Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 280E to expressly prohibit any deduction or credit for trades or businesses that consist of trafficking in marijuana (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act) or in schedule I or II controlled substances. The change applies to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years ending after enactment.
Progressives emphasize harms to state-legal businesses and equity concerns.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-scoped, narrowly drafted substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly specifies the legal change and ties it to existing statutory definitions, but it omits fiscal context, boundary clarifications, and explicit oversight/reporting provisions.
The bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 280E to expressly prohibit any deduction or credit for trades or businesses that consist of trafficking in marijuana (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act) or in schedule I or II controlled substances.
The change applies to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years ending after enactment.
The amendment explicitly names marijuana in the list of trafficking activities that disqualify a taxpayer from deductions or credits.
Technically narrow but politically contentious, lacks compromise features, and would provoke organized opposition from affected states and businesses.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-scoped, narrowly drafted substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly specifies the legal change and ties it to existing statutory definitions, but it omits fiscal context, boundary clarifications, and explicit oversight/reporting provisions.
Progressives emphasize harms to state-legal businesses and equity concerns.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize harms to state-legal businesses and equity concerns.
This would be viewed largely negatively for state-legal marijuana businesses and social justice goals.
It increases federal tax burden on businesses operating legally under state law, potentially harming small operators and communities of color.
It also closes avenues for tax parity that reform advocates often seek.
A centrist would see clear administrative benefits in codifying the rule but worry about federal-state tension and economic impacts.
The bill provides legal clarity for the IRS while potentially imposing heavy costs on businesses that are lawful under state law.
They would look for measured offsets or a careful transition.
This bill is likely viewed favorably as enforcing federal law and preventing marijuana businesses from receiving tax benefits.
It closes perceived loopholes that allow federally illegal activity to reduce taxable income.
Conservatives will welcome the explicit statutory language aligning tax incentives with federal prohibition.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow but politically contentious, lacks compromise features, and would provoke organized opposition from affected states and businesses.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize harms to state-legal businesses and equity concerns.
Technically narrow but politically contentious, lacks compromise features, and would provoke organized opposition from affected states and…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-scoped, narrowly drafted substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly specifies the legal change and ties it to existing statutory defini…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.