Tag Archives: IRC

March 17, 2023

Audit Readiness for Plant Touching Businesses

By Angela Mays

A report issued three years ago by the Department of Treasury, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), states that the IRS will begin to increase its audit of cannabis businesses throughout the country. The report, released on March 30, 2020, states that the IRS believes that most cannabis businesses have not accurately applied IRC 280E and as a result cannabis businesses could potentially owe hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding taxes. This determination is based on an audit of tax filings of cannabis businesses in tax year 2016.

TIGTA conducted an audit of cannabis businesses in three different states, California, Colorado and Washington. Of the businesses audited, TIGTA determined, as a result of the incorrect application of IRC 280E, that 59% of those businesses required adjustments to their returns. These adjustments totaled over $48 million in unassessed taxes for 2016. The results of this audit caused the IRS to consider auditing cannabis businesses throughout the country where medical and/or adult use cannabis is sold. According to experts, cannabis (plant touching) businesses can expect an increase in tax returns to be audited now that the IRS has begun to increase their staffing resources and their ability to conduct most audits virtually.

Although the report calls for the IRS to develop guidance for the cannabis industry, the resources available are not very helpful nor does it provide the guidance that plant touching business owners need to make sure they are audit ready because audits have begun in Massachusetts, Michigan, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Colorado.

As a plant touching business owner, you need to be prepared for a potential audit of your tax returns. To be prepared you should have the right tools to help you perform cannabis accounting. You will need to implement sound policies and procedures.

Preparation is Key

As a plant touching business owner, you should always be prepared for a potential audit whether by the IRS for IRC 280E compliance, or a financial state audit as a requirement by your investors. To prepare for an IRC 280E audit, you must first have an accounting and reporting system set up to perform accounting for your vertical – dispensary, cultivation or manufacturing business. This will include a chart of accounts for your business type because this is the foundation for your accounting system and help to track all transactions that are specific to your particular operation. It will simplify recordkeeping for recording revenue, inventory, cost of goods sold as well as direct and indirect labor costs. It will also help with maintaining your library of documentation that is tied to each transaction. The level of detail will enable you to perform accurate cost accounting as well as provide backup for how your accounting team arrived at their calculations. In addition to having a robust chart of accounts and a document library, you will also need to have written policies and procedures.

The 3 P’s – Policies, Procedures & Processes

The key to making sure you are always audit ready is to implement sound policies, procedures and processes. You want to make sure you have written accounting policies that provide guidance on how your business performs various accounting tasks. It should reflect requirements based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or could reference IRS requirements per IRC 280E and/or IRC 471-11. For example, you should have an accounting policy for how your organization values inventory which is important for plant touching businesses.

You should also have Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that provide step by step instructions on how specific tasks are performed. This will make sure that everyone within your organization is performing the various tasks the same. Your SOPs should be for all key tasks within the organization, especially those tasks that affect how transactions are recorded in your accounting system. It ensures accuracy and reliability of your financial statements.

Organizations should go a step further and create end-to-end business processes that go a step beyond SOPs. End-to-end processes are created from sequential steps that will allow auditors to follow each step to identify key controls, assess risks as well as potential fraud within an organization. Although having detailed end-to-end processes for your business is not a requirement, they do provide an extra layer of proof of the accuracy of your financial statements because you will have identified your key controls, mitigated potential risks associated with misstatements in your financial statements, and identified risks associated with fraud.

Although no one knows when or if their business will be audited, being prepared is the key to a less stressful and more successful audit. Being able to show an auditor items they may request but also having organized, easy to reference documentation that provides a detailed look at your accounting and reporting operations shows that you are serious about your business and you want to operate compliantly.

February 10, 2023

Rhode Island Embraces Adult Use Cannabis, But With A Bitter Tax Pill

By Abraham Finberg, Simon Menkes, Rachel Wright

No Comments

Although Rhode Island is the USA’s smallest state, it has traditionally taken an out-sized dislike for cannabis and its users. It first banned cannabis in 1918 and, up until recently, had some of the strictest mandatory minimum sentences for large-scale possession, sentencing those with more than 5 kg (11 lbs) to 20 years’ imprisonment and fines of between $25,000 and $100,000.

Rhode Island’s Change of Heart

These days, however, the Ocean State has turned over a new leaf. It legalized medical cannabis in 2006, and on May 25, 2022, legalized adult use sales as well. Starting in December 2022, Rhode Island residents could purchase cannabis from five of the six medical cannabis dispensaries across the state which have also been approved to sell to adults.

Over the course of 2023, the state is expected to issue licenses for an additional 28 dispensaries, including a portion reserved for social equity applicants and worker-owned cooperatives. At the same time, 33 cities and towns across Rhode Island voted to determine whether cannabis businesses would be allowed in their jurisdiction. 25 of these municipalities ended up approving these measures.

Social Equity

Like many retail-legal states, Rhode Island has enacted social equity support for cannabis licensees. The state is divided into six retail license zones, and within each zone, one retail license will be reserved for a social equity applicant and one for a worker-owned cooperative. In addition, the state’s cannabis legislation provides for a $1 million fund to help support the social equity license recipients. Funded by all fees collected from adult-use cannabis businesses, this assistance fund will provide grants, promote job training and workforce development, and administer programming for restorative justice. The legislation also establishes a process whereby individuals may have their misdemeanor or felony convictions for cannabis possession expunged.

How Tax-Friendly Toward Cannabis is Rhode Island?

The Ocean State still has a way to go to be considered a truly cannabis-friendly state. For one thing, the state is forcing both individuals and corporations to conform to Internal Revenue Code section 280E which disallows deductions and credits for expenditures connected with trafficking in controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, schedule 1 or 2. This means cannabis companies will only be permitted to reduce their sales by cost of goods sold when determining their taxable income on their state tax returns unless they decide to take more aggressive tax positions. For example, with a conservative IRC 280E tax position, a cannabis dispensary would only be allowed to deduct the cost of the product purchased and the cost to transport the product to the dispensary, while disallowing such significant expenses as rent and payroll. All cannabis businesses must forgo expense deductions related to selling, general and administrative expenses, as they are disallowed under the tax code under this traditional method. Rhode Island has also disallowed cannabis businesses from taking an R&D tax credit as a result of conformity with federal tax law.

In addition, Rhode Island is requiring retailers to collect 10% state cannabis excise tax plus 3% local cannabis excise tax from its customers, along with the standard 7% sales tax. Good news: sales tax is not calculated on the excise tax collected (unlike California, which does impose tax-on-tax). Medical sales are subject to sales tax but not to excise tax, and excise tax is not charged on cannabis accessories. Excise tax, like sales tax, must be remitted to the state by the dispensary on or before the 20^th of the following month.

In Summary

Rhode Island has taken a big step forward from its anti-cannabis past by legalizing adult use sales and by supporting equity applicants as well as the expungement of past criminal convictions for many of those victimized by the war on cannabis. While Rhode Island’s excise taxes are not the worst we’ve seen, the state’s support of 280E will make it a lot harder for cannabis businesses to thrive.

August 11, 2022

M&A in Cannabis: A Guide for Buyers and Sellers

By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright

No Comments

Mergers and acquisition activity in the cannabis space tripled from 2020 to 2021, and that pace is on track to continue in 2022. With big players entering the global cannabis market, we’re fielding more questions about mergers and acquisitions of cannabis businesses.

In this guide, we look at the evolution of the U.S. cannabis industry and some best practices and considerations for M&A deals in this environment.

The New Reality of Cannabis M&A Activity

The industry has evolved since adult use cannabis was first legalized in some U.S. states in 2012. More cannabis companies have a professional infrastructure—legal, financial and operational—with executive teams and board members ensuring the organization establishes proper governance procedures. Investors and private equity firms are showing more interest, and some cannabis companies have celebrated their first IPOs on the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE).

At the same time, we are seeing a kind of “market grab” by multistate operators (MSOs) looking to acquire various licenses and expand their market share. MSOs tend to understand the current state of the market. For example, in California and some other states, there is a surplus of cannabis on the market for various reasons, partially due to so-called “burner distribution”—rogue distributors using licenses to buy vast amounts of legally grown cannabis at wholesale prices and selling the product on the black market, thereby undercutting retailers and other legal cannabis businesses. Another reason for the surplus is simply the entrance of many legal cultivators into the market over the past year.

Due to these trends, MSOs are interested in acquiring the outlets to be able to sell the surplus cannabis within California and other new markets.

Transferring Cannabis License Rights

One of the biggest challenges to M&A activity in the cannabis sector is the difficulty of transferring or selling a cannabis license.

Different types of cannabis licenses in California

Cannabis licenses are not expressly transferable or assignable under California law and many other states. However, the parties involved aren’t without options. For example, a business that is sold to a new owner may be able to retain its existing cannabis license while the new owner’s license application is pending, as long as at least one existing owner is staying on board. At the state license level, a change of up to 20% financial interest does not constitute a change in ownership, although the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) must be notified and approve the change.

This process can take a while—often a year or more—since licensing involves overcoming hurdles at the local level as well as the state level with the BCC. It’s crucial to talk with legal counsel about the particulars of the license and location early in the process to best structure the terms of the agreement while complying with state and local requirements.

Seeking a Tax-Free Reorganization in the Cannabis Space

In many cannabis mergers and acquisitions, the goal is to accomplish a tax-free reorganization, where the parties involved acquire or dispose of the assets of a business without generating the income tax consequences that would result from a straight sale or purchase of those assets.

IRC Section 368(a) defines various types of tax-free reorganizations, including:

Stock-for-stock exchanges (IRC Section 368(a)(1)(B)

In a stock-for-stock reorganization, all of the target company’s stock is traded for a portion of the stock of the acquiring parent corporation, and target company shareholders become minority shareholders of the acquiring company.

Often, it’s tough to meet the requirements to qualify for this type of tax-free reorganization because at least 80% of the target stock must be paid for in voting stock of the acquirer.

Additionally, companies may be saddled with too much debt. If the acquirer assumes that debt, it may be classified as consideration paid to the seller and therefore disqualify the transaction as a tax-free reorganization.

In other M&A deals, the acquiring corporation may be unwilling to assume the debt of the target corporation—perhaps because showing these items on its balance sheet would impact its debt-to-equity and other financial ratios.

Stock-for-asset exchanges (IRC Section 368(a)(1)(C)

Rather than acquiring the target company’s stock, the acquirer may purchase its assets. In a stock-for assets exchange, the buyer must purchase “substantially all” of the target’s assets in exchange for voting stock of the acquiring corporation.

A stock-for-assets format offers the buyer the benefit of not having to assume the unknown or contingent liabilities of the target. However, it’s only feasible if the acquirer purchases at least 80% of the fair market value of the target’s assets AND all or virtually all of the deal consideration will be stock of the acquirer.

Tax Consequences Arising from Sale of Assets

If the sale price doesn’t consist primarily of the buyer’s stock, the transaction may be a standard asset sale. This leads to very different tax results.

If the seller is a C corporation, it will typically face double taxation—paying tax once on the sale of assets within the corporation and again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. If the target company has net operating losses (NOLs), it can use those NOLs to offset the tax hit.

If the seller is an S corporation, it won’t have to pay corporate tax on the transaction at the federal level. Instead, shareholders will pay tax on the gain on their individual returns.

For the buyer, the benefit of an asset sale is that the assets acquired get a “step-up basis” to their purchase price. This is beneficial from a tax perspective, as the buyer can depreciate the assets and may be able to claim accelerated or bonus depreciation to help offset acquisition costs.

Reverse Triangular Merger

Often, in practice, we come across what is termed as a reverse triangular reorganization. In this type of merger,

The acquiring company creates a subsidiary,
The subsidiary merges into the target company before liquidating,
The target company then becomes a subsidiary of the acquirer, and
The target company’s shareholders receive cash.

Structuring the deal this way may work to overcome the hurdle of transferring the license but may not qualify as a tax-free reorganization.

Bottom Line

The circumstances and motivations for mergers and acquisitions in the cannabis industry are diverse. As a result, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to structuring the transaction. In any event, it’s crucial to start the process early and seek advice from legal counsel and tax advisors to minimize the tax burden and ensure that both parties to the transaction get the best deal possible. If you need assistance, contact your 420CPA strategic financial advisor.

January 18, 2022

What Can Cannabis Do For Montana?

By Abraham Finberg, Simon Menkes, Rachel Wright

1 Comment

When Montana became a territory in 1864, its legislators chose as its motto the Spanish words “Oro Y Plata” which means “Gold and Silver.” Gold and silver discoveries brought people to the new territory in droves, and everyone expected to get rich.

Near the North entrance of Yellowstone in Park County, Montana

Nowadays, the newest gold rush to open up in Montana is the state’s adult use cannabis market, which began operation this past January 1, 2022. The Cannabis Control Division (CCD) of the Montana Department of Revenue expects total adult sales in 2022 to top $130M. With a population just over a million residents, that works out to about $120 per person, which would be more than California’s benchmark $111 per person. Montana’s cannabis industry is expecting exciting and enriching times ahead!

We advise our Montana clients to be cautious, however, and to keep an eye on the “cannabis tax ball.” Why? You can be killing it in sales but still get dragged under by a heavy tax burden, especially in adult use sales, or worse, not keep up with your tax obligations and run afoul of the Department of Revenue or Big Brother IRS.

Montana’s initial foray into cannabis began in 2004, when the state passed Initiative I-148, allowing patient cultivation and use of marijuana but left the legality of commercial sales ambiguous.¹ The government reactionaries jumped in and used legislative action to tighten and limit that law.² Then, in 2016, Montana voters legalized the medicinal sale of cannabis with I-182,³ and in 2021, adult use was legalized with I-190, allowing existing dispensaries to sell recreationally beginning January 1, 2022 in counties which voted yes on the initiative.^4,5

From a federal taxation standpoint, of course, Montana’s cannabis operators are only allowed to deduct Cost of Goods Sold under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 280E, and in general, the state of Montana’s tax code conforms with the Internal Revenue Code.^6,7 However, the Montana Department of Revenue departed from the IRC in 2017 and allowed normal business deductions for licensed (legal) cannabis corporations.⁸ The Montana Department of Revenue also interpreted the law for pass-through entities and individuals with licensed cannabis operations to allow deductions of ordinary and necessary business expenses.⁹ This is what makes it possible to do business in cannabis in the state of Montana.

But what about Montana’s cannabis taxes? How big are they, and how do they compare with other states?

Montana charges a regular sales tax as well as either a 4% cannabis tax on medical sales or a 20% cannabis tax on adult use (recreational) sales.¹⁰ Some good news: wholesale sales are exempt from this tax.¹¹ More good news: Both the retail tax and the regular sales tax are exempt from the taxable price i.e., the state does not charge “tax on ^tax.”12,13However, be warned: be careful of offering discounts as it is assessed on the regular retail price rather than the actual discounted price.

Montana assesses the Cannabis Tax on the retail price and excludes discounts or even product given away.¹⁴ As of this writing, Park, Yellowstone and Missoula (medical only for Missoula) Counties have an additional 3% Local Option Tax based on the same state retail price definition with an exclusion for discounts or gifted products.¹⁵

So, with all these different taxes, is Montana actually a low tax state for cannabis? To begin with, the state is at least “in the ball game” by allowing the deduction of regular operating expenses on state income taxes. In addition, Montana has a relatively low tax which only applies at the retail level for medical sales and a relatively high tax on adult use. Adult use tends to be the vast majority of sales for dispensaries, so this does not bode well for retail cannabis operators.¹⁶

But before you throw in the towel and start looking to move to California (or Oklahoma, another cannabis-friendly state), a look at the whole Montana cannabis picture provides a rosier outlook. Montana income tax is relatively low, and since cultivators and manufacturers do not have to pay any cannabis excise taxes (especially as compared to California, with its cultivation tax and a functional 27% excise tax charged to retailers – a tax theoretically assessed to the consumer but in reality charged by a distributor to a retailer) or cultivation taxes on weight that enters the commercial market. All-in-all, Montana is actually a low-tax state for cannabis operators!

Disclaimer: This article has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice.

References

https://ballotpedia.org/Montana_Medical_Marijuana_Allowance,_I-148_(2004)
https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB423/id/277384
https://sosmt.gov/Portals/142/Elections/archives/2010s/2016/I-182.pdf
https://sosmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/I-190.pdf
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0701.pdf
Montana Code Title 15, Chap. 30 Part 21 10 (2021)
Montana Code Title 15, Chap. 31 Part 1 13 (2021)
Montana Code Title 15, Chap. 31 Part 1 14 (2021)
Montana Department of Revenue, “Montana Tax News You Can Use,’ December 14^th 2017.
Montana Code Title 15, Chap. 64 Part 1 02 (2021)
Montana Code Title 15, Chap. 64 Part 1 02 (2021)
Montana Code Title 15, Chap. 68 Part 1 01 (2021)
Montana Code Title 15, Chap. 64 Part 1 01 (2021)
Montana Code Title 15, Chap. 64 Part 1 01 (2021)
https://montana.servicenowservices.com/citizen/kb?sys_kb_id=37c9bc641bbcc150d707a82eac4bcb67&id=kb_article_view&sysparm_rank=1&sysparm_tsqueryId=a2d72fcd1b380950135cebdbac4bcbc8
Author’s experience with clients from California Oregon, Washington State and Nevada; states with both adult use and medical sales as of this writing. Montana does not have a commercial adult use program as of this writing.

December 2, 2021

How Section 280E is Still Hindering the Cannabis Industry

By Jay Jerose

No Comments

The cannabis industry is an unprecedented industry and one under constant review and control. Following the November 2020 elections, fifteen states and Washington DC have legalized adult use cannabis, a number that will continue to grow as legalization slowly becomes more widely adopted in other states. Beyond that, a continuously growing number of states allow residents to purchase legal medicinal cannabis, and many have also decriminalized adult use. However, it still remains a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act and is therefore illegal on all accounts at the U.S. federal level, which creates a number of issues for businesses in the cannabis industry duly operating in states where it has been legalized.

Not only is it difficult for cannabis companies to avail themselves of alternative banking solutions, but there are also obstacles in place preventing these companies from taking advantage of notable tax deductions. The primary obstacle being Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 280E.

What is Section 280E?

Section 280E is a relatively short code section, only 77 words to be exact, but it carries significant weight and can have a debilitating effect on the taxable income of marijuana [sic] related businesses (MRB). Section 280E of the IRC prohibits taxpayers who are engaged in the business of trafficking certain controlled substances, including cannabis, from deducting typical business expenses associated those activities. Section 280E, which was enacted in 1982 during the “War on Drugs” era, has become increasingly relevant for cannabis businesses. The cannabis industry has grown substantially in recent years with annual market values expected to reach $30 billion by 2025.

However, while Section 280E greatly restricts the tax deductions of state-legal cannabis businesses, there is some reprieve. Current IRC provisions permit state-legal cannabis businesses, including growers, producers, wholesalers or retailers, to deduct the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) in computing their US federal income tax liability, despite the application of Section 280E.

Impact of Section 280E on Businesses

What does Section 280E mean for cannabis businesses today? It is intended to prevent dealers from claiming tax deductions for their business expenses, interpreted to include state-legal cannabis businesses, reduced deductions that result in increased taxable income and MRBs will face higher federal tax rates.

The IRC disallows any deductions or credits paid or incurred during a tax year if those deductions or credits relate to trafficking controlled substances. The courts have taken the position that the term “trafficking” in this case means “engaging in a commercial activity – that is, to buy and sell regularly.” Simply, the law denies cannabis businesses any U.S. federal income tax deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses, despite being duly licensed as a legal business in their state of operation.

Typically, the ability to deduct ordinary business expenses means that a business is subject to federal tax on its net income (i.e., gross receipts minus expenses). However, the definition of Section 280E and the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance severely hinders legal cannabis companies from taking advantage of tax deductions for actual economic expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business, which results in a significantly higher effective tax rate as compared to other businesses.

Legal Actions and Challenges to Section 280E

There have been court challenges and concessions made to Section 280E. Specifically, the 2007 court case Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc., v. Commissioner. This court case reinforced the precedence that Section 280E does not apply to cost of goods sold. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) defines cost of goods sold to be “expenditures necessary to acquire, construct or extract a physical product which is to be sold.” Generally, for a retail MRB, this means that the direct cost of acquiring cannabis products for resale. Deductions for rent, utilities, wages, insurance and other operating costs common to ordinary businesses are generally disallowed. New York State has specifically indicated that it intends to follow Section 280E for its own income tax calculations, disallowing these same deductions against New York taxable income

Tax Court and Section 280E

The Tax Court has also been aggressive in tamping down efforts by MRBs to separate cannabis related and non-cannabis related activities. The courts argue that these separate activities constitute a single trade or business when they share a close and inseparable organizational and economic relationship. In addition, the risk of cannabis related activities tainting a taxpayer’s other business concerns exists if services or employees are shared between an MRB and a non-MRB. Allocation of expenditures to cost of goods sold, as well as any allocations of costs between MRB and non-MRB entities, need to be well thought out and supported by defensible tax and accounting positions.

The Future of MRBs and Section 280E

All indications point to an increased frequency of IRS audits of MRBs compared to audits of non-cannabis related businesses. Therefore, documenting the methodology behind the calculation of costs of goods sold is even more important for MRBs. It is vital to consult with a tax advisor to ensure you are maximizing your cost of goods sold deductions and preparing the best documentation possible to support your 280E tax positions.

Disclaimer: The 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 or accounting questions, it is recommended they consult with their attorney or accountant.

April 15, 2019

Taxes & Cannabis: 280E, R&D Credits, 199A & Qualified Opportunity Funds: Part 2

By Zachary Gordon, Jason Hoffman

No Comments

Editor’s Note: This is the second piece in a two-part series delving into tax issues. Part one discussed tax code 280E as it pertains to cannabis businesses. Part two will go into research and development credits, 199A and a discussion of risk as it relates to Qualified Opportunity Zones.

While 280E is the most influential code section for the cannabis industry, structuring never happens in a vacuum. There are many open questions that each business must answer for themselves without court adjudication. We believe that among the riskiest of questions is whether a cannabis business can claim research and development credits.

There is no clear legal authority that either allows these credits or disallows them but certainly utilizing such credits comes at great risk. At the beginning of this article we talked about Congress and the purpose of 280E. Congress’s intention was to make sure that only the minimum required tax deductions were available to Schedule 1 and 2 sellers. A cannabis business receiving a research and development credit would not be with the intension of Congress. While the credits would be computed based on COGS expenditures, at this time we do not believe that a cannabis business should take this credit. Disallowance of COGS would create a constitutional challenge which is why Congress allowed the COGS deduction. Disallowance of Research and Development Credits does not open up the same constitutional issue since the credit is not part of COGS although calculated based on COGS expenditures. 280E states very clearly that credits arising from other code sections are disallowed in the entirety.

More recently the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) opened up new issues for cannabis companies that are still unfolding. Two of the most publicized are Qualified Opportunity Funds and Section 199A, the 20% deduction (Qualified Business Deduction).

The 199A deduction allows eligible pass-through entities to claim an additional deduction of 20% of the income (subject to certain limitations) at the individual level potentially lowering the tax rate from 37% to 29.6%. While the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and others have asked the IRS to clarify if 280E would make a cannabis business ineligible, the final regulations on the subject did not address this issue. There are other significant limitations and hurdles in 199A regulations that any business would have to first pass to be considered for the rate deduction. If a cannabis business meets all other eligibility and limitation criteria, should the pass-through income to their investors be qualified income under 199A? The answer will depend on whether the courts will treat this “deduction” as falling under the general prohibition of 280E.

We believe that there is a reasonable chance that the courts will allow the 199A deduction for cannabis companies. That does not mean, however, that we advise cannabis companies to claim this on their pass-through returns as Qualified Business Income. Much like everything else, it depends on the particular business and the risk profile that management is willing to tolerate. This is one area of tax law that is sure to be challenged in court. The more risk-averse business should pass on claiming this deduction on their returns, but monitor development with an eye to amending at a later date if favorable precedent emerges. If the amounts are large enough, consideration should be given to applying for a Private Letter Ruling, but that also has its own tax risks.

Another new tax incentive that was in the TCJA was Section 1400Z or Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ). The incentive allows for the deferral of capital gains until December of 2026. The use of 1400Z also results in up to a 15% decrease in capital gains tax- and tax-free appreciation if all requirements are met. While the IRS has only released proposed regulations and we anticipate significant changes to them when they are released as final, there was nothing in the proposed regulations limiting cannabis businesses from using Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOF) in their structure. It is interesting to note that the TCJA and proposed regulations did list other types of businesses that could not make investments under 1400Z along with all its benefits. Liquor stores, golf courses and sun tan parlors were among those listed but cannabis growers and dispensaries were not.

As the industry continues to mature, new issues and precedents will require CPAs and attorneys to find new solutions to best serve the industry.Using Opportunity Zones to entice investors sounds like a great opportunity, but there are significant risks. The first risk is that the proposed regulations, while currently proposed, may not be final. There is always a chance that the IRS will take a different position when the final regulations are released and add cannabis to the type of businesses that do not qualify. Another risk, and one that was previously mentioned as part of 199A and other areas of structuring, is that the IRS and the courts can always disagree with the taxpayer’s position. This is a new area of tax law and will eventually be litigated. The loss of the Opportunity Zone benefits can significantly change the return to the investors and lead to other issues.

All of these issues come into play when structuring businesses in this industry. These issues must be evaluated as they pertain to the business needs. This can be very complex and requires a great deal of research for each business opportunity. We have found that professionals operating in this industry like to know about all of their options. The most important thing we can do for the industry is to continue to educate the professionals working in it.

Accountants should be available to assist their clients and their clients’ attorneys with structuring techniques aimed at asset protection and minimizing 280E disallowances. Accountants should also be ready to speak to the questions outlined above and be prepared to explain the risks associated with each choice. As the industry continues to mature, new issues and precedents will require CPAs and attorneys to find new solutions to best serve the industry.