eGrove (Univ. of Mississippi)

University of Mississippi – National Center for Cannabis Research and Education

Kahn, Yasha

MCR Labs

University of Mississippi 
eGrove 
Connecticut Natural Products Data 
8-25-2025 
State of Connecticut Cannabis testing 
University of Mississippi – National Center for Cannabis Research and Education 
Yasha Kahn 
MCR Labs 
Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/natural_products_ct 
Recommended Citation 
University of Mississippi – National Center for Cannabis Research and Education; Kahn, Yasha; and MCR 
Labs, "State of Connecticut Cannabis testing" (2025). Connecticut. 10. 
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/natural_products_ct/10 
This Data Set is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Products Data at eGrove. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in Connecticut by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please 
contact egrove@olemiss.edu. 
The request to CT was “Hello! I'm requesting all cannabis testing data and reports shared by 
Cannabis testing labs with the agency. These should include all COAs, and all data, including data 
and reports of products that have failed testing.” 
 
The response stated: 
We are writing in response to Freedom of Information Act Request # 
R000139-041924.  We have reviewed our files and determined that our 
agency has responsive records.  Those records have been uploaded to the 
GovQA portal and can be accessed here: 
FOI Records Request - R000139-041924 
We have reviewed our files and determined that some data responsive to the 
request can be found through the CT Open Data Portal at: 
 
Medical Marijuana Brand Registry 
 
 
The PDFs shared by CT are in the same folder as this doc. They should be  
coupled with the medical marijuana brand registry, linked above. Together, 
these are NOT all of the testing results from CT, as products that passed, but 
were not sold to retailers are not included, like those used for extractions.  
 
CT doesn’t collect lab testing data in a useful manner. If CT were to request 
all COAs for all products that underwent compliance testing, the dataset would 
be complete, and much more valuable.   
 


State of Connecticut Cannabis testing

Lee, Anna Yu

Day 2: Morning Session

Faigen, Lynne E.

Tax Adviser 
Volume 14 Issue 1 Article 7 
1983 
thumbtax 
Lynne E. Faigen 
Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/tax_adviser 
 Part of the Accounting Commons, and the Taxation Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Faigen, Lynne E. (1983) "thumbtax," Tax Adviser: Vol. 14: Iss. 1, Article 7. 
Available at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/tax_adviser/vol14/iss1/7 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tax Adviser 
by an authorized editor of eGrove. For more information, please contact egrove@olemiss.edu. 
thumbtax
__________
Editor: LYNNE 
E.
 FAIGEN, Esq.
Legislation
•
 
Mining reclamation expenses. Two bills under  
consideration in the Senate would allow both cash
 and accrual method taxpayers to deduct the esti
­mated costs of surface mining reclamation work
 before the work is performed. S. 1911 was intro
­duced by Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.). A more re
­cent version of the bill, S. 2642, reflects the Tax
 Court’
s
 decision in Ohio River Collieries Co., 77 TC  
1369 (1981). The Tax Court held that an accrual
 method taxpayer could deduct the estimated ex
­penses it would incur to satisfy
 
a statutory obligation  
to reclaim strip-mined land, before the reclamation
 work was performed. Treasury has announced its
 opposition to both bills.
IRS rulings, etc.
•
 
Gross income. B, a residential mortgage bor ­
rower, had a mortgage balance of 20x on a non
­recourse note. In order to reduce the number of its
 low-interest mortgages, L, the lending institution,
 offered a 10% discount to residential mortgagees
 who would prepay their balances. B paid L 18x in full
 payment of the mortgage note. In Rev. Rul. 82-202,
 the Service concluded that B realized discharge of
 indebtedness income under Sec. 61(a)(12) in the
 amount of 2x. The Service reasoned that under
 Regs. Sec. 1.61-12 and the Supreme Court’s deci
­sion in Kirby Lumber Co., a taxpayer realizes in
­come upon the payment or purchase of its obliga
­tion at less than
 
face value, unless the transaction is 
specifically excluded. Because the specific exclu
­sions of Sec. 108(a) did not apply, B realized ordi
­nary income upon the prepayment of the mortgage
 balance.
Regulations
•
 
Tip income. The IRS has issued temporary  
and proposed regulations that implement the
TEFRA provisions requiring large food and bever
­
age establishments to report their income
 
from tips.  
The rules, set
 
forth in T.D. 7860, are effective as of  
Jan. 1,1983. They require
 
annual reporting of gross  
receipts from food and beverage sales, the amount
 of aggregate charge receipts, and the aggregate
 amount of tips shown on charge receipts. The regu
­lations include 
a
 number of definitions, and a spe ­
cial rule governing the return for the first quarter of
 1983.
Litigation
•
 
Sec. 83 "bargain  element. ’’ When he became  
an employee of D, A purchased 40,000 shares of D
 stock for $. 10/share, the fair
 
market value. Under an  
employment and stock purchase agreement, A ag
­reed
 
to certain restrictions on  the stock under which  
the company could repurchase the stock for $.10/
 share. A eventually sold blocks of the stock to the
 company for $18/share, $4/share and
 
$6/share. The  
Service argued that the excess of the amounts re
­ceived for the stock over the purchase price was
 compensation income under Sec. 83. A argued,
 however, that Sec. 83 did not apply to the 
D
 stock  
(1) because the stock was not received in connec
­tion with the performance of services, and (2) be
­cause the stock purchase involved no “bargain
 element.” With five judges dissenting, the Tax Court
 held that Sec. 83 applies. The Court rejected the
 argument that the shares were issued solely to ob
­tain funds from investors, and instead concluded
 that the stock was transferred in
 
connection with the  
performance of services. The Court also rejected
 A 
s
 argument that Sec. 83 was intended to apply  
only to bargain purchases, stating that “[t]here 
is nothing in the statute to indicate that the property
 must have a fair market value at the time of the
 transfer in excess of the amount
 
paid.” The dissent ­
ing
 
judges disagreed, however, and interpreted the  
legislative history of Sec. 83 to require a bargain
 element. (Alves, Tax Ct., 11/23/82.) tta
48 THE TAX ADVISER, JANUARY 1983
1
Faigen: thumbtax
Published by eGrove, 1983


thumbtax

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

the tax adviser, Volume 14, Number 1, January 1983

Please join the Academic Innovations Group for updates about generative AI that holds both promise and remarkable perils. You can now speak with conversational AI with near-human fluency, create interactive learning experiences with AI, use ‘grown-up mode’ in ChatGPT to generate material with fewer content restrictions, and Elon Musk’s Grok 3 AI will allow you to create uncensored content. This event is open to all University of Mississippi-affiliated faculty/staff and graduate students. A Zoom link will be sent to registered attendees shortly before this workshop.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/innovation_recordings/1005/thumbnail.jp

Watkins, Marc

What’s New with AI: Good, Bad, and Ugly