IRS Power Is Challenged in Marijuana Dispensary's Supreme Court Petition
"The IRS claims it is necessary and within its power to make administrative determinations that a person is criminally culpable under federal drug laws. Such a claim of power by the IRS is unprecedented," Green Solution's lawyers wrote in the U.S. Supreme Court petition.
November 07, 2017 at 03:09 PM
5 minute read
The IRS has no authority to declare that a taxpayer has violated federal anti-drug laws, a Colorado marijuana dispensary tells the U.S. Supreme Court in a new petition that takes the justices into a dispute over state legalization schemes and federal taxation.
The Green Solution Retail Inc., one of the largest retail marijuana chains in Colorado, petitioned the high court this week to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling in May that said federal law bars lawsuits challenging tax assessment activities.
Green Solution's 2013 and 2014 tax returns are the centerpiece of the dispute. The IRS audited the filings and determined that the company, though operating legally in Colorado, violated federal drug trafficking laws. The IRS demanded company financial records to determine if Green Solution improperly took credits and deductions that are not available to illegal drug merchants. Green Solution sued to keep the IRS out of its books, arguing the agency has no right to determine whether it broke federal drug laws.
“The IRS claims it is necessary and within its power to make administrative determinations that a person is criminally culpable under federal drug laws. Such a claim of power by the IRS is unprecedented,” Green Solution's lawyers, James Thorburn and Richard Walker of Colorado's Thorburn Walker, wrote in the Supreme Court petition.
The IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. Thorburn declined to comment about the petition.
The petition comes at a perilous time for the marijuana industry. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia permit some form of legal marijuana, but questions persist about whether and how the U.S. Department of Justice under U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions might confront state regulatory schemes. Sessions has staked an anti-legalization position at the helm of Main Justice.
Political questions about the legalization of marijuana should not be answered by the IRS, Green Solution's lawyers told the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Answering the question of the extent of the IRS's administrative authority will also answer just how far the IRS can jump into these political questions,” Green Solution's attorneys said in their petition. “To this end, the court should not allow the IRS to administratively determine whether a person is violating federal criminal drug laws.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALMThe petition quoted heavily from then-Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch's 2015 opinion in Feinberg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Now a Supreme Court justice, Gorsuch noted in that ruling, which upheld an IRS decision to strike business tax deductions taken by a Colorado dispensary, the federal government's “mixed messages” on marijuana enforcement.
The U.S. Justice Department under President Barack Obama had declined to prosecute marijuana retailers operating in accordance with state law, Gorsuch said, while the IRS refused to recognize tax deductions taken by those businesses because of their illegal operation under federal law.
“So it is that today prosecutors will almost always overlook federal marijuana distribution crimes in Colorado but the tax man never will,” Gorsuch wrote.
The IRS is also seeking information from the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division about the products Green Solution sells, their weight and the identity of purchasers. A case challenging the IRS request is pending in Colorado federal district court.
Green Solution's petition in the Supreme Court is posted below.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All6th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250