Today, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Feinberg v. Commissioner, a case involving an ongoing and hard fought battle between the IRS and a medical marijuana dispensary, Total Health Concepts, LLC. The IRS examined THC’s 2009 through 2011 tax returns. As a result of the examination, the IRS adjusted the member taxpayers’ returns to reflect a cost of goods sold allowance in excess of the amount originally claimed on the return by reclassifying expenses that were originally claimed as below-the-line expenses. However, the IRS also disallowed expenses not reclassified as cost of goods sold. Accordingly, the IRS computed deficiencies on the member’s individual tax returns.
During earlier phases of this case, the taxpayer argued that the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to administratively determine whether petitioners committed a federal crime outside of the U.S. tax code, that section 280E as applied by the Commissioner is unconstitutional as it violates petitioners rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and that section 280E exceeds the authority granted to Congress under the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Tax Court denied the taxpayer’s request for summary judgment and compelled them to respond to IRS discovery requests. The taxpayer’s sought a writ of mandamus, seeking review of the Tax Court’s order compelling them to produce documents. The Tenth Circuit determined that if the discovery request harmed them, the proper time to address that harm would be after the Tax Court case was fully resolved. As a result, the taxpayer’s case proceeded to trial.
At trial, the taxpayer did not submit documentation to substantiate the cost of goods sold allowance or the ordinary and necessary business expenses. Instead, an expert report was submitted to substantiate a cost of goods sold allowance in excess of what the IRS allowed during the examination. The Tax Court ruled that the expert report was unreliable because it contained statements which failed to refer to underlying source information, failed to include underlying source information which the expert relied upon, and failed to include sufficient information and data to support the report’s conclusions. As a result, the expert report was inadmissible.
Next, the court looked to evidence which would support a higher cost of goods sold allowance than the allowance determined in the IRS report. Without documentation, the court concluded that the IRS determination of cost of goods sold would stand. Further, because there was no substantiation of ordinary and necessary business expenses claimed under Section 162, the court determined that it did not need to address the application of Section 280E (the code section which disallows ordinary and necessary business deductions for businesses trafficking in controlled substances).
What is the lesson here? This case provides no guidance on the limits that will be applied to cannabis companies in determining cost of goods sold. Rather, this case tells us that a cannabis company should prepare for an IRS examination the same way any other taxpayer should, by maintaining documentation to support the deductions claimed on the return and by provided that documentation when the IRS requests it. This is especially true in this case, where the court determined that “there was not enough evidence in the record to make a finding of fact that THC sold medical marijuana.” Based on this statement, if the taxpayer would have substantiated its below-the-line expenses, they would not have been subject to Section 280E, which would have been a huge win for the taxpayer.