
James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: August 20, 2015

Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.com
According to Forbes, the decision is considered a financial setback for legal medical marijuana dispensaries because, with business deductions being disallowed, they must pay taxes on 100 percent of their gross income. The decision is a blow to dispensaries across the country that have flourished in states that voted to legalize the use of medicinal marijuana.
In the case of Olive V. Comm., the Ninth Circuit upheld the federal tax law to disallow tax deductions despite the legal status of dispensaries in California. According to Judge Susan Graber, the Court affirmed Sec. 280E of the federal tax code that denies deductions for the expenses of “trafficking in controlled substances.” The ruling stated that a medical marijuana dispensary cannot deduct expenses from taxable income because their only commercial product is a controlled substance prohibited by federal law. Despite the various services offered by the taxpayer in the case, the Court ruled that since marijuana sales were the only activity in which the taxpayer engaged in with the “intent of realizing a profit”, it was therefore a “trade or business” involved in trafficking a controlled substance, and thus not eligible for expense deduction.
The case involved Martin Olive, owner and operator of the Vapor Room in San Francisco, who appealed a Tax Court ruling to deny his business expense deductions. In the appeal, Olive argued that Sec. 280E’s use of the phrase “consists of” applied to the Vapor Room because it offered other services in addition to marijuana sales, thereby entitling the enterprise to expense deductions.
However, since these services were free, the Court ruled that all of the $655,000 in business expenses from the Vapor Room between 2004 and 2005 were disallowed. The Court also rejected Olive’s argument that the Vapor Room was entitled to deductions under Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc. v. Comm, which allowed expense deductions related to sales of counseling and caregiving services. In that earlier case, the court held that section 280E does not preclude petitioner from deducting expenses attributable to a trade or business other than that of illegal trafficking in controlled substances simply because petitioner also is involved in the trafficking in a controlled substance. Judge Graber stated that the Vapor Room could not deduct any such expenses because the business did not charge for those services, and marijuana sales are not considered counseling and caregiving services.
Although the ruling bans tax deductions for enterprises with marijuana sales as their sole source of revenue, dispensaries are eligible for standard business expense deductions for additional products for sale. In an interview with the SF Gate, Olive’s lawyer Henry Wykowski noted that medical marijuana dispensaries can claim expenses from sales of other commercial products, including food and services. The difficulty will be apportioning business expenses between the permissible activities and the impermissible activity
“The decision will benefit dispensaries that sell a variety of products including those that are not cannabis,” explained Wykowski. “I don’t think it’s a blow to the industry at all.” However, the decision was not a “win.”
A recent ABA Journal article reported on the application by a marijuana trade group for a Colorado state credit union charter because banks were unwilling to accept cash deposits from dispensaries. It will be interesting to learn if that application is granted.
The topic of the use of medical marijuana is growing traction throughout the nation. As a business owner or as a user what are your thoughts on medical marijuana?
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
Author: Ken Hollenbeck

Being served with a lawsuit is one of the most stressful legal events a business or individual can face. Whether the claim involves a contract dispute, an employment matter, an intellectual property issue, or another legal challenge, the actions you take in the first few days can significantly shape the outcome of your case. Acting […]
Author: Robert E. Levy

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) continue to gain momentum as we move through 2026. After enduring a significant contraction following the 2021 boom and the regulatory scrutiny that followed, SPAC activity rebounded sharply in 2025 and now carries forward into 2026 with real momentum. The SPAC resurgence reflects broader improvements in both market conditions and the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher

New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!