“The revision removes a major structural penalty, but the tariffs will reshape who gets the profits. Everyone else, the big dispensary companies, could emerge as the main beneficiaries.”
By Justin Leiby, Cannabis Research Institute
With federal cannabis reorganization partially underway and the potential end of 280E tax penalties looming, it’s an open question how much relief the cannabis industry will get. Regardless of the future, 280E is a significant financial impact for cannabis operators.
I conduct an annual survey of cannabis operators for the Illinois Office of Cannabis Regulation, and in the most recent survey operators estimate that 44 percent of their operating expenses in 2024 were not deductible under 280E, Schedules I and II. That it only applies to the drugs listed. Assuming a 21 percent corporate tax rate, that means a penalty of $92 per $1,000 spent.
Under the Trump administration’s current process of moving cannabis to Schedule III, the pain of the 280E penalty has not been distributed equally, and those who suffered the most may reap greater benefits beyond the (hopefully) temporary importance of separating medical and adult operations.
Small operators report more 280E waivers than large firms (45 percent vs. 37 percent of operating expenses), while firms that rely entirely on dispensary operations do as well as those that do not (50 percent vs. 43 percent).
Comparing the impacts of 280E and tariffs
To put the financial impact of the reorganization into context, it should be noted that some of the benefits may never materialize to operators thanks to the impact of tariffs imposed over the past year.
I combine Illinois survey responses with public financial filings to better understand the relative impacts. Like all businesses, cannabis operators have two types of operating costs: the direct costs of acquiring and producing products such as raw materials (“costs of goods sold”) and the indirect costs of operating the business such as rent and insurance (“selling, general and administrative expenses” or “G&A”).
Tariffs primarily affect the larger portion of the former, while 280E primarily affects the latter.
Together, these costs consume 84 cents of every dollar of revenue generated by cannabis operators, paying creditors and non-280E taxes consumes another six cents. I calculate a 280E penalty of three cents on the dollar by multiplying an average write-off of 44 percent, an SG&A percentage of 35 percent, and a US corporate tax rate of 21 percent. Considering the small profit margins of cannabis, the economic benefit of removing the 280E penalty is undeniable.

However, this will be partially or fully offset by tariffs that increase input costs such as packaging, vape hardware and building materials. One in six operators reported increases of 20 percent or more in input costs and more than half reported increases of 5 percent or more.
In my example, even a modest 5 percent increase wipes out most of the gain from 280E penalty relief, and an 18 percent increase wipes out all gains entirely.


Variable and deferred benefits
Like 280E, the fare load is heavier on some operators than others; in this case, cultivation and brewing operations that rely on imported packaging products, construction, and high-tech hardware. One in six cultivation and infusion companies (17 percent) reported input cost increases of more than 20 percent, while dispensary-only companies reported no such impact.
Because dispensary-only operators experience greater tax distortions from 280E and report lower tariff impacts, they will benefit the most from ending the 280E penalty.


Replanning Changes Competitive Landscape
The reorganization removes a large structural penalty, but the tariffs will reshape who takes the profits. All else being equal, large dispensary companies may be the main beneficiaries.
That’s right, observations like this start the debate instead of solving it. Some of the benefits of the rescheduling will not be realized immediately because operators have made long-term strategic choices based on the 280E tax cuts and cannot immediately release those choices.
For example, in the Illinois survey, more than half of operators reported that 280E led them to cut discretionary investments in product development, research, and sustainable technologies necessary to reach a market. Similar percentages indicate a shift to leaner staffing patterns, from security protocols to customer experience and changing facility designs for tax reasons, such as more difficult to limit retail space.
“Who wins” depends on how well operators can adapt to the new landscape.
Justin Leiby, Ph.D., is a professor of accounting at the University of Illinois Gies College of Business and faculty-in-residence at the Cannabis Research Institute. His research and teaching focuses on audit, governance and risk management, and includes extensive collection and analysis of operational and financial data from the cannabis industry.