down
in
say
section
1.73,
a
b
and
c,
you
can
see
that
they
they
were
trying
to
exclude
cannabis
there,
including
one
that
it
would
would
have
almost
been
impossible
to
distinguish
and
subsection
C
where,
if
somebody
has
a
a
medical
card
when
they
buy
it,
that
they
would
be
excluded
well,
it'd
be
really
hard
to
determine
whether
or
not
somebody
has
a
medical
card,
because
you
don't
you
don't
buy
these
devices
in
a
dispensary
right
now
you
buy
them
online,
you
can
buy
them
in
stores,
and
so
so
the
the
original
antenna
building
back
and
looked
at
the
legislative
history
was
not
to
include
cannabis.
K
Just
a
quick
question
for
tax,
so
do
we
know
if
the
revenue
right
now
is
being
captured
for
vaporizer
cannabis
vaporizers?
Have
you
Quantified
that
or
perhaps
Shelley.
J
Hughes
for
the
record,
we
do
not
quantify
that
when
they
report
OTP
tax,
it's
a
single
line
item
and
it
includes
all
products
of
OTP
and.
K
J
Shelley
Hughes
for
the
record
I
cannot
be
certain
I,
don't
if
we
capture
them
and
they're
now
exempt.
Then
yes,.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
and
you
know
that
brings
up
I
think
the
comment
that
I
brought
to
you
yesterday
about
when
you
guys
get
the
modernization
system
being
able
to
break
down
on
tax
types
under
OTP,
so
we
can
get
a
really
clear
understanding
of
what's
going
in.
Are
there
any
additional
questions.
A
Okay,
so
we're
gonna
open
up
for
support
for,
what's
going
to
happen,
we're
not
going
to
put
this
bill
in
for
work
session,
I'm
going
to
allow
assemblywoman
Backus
to
fix
the
sales
price
piece,
because
she
she
was
not
aware
of
the
revenue
loss
before
it
came
over
here,
and
so
that's
what's
going
to
happen
so
we're
going
to
you
guys,
can
come
up
and
support
for
ab
430,
and
then
this
bill
is
going
to
be
held
until
she
can
provide
an
amendment
okay.
So
anyone
here
in
support
of
ab
430.
L
Thank
you,
chair
Neil
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
Esther
badiata
b-a-d-I-a-t-a
I'm
here
with
Sala
Consulting,
representing
Jardin,
premium
cannabis,
dispensary,
Planet,
13,
Holdings
and
rnbw,
and
we
are
in
full
support
of
ab430.
We
really
believe
that
this
bill
does
what
it
needs
to
do
to
accurately
to
accurately
calculate
the
wholesale
cannabis
tax,
and
we
also
wanted
to
just
say
thank
you
to
the
bill,
presenters
and
sponsors
for
bringing
forth
this
Bill.
Thank
you.
L
C
Good
afternoon,
Scott
Rutledge
with
our
gentum
partners.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
the
committee
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
moms
meds
management
and
Deep
Roots
Harvest,
and
we
are
in
full
support
of
the
bill
and
we
look
forward
to
seeing
that
amendment
to
clarify
things
so
that
we
do
not
see
less
Revenue.
Thank
you.
M
Afternoon,
chair
Neil
members
of
the
committee
Brett
scalari
strategies,
360
here
on
behalf
of
cpcm
Holdings,
green
Mart
of
Nevada,
Cura,
cannabis,
Solutions
and
Clark's
National
medicinal
Solutions.
We
also
support
the
bill
to
bring
some
clarity
on
the
wholesale
tax
and
I
can
tell
you.
It
was
not
the
intent
to
capture
that
sales
tax
piece,
so
we
fully
support
that
Amendment
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
N
I
We'll
add
the
Sierra
cannabis
collection
I'm
in
full
support
of
ab430,
a
quick
comment:
I
I
think
we
do
need
to
dig
into
the
the
revenue
of
the
revenue
loss
piece
of
this
I
I.
Sadly,
I
do
think
that
the
big
intent
of
the
bill
is
to
is
to
do
just
that.
I
So
my
fear
is
that
some
of
that
fiscal,
note
or
fiscal
impact
will
be
trued
up
or
be
the
intent
of
the
bill,
because
we
we're
going
to
see
a
loss
of
Revenue,
because
that's
what
we're
doing
in
this
Bill
is
saying
you
will
only
pay
15
of
what
you
sell
it
for,
and
people
out
there
are
struggling
and
and
going
under
today,
because
because
a
lot
of
my
clients,
the
average
tax
rate
is,
is
28
32
percent-
it's
not
15..
I
It's
not
even
close,
so
I
do
think
the
revenue
loss
we're
seeing,
isn't,
isn't
maybe
Revenue
loss,
maybe
Revenue
over
collect
it
or
something
I
want
to
say
that,
but
I'd
be
glad
to
dig
into
that
with
you
guys
after
this
committee
and
talk
to
the
sponsorship
back.
It's
about
that.
Thank
you
appreciate.
A
The
comment:
okay:
is
there
anyone
else
in
support,
we'll
go
to
the
phone
lines.
Bps.
Is
there
anyone
in
support
of
ab430.
O
And
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
on
the
person
in
the
queue,
this
is
Paul
Larson
I'm
an
attorney
practicing
regulatory
law
in
Las,
Vegas,
testifying
in
support
of
AB
430,
especially
section
9.
I'd
like
to
to
Echo
the
comments
that
Ms
Martin
and
Mr
Adler
made
section.
9
is
intended
to
clarify
that
the
15
excise
tax
applies
to
the
actual
arms
length,
sale
price
in
the
marketplace
between
a
willing
seller
and
a
willing
buyer.
O
This
corrects
a
fictional
price
that
is
currently
set
by
the
Department
of
Taxation
that
is
unrelated
to
what
the
actual
documentation
is.
So
as
Mr
Adler
had
indicated,
because
that
that
fair
market
value
or
FMV
is
fictional
rather
than
based
upon
the
actual
transaction,
it's
being
the
tax
is
actually
being
over
collected.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
So
is
there
anyone
here
in
opposition
of
ab430?
Q
A
Not
okay,
sorry
about
that
I
couldn't
see,
I
couldn't
see
down.
There
go
ahead,
state
your
name
for
the
record,
and
if
you
have
a
unusual
last
name,
please
spell
it.
A
R
Hi
first
I'll
go
first,
my
name
is
James
creel
j-a-m-e-s-c-r-e-e-l
for
the
record.
I
reck
I
represent
Compassion
Center
and
Coalition
for
patient
rights.
Cpr
is
a
coalition
of
a
variety
of
social
demographics,
one
of
which
is
medical
cannabis.
Patients
CPR
would
like
for
me
to
remind
this
board
that
medical
cannabis
patients
have
been
marginalized
and
targeted
Enough
by
marketing
campaigns
and
programs
that
have
made
a
lot
of
people
wealthy
and
they
do
not
need
to
have
any
additional
taxes
passed
on
to
them.
At
this
point-
and
we
appreciate
your
time-
James
creel,
Coalition.
Q
Julie
Montero
m-o-n-t-e-I-r-o
for
the
record
I
represent
integrative
providers,
Association
and
Coalition
for
patient
rights
when
looking
at
this
bill
for
ab430
it's
kind
of
interesting,
because
we've
had
another
industry
bill
that
has
been
set
forth
in
the
name
of
medical
cannabis.
Patients
and
I
see
medical
cannabis
throughout
this
bill,
but
it's
actually
a
bill.
That's
going
to
be
helping
third
party
non-vertically
integrated
Growers,
so
one
of
the
interests
that
the
patients
do
have
is
that
these
fees
are
not
passed
on
to
the
patients
or,
and
one
of
the
other
things
that
I
see.
Q
This
is
just
yet
another
bill
to
over
collect
and
over
tax
a
market
that
you
know
they're
already
fighting
a
lot
of
things.
These
increase
in
taxes
will
only
secure
the
illicit
Market
as
establishment.
Licensee,
holder
fees
are
already
the
highest
in
the
country
and
they
can
barely
survive
as
it
is,
I
see
that
they're
trying
to
weed
out
the
the
non-integrative
like
from
seed
to
sale.
So
these
non-vertically
integrated
facilities
are
really
going
to
suffer.
Q
Q
Our
educational
system
should
be
going
on
our
youth
for
educating
them
on
the
harms
of
these
they're,
getting
gum,
cancers,
lung
cancers,
throat,
Cancers
and
they're
chewing
these
things,
and
it's
very
and
I
know
it's
the
nicotine
side
of
it,
but
these
also
are
coming
out
with
ingredients
that
are
actually
causing
harm
to
our
Our
Youth
and
our
consumers.
What
I'd
like
to
see
on
page
five
item,
I
one
with
a
cannabis
compliance,
part
they're
already
getting
too
much
power
as
it
is.
Q
This
is
another
bill,
giving
them
another
five
million
dollars
in
the
name
of
chapters
678c
of
the
NRS.
Now,
if
you
realize
I,
don't
know
if
you
guys
do
as
a
committee,
but
the
678c
is
the
medical
cannabis
Silo
that
they
have
put
medical
patients
in
not
one
dime
or
bill.
This
82nd
session
has
gone
to
help
the
patients.
This
is
just
another
one
where
I
see
funds
of
5
million
going
to
a
state
education
fund
that
needs
specifics.
It
can't
just
say
State
education
fund.
Q
The
public
needs
to
see
these
records
in
the
past
of
how
these
have
been
used.
They
say,
there's
a
misconception
but
the
State
education
fund.
Why
can't
we
be
using
and
educating
our
children
on
the
harms
of
Vape
we're
trying
to
collect
taxes,
but
let's
save
the
children.
This
is
a
huge
crisis.
Covet
happened
and
decimated
The
Vape
crisis
that
was
going
forward,
but
it
still
exists
especially
now
that
they're
in
school
in
session.
So
please
take
consideration
of
that
and
I.
Thank
you.
Q
S
Thank
you
for
your
time
today,
chair,
my
name
is
katrice
Saunders
I
represent
Coalition
for
patients
rights
as
well
as
vice
president
of
pardon
me.
Please,
I
am
a
medical
patient
here
in
Las
Vegas
Nevada,
as
many
of
you
have
know,
I've
been
affected
by
the
War
on
Drugs
at
a
state
level
on
a
federal
level
through
Nevada's
bad
legislation
and
laws.
When
I'm
hearing,
when
you
guys
are
putting
forth
new
amendments
to
give
people
tax
breaks,
there's
never
ever
included
any
Social
Justice
part
in
this
year
after
year,
I
sit
and
I
watch.
S
You
guys
funnel
money
to
so-called
education
when
we're
not
even
educating
our
youth
properly
and
using
the
funds
correctly,
as
they
were
supposed
to
be
allocated
for
moving
forward.
You
guys
need
to
be
aware
of
social
justice
issues
regarding
children's
vaping
crisis,
as
well
as
medical
cannabis.
Patients
needs
to
save
access
by
you
continuing
to
put
large
barriers
and
more
taxes
for
people.
It
insinuates
the
black
market
and
people
not
being
able
to
have
safe
access
to
dispensaries,
not
including
the
pesticide
problem
that
we
have
but
I
digress
from
the
issue.
S
A
E
Thank
you
so
much
just
real
quickly
on
this
sales
price
issue,
because
I
do
think
we
can
address
it
in
our
contract.
On
our
concept
memo,
we
use
the
term
contract
price
to
solely
describe
the
price
at
wholesale
exclusive
of
tax,
so
it
wasn't
intended
to
change
this,
the
retail
sales
price
at
all,
that's
the
term
that
Colorado
uses.
E
This
draft
doesn't
have
that
same
language,
but
we
can
use
that
language
to
again
further
clarify
that
this
isn't
a
change
to
the
definition
of
sales
price.
That's
not
at
all
intended.
The
contract
crisis
is
a
separate
thing,
so
just
capture
that
accurate
sales
price
for
the
wholesale
sale.
Only
and
that's
all,
thank
you
so
much
for.
A
Thank
you
for
that
so
get
with
chair
Backus
and
fiscal
staff.
Mr
Nakamoto
and
hopefully
you
guys
can
get
something
worked
out
in
some
language.
So
we
can
move
the
bill
with
that,
we'll
close
the
hearing
on
ab430
and
open
for
well,
we
can't
open
up
for
ab
77.
A
P
The
bill
is
sponsored
by
assemblyman
inhibits
and
was
heard
in
this
committee
yesterday,
June
1st
assembly,
Bill
232
in
its
first
reprint,
specifies
that
for
the
purpose
of
the
30
tax
on
hold
on
the
wholesale
price
of
tobacco
products
other
than
cigarettes,
the
tax
imposed
on
other
tobacco
products
that
are
premium
cigars
shall
not
be
less
than
30
cents
and
not
exceed
50
cents.
For
each
premium
cigar,
the
ACT
becomes
effective
on
July
1st
2023
and
has
a
sunset
on
June
30th
2027..
P
A
So
members,
the
emotion
I
will
accept
on
ab-232,
is
to
accept
ab-232
without
the
proposed
amendment
yesterday,
so
the
bill
in
its
original
well,
not
original
version,
but
as
amended
out
of
assembly
committee
on
Revenue,
which
had
the
30
percent
floor
wholesale
price,
with
a
Max
of
50
cents
on
each
premium
cigar.
That's
the
version
that
I
want
to
vote
on.
So
it
will
be
a
due
pass.
A
N
K
K
The
folks
that
presented
the
bill,
I
I
came
Midway
but
I've
spoken
to
them
offline.
There
is
an
intention
that,
hopefully,
with
the
reduction
of
what
they're
looking
for
that
it
may
lead
to
more
Revenue
being
gathered
over
the
long
term
and
that
there
is
a
curvature
of
what
other
states
have
enacted.
K
I
will
be
I
will
just
say
that
I
will
be
following
that
to
see
if
it
does
live
up
to
it
and
if
it
doesn't
then
I
think
that
puts
the
policy
in
Jeopardy
for
an
extension,
given
that,
of
course,
in
the
same
respect
for
public
health,
when
more
people
are
smoking,
we
know
that
negative
outfit
affects
that.
The
state
will
have
to
pay
at
some
point,
so
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there.
Thank
you
so
much.
A
P
The
bill
is
sponsored
by
assembly
woman
considine
and
was
heard
in
this
committee
yesterday,
June
1st
assembly,
Bill
345
removes
real
estate
investment
trusts
and
qualified
real
Interstate
Investment
Trust
subsidiaries
from
the
entities
excluded
from
the
definition
of
business
entity,
thus
making
the
annual
Commerce
tax
applicable
to
all
real
estate
investment
trusts
and
qualified
Real
Estate
Investment
Trust
subsidiaries,
whose
gross
revenue
earned
in
this
day
during
a
fiscal
year
exceeds
4
million
dollars.
There
were
no
amendments
proposed
to
this
measure.
Thanks.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
So
the
motion
on
this
is
for
due
pass,
but
is
there
any
discussion
before
I
take
the
motion?
Senator
Ganser.
G
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
Senator
spirit.
Thank.
T
You,
madam
chair
and
so
I,
was
one
of
the
two
people
that
was
serving
in
the
legislature
when
the
Commerce
tax
was
passed
and
had
extensive
conversations
with
then
Governor
Sandoval
and
several
other.
My
colleagues,
both
on
on
on
both
sides
of
the
album
and
I
until
yesterday,
was
not
aware
that
there
was
an
exemption
for
the
exemption
and
representing
Senate
District
One,
where
there
were
a
number
of
my
constituents
who
could
not
afford
to
stay
in
their
homes,
renting
property,
either
homes
or
apartments.
T
What
have
you
and
one
particular
incident
that
I
remember,
was
someone
calling
me
the
the
wife
of
the
person
who
just
got
out
of
the
hospital
and
had
a
stroke
like
a
month
before
was
getting
ready
to
get
evicted
now?
I
I
have
nothing
against
people
earning
money.
I
have
nothing
against
people
earning
a
lot
of
money,
but
what
I
do
believe
is
that
we
have
a
moral
obligation
to
make
sure
that
our
laws
regarding
everything
in
terms
of
Commerce
have
got
to
take
into
consideration.
T
The
least
of
us,
and
so
I
was
glad
to
see
this
legislation
come
forth
and
just
to
say,
one
of
the
arguments
that
I
gave
at
the
time
that
we
discussed
the
Commerce
tax
was
making
sure
that
the
next
code
was
tight
enough,
so
that
there
would
be
no
industry
that
would
wiggle
their
way
out
of
one
tax
into
another
or
into
a
lower
tax
bracket.
T
So
I
will
be
voting
yes
for
this,
and
it
is
my
hope
that
everyone
who
is
a
part
of
a
ret
will
understand
that
this
says
nothing
whatsoever
to
do
with
voting
against
them.
I
just
think
that
we
have
to
also
always
always
take
into
consideration
the
least
of
us.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you,
chair,
Neil
I'll,
be
voting
no
today,
because
I
see
this
as
adding
a
tax
to
people
who
provide
affordable
housing
would
only
increase
housing
costs.
A
All
right
so
I'll
accept
a
motion
to
do
pass.
Ab345.
C
A
So
the
first
from
Senator
Spearman,
a
second
from
Senator
janiate,
all
in
favor
all
opposed
sub-centered
against
or
Senator
Buck.
An
opposition
motion
passes.
So
we'll
move
this
bill
to
the
floor
and
oh,
it's
so
Spearman
we'll
get
the
floor
assignment
and
what
we're
going
to
do
is
recess
for
ab
77.
A
If
we
can
get
the
speaker
to
come
over,
I
was
trying
to
find
a
go
Ed,
but
so
what
we'll
do
is
recess
and
then
try
to
do
a
quick
meeting
somewhere
before
finance
and
on
AB
77,
so
I'm
going
to
recess
Revenue.
A
Yeah,
we'll
do
that
all
right,
so
we're
going
to
come
out
of
recess
for
Senate
revenue
and
we're
going
to
do
a
different
kind
of
presentation,
at
least
a
bit
here,
senator
at
least
to
build
a
record
and
then
we'll
move
it.
Since
there
is
no
opposition
to
the
bill,
but
we'll
at
least
get
some
information
on,
because
what
I,
like
is
at
least
a
legislative
record.
A
Okay,
so
thank
you,
Senator
Danette,
so
I'm
coming
out
of
recess,
yeah
I'm
Senate
revenue
is
coming
out
of
recess.
Okay,
so
Senator
donate
I
will
open
the
hearing
for
ab
77.
K
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
Fabian,
donate
for
the
record
here
to
present
on
assembly,
build
77
on
behalf
of
assemblyman
Yeager.
This
bill
revises
Provisions
governing
Economic
Development.
This
bill
relates
to
creating
the
office
of
Entrepreneurship
within
the
office
of
Economic
Development
and
sending
forth
the
powers
and
duties
of
the
office
of
Entrepreneurship.
There
are
several
provisions
of
this
bill
that
essentially
established
the
office
of
Entrepreneurship,
and
the
duty
is
responsive
for
this
particular
Bill.
K
The
office
of
Entrepreneurship
shall
work
to
straighten
policies
and
programs
supporting
the
growth
of
Entrepreneurship
in
his
State
and
work
with
stakeholders
and
organizations
throughout
the
entire
state
to
support
entrepreneurship
and
to
enhance
learning
and
skills
for
individuals
that
would
like
technical
support
to
expand
resources
for
these
individuals.
Section
one
of
the
bill
amends
chapter
231
of
the
Nevada
revised
statutes,
which
contains
General
Provisions
relating
to
Economic
Development.
Section
two
of
the
bill
specifies
that
business
means
any
Corporation:
partnership,
company,
Cooperative,
Cooperative
or
sole
proprietorship
or
other
legal
entity
organized
or
operating
for
non-peculiary
gain.
K
K
Section
9
of
the
bill
requires
that
the
office
of
Economic
Development
to
encourage
five
percent
of
the
total
number
of
State
contracts
to
be
awarded
to
businesses
that
have
been
in
operation
for
not
more
than
five
years,
and
then
the
remaining
sections
of
the
bill
would
be
how
the
office
of
Economic
Development
can
facilitate
the
duties
of
this
office.
K
Section
13.5
of
the
bill
lays
out
an
appropriation
for
FY,
24
and
25,
which
is
around
250
000,
and
the
bill
becomes
effective
on
July
1st
2023,
and
that
concludes
the
presentation
for
ab
77..
A
Thank
you
for
that.
No,
no
questions
all
right,
so
we
will
open
up
for
is
there
anyone
who
came
here
in
support
of
ab
77,
if
you
could
come
to
the
table
say
your
name
for
the
record.
U
A
P
A
A
Okay,
it's
a
BPS
on
the
phone
line.
Is
there
anyone
in
neutral
on
the
phone
line.
A
Okay,
so
seeing
no
opposition
neutral
and
One
support,
we
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
AB
77
and
now
we
will
open
up
for
work
session
on
AB
77.,
Mr
Tower.
P
Thank
you,
assembly,
Bill
77
was
just
hurt
in
this
committee
and
is
sponsored
by
assembly
maniego,
since
the
bill
was
just
heard
in
the
committee
I
think
we
don't
need
a
summary
and
I
guess
directly
to
Ask
for
motion.
Thank.
A
You
all
right
so
I
will
accept
a
motion
to
do
pass.
Ab
77.,
so
I
have
a
first
term
Center
experiment.
Second,
from
Senator
gansert,
any
discussion
on
the
motion,
seeing
no
discussion
or
experiment.
Okay,
I.
T
Was
just
going
to
say
I'd
like
to
thank
the
speaker
and
everyone
else
who
worked
on
this
bill?
We
have
a
couple
of
bills
moving
through
the
Senate
and
the
assembly
that
will
I
think
will
support
that.
One
is
Senate
Bill
272
that
requires
diversity,
supply
chain
and
the
other
one
was
just
heard
yesterday
or
day
before
yesterday
in
government
Affairs
and
that's
279,
which
requires
the
state
to
walk
the
talk
of
making
sure
that
we
cast
a
wide
net
for
those
who
are
disabled,
who
are
applying
for
jobs
with
the
state.
A
A
K
Thanks
so
much
chair,
I
know
you're
trying
to
wrap
up
quickly
and
we
have
other
meetings
to
get
to,
but
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn't.
Thank
you
for
leading
us
throughout
this
entire
session.
It's
been
a
long
session
for
many
of
us,
and
this
may
be
the
last
meeting
that
we
get
to
have
seeing
that
most
of
the
bills
be
referred
straight
to
finance.
K
Now,
we've
had
a
lot
of
tough
conversations
and
we've
had
really
interesting
presentations,
many
of
whom
we've
had
folks
describing
about
how
these
policies
that
we
act
will
affect
our
state.
But
in
general
we
are
grateful
for
your
leadership
and
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
that.
N
T
I,
just
I
just
want
to
say,
say:
ditto
and
I've
had
the
exceptional
opportunity
to
work
with
you
on
several
different
committees
and
several
different
bills
and
I
know.
This
is
my
last
session,
so
I
just
want
to
thank
you
and
also
provide
a
disclaimer,
slash
warning.
T
Senator
Neil
is
probably
the
only
person
I
know
of
that
you
can
send
into
a
knife
fight
with
four
rubber
bands
and
she'll
come
about
Victorious.
So
thank
you
for
your
leadership.
A
Okay,
then,
thank
you
guys.
It's
been
such
a
rough
session,
but
nonetheless
it's
been
interesting.
So
we
will
adjourn
Senate
revenue
and
at
least
Mr
Nakamoto
got
his
Marky
Mark
CD,
signed
by
Wahlberg
his
well
his
cassette,
his
cassette
and
and
yours
and
your
CD,
and
you
got
your
little
whatever
kofu.
A
What
is
it
called
Funko
signed
by
Jeremy
Renner,
so
they're
small
wins
all
right
then.
So
we
will
adjourn
set
of
Revenue.