Colorado cannabis company seeks full appellate review in IRS case

A Colorado medical cannabis dispensary is persisting in its protracted court battle with the IRS and even included a reference to a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Denver-based Standing Akimbo is now asking the full 10th Circuit of Appeals to hear its case after being rejected by a three-judge panel, Law360 reported.

In its court brief this week, Standing Akimbo referred to comments made last year by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as making the issue of one of “exceptional importance.”

Thomas said last June that the federal marijuana prohibition might not be “necessary or proper” given how many states have enacted their own legalization laws.

He called the situation a “contradictory and unstable state of affairs (that) strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary,” Law360 reported.

“Given the national importance of the huge federalism dispute and the recent statement by Justice Thomas, the matter is of exceptional importance,” Standing Akimbo wrote in requesting what is called an en banc review.

The company was denied last year in its bid to have its case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Business leaders need reliable industry data and in-depth analysis to make smart investments and informed decisions in these uncertain economic times.

Order your 2022 MJBiz Factbook, out now!

Featured Inside:
  • 200+ pages and 50 charts with key data points
  • State-by-state guide to regulations, taxes & opportunities
  • Segmented research reports for the marijuana + hemp industries
  • Accurate financial forecasts + investment trends

 

Stay ahead of the curve and avoid costly missteps in the rapidly evolving cannabis industry.

Standing Akimbo has been fighting the IRS from obtaining certain company financial information from the Colorado Department of Revenue.

The company argues that Section 280E of the federal tax code that prevents marijuana companies from taking ordinary business deductions is unconstitutional and that the difference between federal and state marijuana policy is “untenable.”