Tax Court Decision Another Blow to Medical Marijuana Industry


The recent Tax Court decision, Alterman v. Commissioner, struck yet another tax blow against the growing medical marijuana industry.

Though variations of medical and recreational marijuana programs have been legalized in a majority of the states, marijuana still remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.  Section 280E of the tax code denies deductions for expenses paid or incurred in the carrying on of any trade or business involving a federal controlled substance.  As a result, the Internal Revenue Service’s position is that any business that deals with marijuana cannot deduct their operating expenses (including employee salaries).  Thus, even if a business is operating in full compliance with applicable state regulations on marijuana, the Internal Revenue Service can still deny deductions for typical business expenses like rent, utilities, and employee wages.  The result is that medical marijuana businesses have taxable income far in excess of their actual profits, which can drastically impact the viability of this industry.  Because of this impact, several taxpayers in the medical marijuana industry have attempted to ignore or challenge the interpretation of the Section 280E prohibition, so far unsuccessfully.

The Internal Revenue Service’s application of Section 280E has been upheld by the Tax Court previously in Canna Care Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-206, and yet again two days ago in Alterman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2018-83.  Furthermore, the Tax Court in Alterman upheld the imposition of a 20% tax penalty on the taxpayer for the underpayment of the tax liability resulting from the deductions taken despite the Section 280E prohibition.  As a result, the taxpayer not only had to pay taxes on taxable income in excess of actual profits, the taxpayer also had to pay an additional 20% as a penalty for their initial failure to follow 280E.  Any businesses dealing with medical or recreational marijuana should consider carefully the impact of Section 280E, ignoring it will certainly be at their peril.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read here. Please review the full disclaimer for more information. Relying on the information provided in this article or communicating with Lowndes through our website does not create an attorney/client relationship.

Jump to Page

We use cookies on our website to improve functionality and collect statistical information on our website traffic. For details on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. This type of cookie does not collect any personally identifiable information about you and does not track your browsing habits. You may disable necessary cookies by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies (also known as performance cookies) help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage at an aggregate level. You may disable analytical cookies by clicking on the Manage Cookies button.