Key Takeaways
The rescheduling of certain cannabis products to Schedule III represents a meaningful shift in federal cannabis policy and offers long-awaited tax relief for portions of the industry. However, the benefits are limited in scope, leaving recreational operators subject to the continued constraints of Section 280E. Additionally, critical questions—such as the ability to obtain retroactive relief—remain unresolved. Until regulatory and IRS guidance provides greater clarity, cannabis businesses and their advisors should carefully evaluate their tax positions and compliance strategies in light of this evolving landscape.
For decades, Internal Revenue Code Section 280E has denied cannabis businesses the ability to deduct ordinary operating expenses—but that regime may finally be starting to unravel. On April 22, 2026, the United States Acting Attorney General rescheduled certain categories of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). Since its adoption, cannabis has been firmly planted on Schedule I. Although the Attorney General’s final rule does not reclassify all forms of cannabis, this shift does have important implications. Most importantly, perhaps, it will grant some cannabis businesses access to critical tax benefits.
Section 280E disallows tax deductions and credits for businesses engaged in trafficking controlled substances, as identified on Schedule I and II of the CSA. Section 280E effectively blocks cannabis operations from writing off ordinary and necessary business expenses in order to reduce tax liability. While a cannabis business may be duly licensed and legally operating, they receive unfavorable tax treatment compared to other, non- cannabis businesses.
The CSA, originally adopted in 1970, regulates certain drugs and other substances based upon the potential for abuse, safety, and medical use. Drugs and substances governed by the CSA are divided into categories based on the relative risk level and medical utility. These categories are known as Schedules I through V, in which Schedule I is subject to the strictest regulation and Schedule V enjoys the least oversight. As a Schedule I controlled substance, cannabis has historically been subject to the strictest regulation. One example of this strict regulation includes a denial of tax deductions for businesses selling cannabis.
The rescheduling removes some of the sting of Section 280E. These reclassified categories of cannabis include (i) drug products containing cannabis that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and (ii) marijuana subject to a state-issued license to manufacture, distribute and/or dispense cannabis for medical purposes only. Critically, adult use or “recreational” cannabis remains on Schedule I and continues to be subject to Section 280E. But businesses dealing in FDA-approved cannabis products and medical cannabis licensees will finally be able to avoid the pain of Section 280E.
One of the most significant unanswered questions is whether the rescheduling will have any retroactive effect for prior tax years. Section 280E applies based on a taxpayer’s involvement with Schedule I or II substances during the relevant taxable year, and the rescheduling rule does not expressly address whether taxpayers may amend prior returns to claim previously disallowed deductions. Currently, it remains unclear how the Internal Revenue Service will treat previously disallowed deductions under Section 280E. Until further guidance is issued, taxpayers should proceed cautiously.
Please feel free to contact a member of the KMK Law Cannabis & Craft Beer Services team should your business need assistance with navigating these new rules, or any future revisions, rules, or regulations.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2026 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Associate
Tanner Fisher is an associate in the firm's Business Representation & Transactions Group where he assists public and private companies in the federal income tax and business planning areas. Tanner primarily counsels clients in ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Cannabis
- Taxation
- Medical Marijuana
- Recreational Marijuana
- Trademark
- Craft Brewing
- Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
- Investors
- Private Placements
- Regulation D
- Securities Law
- Securities Regulation
- Department of Justice
- Intellectual Property
- Registered Trademark
- Zoning
- United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Trademark Litigation
Recent Posts
- From Schedule I to III: A Partial Tax Reset for Cannabis Businesses
- A Post-Issue 2 Update on Recreational Marijuana in Ohio
- There Goes the Neighborhood? – A Quick Look at the Sessions Memo
- Booze is Booze, Right? Not so fast...
- Did A Neural Network Just Solve Craft Brewing's Trademark Problems?
- New Rules Regulating the Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program
- 10 Important Risk Factors to Disclose to Investors of Your Medical Marijuana Business (Part 2 of 2)
- 10 Important Risk Factors to Disclose to Investors of Your Medical Marijuana Business (Part 1 of 2)
- Medical Marijuana Zoning: Location, Location, Location
- Marijuana Justice Act Would Pave the Way for Marijuana Legalization
