Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Problems, Inc. v. Comm'r
128 T.C. No. 14, 2007 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 14, 128 T.C. 173 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Internal Revenue Code § 280E, a taxpayer that operates both a trade or business of trafficking in controlled substances and a separate, distinct trade or business may deduct the ordinary and necessary expenses attributable to the non-trafficking business.
Facts:
- Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc. (petitioner) was a California nonprofit public benefit corporation organized to serve members with debilitating illnesses such as AIDS and cancer.
- Petitioner had a dual purpose: its primary purpose was providing extensive caregiving services, and its secondary purpose was providing medical marijuana to its members pursuant to California state law.
- Caregiving services included support groups, daily lunches, hygiene supplies, one-on-one counseling, social events, and educational classes.
- Members paid a single membership fee that entitled them to both the caregiving services and a set amount of medical marijuana.
- Petitioner operated from multiple locations, with the main facility dedicating approximately 90% of its space to caregiving services and 10% to dispensing medical marijuana.
- Of petitioner's 25 employees, 17 were involved exclusively with the provision of caregiving services, while 7 were involved in the provision of medical marijuana; the executive director oversaw all operations.
- Petitioner's management set membership fees to approximate the combined costs of both the caregiving services and the medical marijuana provided.
- Petitioner ceased all of its activities on May 6, 2002.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner filed its 2002 Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, claiming deductions for ordinary and necessary business expenses.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent) issued a notice of deficiency disallowing all of petitioner's deductions and cost of goods sold, citing Internal Revenue Code § 280E.
- Respondent later conceded that petitioner could deduct its cost of goods sold and that the other claimed expenses were substantiated.
- Petitioner challenged the remaining disallowance of its business expense deductions by filing a petition in the U.S. Tax Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Internal Revenue Code § 280E disallow deductions for ordinary and necessary business expenses attributable to a taxpayer's legitimate trade or business of providing caregiving services if the taxpayer is also engaged in a separate trade or business of trafficking in a controlled substance?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Laro
No. Section 280E does not preclude a taxpayer from deducting expenses attributable to a trade or business other than that of illegal trafficking in controlled substances simply because the taxpayer also is involved in trafficking in a controlled substance. The court reasoned that the text and legislative history of § 280E show a clear congressional intent to disallow deductions for the trade or business of trafficking, not to deny all of a taxpayer's business expenses across multiple, distinct businesses. Providing medical marijuana, even if legal under state law, constitutes 'trafficking' for the purposes of § 280E because marijuana is a federal Schedule I controlled substance. However, the court found as a matter of fact that the petitioner's provision of extensive caregiving services was a trade or business separate and apart from its provision of medical marijuana. The caregiving business was substantial, stood on its own, was the organization's primary purpose, and was not merely incidental to the provision of marijuana. Because the petitioner operated two separate businesses, its expenses must be apportioned between them, and the ordinary and necessary expenses attributable to the caregiving business are deductible.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for businesses involved in state-legal cannabis operations. It establishes the critical precedent that § 280E's harsh disallowance of deductions applies only to the specific trade or business of trafficking, not to the taxpayer as a whole. By successfully arguing it operated a separate, non-trafficking business (caregiving), the taxpayer created a legal framework for cannabis-related companies to deduct a pro-rata share of their ordinary and necessary business expenses. This 'separate business' strategy provides a crucial, though fact-intensive, pathway for mitigating the otherwise punitive tax consequences of § 280E and has shaped the corporate structuring and accounting practices within the cannabis industry.
Unlock the full brief for Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Problems, Inc. v. Comm'r