• LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

CPAs & Advisors to the Cannabis Industry Since 2009 Schedule An Appointment

Bridge West LLC
  • About Us
    • Firm Overview
    • Leadership
    • Our Companies
    • Industry Affiliates
    • International Affiliations
  • Services
    • 280E Mitigation
    • IRS and State Audit Assistance
    • Advisory Services
    • License Application Advisory Services
    • Business Valuation
    • Financial Statement Audit and Other Attest Services
    • Tax Compliance
    • Outsourced Accounting Services
    • Investment Advisory
    • Technology Services
  • Industries
    • Cultivator
    • Processor
    • Dispensary
    • Vertical
    • Hemp
    • CBD Retail and E-commerce Operators
  • Events
  • Cannabis News
    • CannaBlog
    • Podcast
    • Webinar
    • Videos
  • Client Access
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Menu Menu

Bridge West CPAs and Advisors to the Cannabis Industry CannaBlog:

in CannaBlog

Section 280E, So You’re Telling Me There Is a Chance?

by Nathan Panning, CPA

During the 38 years since IRC Section 280E was enacted, there have been many related Court cases. Most have ended with two, three, or all of the following results:

1.) Section 280E is not believed to be a penalty, and therefore it is not in violation of the Eighth Amendment concerning “excessive fines;”

2.) All state-legal cannabis/plant-touching companies are going to be considered “trafficking” in the U.S. Court system’s eyes, no matter what dictionary you use to define “trafficking;”

3.) When Section 280E says, “No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year,” it means that no deduction or credit shall be allowed outside of cost of goods sold (COGS), no matter if it is Section 162, 164, etc.

On October 23, 2019, the U.S. Tax Court ruled on Northern California Small Business Assistants Inc. v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. No. 4., which resulted in all three items mentioned above. The unique pieces of this case were that two of the judges gave dissenting opinions on the overall outcome of the case, which could be an open door for the cannabis industry.

Judge Copeland and Judge Gustafson had dissenting opinions on whether Section 280E was considered a penalty for the Eighth Amendment’s purposes. Also, Judge Gustafson went beyond just stating a quick viewpoint on Section 280E; he added commentary on how the provision taxes something more significant than income, within the means of the Sixteenth Amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

Judge Copeland’s dissenting opinion included a reference to U.S. vs. Bajakajian to address the statement that Congress purposefully intended for Section 280E to deter the activity of illegal drug trafficking. Copeland referenced this case because it states, “deterrence … has traditionally been viewed as a goal of punishment,” which led to her opinion that Section 280E was created like a penalty for the Eighth Amendment. In response to this, Judge Lauber makes a point to state that hundreds of Code provisions are designed to deter activity that Congress believes are undesirable. In contrast, this does not make these provisions like a penalty for Eighth Amendment purposes. The provisions mentioned by Judge Lauber included self-dealing rules, abusive tax shelters, disallowances in deducting bribes, and kickbacks, among other things.

Judge Gustafson goes down a different route than Judge Copeland by first explaining that he agreed the Eighth Amendment was not violated. It was not proven that the penalty at issue was “excessive” for North California Small Business Assistants. Outside of that, he expresses his thoughts on why Section 280E imposes a penalty by using every accountant’s favorite aphrodisiac, widgets.

In paraphrased form, ‘If a taxpayer buys widgets for $1,000 and sells them for $900, there would be a loss of $100. Congress could not tax the gross receipts of $900 as if it were income because under the Sixteenth Amendment (per 10th Circuit Court of Appeals), it is “mandatory” to allow a reduction for COGS. In switching to an example of buying widgets for $600, paying rent of $200 and labor of $200, we would still have a loss of $100 for generally all businesses. If this same company were to sell illegal drugs, then the rent and labor would be disallowed, resulting in the taxation on $300 of gross profit when there is an actual loss of $100.’

Judge Gustafson holds that the application of Section 280E in situations such as these results in the imposition of a fine for the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. He added that the provision turns a $100 actual loss into a $300 taxable gain, which results in a tax rate beyond 100% in a year of loss. Judge Gustafson closed by saying that the Court should not rely on the U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision on Alpenglow as that Court never performed an Eighth Amendment constitutional analysis suited to that case. He said that it relied on another case (Green Solution Retail) looking at Section 280E for the Anti-Injunction Act, which Gustafson believed was misplaced. He holds that Section 280E imposes a fine for the Eighth Amendment’s purposes, and two things need to be determined: 1). Does the Eighth Amendment protections extend to corporations and 2.) Did Section 280E cause an “excessive” fine or penalty to be charged to the taxpayer?

Why is this important? The hearts of the Court system are being softened as the results of this harsh Code provision are analyzed. Millions of tax dollars are being assessed on companies that are not cash-rich and have an actual economic loss from operations. The next time a Section 280E case makes it to this level in the Court system, perhaps it will open the potential to limit the amount of Section 280E adjustments made in a tax year. Does that mean you should cut-off the 280E adjustment, so that book income is adjusted from a $100 loss to $0? Should you not tax yourself on the amount beyond net $0? Does it mean that your tax should not exceed your taxable income prior to the Section 280E adjustments? Does it mean that an “excessive” amount should be determined, and the Section 280E adjustment would not go beyond that “excessive” threshold?  In the final analysis, there are several potential outcomes with Section 280E opinions.  It may be a tough fight; however, the door continues to open on taxation.

Stay tuned for more CannaBlogs and Updates from Bridge West

In this ever-changing world of cannabis taxation, the Bridge West team understands the tax and accounting issues facing the industry. We are proud to provide the best possible solutions to our valued clients.

If you have any questions and would like to learn more about any items in this article, please contact Nate Panning, CPA at n.panning@bridgewestcpas.com or a member of the Bridge West Leadership Team.

 

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share by Mail
https://bridgewestcpas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/thumbnail_BridgeWest_2023_Powered_800.png 0 0 Brigid Galvin https://bridgewestcpas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/thumbnail_BridgeWest_2023_Powered_800.png Brigid Galvin2020-06-04 19:08:482020-06-10 16:01:43Bridge West CPAs and Advisors to the Cannabis Industry CannaBlog:

Newsletter Registration

Recent Posts

  • Minnesota Cannabis Updates 2023: Current License Holders
  • Why You Should Outsource Accounting for Your Cannabis Business
  • Updated Cannabis Industry Events
  • The Cannabis Industry and Tax Implications of Entity Structure: Issues to Consider for Cannabis Operators
  • What is Form 1099: Key Details You Need to Know

Services

280E Mitigation

IRS and State Audit Assistance

Cannabis and Hemp Advisory Services

Cannabis License Application Advisory

Business Valuation

Audit and Assurance

Tax

Outsourced Accounting Services

Investment Advisory

Technology Services

Resources

Contact

Events

CannaBlog

Leadership

Client Access

Serving all cannabis legal states

Headquarters:
7900 International Drive, Suite 800
Bloomington, MN 55425
(303) 651-0304
View Map >

© Bridge West LLC™ 2023 Privacy Policy
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
LA & MO Lawmakers Decline Proposals to Make Major Changes to Marijuana...Tax Refund Opportunities for Qualified Improvement Property (QIP) Expenditu...
Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

OKLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only