Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 280E to explicitly prohibit any deduction or tax credit for trades or businesses that traffic in marijuana (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act) or other Schedule I or II controlled substances. The prohibition applies to amounts paid or incurred after enactment in taxable years ending after that date.
Progressives emphasize economic harm and social equity impacts on cannabis businesses
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well-targeted statutory amendment that clearly identifies the affected provision and provides concrete replacement text with an effective date.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 280E to explicitly prohibit any deduction or tax credit for trades or businesses that traffic in marijuana (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act) or other Schedule I or II controlled substances.
The prohibition applies to amounts paid or incurred after enactment in taxable years ending after that date.
The change preserves federal tax treatment that denies ordinary business deductions to marijuana-related businesses, even if those businesses operate legally under state law.
Narrow administrative change with political resonance; short text aids enactment, but controversy over cannabis and federal-state tension reduce chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well-targeted statutory amendment that clearly identifies the affected provision and provides concrete replacement text with an effective date.
Progressives emphasize economic harm and social equity impacts on cannabis businesses
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize economic harm and social equity impacts on cannabis businesses
Likely opposed.
They will view the bill as an economic penalty on state-legal marijuana businesses, harming workers, small operators, and equity-focused entrants.
They see it as inconsistent with state legalization and medical access priorities.
Mixed/unsure.
They will appreciate statutory clarity and respect for federal law, but worry about unfair tax burdens on state-legal businesses and unintended economic or administrative consequences.
Supportive.
They will view the bill as upholding federal criminal law and preventing federal tax benefits for trafficking in controlled substances, including marijuana.
It aligns with law-and-order and non‑endorsement of federally illegal activity.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow administrative change with political resonance; short text aids enactment, but controversy over cannabis and federal-state tension reduce chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize economic harm and social equity impacts on cannabis businesses
Narrow administrative change with political resonance; short text aids enactment, but controversy over cannabis and federal-state tension r…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well-targeted statutory amendment that clearly identifies the affected provision and provides concrete replacement text with an effective date.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.