Tax Court Rules Against Cannabis Dispensary
Download PDF- Terakedis, J. Troy Kulick, Peter J. Crow, Scot C. McCulloch, Timothy I.
- Industry Alerts
Want to get our alerts?
Click “Subscribe Now” to get attorney insights on the latest developments in a range of services and industries.
In Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corporation (dba Harborside Health Center) v. Comm’r, 151 T.C. No. 11, the Tax Court held, among other things, that a California medical-marijuana dispensary that was also involved in (i) the sale of non-marijuana products such as clothing, hemp bags, and books, (ii) the provision of free therapeutic services, and (iii) certain “branding” activities, was prevented by Code Section 280E from deducting any of its ordinary and necessary business expenses.
Code Section 280E provides, “No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the tax year 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.” [emphasis added]. Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law (Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act).
In Patients Mutual Assistance, the taxpayer argued that the words “consists of “ in Code Section 280E were such that the Code Section 280E prohibition only applied to a trade or business that was engaged exclusively or solely in trafficking controlled substances. The taxpayer took the position that since it was engaged in other activities (sale of non-marijuana products, therapeutic services and branding), it should be able to deduct expenses related to those other activities. The Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments and concluded that Code Section 280E denies any deduction for business expenses of a trade or business involving trafficking in controlled substances, regardless of whether the trade or business also undertakes other activities. The Tax Court also concluded that the taxpayer was engaged in a single trade or business (i.e., sale of marijuana which constituted trafficking in controlled substances) as its other activities had a “close and inseparable organizational and economic relationship” with the primary business of selling marijuana and/or were incidental to it.
In addition, the Tax Court held that the provisions of Code Section 263A, related to “cost of goods sold” adjustments for certain inventory costs (direct and indirect), do not apply to a trade or business subject to Code Section 280E. Rather, such a trade or business must make COGS adjustments under Code Section 471. This treatment generally prevents a “reseller” (e.g., a dispensary) from including indirect expenses (which the reseller was prohibited from deducting due to the application of Code Section 280E) in COGS. Note, under Code Section 471, a “producer” (e.g., a cultivator) must include in COGS both the direct and indirect costs of producing their inventory.
There is no doubt that the Tax Court’s holdings in Patients Mutual Assistance are not favorable to those businesses operating in the cannabis industry. However, it does provide some much needed guidance regarding Code Section 280E (including its interaction with Code Section 263A) which will help taxpayers navigate this complex area of federal tax law.
This client alert is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform our clients and friends of important developments in the field of cannabis and tax law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered here.
Code Section 280E provides, “No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the tax year 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.” [emphasis added]. Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law (Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act).
In Patients Mutual Assistance, the taxpayer argued that the words “consists of “ in Code Section 280E were such that the Code Section 280E prohibition only applied to a trade or business that was engaged exclusively or solely in trafficking controlled substances. The taxpayer took the position that since it was engaged in other activities (sale of non-marijuana products, therapeutic services and branding), it should be able to deduct expenses related to those other activities. The Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments and concluded that Code Section 280E denies any deduction for business expenses of a trade or business involving trafficking in controlled substances, regardless of whether the trade or business also undertakes other activities. The Tax Court also concluded that the taxpayer was engaged in a single trade or business (i.e., sale of marijuana which constituted trafficking in controlled substances) as its other activities had a “close and inseparable organizational and economic relationship” with the primary business of selling marijuana and/or were incidental to it.
In addition, the Tax Court held that the provisions of Code Section 263A, related to “cost of goods sold” adjustments for certain inventory costs (direct and indirect), do not apply to a trade or business subject to Code Section 280E. Rather, such a trade or business must make COGS adjustments under Code Section 471. This treatment generally prevents a “reseller” (e.g., a dispensary) from including indirect expenses (which the reseller was prohibited from deducting due to the application of Code Section 280E) in COGS. Note, under Code Section 471, a “producer” (e.g., a cultivator) must include in COGS both the direct and indirect costs of producing their inventory.
There is no doubt that the Tax Court’s holdings in Patients Mutual Assistance are not favorable to those businesses operating in the cannabis industry. However, it does provide some much needed guidance regarding Code Section 280E (including its interaction with Code Section 263A) which will help taxpayers navigate this complex area of federal tax law.
This client alert is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform our clients and friends of important developments in the field of cannabis and tax law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered here.
Contacts

Peter Kulick
Member and Taxation Practice Group Co-Chair
Lansing

Timothy McCulloch
Member and Aviation Practice Group Chair
Phoenix

J. Troy Terakedis
Member and Taxation Practice Group Co-Chair
Columbus
Recent Insights
- Industry Alerts No Penalties in Harborside Case
- Industry Alerts Recent Kentucky Cases Hold That Exempt Owner Does Not Mean Property Taxes Precluded, and Leased Real Property Value May Include “Intangible Values”
- Conferences 7th Annual Tennessee Captive Insurance Association Conference on November 15 - 16, 2017
- September 14, 2023 In the News Scot Crow Named to the 2023 Top 200 Cannabis Lawyers List
- July 10, 2023 Industry Alerts Five Upcoming Changes to Ohio’s Medical Marijuana Laws & Recreational Update
- June 12, 2023 In the News Dickinson Wright Recognized in Legal 500 United States 2023 Edition
- June 1, 2023 In the News Dickinson Wright Receives Top Rankings in 2023 Chambers USA Guide; 43 Attorneys Recognized as Leaders in their Fields
- September 30, 2022 In the News Benjamin Sobczak Elected to State Bar of Michigan’s Cannabis Law Section Council
- September 6, 2022 In the News Benjamin Sobczak Joins Dickinson Wright Troy Office as a Member