IRS 280E and Cannabis Businesses
What is IRS Section 280E?
Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code restricts businesses from deducting typical business expenses from their gross income related to the distribution of Schedule I or II substances per the Controlled Substances Act.
But you still have to pay taxes on it.
Komorn Law PLLC: Your Partner in Strategic Growth
At Komorn Law PLLC, we understand the importance of aligning business strategies with the latest regulatory and tax developments. Our expertise in cannabis law enables us to provide tailored advice that anticipates shifts in the regulatory landscape and leverages them for our clients’ benefit. We encourage cannabis businesses to consult with our team to navigate these changes effectively, ensuring they are positioned to capitalize on new opportunities in a more favorable legal environment.
Strategic Tax Planning for Cannabis Businesses in the New Regulatory Era
As legal professionals at Komorn Law PLLC deeply engaged with the evolving landscape of cannabis law, we are at the forefront of advising and representing businesses navigating these changes.
The recent recommendation by Attorney General Merrick Garland to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance marks a pivotal shift, promising significant legal and financial implications for the industry.
Decoding the Reclassification Benefits
Cannabis, currently grouped with substances like heroin under Schedule I, has faced disproportionately stringent regulations. This reclassification to Schedule III, which includes less stringently controlled substances such as ketamine and testosterone, rectifies a longstanding regulatory misalignment. It acknowledges cannabis’s lower risk compared to many Schedule II drugs that have contributed to widespread public health issues.
For cannabis businesses, the most immediate benefit of this shift is the potential alleviation from the severe limitations imposed by Internal Revenue Code Section 280E. Currently, businesses involved with Schedule I substances are denied the ability to deduct typical business expenses, drastically increasing their tax burden. The reclassification promises to normalize tax treatments, significantly reducing effective tax rates and enhancing overall business profitability.
Navigating Beyond IRC 280E
While overcoming IRC 280E is a significant victory, it is just one piece of the tax puzzle for cannabis businesses. Many such businesses operate as C corporations, subjecting them to a flat 21% federal income tax rate on profits, with an additional tax on dividends paid to shareholders. This double taxation framework can lead to an effective tax rate nearing 44.8% at the federal level alone, not including potential state and local taxes.
Given the inherent tax challenges in the C corporation structure, especially regarding asset sales, Komorn Law PLLC advises a strategic reassessment of business structures. The sale of assets by a C corporation incurs federal, state, and local taxes on gains, followed by further taxation of the distributed dividends, compounding the financial burden.
Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive
Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive. Critics call it ‘utter nonsense’Haley Butler-Moore sped up to pass a semi on the highway when she suddenly saw the police lights. She’d left Albuquerque hours earlier, heading to a Halloween party in Denver. Tired...
Cannabis – The Rise and Fall and Trail of Survivors Pile Up
Thieves make off with 1,000 pounds of premium flower in cannabis from a corporate grower in Michigan. Then, the GM sells off 650+ pounds to pay employees.The recent theft of over 1,000 pounds of marijuana from 305 Farms, a corporate cannabis grower in West Michigan,...
Advising on Strategic Business Realignments
With the regulatory changes on the horizon, it’s critical for cannabis businesses to reevaluate their entity structure. Transitioning from a C corporation to an S corporation or a partnership offers several advantages, primarily the elimination of double taxation on distributions. This can be significantly more tax-efficient, particularly when considering the sale or transfer of business assets.
For businesses anticipating an increase in value following the reclassification, it is crucial to implement these structural changes before this appreciation occurs. Such proactive adjustments can optimize tax efficiencies and enhance the business’s long-term financial health.
Contact Komorn Law for More Insight
At Komorn Law we specialize in cannabis law, providing strategic advice that anticipates regulatory shifts and leverages them for our clients’ advantage.
Consult with our team to navigate changes effectively and position yourself to capitalize on new opportunities in a more favorable legal environment.
- Major Financial Association And 44 State Partners Demand Marijuana Banking Vote
- Justice Department Submits Proposal to Reschedule Marijuana
- DEA – AG Miss Deadline to Respond on Cannabis Rescheduling
- The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification
- Proposed Rule Seeks to Move Marijuana from CS I to CS III
Other Articles
When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation?
US Supreme Court - Salinas v. TexasWhen Can Silence Be Used Against You? In the realm of criminal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals critical protections, including the right to remain silent and the right against...
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term...
Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests
Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights
Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...