Fox Rothschild: Cannabis Companies Must Wait to Seek Relief From Section 280E, IRS Says

Fox Rothschild LLP

It is still too early for cannabis companies to try and take advantage of potential tax relief should the Justice Department (DOJ) reschedule cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act.

In a recent news release, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reminded taxpayers that cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance. As such, cannabis businesses can’t yet seek relief from IRS Code Section 280E, which prohibits taking deductions or credits for any amount that was paid or incurred as part of any trade or business that consists of illegally trafficking in a Schedule I or II controlled substance.

Section 280E applies to all businesses that sell cannabis in the United States, even if they operate in states that have legalized the drug’s sale. It effectively forces cannabis businesses to pay millions more in taxes than almost every other type of business.

The IRS issued the news release because some cannabis companies filed amended returns after the DOJ initiated a formal rulemaking process earlier this year to consider making cannabis a Schedule III controlled substance. The companies were trying to claim deductions that were initially disallowed under Section 280E.

It is unclear when, or even if, cannabis will be rescheduled. The DOJ published its initial notice of proposed rulemaking on May 21, 2024, and will accept public comments until July 22, 2024. After the comment period has ended, a hearing may be held prior to finalizing the final rule. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling abandoning the Chevron doctrine also adds some doubt to the rescheduling process. Because rescheduling has proceeded as a regulatory process initiated by the agencies and not Congress, it is now more vulnerable to challenge since courts are no longer obligated to defer to the expertise of administrative agencies when considering whether regulatory actions are authorized by the applicable statute.

In a previous alert, we outlined some of the tax benefits cannabis businesses should pursue if cannabis is rescheduled.

[View source.]

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cannabis-companies-must-wait-to-seek-9940754/

Top 200 Cannabis Lawyers

We Support

Cannabis Law Journal – Contributing Authors

Editor – Sean Hocking

Author Bios

Canada
Matt Maurer – Minden Gross
Jeff Hergot – Wildboer Dellelce LLP

Costa Rica
Tim Morales – The Cannabis Industry Association Costa Rica

Nicaragua
Elvin Rodríguez Fabilena

USA

General
Julie Godard
Carl L Rowley -Thompson Coburn LLP

Arizona
Jerry Chesler – Chesler Consulting

California
Ian Stewart – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Otis Felder – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Lance Rogers – Greenspoon Marder – San Diego
Jessica McElfresh -McElfresh Law – San Diego
Tracy Gallegos – Partner – Fox Rothschild

Colorado
Adam Detsky – Knight Nicastro
Dave Rodman – Dave Rodman Law Group
Peter Fendel – CMR Real Estate Network
Nate Reed – CMR Real Estate Network

Florida
Matthew Ginder – Greenspoon Marder
David C. Kotler – Cohen Kotler

Illinois
William Bogot – Fox Rothschild

Massachusetts
Valerio Romano, Attorney – VGR Law Firm, PC

Nevada
Neal Gidvani – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder
Phillip Silvestri – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder

Tracy Gallegos – Associate Fox Rothschild

New Jersey

Matthew G. Miller – MG Miller Intellectual Property Law LLC
Daniel T. McKillop – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

New York
Gregory J. Ryan, Esq. Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Tim Nolen Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Oregon
Paul Loney & Kristie Cromwell – Loney Law Group
William Stewart – Half Baked Labs

Pennsylvania
Andrew B. Sacks – Managing Partner Sacks Weston Diamond
William Roark – Principal Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin
Joshua Horn – Partner Fox Rothschild

Washington DC
Teddy Eynon – Partner Fox Rothschild