The U.S. Supreme Court Rejects a Cannabis Industry 280E Tax Appeal – Again.

The cannabis industry this week suffered the latest in a series of legal setbacks surrounding the enforcement of 280E.
Written by 
Medical Team, Leafreport's Clinician Team.
|Last Updated:

This section of the U.S. Tax Code is said to cost legal cannabis companies millions of dollars in taxes which they consider unconstitutional, and just plain unfair.

The 280E law, enacted during President Ronald Reagan’s War on Drugs, prohibits deductions and credits for any business connected to substances covered by the Controlled Substances Act.

This week, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from two California cannabis companies seeking to avoid having to pay a total $1.9 million in tax bills charged under Section 280E.

As MJBiz Daily and Ganjapreneur detailed, the companies – Organic Cannabis Foundation and Northern California Small Business Assistants, also known as NCSB — were left no alternative but to accept an earlier unsuccessful U.S. Appeals Court decision in their case.

Organic Cannabis Foundation owes $1.1 million in taxes and $225,855 in penalties, and NCSB owes $531,707 in taxes and $106,341 in penalties, according to court documents.

The companies’ case has been ongoing since 2015, when their attempt to appeal an IRS tax bill to U.S. Tax Court was rejected without consideration.

The Tax Court ruled that the court documents required of the companies were filed too late – by a day – owing to the companies’ tardiness in observing the court’s deadline. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Tax Court, prompting the companies to file yet again, this time before the Supreme Court. That’s the case the Court this week declined to review.

Other Section 280E cases preceded this one. In February the Tax Court ruled that San Jose Wellness, a subsidiary of California’s large dispensary Harborside, had to pay $4.2 million in taxes and – the guts of the case — could not claim business deductions due to its sales of a federally illegal substance.

The Court of Appeals also recently said no to yet another Harborside tax case challenging the 280E law’s constitutionality regarding those desired business deductions.

Medical Team
Medical Team
Leafreport's Clinician Team
The clinicians in our team bring their experience from across the spectrum of medical specialties, as well as their perspective from years of clinical practice, research, and patient advocacy. Medical Review, provided by members of Leafreport’s team, ensures that our content is accurate, current, and patient-focused.

Read More

Important Disclaimer
All contents of the LeafReport Site, such as text, graphics, images, and other material contained on the LeafReport Site are for informational purposes only. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on the LeafReport Site!