Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

Key Takeaways from the US Tax Court’s Cannabis Business Deduction Decision

Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

Date: January 8, 2020

Key Contacts

Back

The U.S. Tax Court recently ruled that because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, cannabis businesses are prohibited from deducting business expenses pursuant to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code

The U.S. Tax Court recently ruled that because marijuana remains illegal under federal law cannabis businesses are prohibited from deducting business expenses pursuant to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. According to the court, the provision is neither a penalty nor an unconstitutionally excessive fine.

Key Takeaways from the US Tax Court’s Cannabis Business Deduction Decision

While the Tax Court ultimately rejected the cannabis industry’s challenges to Section 280E in Northern California Small Business Assistants Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, it is important to note that the decision was not unanimous. In a partial dissent, Judge David Gustafson argued that Section 280E is unconstitutional under the 16th Amendment. Judge Elizabeth A. Copeland also issued a partial dissent, rejecting the majority’s conclusion that Section 280E is not a penalty.

I.R.C. Section 280E

Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Accordingly, the IRS has relied on Section 280E to refuse to recognize tax deductions taken by state-legal cannabis businesses because of their illegal operation under federal law.

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits businesses from deducting otherwise valid business expenses where the business “consists of” dealing in controlled substances set forth in Schedules I or II of the Controlled Substance Act. I.R.C. § 280E expressly states:

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

Section 280E applies only to deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s drug- related trade or business. Accordingly, the provision does not generally disallow deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s non-drug-related business.

Cannabis Business Challenges Tax Deficiency

The dispute began when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notified Northern California Small Business Assistants Inc. (NCSBA), a California medical marijuana company, that there was a deficiency in its 2012 income tax of $1,264,212. The IRS also assessed an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $252,842.40.

In response, NCSBA argues that section 280E is invalid. It specifically asserts that 280E: (1) imposes a gross receipts tax as a penalty in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution; (2) eliminates only ordinary and necessary business deductions under section 162 and does not apply to other distinct sections of the Code; and (3) does not apply to marijuana businesses legally operated under State law.

Tax Court Sides With IRS

The Tax Court rejected all of NCSBA’s arguments. The court first rejected the argument that the aim of section 280E is to punish, rather than tax, and therefore it is a penalty that must be limited by the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

In support, the Tax Court emphasized that section 280E is enacted under Congress’ “unquestionable authority” to tax gross income under the Sixteenth Amendment and targets individuals who operate a business in violation of State or Federal law. “Section 280E is directly tied to Congress’ policy objective to limit and deter trafficking in illegal controlled substances, Judge Joseph Robert Goeke wrote. He added:

Petitioner does not cite, and we are not aware of, any case where the disallowance of a deduction was construed a penalty. “This is especially telling given that Congress enacted section 280E over 37 years ago in 1982, and over that 37 years it has never been held to be a penalty by any Federal court.

The Tax Court also rejected NCSBA’s argument that section 280E limits only deductions under section 162 and deductions under sections 164 and 167 are allowed notwithstanding section 280E. “[P]etitioner’s argument misses the first line of section 280E: ‘No deduction or credit shall be allowed’. (Emphasis added.) Congress could not have been clearer in drafting this section of the Code,” Judge Goeke wrote.

The Tax Court also rejected the argument that section 280E does not apply to a legally operated marijuana business because legal operations do not “traffic” in controlled substances. “Despite efforts by several states to legalize marijuana use to varying degrees, it remains a Schedule I controlled substance within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act,” Judge Goeke wrote. “Consistent with this designation, we have held that the limitations imposed by Section 280E are applicable to the ever-increasing number of marijuana businesses operating legally under state law.”

Dissenting Opinion

The Tax Court’s decision in Northern California Small Business Assistants Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue was not unanimous. While Judge Gustafson and Judge Copeland joined the majority in denying NCSBA’s motion for summary judgment, they did not agree with its reasoning.

In a lengthy dissent, Judge Gustafson argued that Section 280E is unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes on ‘incomes, from whatever source derived…’” Under Gustafson’s reasoning, the problem with Section 280E is that it disallows all deductions and, therefore, fabricates a gain where there is none by disallowing the deduction of otherwise deductible business expenses.

“I would hold that this wholesale disallowance of all deductions transforms the ostensible income tax into something that is not an income tax at all, but rather a tax on an amount greater than a taxpayer’s ‘income’ within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment,” he wrote. “Accordingly, I would hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not permit Congress to impose such a tax and that section 280E is therefore unconstitutional.”

Judge Copeland joined the majority because she found that NCSBA failed to demonstrate how the amounts were excessive. However, she also disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that Section 280E is not a penalty. “Even if Section 280E was not written as a penalty provision, it operates as such,” Judge Copeland wrote. “It attacks an entire industry (in this case, cannabis businesses) and sweeps so broadly as to deny every deduction the code would otherwise allow, rather than specify a narrow range of expenses.”

Key Takeaway

The dissents give cannabis businesses another argument to raise in lawsuits challenging section 280E. However, it is unclear if they will be persuasive to other members of the Tax Court. We will continue to closely monitor this evolving area of law. In the meantime, we encourage cannabis businesses to work with experienced counsel to determine the best way to reduce your liability.

If you have questions, please contact us

If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, we encourage you to contact us at 201-806-3364 or visit Scarinci Hollenbeck’s Attorneys page to learn more about our attorneys and their legal experience.

This article is a part of a series pertaining to cannabis legalization in New Jersey and the United States at large. Prior articles in this series are below:

Disclaimer: Possession, use, distribution, and/or sale of cannabis is a Federal crime and is subject to related Federal policy. Legal advice provided by Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is designed to counsel clients regarding the validity, scope, meaning, and application of existing and/or proposed cannabis law. Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC will not provide assistance in circumventing Federal or state cannabis law or policy, and advice provided by our office should not be construed as such.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
What to Do If You Are Impacted by a Retailer Bankruptcy Part 2 post image

What to Do If You Are Impacted by a Retailer Bankruptcy Part 2

Over the past year, brick-and-mortar stores have closed their doors at a record pace. Fluctuating consumer preferences, the rise of online shopping platforms, and ongoing economic uncertainty continue to put pressure on the retail industry. When a retailer seeks bankruptcy protection, a myriad of other businesses are often impacted. Whether you are a supplier, customer, […]

Author: Brian D. Spector

Link to post with title - "What to Do If You Are Impacted by a Retailer Bankruptcy Part 2"
The Current Administration's Proposals for the Financial Services and Banking Industries Will Affect Your Business post image

The Current Administration's Proposals for the Financial Services and Banking Industries Will Affect Your Business

Since his inauguration two months ago, Donald Trump’s administration and the Congress it controls have indicated important upcoming policy changes. These changes will impact financial services policies and priorities. The changes will particularly affect cryptocurrency, as well as banking rules and regulations. Key Regulatory Changes in Cryptocurrency For example, in the burgeoning cryptocurrency business environment, […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "The Current Administration's Proposals for the Financial Services and Banking Industries Will Affect Your Business"
Tips for Commercial Landlords Impacted by Wave of Retailer Bankruptcies Part 1 post image

Tips for Commercial Landlords Impacted by Wave of Retailer Bankruptcies Part 1

The retail sector has experienced a wave of bankruptcy filings over the last year. Brick-and-mortar businesses in financial distress include big-name brands like Big Lots, Party City, The Container Store, and Vitamin Shoppe. When large retailers seek bankruptcy protection, they are not the only businesses impacted. Landlords can be particularly hard hit. While commercial landlords […]

Author: Brian D. Spector

Link to post with title - "Tips for Commercial Landlords Impacted by Wave of Retailer Bankruptcies Part 1"
How Understanding Bankruptcy Trends Can Benefit Your Business post image

How Understanding Bankruptcy Trends Can Benefit Your Business

The bankruptcy legal landscape presents both challenges and opportunities for businesses navigating financial distress. Understanding current bankruptcy trends can help businesses make more informed and strategic decisions. Corporate Bankruptcy Filings Trending Upwards Bankruptcy filings continued to trend upwards in 2024. According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, personal and business […]

Author: Brian D. Spector

Link to post with title - "How Understanding Bankruptcy Trends Can Benefit Your Business"
SEC Takes Actions Against Issuers for Failure to File Form D post image

SEC Takes Actions Against Issuers for Failure to File Form D

In December, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced charges against two privately held companies for failing to file a Form D notice, which is generally utilized for exempt securities offerings. Here, the SEC’s enforcement sends a strong message: compliance with regulatory requirements is not optional and failure to comply can have significant consequences. […]

Author: Kenneth C. Oh

Link to post with title - "SEC Takes Actions Against Issuers for Failure to File Form D"
Redefining Labor Relations: NLRB's Pivot from Abruzzo’s Memoranda post image

Redefining Labor Relations: NLRB's Pivot from Abruzzo’s Memoranda

On February 14, 2025, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued Memorandum 25-05, “New Process for More Efficient, Effective, Accessible and Transparent Case handling.” The Memorandum rescinds nearly all of the Memoranda issued by his direct predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo, setting the […]

Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh

Link to post with title - "Redefining Labor Relations: NLRB's Pivot from Abruzzo’s Memoranda"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

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!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!

Please select a category(s) below: