Tag Archives: amendment

How to Navigate Section 280E: Lessons Businesses Can Learn from Recent Court Outcomes

By Jay Jerose
No Comments

The cannabis business landscape is complex and is under constant review and control. Further, rules and regulations from both federal and state governments can pose additional challenges and barriers to business owners. For those unfamiliar, there is a section of Internal Revenue Code, Section 280E, that prohibits taxpayers who are engaged in the business of buying and selling certain controlled substances from deducting many typical business expenses that other businesses are able to freely deduct.

What is Section 280E and What Challenges Does it Pose?

A dispensary could deduct the cost of the product it sells, but due to Section 280E it would be unable to deduct necessary and ordinary business expenses such as building rent, insurance or employee wages. This can create a significant tax burden, as taxable income is calculated at the gross profit level instead of starting with net income. As a result, Section 280E has become increasingly relevant for cannabis businesses, which have grown substantially in recent years due to more states opting to legalize marijuana. But despite this trend towards legalization at the state level, cannabis with more than 0.3% THC remains illegal under federal law, which raises questions surrounding Section 280E.

In this article, we take a closer look at recent court cases that highlight challenges with Section 280E, the related outcomes and what it means for businesses in the cannabis space.

Challenging its Constitutionality

Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corp. v. Commissioner, also known as the Harborside Case, partially involved legal arguments against the constitutionality of Section 280E under the 16th amendment. Harborside argued that income must be present for the IRS to levy an income tax, however Section 280E can frequently cause taxpayers to experience real losses along with taxable income. They argued that they were forced to pay taxes while losing money.

Two circuit courts before this case upheld that Section 280E did not violate either the 8th or 16th amendments to the constitution, leading to the court declining to even address the constitutionality claim. The court addressing a constitutionality issue could lead to unintended consequences for unrelated code provisions, leading this strategy to likely fail due to the mess it could unravel.

Attracting Customers with Freebies

Olive v. Commissioner involved a medical cannabis dispensary that also operated a consumption lounge. While the consumption lounge revenue entirely consisted of sales of medical cannabis, the business also provided services such as health counseling, movies, yoga, massage therapy and beverages at no additional cost. The business attempted to deduct the expenses of these free services as well as the cost of the cannabis itself.

The IRS denied the deductions for the additional services due to the sole source of revenue coming from cannabis sales. The court held that the expenses related to free services were designed to benefit and promote the sales of cannabis and induce further business from its customers.

The court did acknowledge that expenses can be allocated between two separate trades or businesses while still complying with 280E. However, distinct revenue streams need to be established to show the clear separability of the activities and care must be taken to document and support the expense allocations.

Co-mingling Cannabis and Non-Cannabis Enterprises

In the case of Alternative Healthcare Advocates v. Commissioner, the owner of a retail dispensary established a separate management corporation to provide management functions to the dispensary business. The two businesses shared identical ownership, and the management company solely provided services to the joint owner’s dispensary. The management company hired employees, advertised, and handled rent and other regular business expenses on behalf of the dispensary.

Despite the argument from the taxpayer that the businesses were separate entities, and that the management company did not own or “touch” cannabis in any way, the Tax Court ruled that both companies were in the business of trafficking illegal substances. This disallowed expenses on both entities. The IRS argued successfully that the operations of both companies were intertwined. The fact that the management company broke even on expenses and provided no services to any other unrelated entities meant that while legally separate, they were considered part and parcel to each other.

The Solution: Clear Documentation, Allocation and Separation

Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Problems, Inc. v. Commissioner (CHAMP) involved a public benefit corporation that provided caregiving services along with cannabis to customers suffering from diseases. In this case, the taxpayer argued that they had two separate and distinct lines of service, being the sale of cannabis, and the sale of caregiving services.

While the IRS disagreed with this position and attempted to apply Section 280E to the entire entity, the Tax Court disagreed. It held that the taxpayer was operating with a dual purpose, the primary being the caregiving services, and the secondary being the sale of medical cannabis. The taxpayer’s customers were required to pay a membership fee and received extensive caregiving services, including support groups, one-on-one counseling, addiction counseling services, hygiene supplies and even food for low-income members. While the membership fee did include a set amount of medical cannabis, it was not unlimited. The Court held that the taxpayer’s extensive records and documentation clearly demonstrated two separate and distinct lines of business, with the caregiving being a primary service and the medical cannabis being secondary.

From these court cases and outcomes, it is clear that Section 280E can be confusing. The cannabis industry is a high-risk area, and the IRS has successful court cases to stand behind to back their legislation and agenda. These cases demonstrate two very simple concepts: first, businesses have attempted many creative ways of sidestepping Section 280E and failed; and second, clear documentation and detailed financial records are key, and will be paramount to support any tax positions related to Section 280E.

With the risks associated with conducting business in the cannabis industry, there is a strong likelihood that it will be high on the IRS’ radar over the next few years. Cannabis businesses should carefully consider their interpretation and application of Section 280E as it relates to the costs within their business. It will be important for businesses to utilize and consult with experienced attorneys and cannabis accountants to ensure they not only maintain compliance with federal laws, but also keep up with the changing regulations and court test opinions.


Disclaimer: The summary information presented in this article should not be considered legal advice or counsel and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. If the reader of this has legal questions, it is recommended they consult with their attorney.

Canadian Cannabis 2.0: Going Beyond GPP

By Lindsay Glass
No Comments

One year after Canadian recreational cannabis’s historic date of October 17th, 2018, in comes Cannabis 2.0, which will see edibles containing cannabis and cannabis concentrates enter the legal recreational market. As of October 17th, 2019, there are seven classes of legal cannabis products in the marketplace, making Canada an innovative leader in this evolving industry.

The launch of cannabis edibles and concentrates into the legal market has also led to changes in the regulatory framework and the introduction of new best practices in terms of Good Production Practices (GPP). This should not come as a surprise, as these products are introducing the inclusion of cannabis and food products.

Since Oct 17th, 2019, we have seen a significant amendment to the Cannabis Regulations through the addition of sections 88.93 and 88.94, stating that holders of a license to process cannabis edibles or extracts must identify and analyze all potential hazards and have control measures in place to prevent, eliminate or reduce these hazards from occurring. Any license holder that conducts activities related to cannabis edibles, extracts or produces an ingredient used in an edible or extract must also prepare, retain, maintain and implement a preventive control plan (PCP). To indicate that cannabis edibles and extracts regulations resemble other regulated food commodities, would not be an understatement.

By having license holders establish food safety practices similar to the ones being used by federally regulated food commodities, it is allowing cannabis producers to implement a preventive approach by focusing on safety and reducing hazards in their operation.

According to the Cannabis Regulations a license holder’s PCP must include the following:

  • Identify all of the biological, chemical and physical hazards that could contaminate or could be at risk of contaminating any cannabis product or anything that could be used as an ingredient in producing a cannabis product. Once all of the hazards have been identified, you need to determine the likelihood of that hazard occurring
  • The measures to be taken to control each identified hazard. Each control measure must then describe the task involved, how the monitoring task is carried out, who will be performing the monitoring task and how often the monitoring task is carried out
  • A description of the critical control points, which are the steps in the process where a control measure is applied and is essential to eliminating a hazard. Next are the measures to be taken to monitor a critical control point
  • A description of each cannabis product produced or ingredient that will be used in a cannabis product, including extract contents, permitted & prohibited ingredients, exceptions, naturally occurring substances and uniform distribution
  • A description of corrective action procedures for every critical control point
  • A description of verification procedures

What else comes with the collaboration of these two commodities in a regulatory environment? The need for industry to adapt and move beyond the basic GPP and pharmaceutical requirements and start thinking in terms of preventative controls and food safety. By encompassing the GPP requirements, traceability, employee training and now a complete hazard analysis and preventive control plan, you have the makings of a full food safety plan. However, food safety plans can be comprehensive and difficult to manage by utilizing a manual system.

HACCPCompanies that are serious about the integration of cannabis edibles and extracts into their operations, will need to implement compliance and traceability technology that will facilitate an automated system. In return, you will streamline all monitoring processes throughout the production, packaging and storage stages of the system. This is crucial to a preventive control plan. An automated solution will also help with record keeping, document management and corrective actions, as license holders deal with failures in real time to avoid negative impacts on their products.

There are many compliance software platforms available in the industry and choosing the right one for your operation is a task in itself, as not all software platforms for the cannabis industry are created equally. Although many seed-to-sale platforms handle regulatory requirements and some document management, these platforms do not see cannabis as food products, and therefore, are leaving companies with a void in this aspect of their operation. When looking for a software platform that will encompass all of your regulatory needs, pay particular attention to systems that are designed for the food industry but have adapted to cannabis. These systems will be the most dynamic when it comes to implementing preventive control plans, handling in-depth traceability with recall plans and the ability to become completely digital.

For more information on how to automate your food safety plan for cannabis edibles and extracts, please contact Iron Apple QMS to learn about our online Cannabis QMS.