Yesterday, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Alterman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2018-83. This case involved the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary which was reported on Schedule C. The opinion includes a long recitation of intricate accounting details that I will address on a summary basis so as to not lose readers other than accountants. Readers interested in the details should read the opinion linked above.
The important facts are as follows:
- The taxpayer sold marijuana and non-marijuana products. The sales of non-marijuana products were 1.4% of gross receipts in 2010 and 3.5% of gross receipts in 2011.
- On the tax returns, the taxpayer reduced gross receipts by cost of goods sold. The taxpayer also deducted business expenses. It does not appear based on the findings of fact that on the original return the taxpayer disallowed any expenses pursuant to Section 280E.
- It appears the amount of cost of goods sold claimed on the return was, for the most part, amounts paid for purchases of inventory and did not include production costs. At trial, the taxpayer asserted that it incurred over $100,000 of production costs each year in addition to the amounts paid for purchases of inventory.
The court found:
- The sales of non-marijuana products were complimentary to the sales of marijuana products and therefore, were not a separate trade or business. Even if the non-marijuana product sales were a separate trade or business, the record did not give the court any basis for determining the expenses attributable to the secondary business of sales of non-marijuana products.
- The court applied Section 471 to determine cost of goods sold. Section 471 allows taxpayers to include direct and indirect production costs in cost of goods sold.
- The amount of cost of goods sold conceded by the IRS, which does not appear to include production costs, was the allowable amount of cost of goods sold because the taxpayers failed to properly account for beginning and ending inventories.
- The taxpayer was negligent and subject to the negligence penalty because they did not keep adequate records to compute beginning and ending inventories or adequate books and records. Further, there was no reasonable cause because the taxpayers did not seek advice regarding inventory accounting or the application of Section 280E.
Lessons and observations:
- It is important that taxpayers subject to Section 280E use their best efforts to apply Section 280E when filing returns.
- It is important that taxpayers subject to Section 280E properly classify costs as inventory costs when filing returns and maintain beginning and ending inventories with integrity.
- It is important that taxpayers retain records needed to substantiate all accounting entries.
- The substantiation issues are not unique to the marijuana industry. However, due to high audit rates and the impact of Section 280E, the cost of the failure to substantiate is uniquely burdensome. That being said, here, it is unclear how the failure to substantiate beginning and ending inventory also creates a restriction on the production costs that should be allowed. Careful documentation and preparation of returns should overcome some of these burdens.