Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0570-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CANNA CARE, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-70265
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 10, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed July 25, 2017
    William McPike, Esquire, Attorney, Ah-wahnee, CA, Letitia Elisabeth Pepper, Esquire, Attorney, Riverside, CA, Betty Williams, Law Office of Williams & Associates, PC, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, Richard Farber, Esquire, Supervisory Attorney, Patrick J. Urda, Esquire, General Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and GUILFORD, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Andrew J, Guilford, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Canna Care, Inc., a marijuana dispensary operating in California, appeals the Tax Court’s decision upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s déficiency findings in Appellant’s federal income taxes for the years 2006 through 2008. The Internal Revenue Service had determined those tax deficiencies because it found that Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 280E, disallowed Appellant’s purported business expense deductions.

Appellant raises three claims on appeal: (1) Section 280E as applied here violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (2) Section 280E does not preclude state and local tax deductions, and (3) Section 280E does not preclude Appellant’s net operating loss carryover deduction from 2005.

Appellant did not raise any of these claims in the Tax Court and, thus, the arguments are all unpreserved for our review. “Absent exceptional circumstances, this court will not consider an argument that was not first raised in the Tax Court.” Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2007). In our discretion, we decline to consider these claims now. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.