Cannabis Commission chair alleges significant discrepancies in reporting of cannabis tax revenues

CNMI Cannabis Commission acting chair Journie Hofschneider has raised concerns to House Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez over what she describes as significant discrepancies in the government’s reporting of cannabis tax revenues—figures that were used to justify Gov. David M. Apatang’s Executive Order 2025-005 dissolving the commission effective Jan. 18, 2026

In a Jan. 9, 2026, letter, Hofschneider disputed the executive order’s claim that the commission collected only $113,880.33 in excise and surtax revenues as of July 31, 2025.

She pointed to transaction-level tax records from the Division of Tax & Revenue showing substantial marijuana retailer surtax and cannabis excise tax payments throughout 2025, including multiple payments exceeding $20,000 that were made after the July 31, 2025, cutoff date cited in the executive order

According to the records attached to the letter, one marijuana retailer alone appears to have remitted roughly $20,000 per month in surtax payments at various points in 2025, suggesting annualized revenues far higher than the amount cited in the executive order.

“Even conservatively annualized, $20,000 per month equates to approximately $240,000 per year from a single payer,” said Hofschneider.

She argued that these payments are not reflected in the Department of Finance’s certified excise and surtax fund balance relied upon by the governor

The letter also distinguishes between two separate revenue streams—license- and application-related fees, which had a certified balance of $378,342.50 as of July 31, 2025, and excise and surtax revenues, which are tracked under different accounts.

“The fund receiving license-related revenues (license fees, application fees, and homegrown registration fees) shows a certified balance of $378,342.50 as of July 31, 2025. Excise and surtax revenues are collected and reported through a separate account structure from license fees, and I believe those account identifiers have changed over time as funds were appropriated,” she wrote.

Hofschneider notes that changes in account coding over time may have contributed to confusion, but does not explain the apparent absence of post-July 31 tax collections in official reports

The commission acting chair further cites Commonwealth law requiring the Secretary of Finance to submit quarterly reports to legislative leaders detailing the total balance of the Cannabis Tax Account. She questions whether such reports accurately reflected actual collections and urges the Legislature to require a formal reconciliation tracing cannabis tax payments from collection through posting in the government’s accounting system

“I am raising these issues because I believe the House and Senate have the authority to respond to an executive order that is based on materially inaccurate or incomplete financial information. I am not asking the Legislature to accept any conclusion without verification; rather, I respectfully request that the Legislature require a formal reconciliation and posting trace showing how marijuana retailer surtax and cannabis excise tax receipts flow from Tax and Revenue into the Commonwealth's accounting system, including the crosswalk between prior account labels and the appropriated account identifiers now in use,” she said.

Hofschneider said without such a reconciliation, the financial justification offered in Apatang’s executive order cannot be meaningfully evaluated against the underlying payment record.