Recommendations on the best travel weed gear are made by Leafly Picks editors after firsthand tests, extensive research, and internal debate. If you buy through links on this page, we may earn a small commission. Jetsetting. Galavanting. Roamin’ and ramblin’. Whatever you call getting from here to there, it’s better with weed, and we’re here […]
The post The best travel weed gear of 2026 appeared first on Leafly.
Mother's Day and Memorial Day weekend fall back-to-back, which means you have two excellent excuses to shop for CBD, delta-9, and THCA.
The post Celebrate moms and Memorial Day with these CBD, delta-9, and THCA deals appeared first on Leafly.
Since acting Attorney General Todd Blanch announced that state-legal medical marijuana would move to Schedule III, the commentary has been relentless — hot takes, doomsayers, and self-proclaimed experts flooding LinkedIn with conflicting interpretations. Much of it is speculative, overstated, and uneducated. This piece cuts through the noise and responds to the questions I have fielded the most about state medical programs.
The DOJ order shifts state-legal medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III and establishes an optional DEA registration framework through which state-licensed operators may seek to participate. The confusion, on whether registration is mandatory, stems from confusion over two federal provisions: (1) 21 USC 811(d)(1)— a provision that suddenly everyone claims to understand, but few actually do; and (2) 26 USC 280E.
It largely didn’t for industry, until now. The industry spent years chasing legislative solutions, whether full legalization, SAFE Banking, or uplisting. This provision sat ignored, despite a handful of us arguing its importance. Legal and policy wonks like me were talking about 811(d)(1) to any operators and industry associations who would listen. All of them brushed us aside. Ironically, many operators who ignored us then are unlikely to obtain the maximum benefits from it now.
21 USC 811(d)(1) allows the Attorney General to “issue an order controlling such drug” if doing so is required by U.S. obligations under the Single Convention. There is an important distinction between that language and what actually occurred: that is, DEA didn’t reschedule a “drug”; instead, it rescheduled a program. Further, under U.S. law, what constitutes a “drug” is a determination to be made by FDA under the Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act. These are likely two of the main arguments Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) will make in its forthcoming litigation.
No, it does not. Tax code 280E prohibits deduction and credits for any trade or business trafficking in Schedule I or II substances. The order includes the following: “as a consequence of this rule, state licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E.” Further, “[t]he final rule places in schedule III . . . marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license.”
IRC 280E says nothing about DEA registration. The only qualification for schedule III placement, is that marijuana is subject to a state medical marijuana reprogram. Therefore, whether a state license operators is DEA registered is not a factor in whether it is operating with a schedule III substance. Only its state legality and license matters. For more information on the tax implications of this final rule, please read Vince Sliwoski’s blog post last week.
This question should be the first one operators ask , but surprisingly, it rarely is. If SAM, or anyone else challenging this rescheduling order prevails, all of this will be for naught. As noted above, there are substantial legal questions as to whether DEA exceeded its authority in issuing this order. I believe there is greater than a 50% chance that this order is stayed and ultimately overturned. It is not 100% certain, however, which is why I recently published a blog post calling DEA registration a “Calculated Risk.” If you already have a medical license and all that is required is $10,000–$15,000 to hire an attorney and apply for registration, you have much better odds than playing Powerball or going to Vegas.
This depends on who you ask. The U.S. has maintained for years that international drug treaty obligations do not apply to state-licensed programs. That position, vocalized by Patt Prugh at the 2024 CND (though the video has since been removed), has not been refuted under this administration. The U.S. position is that the international drug treaties “take a ‘highly respectful’ stance toward member states’ domestic policies,” and much of those obligations apply, subject to each member state’s constitutional limits.
Even with the recent rescheduling order, state-licensed medical operators without DEA registration remain federally illegal and fall outside treaty scope (though this is a heavily contested issue within the international treaty community). In the face of Canada and Uruguay legalizing recreational marijuana, the Netherlands’ coffee shop model, and the Dutch and Swiss scientific adult-use pilot programs, it is difficult to argue that applying the Single Convention’s constitutional limitation to state-legal, non-DEA-registered medical marijuana programs is inappropriate. Under the U.S.’ current position, only those operators that join the federal DEA registration apparatus would be required to comply with U.S. treaty obligations. Whether DEA will take this stance, however, is unknown. Under the rescheduling order’s wording, DEA could certainly apply those obligations to state-legal, but non-DEA-registered, operators. That said, enforcing these obligations would be a nightmare for DEA. Where will the funding and staffing come from?
Unevenly. Medical-only states stand to benefit most. Dual-license states, those with both medical and adult-use programs, face a harder path. The DEA application asks directly: “Will your firm be handling or dispensing recreational marijuana?” It would make sense if an honest “yes” results in denial. A fraudulent “no” would likely lead to worse.
There is no way DEA has the staff to personally review all applications, let alone implement the program commenced in the order. As such, it is likely DEA will take two steps to aid in review: (1) launch an initial AI review of all applications; and (2) deny as many applications as possible. Denying an application because the applicant also handles recreational marijuana seems obvious. That said, if you are a dual licensee, I still think it’s worth applying, just in case I am wrong.
Interstate transfers between DEA registrants are theoretically possible, but FDA has not clarified whether they are permissible under the Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act. Until it does, such transfers carry legal risk. Enforcement discretion may fill the gap in practice, but operators should not rely on that.
Possibly. Internal transfers between a company’s own registered locations may not constitute a “sale” or “marketing” activity under the FDCA, potentially keeping federal food and drug law out of the picture. If so, state law governs what can ultimately be sold. Transfers between separately owned DEA registrations in different states, would remain subject to the FDC&A, so FDA guidance on this will be important. All of this remains unsettled, and operators should seek counsel before acting on that assumption.
State law controls DEA registration indirectly. Registration requires a valid state license. If a state enforces a ban on interstate transport through license suspension or revocation, federal authorization goes with it. Operators need to map their state-level exposure before pursuing DEA registration. If the importing state denies that transport, Dormant Commerce Clause implications would certainly follow. If the exporting state prohibits such transfers, however, it remains unclear whether the Dormant Commerce Clause would apply. What is clear is that in states where legislation has already legalized interstate transport, such transfers will likely carry far less legal uncertainty upon federal legality.
In limbo. The order does not clearly address tribal eligibility for DEA registration. The application references tribal law violations, but stops short of recognizing tribal licenses as a valid basis for registration. Tribal operators should consider applying while simultaneously pursuing advocacy. Waiting for clarity may mean waiting indefinitely.
21 CFR 1318 applies treaty obligations to DEA registrants operating with marijuana, so this section will certainly apply. The rescheduling order largely punts other requirements to state medical marijuana programs, leaving operators without a clear roadmap. DEA has promulgated an extensive body of regulations applicable to controlled substances and those who handle them (see 21 CFR 1300 et seq.) and it is not yet clear which of those regulations will be required of registered state-licensed operators, and which will be displaced by state law requirements.
What DEA has clarified, at least in part, is that holding a valid state license will allow registrants to bypass much of 21 CFR 1301, the section governing the registration process itself. Beyond that carve-out, however, the picture remains murky.
For now, operators pursuing registration are effectively agreeing to enter a federal regulatory framework without knowing its full contours. This is another dimension of the calculated risk that registration represents.
Presumably, state-legal medical operators have been filing taxes since inception, so responding to this question in the application will not suddenly make anything newly known to the federal government. Is it a risk? Yes. But is it more of a risk than what state-legal operators have already been doing? I don’t think so.
One thing all operators should do is ensure their employees (down to the budtenders) are comfortable with their names and Social Security numbers being provided to DEA. An operator can make this disclosure a condition of employment, but they should give employees advance notice and the option to leave if they prefer not to be disclosed. Disclosing without such notice could lead to legal liability.
Very little has changed. Medical marijuana patients remain federally illegal because the drug has not received FDA approval. Until further guidance is issued, patients should proceed as if the order does not exist: do not travel across state or international borders with marijuana, and understand that restrictions on housing and firearm ownership remain fully in effect.
I believe this order makes it less likely that Congress will pass an amendment or extend the effective date of the hemp ban. Many Republicans already oppose reversing the ban, and rescheduling has not helped. I believe many will stand firm in opposing any changes, simply as a stand against this rescheduling move by the Administration.
The bottom line: rescheduling is meaningful, but its practical impact is narrow, uneven, and still developing. Anyone telling you otherwise is getting ahead of the facts. If you are navigating these questions and want an objective, experienced perspective from practitioners who have been working through these issues for years — not weeks — we are happy to offer a free consultation. Reach out to our team anytime.
The post Medical Marijuana Rescheduling Q&A: Cutting Through the Noise appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Your May 2026 horoscopes arrive with intense, volatile energy, kicking off a month marked by emotional reactivity and deep introspection.
The post Star signs and cannabis strains: May 2026 horoscopes appeared first on Leafly.
For state-licensed medical marijuana operators, a narrow and potentially transformative window has opened–one that could position your business for future interstate and even global trade.
While the Acting Attorney General’s rescheduling order is likely to face legal challenges, the immediate reality is this: you have a 60-day opportunity to act. As of yesterday, April 28, state medical marijuana licensees may apply for DEA registration to manufacture (this includes cultivation and limited processing), to distribute, and to dispense medical marijuana.
The DEA dispensary application portal is already live, and applications for manufacturing and distribution are expected to follow the standard DEA Form 225 process.
We are not certain whether this framework will survive judicial review, and if so, to what extent. What is clear, however, is that only applicants who submit within this initial 60-day window are positioned for expedited review, which is to occur within six months of an applicant’s submission. The rescheduling order provides no guidance on future application rounds or timelines, leaving significant ambiguity for those who wait.
In practical terms, this creates a first-mover advantage. If DEA registration ultimately becomes the gateway to a federally recognized, and potentially global, medical cannabis market, early applicants will be best positioned to participate.
We describe this as a “lottery ticket” not because it is speculative, but because it requires an upfront investment with uncertain outcomes. Engaging experienced counsel and preparing a compliant application typically involves costs in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 (including the DEA fee), with additional costs depending on complexity, scope, and the number of DEA registrations sought. The bet is $10,000-$15,000 for a potential upside opportunity into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
For those prepared to move forward, we can help you navigate this process efficiently and strategically. Our team is one of very few that is experienced in DEA registrations. We can:
If you are considering pursuing DEA registration during this window, we encourage you to connect with our team to discuss your options. We are available to provide a complimentary consultation and help you evaluate whether this opportunity aligns with your business strategy.
___________
For recent posts on the rescheduling order, check out the following:
The post A Calculated Bet: DEA Registration is Open, and the Clock is Ticking appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
The DOJ Final Order on marijuana rescheduling dropped last week. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche ordered that “FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana, as well [as] marijuana in any form covered by a state medical marijuana licensing, be placed in Schedule III of the CSA.”
The Order went further than many of us anticipated. It also includes a short section on “Tax Implications.” Here is that section, in whole:
“The Acting Attorney General further notes that, as a consequence of this rule, state licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies only to businesses engaged in ‘trafficking in controlled substances . . . in a schedule I or II,’ 26 U.S.C. § 280E. Nothing in this rule constitutes a determination regarding federal tax liability, and qualifying state licensees should consult with tax counsel regarding the applicability of Section 280E to their specific circumstances.”
There is plenty to unpack in that paragraph.
The Order doesn’t define “state licensee.” However, “state medical marijuana license” is now defined at 21 CFR § 1300.01 as:
“a license issued by a state entity (or by a District of Columbia entity or a federal territorial entity) authorizing the licensee to manufacture, distribute, and/or dispense marijuana or products that contain marijuana for medical purposes.”
Taxpayers holding these licenses, presumably, are “state licensees.” Many of these medical marijuana sellers may finally escape the stifling grasp of Section 280E.
Reader, I said “may.”
In states that allow only medical marijuana (e.g. Florida, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania), things appear straightforward: that is, state-licensed operators have become 280E-exempt under the Order. The marijuana being produced, processed, transferred and sold in these states all goes to cardholders—at least theoretically—and all of that marijuana is now in schedule III.
In states with adult-use programs, the analysis could be complex. All states with adult-use marijuana programs also have medical marijuana programs. Most of these states have blended their programs to varying degrees. In some states, a plant may begin in the adult-use CTS, grown by a non-medical licensee, but evolve into a medical marijuana item somewhere along the supply chain. The resulting product may or may not be more potent, will likely be packaged differently, and may or may not be taxed. Invariably, though, it is transferred or sold to a medical marijuana cardholder. It has undergone a definitional transformation, if not a physical one.
The licensees in these mixed supply chains may be adult-use licensees, with “endorsements” or “registrations” or other permissions to create or handle medical marijuana products. At the grow level, the distinction is virtually meaningless—a marijuana plant is just a marijuana plant, after all. But, are these hybrid operators “state licensees” within the meaning of the Order? They handle medical marijuana, but they also traffic in non-medical marijuana. They may or may not segregate inputs; they may or may not segregate outputs. You can see where I’m going with this.
In this respect, DOJ stays in its lane. Further along, though, the Order repeats the paragraph on Section 280E that I quoted above, adding one striking sentence:
“The Administrator encourages the Secretary of the Treasury to consider providing retrospective relief from Section 280E liability for taxable years in which a state licensee operated under a state medical marijuana license.”
Retrospective relief from Section 280E would be the ultimate prize for many marijuana businesses, short of an entrée to interstate commerce. The possibility is utterly tantalizing. Could it actually happen?
It could, although the Treasury need not heed the “retrospective relief” suggestion. It operates independent of DOJ in the executive branch. That said, the IRS has granted retrospective relief to taxpayers on numerous occasions, most recently last month in relation to OBBA tax credits. OBBA was signed into law in July of 2025, yet the IRS will allow taxpayers to amend returns as far back as 2022 for purposes of making certain elections.
However the Service proceeds, marijuana taxpayers would be wise to heed the Order’s advice to consult with tax counsel. An exception involves tax counsel who argue that Section 280E doesn’t apply to any marijuana businesses whatsoever. In that case, please read this.
I’ll be watching three things.
First, I’ll be watching for Treasury guidance. On Thursday, April 23, the Treasury and IRS promptly announced such guidance is forthcoming. The press release forecasts “a transition rule providing that, for purposes of Section 280E, rescheduling generally will be considered to first apply for a business’s full taxable year that includes the effective date of the Final Order…”. For most marijuana businesses, that will be calendar year 2026.
Second, I’ll be watching for litigation. The Order will be litigated. The fundamental question is whether DOJ exceeded its authority in issuing the Order. Challengers will argue, inter alia, that 1) the Order undercut an ongoing rescheduling process, not yet withdrawn; 2) that the Order’s heavy reliance on international treaty compliance, and specifically, its permissive reading of a 2024 Office of Legal Counsel opinion on that issue, is flawed; and 3) that the bifurcation of marijuana into medical and non-medical channels by DOJ, outside of FDA purview, is statutorily incoherent.
Third, I’ll be watching for adult use rescheduling. In its press release announcing the Order, DOJ announced it would also “expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it in Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.” This rulemaking would apply to all marijuana, and not just medical marijuana. DOJ says DEA will “commence a new administrative hearing beginning June 26, 2026.” How that would work in an agency that no longer has any administrative law judges is a very good question. We’ll save that for another day.
For now, medical marijuana is in schedule III. State licensees should watch these further developments, but also focus on things that they can control. These include: 1) consulting with tax counsel; 2) revisiting accounting practices, especially where allocations to medical marijuana may be distinguishable from allocations to non-medical marijuana; and 3) recall that local tax laws still apply, including state laws limiting certain deductions for all marijuana businesses.
The post Marijuana Rescheduling and Income Tax appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
The Acting Attorney General is getting the ball rolling on the rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3, earning praise from the cannabis industry.
The post Department of Justice makes good on Trump’s rescheduling order appeared first on Leafly.
The U.S. has joined much of the world in acknowledging medical marijuana. Let international trading begin!
Effective April 22, 2026, the Attorney General “hereby order[s] that FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana, as well marijuana in any form covered by a state medical marijuana license, be placed in schedule III of the CSA.” Based on this order, the United States acknowledges medical marijuana and has a fully functioning medical marijuana program (via state licensees). The final order applies to: (a) marijuana as listed in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(23), (b) marijuana extracts as defined in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(58), and (c) naturally occurring Delta-9-THC derived from the marijuana plant (other than the mature stalks and seeds). The order does not reschedule all marijuana. Any marijuana or marijuana extract not covered by this order (i.e. state-legal adult-use marijuana) remains in schedule I and will be subject to a new rescheduling hearing scheduled for June 29, 2026 at 9 a.m. ET.
This order went much further than expected. I wrote last year about the limits of moving marijuana to schedule III, and how such a move would not legalize state-licensees without regulatory change. This order does just that. It amends DEA regulations to legalize state licensees. Whether such amendments will withstand judicial scrutiny remains to be seen.
As I wrote about previously, all it took to reschedule was a press release and stroke of a pen. Although, it was not so much a stroke of a pen as a 23-page order outlining the current move and future process. This move does not appear to place marijuana in Schedule III; rather, it places certain formulations of marijuana in schedule III–namely FDA approved products and, more impactfully, medical marijuana products that “are subject to a state-issued license to manufacture, distribute, and/or dispense marijuana products containing marijuana for medical purposes.”
It is important to note that this is a final order being issued under 21 USC 811(d)(1) and not a proposed rule. Section 811(d)(1) allows the Attorney General to reschedule a substance if doing so would place the U.S. in better alignment with its international treaty obligations. I have written about this many times over the years, and provided position papers to DEA on utilizing this mechanism. Using 811(d)(1), the DOJ and DEA are not required to obtain a recommendation from HHS, though one was provided in 2023.
In its order, DEA also takes pains to highlight the HHS findings in its 2023 recommendation, supporting today’s move, even though such support is not needed. The acting Attorney General stated that “[a]lthough I am not required to consider this HHS recommendation when issuing an order under section 811(d)(1), because I believe there are several legally viable scheduling options that would satisfy the United States’ obligations under the Single Convention . . . . I exercise my discretion in determining the most appropriate schedule by choosing the option that most closely aligns to HHS’s findings and best position the United States to carry out its obligations under the Single Convention.”
The final order establishes an expedited registration process under 21 CFR 1301 for state-licensed medical marijuana entities to register for a DEA license to manufacture, distribute, and dispense marijuana for medical purposes under federal law. This means that state licensed medical marijuana operators will be permitted to apply for DEA registrations, something DEA has prohibited in the past.
The Attorney General determined that state-licensed regulatory systems have developed robust infrastructure for preventing diversion, ensuring product safety, proper record retention, and proper facility inspections, all of which fulfill the objectives of federal registration and recordkeeping requirements. Taken as a whole, these systems “demonstrate a sustained capacity to achieve the public-interest objectives that underlie the CSA’s registration framework, including protecting public health and safety and preventing the diversion of controlled substances into illicit channels.” As such, the Attorney General determined that “incorporating state licensing systems into the federal registration framework represents the most effective and efficient means of achieving the CSA’s objectives.” The Attorney General and DEA preserve authority, however, to deny or revoke registration where specific public interest concerns arise, and to ensure compliance with the Single Convention.
Based on this state-federal partnership, DEA will amend part 1301 of its regulations to provide an expedited review process under which state licensees may submit their existing state credentials as conclusive evidence of state authorization to receive DEA registration for manufacturing, distribution, and dispensaries. Importantly, the DEA must grant registration unless doing so would be inconsistent with the public interest under 21 USC 823 factors or under the Single Convention. Applications submitted within 60 days of publication must be processed within six months, and early applicants may lawfully operate under their state-issued license during the pendency of review.
State registrants may also rely on state-law labeling, packaging, disposal, and physical security requirements in lieu of the federal requirements, subject to inclusion of the statutory warning label required by 21 USC 825(c).
The following outlines the schedule III regulatory requirements that now apply “for those who handle marijuana exclusively in the form of an FDA-approved drug product”:
As I have argued along with colleagues, this move to schedule III will also require amending DEA’s regulations to account for US obligations under the Single Convention with marijuana being moved into Schedule III. In DOJ’s final order, it acknowledged the same, stating that “DEA must simultaneously amend the regulations to require a permit to import or export such products.”
This order specifically states that “this order amends the DEA regulations (21 CFR 1312.30) to add FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and state-licensed medical marijuana to the list of nonnarcotic schedule III through V controlled substances that are subject to the import and export permit requirement.” Registering with the DEA will allow state licenses to potentially access the international market, as DEA registrants can apply for and receive import and export licenses. Another important amendment is that DEA addressed its regulatory definition of “medicinal cannabis,” which DEA created out of thin air, to exempt state legal medical marijuana from the requirement that medicinal cannabis be FDA approved and legal to market under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Registration with the DEA will be essential for state medical marijuana licensees, because DEA will be responsible for purchasing and selling the marijuana grown by state licensees as required by DEA’s regulations and the Single Convention. “By maintaining in schedule I all unlicensed marijuana, bulk marijuana, and any marijuana or marijuana extract that has not yet been incorporated into a FDA-approved drug product, and by requiring that state-licensed marijuana satisfy the requirements relating to the purchase and sale of marijuana by DEA, the United States will continue to meet these obligations without disruption or delay.”
The rule also establishes a nominal price purchase-and-resale mechanism through which the DEA acquires and resells registered manufacturers’ marijuana crops, to satisfy Single Convention requirements. Query: do we really expect DEA to take possession of all flower sales within state systems? As the order is written, registered manufacturers must store crops in DEA maintained facilities until the transaction is complete, and each registrant must provide DEA information on the exact location where medical marijuana is cultivated.
Researchers who obtain marijuana or marijuana derived products from state licensees for use in scientific research are shielded from civil and criminal liability under the CSA, provided that the researcher is registered with the DEA. This now allows for state medical marijuana and products to be researched.
The order acknowledges that state medical licensees will no longer be subject to I.R.C. 280E, but does not make a determination on their tax status and suggests they speak to a tax consultant when making their tax determination. It goes on further to encourage the “Secretary of Treasury to consider providing retrospective relief from Section 280E liability for taxable years in which a state licensee operated under a state medical marijuana license.” Importantly, 280E will likely be a nightmare for those operating in dual licensing states where both adult-use and medical often operate under once license. Many operators, including the large multi-state operators, do not keep distinct records. Since only licensed medical operations qualify for 280E relief, unless these companies can separate their books–and in some cases their licenses–they will likely remain subject to 280E.
This order does not apply to: (1) anything that does not fall into the FDA-approved marijuana; (2) any products and operators not licensed by a state’s medical marijuana program; (3) synthetically derived THC (e.g. delta-10 THC) which remains in schedule I; and (4) Any hemp product exceeding 0.4mg after November 12th. Anyone dealing with non-FDA approved medical marijuana or state licensed medical marijuana will remain in violation of federal law as it relates to a schedule I controlled substance.
It appears that current DEA registrants manufacturing bulk marijuana will also remain in Schedule I, since they are neither FDA approved nor legalized under state legal medical marijuana programs.
Some outstanding questions remain. For instance, as a discuss above re: 280E, how will dual licensees that provide both adult-use and medical marijuana be treated? For example, in Arizona marijuana sold as adult-use or medical is not designated as such until the point of sale. How will medical marijuana versus the adult-use be tracked for schedule III, and more importantly, 280E purposes? One thing is likely certain: those operating in these dual licensed states that comingle medical and adult-use marijuana (whether through inventory or via the company’s books) will almost certainly be ineligible for the early expedited DEA registration discussed above.
The Attorney Generals order does not reschedule all marijuana. Anything not included in this order will be subject to a new administrative law hearing, which is scheduled to commence on June 29, 2026, at 9 a.m. ET. The result of this hearing will determine whether all “marijuana” is moved into schedule III.
DEA does acknowledge in footnote thirty-nine that if any of the order is found illegal, the rest of the provisions shall remain. This acknowledges the reality that litigation will certainly ensue–if it hasn’t already. Smart Approaches to Marijuana will certainly bring litigation challenging the Attorney general and DEA’s authority to issue this order and the rules related to it. While the Attorney General’s Authority to reschedule a substance under 811(d)(1) is clear, its ability to amend operational and registration regulations under the same authority is not as clear. We will be keeping a close eye on this as things progress and will publish updates as they occur.
In the meantime, if you are a state licensed medical marijuana operator, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our team about DEA registration. Further, if you are a foreign medical marijuana operator looking to explore US opportunities, they finally exist (at least for now).
____
For previous insights on marijuana rescheduling, please check out these blog posts:
The post The U.S. Opens Its Medical Marijuana Market to Global Trade (For Now); Adult Use Rescheduling on Deck appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
If you are thinking about growing Hash Burger, look no further; this guide has all you need to know.
The post How to grow Hash Burger seeds, Leafly Strain of the Year 2025 appeared first on Leafly.
From gummies, sips, and fast-acting shooters, we’ve rounded up great deals, limited drops, bundles, and standout products to help you celebrate the big day.
The post CBD, delta-9, and hemp THCA 420 deals to make the most of the big day appeared first on Leafly.
Harris Sliwoski is pleased to announce that Christian Sederberg has joined the firm as Of Counsel. Based in our Denver, Colorado office, Christian brings decades of experience advising businesses, policymakers, and industry leaders across a range of complex regulatory and transactional matters, with a particular focus on the cannabis industry.
Christian is widely recognized as a leading voice in cannabis law and policy. He has worked at the forefront of the industry’s development, advising clients on business formation, corporate governance, real estate, financing, and regulatory compliance in an evolving legal landscape. His experience spans both domestic and international markets, allowing him to guide clients navigating cross-border opportunities and challenges.
In addition to his client work, Christian has played a meaningful, public role in shaping cannabis policy in the United States and abroad. He has held numerous leadership roles, including: serving on the board of the National Cannabis Industry Association; serving as Chairman of the Board and Interim CEO of the Cannabis Trade Federation; and serving as Chairman of the Board of the United States Cannabis Council. In 2010, he also co-founded Vicente Sederberg LLP (now Vicente LLP) and served as its managing partner for more than a decade.
At Harris Sliwoski, Christian will continue advising entrepreneurs, established companies, and international operators on strategic growth, compliance, and risk management. His addition further strengthens the firm’s cannabis and regulatory practices–particularly as global markets continue to expand and mature.
Welcome, Christian!
The post Harris Sliwoski Welcomes Christian Sederberg appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Meet ALTERD: the new app to help you explore higher states of mind.
The post How ALTERD helps you expand your mind through intentional cannabis consumption appeared first on Leafly.
Next week, Harris Sliwoski LLP attorney Jason Adelstone will be attending the International Cannabis Business Conference in Berlin, where he is looking forward to connecting with international cannabis businesses, investors, and regulatory experts from around the world.
As global cannabis markets continue to expand, events like ICBC provide an important opportunity to discuss emerging trends, cross-border investment, supply chain development, and the future of cannabis regulation. ICBC Berlin has become one of the leading forums for discussing where the global cannabis market is headed, drawing the people actively shaping it.
As Jason has previously written about, the United States is missing a golden opportunity to join and affect the global marijuana market. While other countries are building cultivation, manufacturing, and export infrastructure, American operators are still unable to meaningfully participate in international cannabis commerce. With the global cannabis market projected to reach $82.3 billion by 2027, the U.S. risks missing a major economic opportunity unless federal policy changes.
Still, there is reason for optimism. If federal policy evolves to allow exports or broader international participation, U.S. businesses could eventually become significant players in the global cannabis market. The new federal CBD product initiative offers a potential opening for U.S. businesses to begin participating in international cannabis commerce, even if on a limited scale. Until then, conferences like ICBC Berlin remain an important reminder that the future of cannabis is international.
Whether your U.S. company is looking to invest in a global cannabis operator, you are an international operator looking for U.S. investment, or you simply want to understand where a particular country’s cannabis policies are headed, reach out to Jason Adelstone at jason@harris-sliwoski.com to schedule a time to connect.
The post Jason Adelstone to Attend the International Cannabis Business Conference in Berlin appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Make a donation to Last Prisoner Project this 420 to help support cannabis criminal justice reform.
The post Support the Last Prisoner Project this 420 and beyond appeared first on Leafly.
Next week, Harris Sliwoski LLP attorney Jason Adelstone will be attending the International Cannabis Business Conference in Berlin, where he is looking forward to connecting with international cannabis businesses, investors, and regulatory experts from around the world.
As global cannabis markets continue to expand, events like ICBC provide an important opportunity to discuss emerging trends, cross-border investment, supply chain development, and the future of cannabis regulation. ICBC Berlin has become one of the leading forums for discussing where the global cannabis market is headed, drawing the people actively shaping it.
As Jason has previously written about, the United States is missing a golden opportunity to join and affect the global marijuana market. While other countries are building cultivation, manufacturing, and export infrastructure, American operators are still unable to meaningfully participate in international cannabis commerce. With the global cannabis market projected to reach $82.3 billion by 2027, the U.S. risks missing a major economic opportunity unless federal policy changes.
Still, there is reason for optimism. If federal policy evolves to allow exports or broader international participation, U.S. businesses could eventually become significant players in the global cannabis market. The new federal CBD product initiative offers a potential opening for U.S. businesses to begin participating in international cannabis commerce, even if on a limited scale. Until then, conferences like ICBC Berlin remain an important reminder that the future of cannabis is international.
Whether your U.S. company is looking to invest in a global cannabis operator, you are an international operator looking for U.S. investment, or you simply want to understand where a particular country’s cannabis policies are headed, reach out to Jason Adelstone at jason@harris-sliwoski.com to schedule a time to connect.
The post Jason Adelstone to Attend the International Cannabis Business Conference in Berlin appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
We got a new FDA cannabis enforcement memo on Wednesday, April 1, regarding “hemp-derived CBD research in medical research models.” The general thrust is FDA’s assurance that it won’t interfere with a new federal initiative, which covers up to $500 of hemp-derived products for eligible Medicare patients. That initiative is called the Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive (“Substance Access BEI”), and it also launched on April 1. The usual suspects are suing to block this program, of course. They’re not doing very well.
The FDA Memo is welcome guidance as to the Substance Access BEI. The memo was anticipated by some of us, but there is more at play here.
The FDA Memo is only two pages. It traces federal hemp regulation back to the 2018 Farm Bill, as reined in by P.L. 119-37, a spending bill passed in November of 2025. As we explained at the time, P.L. 119-37 closed the perceived loophole on intoxicating hemp products by re-defining “hemp.”
The FDA Memo notes that the 2018 Farm Bill “explicitly preserved FDA’s authority to regulate products containing cannabis . . . . under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [‘FDCA’].” FDA issued a similar proclamation when 2018 Farm Bill broadly legalized hemp, and it has continued to assert authority over hemp-derived products ever since.
But the agency is mostly just talk. Its efforts have been limited to sending (and bragging on) sporadic warning letters to select CBD sellers, who make the wildest health claims. All the while, the U.S. hemp cannabinoids market has blossomed into a $20 billion behemoth, with scrupulous and unscrupulous parties selling their wares in a regulatory vacuum. After several years of this, in 2023, FDA concluded that it wouldn’t adopt rules to allow CBD to be marketed as a dietary supplement in conventional food products. States have been left to fend for themselves.
The FDA Memo proceeds to discuss President Trump’s Executive Order 14370 of December 18, 2025, which directed the Attorney General to reschedule marijuana as a Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA); and more pertinently for this exercise, for the National Institutes of Health to “develop research methods and models… to improve access to hemp-derived cannabinoid products in accordance with Federal law and to inform standards of care.” That’s where Substance Access BEI comes in.
FDA concludes its milquetoast memo with a policy statement, included here in full:
The FDA does not intend to enforce sections 502(f)(1) or 505 of the [FDCA] with respect to an orally administered, hemp-derived CBD product solely on the basis that it contains CBD, provided that the product (1) is manufactured, marketed, and labeled in a manner that would be consistent with the dietary supplement framework, including bearing a supplement facts panel and structure/function claims, (2) is not contaminated, (3) is not packaged or labeled in a manner that would be attractive to or marketed for children, and (4) is provided to a beneficiary through a program of medical items or services payable under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, under the direction of the patient’s treating physician, in a manner ancillary to the covered items or services furnished under such program.
In other words, FDA will continue not enforcing federal law, due to conflicting developments, in this one specific context. Old cannabis industry heads may see parallels here with the Cole Memorandum. Once again, a branch of government has deferred enforcement of cannabis-related commerce on a prerogative basis.
The biggest question, I think, is whether the FDA will continue non-enforcement of the FDCA as to hemp-derived products outside this specific, Medicare context—either now, or after the hemp products ban takes effect this November. My bet is FDA won’t do much prior to November, and, assuming the ban sticks, it won’t do much after. A related prediction is that FDA will maintain its position that CBD hasn’t been proven safe and effective (outside of the approved drug Epidiolex), notwithstanding the Substance Access BEI program.
Another question relates to potential tension between the “hemp threshold” adopted in the Substance Access BEI program, and the FDA Memo. This a difference was quickly noted by Jonathan Havens, on LinkedIn. He observed that the FDA Memo references a 0.4 mg-THC-per-container threshold (in keeping with P.L. 119-37), while this new Medicare program permits up to 0.3 mg of THC per serving in certain contexts. The question becomes whether a CBD product could be program-compliant, yet fall outside of FDA’s enforcement discretion policy due to THC content.
Interestingly, the answer to that question may lie with FDA. Last November, P.L. 119-37 gave the agency 90 days to further define the term “container” in relation to hemp products. The Congressional deadline of February 10, 2026 quietly passed, and we still don’t have a proposed definition of “container” to my knowledge. They don’t call it the Foot Dragging Agency for nothing, I guess.
_____________
For related posts, check out the following:
The post CBD, Medicare, and the New FDA Enforcement Memo appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Happy 420, New Mexico! PurLife is pulling out all the stops to make this year’s celebration super. They’re offering big deals, big bags, and big smiles all month long, leading up to the big day on 4/20! Check out what’s in store: Super Eighths Level up with 4g PurLife Super Eighths—premium quality flower with an […]
The post PurLife is offering big bags and big deals this 420 appeared first on Leafly.
Save all month long with these limited-time deals on Illicit products This 420, it pays to have good buds. That’s why From the Earth is pulling out all the stops this holiday season by slashing prices all April long. They’re offering incredible deals on top brands like Illicit and Highssmen to ring in the season […]
The post From the Earth is your best bud this 420 appeared first on Leafly.
It's time for your April 2026 horoscopes, and this month wastes no time! Take some time to reconnect with what you want versus what you need.
The post Star signs and cannabis strains: April 2026 horoscopes appeared first on Leafly.
This 420, The Green Standard is going all out to celebrate you—the best patients anywhere. Stock up, save big, and go all in on their biggest cannabis celebration of the year. Enjoy up to 40% off your favorite products, plus take advantage of exclusive 420 perks, including: Use one of the buttons below to shop […]
The post The Green Standard is celebrating you this 420 appeared first on Leafly.
Harris Sliwoski LLP attorney Jason Adelstone will be moderating a panel at the upcoming Industrial Hemp International Conference and Trade Show, in Denver, Colorado. Jason will be joined on the panel by attorney David Sergi and political consultant Kevin Lampe.
Their session, “Legal Reality Check: Cannabinoids, Compliance, and Enforcement in a Shifting U.S. Landscape,” will take place this Thursday, March 26th, at 4:20 p.m. MST. The panel will focus on one of the most uncertain areas of hemp regulation: the likelihood that Congress extends current hemp-related restrictions, and the nature of the regulatory and commercial landscape if it does not.
The discussion will also address practical enforcement challenges, particularly around inputs like seeds, where oversight is inherently difficult. With each panelist bringing a distinct perspective, attendees can expect a candid and substantive conversation on the legal and business realities rapidly reshaping the hemp industry.
For related posts on this topic, check out the following:
The post Jason Adelstone to Moderate Compliance and Enforcement Panel at Industrial Hemp International Conference appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Head to UpLift today to experience their peerless professional and quality service, all the while supporting important initiatives that help Cincinnatians
The post UpLift takes kindness into their community appeared first on Leafly.
Sine die came for Oregon’s 2026 legislative session last Friday, March 6th. I previewed the roster of cannabis bills in play back on February 12th. Two of them passed; two of them failed. Below is a recap of the action, with links to each bill in the headers.
This was the session’s omnibus cannabis bill, which I explained had a rough start due to various disagreements between the marijuana and hemp lobbies. On February 16th, HB 4139 was shuttled to the Ways and Means Committee and never heard from again—a fate that befalls many bills in that committee, especially in short sessions.
The upshot is that we won’t see a variety of new police powers arrogated to state agencies, and we won’t get key definitions on hemp terms. Nor will we see a tax on the sale of intoxicating hemp items in Oregon. For a fuller description of what was at stake here, check out my prior post, or the engrossed version of HB 4139 that died in Ways and Means.
This one was referred to as the “hospice bill” and also “Ryan’s Law.” It was named for Ryan Bartell, a terminal cancer patient who found relief through medical cannabis. I previously explained that HB 4142 expands the definition of “debilitating medical condition” for the medical use of marijuana, to include “the need for hospice, palliative care, comfort care or other symptom management, including [comprehensive] pain management.” That language stayed intact, with the only addition being the word “comprehensive.”
The law applies to hospice programs, residential facilities and palliative care settings, but exempts hospitals and their affiliated clinics. It also protects facilities and staff from state criminal liability for possessing, delivering, or manufacturing medical marijuana for patients. And it prohibits the Oregon State Board of Nursing from disciplining nurses for discussing medical cannabis with patients. All good stuff.
Assuming Governor Kotek either signs or doesn’t veto this bill, it becomes operative on January 1, 2027. Qualifying facilities are required to have written policies in place by June 30, 2027 for the procurement, storage and administration of medical marijuana. By December 31, 2027, facilities must make educational training available to staff. I have no reason to believe Governor Kotek won’t support this bill. It follows similar legislation in California from 2021, and it sailed through the session without controversy.
Here’s what I wrote on LinkedIn some three weeks ago, regarding this bill:
True story 🙄🙄. HB 1462 was brought by the Local UFCW 55. They are attempting to repeal a law that took effect via a ballot measure that the Union itself initiated. Read that again.
UFCW first tried to push the law through legislatively, a few years back. But the Union couldn’t get traction due to Office of Legislative Counsel findings that the concept was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
UFCW then pushed a recall effort against one of the opposing legislators, and started gathering signatures for a ballot measure to pass the unconstitutional law.
Oregon voters approved it, not appreciating the flaws. I and others criticized the measure for obvious reasons and said it should be challenged. That predictably happened, and UFCW/Oregon was routed at District Court. Case is now on appeal for some reason.
Now, rather than face another unfavorable ruling (Ninth Circuit), UFCW is asking the legislature to unwind what lawmakers and others told it not to do in the first place.
You don’t have to be anti-union (I’m not) to appreciate how asinine this is. Big waste of time and taxpayer money here in Oregon. I would like this to get some press.
That’s enough said, probably. We can expect a dismissal of the pending Ninth Circuit appeal sometime soon.
This was styled as a “public health” bill that proffered additional edibles packaging and dispensary siting requirements. I viewed the bill as unnecessary and wasteful, which I imagine was the industry consensus. I also wasn’t surprised to see it falter, even as it got some traction in its journey through a few committees.
As with any of these failed bills, SB 1548A could always pop up again next session, as a stand-alone bill or in some other format. Hopefully it doesn’t, though.
Stay tuned for Governor Kotek’s signature on HB 4142 and HB 4162. If Kotek doesn’t sign or veto either bill by April 17th, 2026, each bill becomes law automatically. We’ll also see some agency rulemaking around HB 4142, likely beginning this fall. As always, we’ll continue to update on any major developments. Onwar
The post Oregon’s New Cannabis Laws: 2026 Edition appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Turn up the volume for Hash Burger from Belushi’s Farm and Blues Brothers—the flavor packed-headliner that has been crowned the Leafly Strain of the Year for 2025. This isn’t just a strain — it’s a full-on jam session. Hash Burger hits with bold, gassy funk layered over savory earth and a peppery kick that lingers […]
The post Belushi’s Farm and Blues Brothers are serving up Hash Burger, the Leafly Strain of the Year appeared first on Leafly.
This spring, the focus is on fresh, innovative formats that fit seamlessly into an active lifestyle.
The post Spectacular delta-9 and kratom deals for spring appeared first on Leafly.
Most commentary on the “hemp ban” included in the November funding bill has focused on two related questions: (1) which products and activities may become unlawful on November 12, 2026; and (2) whether Congress will materially amend or delay the ban before then.
I recently discussed another consequence operators should be considering as the deadline approaches: bankruptcy eligibility. But focusing only on insolvency planning misses a much more immediate operational problem: inventory.
Many hemp operators are currently holding large volumes of unsold material. At the same time, portions of the domestic cannabinoid manufacturing sector are already contracting. Some manufacturers are shutting down, others are reducing intake, and many are unlikely to purchase new raw material as November approaches. The closer we get to November without any change or extension to the law, the more unsold inventory will be at risk of destruction rather than sale. The predictable result is that a significant amount of compliant hemp may have no viable domestic buyer before the legal landscape changes.
There is, however, a potential solution receiving far less attention than it should: exporting that material to markets where demand still exists.
The November 12 deadline is not just a regulatory change. It is a market-structure event.
If the law takes effect as written, hemp plant material exceeding the new statutory threshold of 0.4 mg of total THC will effectively become unlawful to transport across state lines. In addition, operators in states without a closed-loop internal (intrastate) hemp market may be unable to participate in local commerce at all. Even for material cultivated lawfully beforehand, downstream purchasers will not want to hold inventory that may soon become legally risky to process, store, transport, or resell. Businesses operating in states without intrastate markets will be particularly exposed, and even robust state markets are likely to prioritize in-state sourcing to ensure supply stability after November 12.
Recent reporting that Chicago’s United Center has begun selling Señorita and RYTHM hemp-derived THC beverages at certain events illustrates the point. Those products are associated with Illinois cannabis operator, Green Thumb Industries, and their production and distribution appears structured to occur entirely within a single state. As long as Illinois and local law remain unchanged, those beverages can continue to be sold because no interstate transport is required (assuming no other applicable federal law will prohibit sales at the United Center). Opportunities like these will only be available to cultivators and producers that operate in states with intoxicating hemp programs. Those that operate in states that prohibit such products won’t be so lucky.
For operators whose business model depends on interstate distribution, this creates a classic end-of-regulatory-cycle dynamic:
In other words, the problem for many operators will not be compliance but liquidity. Starting material that was lawful to grow may simply become commercially stranded.
Unlike the rapidly changing U.S. consumable hemp market, many European Union jurisdictions regulate hemp differently. Several EU countries permit the importation of raw hemp plant material. Once imported, goods may circulate within the EU and, in some cases, move into non-EU markets such as the United Kingdom.
These markets often value U.S. hemp for consistency and production scale. As domestic U.S. demand contracts, lawful foreign demand may still exist, but primarily for certain categories of raw material.
This strategy is narrow and operators should understand its boundaries.
It also does not address exporting THCa plant material. That presents a separate and substantially higher-risk legal analysis involving both U.S. enforcement interpretation and destination-country controlled-substance law.
The discussion here concerns exporting raw agricultural hemp material, not cannabinoid consumer products.
The operational point is straightforward: the legal window may close before many operators act. After November 12, exporting hemp plant material that no longer qualifies as federally lawful hemp will become unlawful, even if the crop was cultivated prior to the deadline. Once the material is treated as non-compliant cannabis under federal law, cross-border shipment, even between U.S. states, becomes problematic simultaneously under federal controlled substances law, customs export procedures, carrier policies, and foreign import certification requirements.
At that stage, inventory may not merely be unsellable but effectively immovable.
The industry has been treating November 12 primarily as a future compliance date. For many operators, it is more accurately a sales deadline.
If, by late summer or early fall, domestic processors shift to in-state sourcing or stop purchasing raw material altogether, cultivators may be left holding product that was lawful when grown but has no viable domestic buyer before the regulatory change takes effect.
Exporting to the EU or other countries may therefore function as a bridge strategy – a way to monetize inventory that might otherwise go unsold. Unlike restructuring strategies, this approach cannot wait for legislative certainty. Exporting agricultural material requires documentation, phytosanitary compliance, logistics planning, import-country regulatory verification, customs coordination, and buyers. Each step requires lead time, and the regulatory deadline is fixed.
Congress may amend the law, delay implementation, or do nothing. Operators should not base operational strategy on legislative uncertainty. If the deadline remains, the purchasing slowdown will likely begin well before November 12, meaning the practical deadline for selling inventory may arrive months earlier.
For some hemp businesses, the question is no longer simply whether they can remain compliant after November. It is whether they can convert existing inventory into revenue before the market disappears.
If you interested in learning more about exporting hemp material, corporate structuring, regulatory compliance, or evaluating how the November 12 deadline may affect your operations, please contact me to discuss your specific situation.
The post What the 2026 Federal Hemp Ban Means for Unsold Hemp Inventory appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Talk a walk through the hall of fame with our look back at past Leafly Strain of the Year winners. This year's winner is announced March 4th.
The post A look back at the Leafly Strain of the Year hall of fame appeared first on Leafly.
In the last year or two, we have seen a growing number of marijuana businesses take the position that IRC 280E no longer applies to them. Some of these businesses have taken that position in consultation with lawyers and CPAs. This shift in strategy predates Trump’s Executive Order of December 18, 2025, to reschedule marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In any case, I believe this is a misreading of the law and a dangerous position for these businesses to take.
IRC 280E is a federal tax provision that prohibits businesses engaged in the “trafficking” of Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances from deducting ordinary and necessary business expenses on their federal tax returns. This rule applies to state-legal marijuana businesses, and it forces many of them to pay federal income tax on gross income (revenue minus cost of goods sold) rather than net income (profit). It’s harder on some businesses than others, but overall IRC 280E is a scourge for any marijuana taxpayer.
Yes, cannabis businesses have challenged the law repeatedly over the past decade or so, on constitutional and “as applied” grounds. We have supported those efforts, including in litigation brought by clients of this law firm. Still, I’ve explained that “except for Champ v. Commissioner, no cannabis taxpayer has won an IRC 280E case (and there have been a bunch of them).”
I stand by the statement, while acknowledging that parties have achieved limited successes via COGS adjustments and refund requests. Overall, though, courts have consistently upheld the validity of IRC 280E as applied to marijuana businesses, and they have cast aside every constitutional challenge to date. It’s just a very difficult situation.
The current litigation to watch is a tax court case known as New Mexico Top Organics, Inc. d/b/a Ultra Health v. Commissioner (“NMTO”), filed last October. The primary argument is that marijuana is no longer “within the meaning” of Schedule I of the CSA, despite being listed there. The case relies on a 2023 determination by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that marijuana should be placed in Schedule III. It also relies on Congressional spending bills, and finally, on the proposed rescheduling that began under President Biden.
I don’t find the arguments persuasive. Without analyzing the merits, though, it’s important to note that the NMTO plaintiff is a medical marijuana business. The plaintiff is not arguing that IRC 280E doesn’t apply to generalized adult-use sales (which are most sales nationwide, at this point). It’s also important to note that any decision by the tax court could be appealed by either party to the Tenth Circuit, and a ruling likely would not grant immediate relief to anyone–let alone non-litigants.
I’d like to think that most of advice is along the lines of what we tell our clients, viz. that marijuana is still a Schedule I controlled substance, unfortunately, and IRC 280E still applies. And I think that is what a clear majority of attorneys and CPAs are saying. That said, we’ve seen outlying and aggressive advice from professionals on whether marijuana businesses are still subject to IRC 280E, and even on whether marijuana remains in Schedule I (it does). Here’s a prominent example:
I’m not sure what the law firm there was thinking, and to be fair, they deleted the post following my comment. On the CPA side, the position I first vetted last year parrots the arguments in NMTO. The CPA I spoke with argued that marijuana is no longer “within the meaning of Schedule I” (despite its placement there), and that NMTO’s arguments apply equally to income from adult-use sales. The kindest thing I can say, euphemistically, is that it’s an interesting position.
In June of 2024, following the HHS recommendation that marijuana be moved to Schedule III, the IRS published a memo titled “Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance; IRC 280E still applies.” The Service stated that this would be true “until a final federal rule is published.” That never happened under the Biden administration’s flawed rescheduling process, and still hasn’t occurred following Trump’s executive order.
For good measure, the IRS followed on its memo six months later with another straight-ahead publication, observing that “some taxpayers have taken the position of disregarding the section 280E limitation using a variety of rationales that do not constitute reasonable basis.” The term “reasonable basis” is a relatively high standard of tax reporting (see 26 CFR 1.6662-3(b)(3)), and a myriad of penalties may ensue where the standard is not met. Straight talk.
For its part, Congress has failed to pass legislation to nullify the effects of IRC 280E, and every bill to de- or reschedule marijuana has ultimately failed. However, the Congressional Research Service, which I like, issued relevant guidance on IRC 280E earlier this month. The February 6 report is titled: “The Application of Internal Revenue Code Section 280E: Selected Legal Issues.” Notwithstanding the IRS publications discussed above, the CRS report maintains there is “little tax guidance concerning the application of Section 280E.” It then discusses a series of proposals that, if enacted, “would no longer prohibit marijuana businesses from taking deductions and credits.” In other words, without the enactment of any of these proposals, IRC 280E still applies.
I’m sure any business paying tax on gross receipts would love to enjoy the same deductions as other U.S. taxpayers. For this reason, and because certain advisors have jumped the shark with rescheduling in the air, we’ve seen more cannabis businesses filing returns that ignore IRC 280E. We’ve also had clients file amended returns seeking refunds for taxes paid under the IRC 280E regime, contrary to IRS warnings (not to give anyone any ideas!). Some of these refunds have been processed, and our best advice is “set that cash aside, at least through the audit window.”
Let’s hope the rules change for tax year 2026, and that the Department of Justice picks up the ball with President Trump’s rescheduling order. Specifically, let’s hope for a final rule, or better. For now, though, I believe the correct advice is that IRC 280E still applies to marijuana businesses. Unfortunately.
The post IRC 280E Still Applies to Your Marijuana Business, Unfortunately appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
