Connect with us

Business

Small marijuana businesses take advantage of purported 280E loophole

Published

on

A growing number of marijuana businesses are taking advantage of a tax strategy that might reduce the costly financial burden imposed by Section 280E of the federal tax code.

Small businesses with a gross income of less than $27 million are able to deduct expenses to a “near-legal” degree, according to accountants specializing in cannabis.

By one estimate, marijuana companies paid nearly $2 billion more in federal taxes than mainstream businesses.

But not all certified public accountants are on board with using the relatively new tax strategy, and they warn cannabis entrepreneurs that using it could be risky.

Section 280E currently prevents plant-touching companies from deducting many traditional business expenses because marijuana remains a Schedule 1 substance and illegal under federal law.

In recent years, a growing number of accountants and professionals specializing in cannabis discovered a small business provision within 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The provision, called Section 471(c), was designed to simplify accounting for inventory and cost of goods sold (COGS) for businesses with less than $25 million in gross income.

“For example, if a business wants to include 100% of its facility costs in its inventory calculation, it could do that if it is based on the company’s books and records,” said Justin Botillier, the founder and CEO of Oregon-based accounting firm Calyx CPA.

In other words, a cannabis retailer could include expenses associated with renting a storage facility for inventory in its cost of goods sold.

For some businesses, the tax savings from including such expenses under inventory costs can be significant.

“We can get taxes down to near-legal levels,” Botillier said in an interview with MJBizDaily.

Section 280E has been one of the toughest barriers to success for U.S. cannabis businesses.

Tax liabilities are so high for some multistate operators, they’re deferring payments while weighing the impact of penalties against the higher costs of raising capital.

Chicago-based Verano Holdings, for example, will carry a balance of roughly $250 million in taxes owed after paying about $100 million.

While Section 471(c) is helpful only to smaller companies, it “has become the single most important development for the cannabis industry,” said Nick Richards, the Denver-based partner and co-chair of cannabis law practice group at Greenspoon Marder.

Richards explained the legal background of 471(c) in a letter to the editor in a recent edition of Tax Notes, a tax-focused publication.

According to Richards, costs disallowed under Section 280E do not “disappear” – they just cannot be deducted under the old accounting methods.

But under Section 471(c), the limitations of the old accounting methods no longer apply and some of the costs can be recognized as COGS.

This creates the possibility of recapturing costs that were previously disallowed under 280E before the use of the 471(c) method.

But while a growing number of CPAs are using it, there are still a number of accountants who won’t use 471(c), arguing that 280E disallows any kind of deduction and could invite audits.

The background

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed in 2017.

Under Section 471(c), companies with a gross income of $25 million or less can choose if and how they track and report inventory (now $27 million, adjusted for inflation).

That includes capitalizing overhead, according to Botillier, meaning a business could include payroll and facility-related costs in its inventory calculation – and therefore deduct some of them from gross receipts.

Some accountants declared that “280E was dead” for small cannabis businesses – and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration took notice.

In January 2021, the IRS passed another regulation stating that anyone subject to 280E – namely, marijuana businesses – can’t use 471(c) to reduce the impact of 280E.

But some believe the IRS “overstepped,” according to Botillier.

“Fortunately, for businesses subject to 280E, the IRS does not write the tax code; Congress does,” he said.

To Richards, 471(c) can still be used by small cannabis businesses because it allows taxpayers to add ordinary and necessary business expenses – such as payroll – to COGS.

Mitigating risks

Richards said he has seen clients use 471(c) also get audited by the IRS, but, in each case, the tax agency issued “no change” letters, meaning there were no penalties issued or corrections made.

That said, Botillier warned that accountants must make correct inventory elections, include the proper disclosures and should never attempt to write off all overhead expenses to avoid 280E entirely.

“We do not recommend kicking the hornet’s nest,” he said.

Accuracy is key to disputing a tax position with the IRS, he said, so maintaining good books and records that reflect the company’s use of the 471(c) inventory methodology is essential.

Botillier also advised that accountants in the marijuana space ensure there’s a narrative for justifying the use of 471(c) – and that narrative cannot be because you’re trying to get out of 280E.

“Instead, the reason we use 471(c) is to simplify our inventory-reporting process, to avoid the complicated allocation methods we used to use prior to 471(c),” he said.

Botillier said it’s up to accountants to decide how aggressive or conservative they want to be.

“One thing is for sure,” he told MJBizDaily via email.

“Doing nothing to mitigate 280E is a mistake and very costly.”

Source: https://mjbizdaily.com/small-marijuana-businesses-take-advantage-of-purported-280e-loophole/

Business

Alleged Crores Pharma Scam Mastermind Arrested from Surat

Published

on

By

After evading law enforcement for nearly 13 years, an accused linked to a large-scale pharmaceutical fraud case has been arrested by Delhi Police from Surat, Gujarat. The suspect is alleged to have orchestrated a series of financial scams involving fake identities, forged documents, and dishonoured cheques used to procure high-value pharmaceutical raw materials.

Authorities say the accused, identified as Himmat Singh Lodha, is believed to have defrauded multiple pharmaceutical companies in Delhi of goods worth approximately ₹98 lakh before disappearing and remaining underground for years.

Fake Business Deals and Dishonoured Cheques Used in Fraud

Investigators claim the accused posed as a legitimate pharmaceutical trader and placed bulk orders for expensive drug ingredients, offering post-dated cheques as payment security.

In one documented case from 2013, he allegedly obtained around 550 kilograms of Gliclazide, a diabetes-related pharmaceutical ingredient, valued at over ₹26 lakh. When suppliers attempted to encash the cheques, they were reportedly returned with the remark “account closed.”

Following the transaction, the accused allegedly vacated his office and rented residence and disappeared without settling payments. He was later declared a proclaimed offender in 2016 after repeatedly failing to appear before court proceedings. Authorities had also issued a reward for information leading to his arrest.

Multiple Identities and Repeated Fraud Pattern

Police investigations further link the accused to another cheating case dating back to 2012, where he allegedly used a fake identity, “Kailash Jain,” to obtain a large consignment of Ambroxol HCL, a pharmaceutical compound used in cough medications. The value of that consignment was estimated at around ₹72 lakh.

Officials believe the accused followed a consistent modus operandi—posing as a credible businessman, securing high-value goods on deferred payment terms, and then disappearing after delivery while shutting down business operations.

Investigators suspect that forged business records, fake company credentials, and fabricated financial histories were used to build trust with suppliers and gain access to expensive raw materials.

Multi-State Surveillance Leads to Arrest in Surat

A special Crime Branch team tracked the accused through coordinated surveillance efforts across multiple cities, including Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Surat. After nearly a month of technical monitoring and intelligence gathering, officials located and arrested him from a residential area in Surat.

Authorities also revealed that the accused had been involved in property-related activities while staying under the radar to avoid detection.

Growing Threat of Corporate Identity Fraud

The case highlights a rising trend of organised financial fraud targeting industries that rely heavily on trust-based transactions and deferred payments. Experts note that criminals increasingly exploit gaps in corporate verification systems by using fake GST registrations, temporary offices, and forged documentation to appear legitimate.

Cybercrime and financial fraud specialists warn that such schemes are becoming more complex with the widespread availability of digital business tools, making it easier to create convincing but fraudulent corporate identities.

Experts Urge Stronger Due Diligence in High-Value Transactions

Experts, including former IPS officer and cybercrime specialist Prof. Triveni Singh, emphasize the need for stricter verification procedures in commercial dealings. He noted that relying solely on paperwork or digital business profiles can expose companies to significant financial risk.

Authorities and industry experts recommend physical verification of business operations, bank account validation, and detailed background checks before engaging in high-value or deferred-payment transactions—particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals, where single consignments can involve transactions worth crores.

Continue Reading

Business

EU Pressure Builds on Google as Regulators Face Calls for Massive Fine Over Search Practices

Published

on

By

A growing coalition of European industry groups is intensifying pressure on regulators to take decisive action against Google over allegations of unfair search practices that could reshape competition rules across the region’s digital economy.

Investigation Under Digital Markets Act Gains Momentum

The case is being examined by the European Commission under the European Union’s landmark Digital Markets Act (DMA), introduced to curb the dominance of major technology platforms and ensure fair competition.

Launched in March 2024, the investigation focuses on whether Google has been prioritising its own services in search results, potentially disadvantaging rival businesses that rely on online visibility to reach customers.

Industry Groups Demand Swift Action

Several prominent European organizations have jointly urged regulators to conclude the probe without further delay. They argue that prolonged investigations allow alleged anti-competitive practices to continue, putting European companies—especially startups—at a disadvantage.

Signatories include the European Publishers Council, the European Magazine Media Association, the European Tech Alliance, and EU Travel Tech.

In a joint statement, these groups warned that delays in enforcement are affecting innovation, profitability, and growth prospects for regional businesses competing in digital markets.

Google Denies Allegations

Google has rejected claims of bias, stating that its search algorithms are designed to deliver the most relevant and useful results to users. The company has also proposed adjustments to address regulatory concerns.

However, critics argue that these changes are insufficient and fail to address the core issue of market dominance.

Potential Billion-Euro Penalties

If found in violation of the DMA, Google could face significant financial penalties. Under EU rules, fines can reach a substantial percentage of a company’s global turnover, potentially amounting to billions of euros.

Regulators may also impose corrective measures requiring changes to business practices, which could have long-term implications for how digital platforms operate in Europe.

Wider Implications for Big Tech

The case highlights ongoing tensions between European regulators and major U.S. technology firms. In recent years, the EU has taken a more aggressive stance in enforcing competition laws, aiming to create a level playing field for local businesses.

A final ruling against Google could set a major precedent, influencing future enforcement actions and shaping the regulatory landscape for global tech companies operating within Europe.

As scrutiny intensifies, the outcome of the investigation is expected to play a critical role in defining the future of digital competition across the European Union.

Continue Reading

AI & Technology

Amazon Faces Potential Criminal Trial in Italy Over €1.2 Billion Tax Evasion Allegations

Published

on

By

Milan: U.S. tech giant Amazon is facing the prospect of a major legal showdown in Italy, after prosecutors in Milan formally requested a court to move forward with criminal proceedings over alleged tax evasion totaling approximately ₹12,500 crore (€1.2 billion).

The case targets Amazon’s European division along with four senior executives, marking one of the most significant tax-related investigations involving a global e-commerce platform in Europe.

Trial Push Despite Multi-Million Euro Settlement

The move comes even after Amazon reached a financial settlement with Italian tax authorities in December, agreeing to pay around ₹5,500 crore (€527 million), including interest, to resolve part of the dispute.

Typically, such settlements lead to the closure of criminal investigations. However, Milan prosecutors have opted to proceed, signaling a tougher stance on alleged corporate tax violations.

A preliminary hearing is expected in the coming months, where a judge will decide whether to formally indict the company and its executives or dismiss the case.

Allegations of VAT Evasion Through Marketplace Sellers

At the center of the investigation are claims that Amazon’s platform enabled non-European Union sellers to avoid paying value-added tax (VAT) on goods sold to Italian consumers between 2019 and 2021.

Prosecutors allege that the company’s marketplace structure allowed thousands of foreign vendors—many reportedly based in China—to operate without fully disclosing their identities or tax obligations. This, authorities argue, led to substantial VAT losses for the Italian government.

Under Italian law, online platforms facilitating sales can be held partially liable if third-party sellers fail to comply with tax requirements, a key point in the prosecution’s case.

Italian Government Named as Affected Party

In their filing, prosecutors identified Italy’s Economy Ministry as the injured party, citing significant financial damage resulting from the alleged tax evasion.

Legal experts say the outcome of the case could have wide-ranging implications across the European Union, where VAT systems are harmonized and similar compliance rules apply to digital marketplaces.

Multiple Investigations Add to Pressure

The VAT probe is just one of several legal challenges facing Amazon in Italy. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office is reportedly examining additional tax-related issues covering more recent years.

Meanwhile, Milan authorities are pursuing separate investigations into alleged customs fraud linked to imports from China and whether Amazon maintained an undeclared “permanent establishment” in Italy—potentially exposing it to higher tax liabilities.

In a separate regulatory action, Italy’s data protection authority recently ordered an Amazon unit to stop using personal data from over 1,800 employees at a warehouse near Rome.

Amazon Denies Allegations

Amazon has consistently denied wrongdoing and indicated it will strongly contest the allegations in court if the case proceeds. The company has also warned that prolonged legal uncertainty could impact investor confidence and Italy’s appeal as a destination for international business.

Broader Impact on Europe’s Digital Economy

If the case moves to trial, it could become a landmark moment for the regulation of global e-commerce platforms in Europe. Governments across the region are increasingly scrutinizing how digital marketplaces handle tax compliance, especially in cross-border transactions.

With online retail continuing to expand, regulators are under mounting pressure to ensure that multinational platforms and third-party sellers adhere to the same tax rules as traditional businesses.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 420 Reports Marijuana News & Information Website | Reefer News | Cannabis News