128 T.C. No. 14

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

CALIFORNIANS HELPING TO ALLEVIATE MEDICAL PROBLEMS, INC.,

Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 20795-05. Filed May 15, 2007.

P provided counseling and other caregiving services

(collectively, caregiving services) to its members, who were

individuals with debilitating diseases. P also provided its

members with medical marijuana pursuant to the California

Compassionate Use Act of 1996, codified at Cal. Health &

Safety Code sec. 11362.5 (West Supp. 2007). P charged its

members a membership fee that generally reimbursed P for its

costs of the caregiving services and its costs of the

medical marijuana. R determined that all of P’s expenses

were nondeductible under sec. 280E, I.R.C., because, R

determined, the expenses were incurred in connection with

the trafficking of a controlled substance.

Held: Sec. 280E, I.R.C., precludes P from

deducting its expenses attributable to its provision of

medical marijuana.

Held, further, P’s provision of its caregiving

services and its provision of medical marijuana were

separate trades or businesses for purposes of sec.

280E, I.R.C.; thus, sec. 280E, I.R.C., does not
- 2 -

1 Unless otherwise indicated, section, subchapter, and

chapter references are to the applicable versions of the Internal

Revenue Code, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of

Practice and Procedure.

preclude P from deducting the expenses attributable to

the caregiving services.

Matthew Kumin, Henry G. Wykowski, and Willian G. Panzer, for 

petitioner.

Margaret A. Martin, for respondent.

LARO, Judge: Respondent determined a $355,056 deficiency in

petitioner’s 2002 Federal income tax and a $71,011 accuracyrelated penalty under section 6662(a).1 Following concessions by

respondent, including a concession that petitioner is not liable

for the determined accuracy-related penalty, we decide whether

section 280E precludes petitioner from deducting the ordinary and

necessary expenses attributable to its provision of medical

marijuana pursuant to the California Compassionate Use Act of

1996, codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.5 (West
- 3 -

2 At a general election held on Nov. 5, 1996, the California

electors approved an initiative statute designated on the ballot

as Proposition 215 and entitled “Medical Use of Marijuana”. See

People v. Mower, 49 P.3d 1067, 1070 (Cal. 2002). The statute,

the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, codified at Cal.

Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.5 (West Supp. 2007), was intended

To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the

right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes

where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has

been recommended by a physician who has determined that

the person’s health would benefit from the use of

marijuana in the treatment of * * * any * * * illness

for which marijuana provides relief.

Id. sec. 11362.5(b)(1)(A); see also People v. Mower, supra at

1070. We use the term “medical marijuana” to refer to marijuana

provided pursuant to the statute.

Supp. 2007).2 We hold that those deductions are precluded. We

also decide whether section 280E precludes petitioner from

deducting the ordinary and necessary expenses attributable to its

provision of counseling and other caregiving services

(collectively, caregiving services). We hold that those

deductions are not precluded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Certain facts were stipulated and are so found. The

stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are

incorporated herein by this reference. When the petition was

filed, petitioner was an inactive California corporation whose

mailing address was in San Francisco, California.

Petitioner was organized on December 24, 1996, pursuant to

the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, Cal.
- 4 -

3 Under California law, public benefit corporations are

organized for a public or charitable purpose; they are not

operated for the mutual benefit of their members but for a

broader good. See Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School,

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 182, 186 n.5 (Ct. App. 2007).

Corp. Code secs. 5110-6910. (West 1990).3 Its articles of

incorporation stated that it “is organized and operated

exclusively for charitable, educational and scientific purposes”

and “The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to

charitable purposes”. Petitioner did not have Federal tax-exempt

status, and it operated as an approximately break-even (i.e., the

amount of its income approximated the amount of its expenses)

community center for members with debilitating diseases. 

Approximately 47 percent of petitioner’s members suffered from

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS); the remainder

suffered from cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other serious

illnesses. Before joining petitioner, petitioner’s executive

director had 13 years of experience in health services as a

coordinator of a statewide program that trained outreach workers

in AIDS prevention work.

Petitioner operated with a dual purpose. Its primary

purpose was to provide caregiving services to its members. Its

secondary purpose was to provide its members with medical

marijuana pursuant to the California Compassionate Use Act of

1996 and to instruct those individuals on how to use medical

marijuana to benefit their health. Petitioner required that each
- 5 -

member have a doctor’s letter recommending marijuana as part of

his or her therapy and an unexpired photo identification card

from the California Department of Public Health verifying the

authenticity of the doctor’s letter. Petitioner required that

its members not resell or redistribute the medical marijuana

received from petitioner, and petitioner considered any violation

of this requirement to be grounds to expel the violator from

membership in petitioner’s organization.

Each of petitioner’s members paid petitioner a membership

fee in consideration for the right to receive caregiving services

and medical marijuana from petitioner. Petitioner’s caregiving

services were extensive. First, petitioner’s staff held various

weekly or biweekly support group sessions that could be attended

only by petitioner’s members. The “wellness group” discussed

healing techniques and occasionally hosted a guest speaker; the

HIV/AIDS group addressed issues of practical and emotional

support; the women’s group focused on women-specific issues in

medical struggles; the “Phoenix” group helped elderly patients

with lifelong addiction problems; the “Force” group focused on

spiritual and emotional development. Second, petitioner provided

its low-income members with daily lunches consisting of salads,

fruit, water, soda, and hot food. Petitioner also made available

to its members hygiene supplies such as toothbrushes, toothpaste,

feminine hygiene products, combs, and bottles of bleach. Third,
- 6 -

petitioner allowed its members to consult one-on-one with a

counselor about benefits, health, housing, safety, and legal

issues. Petitioner also provided its members with biweekly

massage services. Fourth, petitioner coordinated for its members

weekend social events including a Friday night movie or guest

speaker and a Saturday night social with live music and a hot

meal. Petitioner also coordinated for its members monthly field

trips to locations such as beaches, museums, or parks. Fifth,

petitioner instructed its members on yoga and on topics such as

how to participate in social services at petitioner’s facilities

and how to follow member guidelines. Sixth, petitioner provided

its members with online computer access and delivered to them

informational services through its Web site. Seventh, petitioner

encouraged its members to participate in political activities.

Petitioner furnished its services at its main facility in

San Francisco, California, and at an office in a community church

in San Francisco. The main facility was approximately 1,350

square feet and was the site of the daily lunches, distribution

of hygiene supplies, benefits counseling, Friday and Saturday

night social events and dinners, and computer access. This

location also was the site where petitioner’s members received

their distribution of medical marijuana; the medical marijuana

was dispensed at a counter of the main room of the facility,

taking up approximately 10 percent of the main facility. The
- 7 -

peer group meetings and yoga classes were usually held at the

church, where petitioner rented space. Pursuant to the rules of

the church, petitioner’s members were prohibited from bringing

any marijuana into the church. Petitioner also maintained a

storage unit at a third location in San Francisco. Petitioner

used the storage unit to store confidential medical records; no

medical marijuana was distributed or used there.

Petitioner paid for the services it provided to its members

by charging a membership fee that covered, and in the judgment of

petitioner’s management approximated, both the cost of

petitioner’s caregiving services and the cost of the medical

marijuana that petitioner supplied to its members. Petitioner

notified its members that the membership fee covered both of

these costs, and petitioner charged its members no additional

fee. Members received from petitioner a set amount of medical

marijuana; they were not entitled to unlimited supplies. 

On May 6, 2002, petitioner’s board of directors decided that

petitioner would henceforth discontinue all of its activities. 

Petitioner thus ceased conducting any activity and filed a “Final

Return” (Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return) for 2002. 

This return reported the following items on the basis of an

accrual method of accounting:
- 8 -

Gross receipts or sales $1,056,833

Less returns and allowances 8,802

Balance 1,048,031

Cost of goods sold:

 Inventory at beginning

 of year $12,551

 Purchases 575,317

 Cost of labor 203,661

 Other costs: 

 Cash (over/under) $1,680

 Operating supplies 29,077

 Program costs 13,026

 Total other costs 43,783 43,783

 Inventory at end of year

 of year -0- 

 Total cost of goods sold 835,312 835,312

Gross profit 212,719

Deductions:

 Compensation of officers 14,914

 Salaries and wages 44,799

 Repairs and maintenance 1,456

 Rents 25,161

 Taxes and licenses 28,201

 Depreciation 8,409

 Advertising 200

 Employee benefit programs 24,453

 Other deductions: 

 Accounting 5,086

 Auto and truck 308

 Bank charges 1,097

 Computer expense 961

 Dues and subscriptions 20

 Employee development 

 training 1,940

 Insurance 7,727

 Internet service

 provider 2,238

 Janitorial 1,409

 Laundry and

 cleaning 105

 Legal and

 professional 5,500

 Meals and

 entertainment 402

 Miscellaneous 269

 Office expense 4,533

 Outside services 4,421

 Parking and toll 120

 Security 2,185

 Supplies 660

 Telephone 7,870

 Utilities 18,514

 Total other deductions 65,365 65,365

 Total deductions 212,958 212,958

 Taxable loss 239

In a notice of deficiency mailed to petitioner on August 4,

2005, respondent disallowed all of petitioner’s deductions and

costs of goods sold, determining that those items were
- 9 -

4 In other words, respondent concedes that the disallowance

of sec. 280E does not apply to costs of goods sold, a concession

that is consistent with the caselaw on that subject and the

legislative history underlying sec. 280E. See Peyton v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-146; Franklin v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1993-184; Vasta v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-531; see

also S. Rept. 97-494 (Vol. 1), at 309 (1982).

“Expenditures in Connection with the Illegal Sale of Drugs”

within the meaning of section 280E. Respondent has since

conceded this determination except to the extent that it relates

to the “Total deductions” of $212,958.4 Respondent has also

conceded that the expenses underlying the $212,958 of total

deductions are substantiated.

The “Total deductions” were ordinary, necessary, and

reasonable expenses petitioner incurred in running its operations

during the subject year. The specific expenses underlying those

deductions are as follows:

! The $14,914 deducted for compensation of

officers reflects the salary of petitioner’s

executive director. The executive director worked

50 hours a week for 17 weeks. The executive

director directed petitioner’s overall operations

and was not directly engaged in petitioner’s

provision of medical marijuana.

! The $44,799 deducted for salaries and wages

reflects the compensation of petitioner’s 24 other

employees. Seven of the 24 employees were
- 10 -

involved in petitioner’s provision of medical

marijuana. The other 17 employees were involved

with petitioner’s provision of caregiving

services.

! The $1,456 deducted for repairs and

maintenance reflects expenses petitioner incurred

to repair and maintain its main facility.

! The $25,161 deducted for rents reflects

$15,000 of rent for the main facility, $5,700 of

rent for the use of the church, and $4,461 of rent

for the storage unit and a photocopier.

! The $28,201 deducted for payroll taxes

reflects petitioner’s liability for the payment of

payroll taxes.

! The $8,409 deducted for depreciation reflects

depreciation of petitioner’s property.

! The $200 deducted for advertising reflects

the cost of advertising by petitioner, including a

$150 expense for the rental of a booth where

petitioner distributed literature.

! The $24,453 deducted for employee benefit

programs reflects the cost of a health insurance

policy that petitioner maintained for its

employees.
- 11 -

! The $5,086 deducted for accounting reflects

the fees of petitioner’s accountant.

! The $308 deducted for auto and truck reflects

repairs made to a van used to transport members.

! The $1,097 deducted for bank charges reflects

bank service charges petitioner incurred.

! The $961 deducted for computer expense

reflects the cost of purchasing and maintaining

computers petitioner used in its operations.

! The $20 deducted for dues and subscriptions

reflects dues petitioner paid to an association

comprising persons performing functions similar to

those of petitioner.

! The $1,940 deducted for employee development

training reflects costs petitioner incurred to

train its bookkeeper and management team.

! The $7,727 deducted for insurance reflects

the cost of petitioner’s liability insurance.

! The $2,238 deducted for Internet service

provider reflects the cost of petitioner’s

Internet services.

! The $1,409 deducted for janitorial reflects

the cost of petitioner’s garbage services.
- 12 -

! The $105 deducted for laundry and cleaning

reflects costs petitioner incurred to clean and

launder napkins used in its food distribution.

! The $5,500 deducted for legal and

professional reflects the fees of petitioner’s

attorney. None of these fees involved any defense

for criminal prosecution.

! The $402 deducted for meals and entertainment

reflects costs that petitioner incurred for meals

furnished to its employees who worked late or long

hours.

! The $269 deducted for miscellaneous reflects

miscellaneous expenses petitioner incurred.

! The $4,533 deducted for office expenses

reflects costs petitioner incurred for office

supplies such as paper and printer toner.

! The $4,421 deducted for outside services

reflects the cost of petitioner’s payroll service

company.

! The $120 deducted for parking and toll

reflects petitioner’s reimbursement to its

employees who paid parking fees and tolls on

behalf of petitioner.
- 13 -

! The $2,185 deducted for security reflects the

cost of security at the main facility, including

the costs of an alarm company and medical service.

! The $660 deducted for supplies reflects the

costs petitioner incurred to buy various supplies.

! The $7,870 deducted for telephone reflects

the cost petitioner incurred for its telephone

service.

! The $18,514 deducted for utilities reflects

the cost of the gas and electricity petitioner

used at its main facility.

OPINION

The parties agree that during the subject year petitioner

had at least one trade or business for purposes of section 280E. 

According to respondent, petitioner had a single trade or

business of trafficking in medical marijuana. Petitioner argues

that it engaged in two trades or businesses. Petitioner asserts

that its primary trade or business was the provision of

caregiving services. Petitioner asserts that its secondary trade

or business was the supplying of medical marijuana to its

members. As to its trades or businesses, petitioner argues, the

deductions for those trades or businesses are not precluded by

section 280E in that the trades or businesses did not involve

“trafficking” in a controlled substance. Respondent argues that
- 14 -

section 280E precludes petitioner from benefiting from any of its

deductions. 

Accrual method taxpayers such as petitioner may generally

deduct the ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying

on a trade or business. See sec. 162(a). Items specified in

section 162(a) are allowed as deductions, subject to exceptions

listed in section 261. See sec. 161. Section 261 provides that

“no deduction shall in any case be allowed in respect of the

items specified in this part.” The phrase “this part” refers to

part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1, entitled “Items Not

Deductible”. “Expenditures in Connection With the Illegal Sale

of Drugs” is an item specified in part IX. Section 280E

provides:

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any

amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in

carrying on any trade or business if such trade or

business (or the activities which comprise such trade

or business) consists of trafficking in controlled

substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of

the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by

Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade

or business is conducted.

In the context of section 280E, marijuana is a schedule I

controlled substance. See, e.g., Sundel v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1998-78, affd. without published opinion 201 F.3d 428

(1st Cir. 1999). Such is so even when the marijuana is medical

marijuana recommended by a physician as appropriate to benefit
- 15 -

the health of the user. See United States v. Oakland Cannabis

Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001). 

Respondent argues that petitioner, because it trafficked in

a controlled substance, is not permitted by section 280E to

deduct any of its expenses. We disagree. Our analysis begins

with the text of the statute, which we must apply in accordance

with its ordinary, everyday usage. See Conn. Natl. Bank v.

Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254 (1992). We interpret that text

with reference to its legislative history primarily to learn the

purpose of the statute. See Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S.

168, 174 (1993); United States v. Am. Trucking Associations,

Inc., 310 U.S. 534, 543-544 (1940); Venture Funding, Ltd. v.

Commissioner, 110 T.C. 236, 241-242 (1998), affd. without

published opinion 198 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 1999); Trans City Life

Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 274, 299 (1996).

Congress enacted section 280E as a direct reaction to the

outcome of a case in which this Court allowed a taxpayer to

deduct expenses incurred in an illegal drug trade. See S. Rept.

97-494 (Vol. 1), at 309 (1982). In that case, Edmondson v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-623, the Court found that the

taxpayer was self-employed in a trade or business of selling

amphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana. The Court allowed the

taxpayer to deduct his business expenses because they “were made

in connection with * * * [the taxpayer’s] trade or business and
- 16 -

were both ordinary and necessary.” Id. In discussing the case

in the context of the then-current law, the Senate Finance

Committee stated in its report:

Ordinary and necessary trade or business expenses

are generally deductible in computing taxable income. 

A recent U.S. Tax Court case allowed deductions for

telephone, auto, and rental expense incurred in the

illegal drug trade. In that case, the Internal Revenue

Service challenged the amount of the taxpayer’s

deduction for cost of goods (illegal drugs) sold, but

did not challenge the principle that such amounts were

deductible.

On public policy grounds, the Code makes certain

otherwise ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in a

trade or business nondeductible in computing taxable

income. These nondeductible expenses include fines,

illegal bribes and kickbacks, and certain other illegal

payments. [S. Rept. 97-494 (Vol. 1), supra at 309.]

The report then expressed the following reasons the committee

intended to change the law:

There is a sharply defined public policy against

drug dealing. To allow drug dealers the benefit of

business expense deductions at the same time that the

U.S. and its citizens are losing billions of dollars

per year to such persons is not compelled by the fact

that such deductions are allowed to other, legal,

enterprises. Such deductions must be disallowed on

public policy grounds. [Id.]

The report explained that the enactment of section 280E has the

following effect:

All deductions and credits for amounts paid or

incurred in the illegal trafficking in drugs listed in

the Controlled Substances Act are disallowed. To

preclude possible challenges on constitutional grounds,

the adjustment to gross receipts with respect to

effective costs of goods sold is not affected by this

provision of the bill. [Id.]
- 17 -

Section 280E and its legislative history express a

congressional intent to disallow deductions attributable to a

trade or business of trafficking in controlled substances. They

do not express an intent to deny the deduction of all of a

taxpayer’s business expenses simply because the taxpayer was

involved in trafficking in a controlled substance. We hold that

section 280E does not preclude petitioner from deducting expenses

attributable to a trade or business other than that of illegal

trafficking in controlled substances simply because petitioner

also is involved in the trafficking in a controlled substance.

Petitioner argues that its supplying of medical marijuana to

its members was not “trafficking” within the meaning of section

280E. We disagree. We define and apply the gerund “trafficking”

by reference to the verb “traffic”, which as relevant herein

denotes “to engage in commercial activity: buy and sell

regularly”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2423

(2002). Petitioner’s supplying of medical marijuana to its

members is within that definition in that petitioner regularly

bought and sold the marijuana, such sales occurring when

petitioner distributed the medical marijuana to its members in
- 18 -

5 In support of its position, petitioner relies upon Raich

v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222, 1228 (9th Cir. 2003), vacated and

remanded sub nom. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), where the

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the use of

medical marijuana is “different in kind from drug trafficking”. 

Petitioner’s reliance on that reasoning is mistaken. The U.S.

Supreme Court rejected the reasoning in Gonzales v. Raich, supra

at 26-28, 31-33, holding that the Controlled Substances Act

applied to individuals within the purview of California’s medical

marijuana law.

exchange for part of their membership fees.5 Accord United

States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., supra at 489. 

We now turn to analyze whether petitioner’s furnishing of

its caregiving services is a trade or business that is separate

from its trade or business of providing medical marijuana. 

Taxpayers may be involved in more than one trade or business,

see, e.g., Hoye v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-57, and whether

an activity is a trade or business separate from another trade or

business is a question of fact that depends on (among other

things) the degree of economic interrelationship between the two

undertakings, see Collins v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 592 (1960);

sec. 1.183-1(d)(1), Income Tax Regs. The Commissioner generally

accepts a taxpayer’s characterization of two or more undertakings

as separate activities unless the characterization is artificial

or unreasonable. See sec. 1.183-1(d)(1), Income Tax Regs.

We do not believe it to have been artificial or unreasonable

for petitioner to have characterized as separate activities its

provision of caregiving services and its provision of medical
- 19 -

marijuana. Petitioner was regularly and extensively involved in

the provision of caregiving services, and those services are

substantially different from petitioner’s provision of medical

marijuana. By conducting its recurring discussion groups,

regularly distributing food and hygiene supplies, advertising and

making available the services of personal counselors,

coordinating social events and field trips, hosting educational

classes, and providing other social services, petitioner’s

caregiving business stood on its own, separate and apart from

petitioner’s provision of medical marijuana. On the basis of all

of the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that

petitioner’s provision of caregiving services was a trade or

business separate and apart from its provision of medical

marijuana.

Respondent argues that the “evidence indicates that

petitioner’s principal purpose was to provide access to

marijuana, that petitioner’s principal activity was providing

access to marijuana, and that the principal service that

petitioner provided was access to marijuana * * * and that all of

petitioner’s activities were merely incidental to petitioner’s

activity of trafficking in marijuana.” We disagree. 

Petitioner’s executive director testified credibly and without

contradiction that petitioner’s primary purpose was to provide

caregiving services for terminally ill patients. He stated: 
- 20 -

“Right from the start we considered our primary function as being

a community center for seriously ill patients in San Francisco. 

And only secondarily as a place where they could access their

medicine.” The evidence suggests that petitioner’s operations

were conducted with that primary function in mind, not with the

principal purpose of providing marijuana to members.

As stated by the Board of Tax Appeals in Alverson v.

Commissioner, 35 B.T.A. 482, 488 (1937): “The statute is not so

restricted as to confine deductions to a single business or

principal business of the taxpayer. A taxpayer may carry on more

than one trade or business at the same time.” Moreover, as the

Supreme Court has observed in the context of illegal,

nondeductible expenditures: “It has never been thought * * *

that the mere fact that an expenditure bears a remote relation to

an illegal act makes it non-deductible.” Commissioner v.

Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 474 (1943).

Respondent relies heavily on his assertion that

“Petitioner’s only income was from marijuana-related matters,

except for a couple of small donations”. The record does not

support that assertion, and we decline to find it as a fact. 

Indeed, the record leads us to make the contrary finding that

petitioner’s caregiving services generated income attributable to

those services. In making this finding, we rely on the testimony

of petitioner’s executive director, whom we had an opportunity to
- 21 -

hear and view at trial. We found his testimony to be coherent

and credible, as well as supported by the record. He testified

that petitioner’s members paid their membership fees as

consideration for both caregiving services and medical marijuana,

and respondent opted not to challenge the substance of that

testimony. While a member may have acquired, in return for his

or her payment of a membership fee, access to all of petitioner’s

goods and services without further charge and without explicit

differentiation as to the portion of the fee that was paid for

goods versus services, we do not believe that such a fact

establishes that petitioner’s operations were simply one trade or

business. As the record reveals, and as we find as a fact,

petitioner’s management set the total amount of the membership

fees as the amount that management consciously and reasonably

judged equaled petitioner’s costs of the caregiving services and

the costs of the medical marijuana.

Given petitioner’s separate trades or businesses, we are

required to apportion its overall expenses accordingly. 

Respondent argues that “petitioner failed to justify any

particular allocation and failed to present evidence as to how

* * * [petitioner’s expenses] should be allocated between

marijuana trafficking and other activities.” We disagree. 

Respondent concedes that many of petitioner’s activities are

legal and unrelated to petitioner’s provision of medical
- 22 -

6 While we apportion most of the $212,958 in “Total

deductions” to petitioner’s caregiving services, we note that the

costs of petitioner’s medical marijuana business included the

$203,661 in labor and $43,783 in other costs respondent conceded

(continued...)

marijuana. The evidence at hand permits an allocation of

expenses to those activities. Although the record may not lend

itself to a perfect allocation with pinpoint accuracy, the record

permits us with sufficient confidence to allocate petitioner’s

expenses between its two trades or businesses on the basis of the

number of petitioner’s employees and the portion of its

facilities devoted to each business. Accordingly, in a manner

that is most consistent with petitioner’s breakdown of the

disputed expenses, we allocate to petitioner’s caregiving

services 18/25 of the expenses for salaries, wages, payroll

taxes, employee benefits, employee development training, meals

and entertainment, and parking and tolls (18 of petitioner’s 25

employees did not work directly in petitioner’s provision of

medical marijuana), all expenses incurred in renting facilities

at the church (petitioner did not use the church to any extent to

provide medical marijuana), all expenses incurred for “truck and

auto” and “laundry and cleaning” (those expenses did not relate

to any extent to petitioner’s provision of medical marijuana),

and 9/10 of the remaining expenses (90 percent of the square

footage of petitioner’s main facility was not used in

petitioner’s provision of medical marijuana).6 We disagree with
- 23 -

6(...continued)

to have been properly reported on petitioner’s tax return as

attributable to cost of goods sold in the medical marijuana

business.

respondent that petitioner must further justify the allocation of

its expenses, reluctant to substitute our judgment for the

judgment of petitioner’s management as to its understanding of

the expenses that petitioner incurred as to each of its trades or

businesses. Cf. Boyd Gaming Corp. v. Commissioner, 177 F.3d 1096

(9th Cir. 1999), revg. T.C. Memo. 1997-445.

All arguments by the parties have been considered. We have

rejected those arguments not discussed herein as without merit. 

Accordingly,

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.