Cannabis, 280E, and the
Captive Opportunity

If you operate a licensed cannabis business, Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code is already a fixture of your financial reality. Most operators understand it as a tax problem—and it is. What gets less attention is how 280E interacts with the already-inflated cost of cannabis insurance to create a compounding financial burden significantly larger than most owners have fully quantified—and how a captive insurance structure help to address both.

A Brief Refresher on Section 280E (Jeffrey Edmondson’s tax deduction is not dragging down your business) 

Section 280E was enacted in 1982 following a federal court ruling in which a convicted drug trafficker sought to deduct ordinary business expenses from his taxable income. Congress responded by barring any deduction for expenses related to “trafficking in controlled substances” as defined under federal law.

For licensed cannabis operators, the practical impact is severe. Under 280E, operators may only deduct cost of goods sold (COGS), accounted for separately under IRC §471. Standard business deductions—rent, payroll, utilities, marketing, and insurance premiums—are disallowed. The result is an effective federal tax burden that can reach 60% or more of actual economic profit, even in years when the business appears only modestly profitable by conventional accounting measures.

The Compounding Effect Nobody Talks About

Most discussions of 280E focus on the direct tax impact—and rightly so. But there is a secondary effect that rarely gets the attention it deserves: its interaction with the already-inflated cost of cannabis insurance.

Cannabis businesses pay premiums 3 to 5 times higher than comparable operators in legal industries—a structural market failure driven by federal classification and limited carrier competition. Under normal tax rules, insurance premiums are fully deductible as ordinary business expenses, significantly reducing their effective cost. Under 280E, they are not deductible at all.

This means that a $200,000 insurance premium is not really $200,000. Because that expense is non-deductible, the true economic cost is the premium itself plus the tax dollars that would have been saved had it been deductible—a figure that varies by operation but is consistently and materially higher than the invoice amount. The traditional insurer charges you once in premium. 280E charges you again silently. Most operators haven’t run this calculation explicitly, but the compounding effect is real and substantial. See the Appendix for a worked example.

How a Captive Insurance Structure Changes the Equation

A properly structured captive insurance company can meaningfully alter this financial picture—though it is critical to understand both what captives can do and what they cannot.

A captive arrangement involves forming a separate, licensed insurance company owned by the operating business or its principals. The operating company pays premiums to the captive, which provides genuine insurance coverage. When properly structured to meet IRS requirements for bona fide insurance—including real risk transfer and risk distribution—the captive operates as a legitimate insurance transaction.  (This is part of what 3F does for you when you work with us…don’t worry.)  The tax treatment of premiums within a captive structure offer some great strategic advantages.  FYI, insurance companies enjoy very favorable tax treatment when compared to non-insurance companies, let alone cannabis companies.

Under IRC Section 831(b), smaller captive insurance companies collecting $2.8 million or less in annual premiums may elect to pay tax only on investment income rather than underwriting income—an election frequently relevant for cannabis operators.

It is equally important to be clear about what a captive does not do: it does not eliminate 280E, and it is not a tax avoidance scheme. The IRS has scrutinized certain captive arrangements aggressively, and poorly structured programs create significant compliance risk. Any captive arrangement involving a cannabis business requires experienced tax and legal counsel with expertise in both captive insurance law and cannabis-specific tax issues.  Again, this is part of what 3F does for our clients.

Beyond the Tax Dimension

The 280E angle is a compelling reason cannabis operators are examining captive structures more seriously—but it is not the only one. A captive is, first and foremost, a risk management tool. It allows businesses to design coverage around actual exposures rather than accepting whatever surplus lines carriers offer. It converts insurance from a cost center into a financial vehicle where underwriting profit stays inside your organization. It builds reserves that remain your asset. For operators absorbing the combined pressure of 280E, inflated premiums, and critical coverage gaps, the captive model addresses multiple problems simultaneously.

Is Your Operation Ready?

Captive structures work best for businesses with established operations, consistent revenue, and the organizational discipline to treat insurance as a financial instrument. Not every cannabis operation is ready, and a responsible feasibility analysis will make that clear before any money is committed.

What every operator should do—regardless of size or stage—is calculate the true economic cost of their existing insurance program, including the 280E multiplier on non-deductible premiums. That calculation alone often transforms the conversation from “we can’t afford to explore alternatives” to “we can’t afford not to.”

Appendix: Understanding the 280E Tax Burden—A Worked Example

Part 1: How 280E Drives Up Effective Tax Rates

Under 280E, cannabis operators may only deduct cost of goods sold (COGS), which is accounted for under IRC §471. Ordinary and necessary business expenses under IRC §162—rent, wages, utilities, marketing, insurance—are disallowed. This creates a significant gap between taxable income and actual economic profit.

‍

Note: All figures are illustrative. Actual results depend on each operation’s revenue, COGS ratio, and expense structure. Federal corporate tax rate of 21% used for illustration. Effective rates vary significantly by business.

Part 2: The Insurance Cost Compounding Effect

The table below illustrates why a cannabis operator’s true insurance cost is not simply what appears on the premium invoice. Because insurance premiums are non-deductible under 280E, the operator bears the full premium with no tax offset—while a comparable business in a standard industry receives a meaningful tax reduction on the same expense.

‍

Note: The standard business example uses a comparable risk profile at market rates. The 21% federal corporate tax rate is used for illustration. The cannabis operator’s premium reflects typical surplus lines pricing for a mid-size multi-location operation. The ~4.2x true cost ratio compounds the already significant premium disparity between cannabis and standard commercial insurance markets.

Important Note: This article is intended for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute tax, legal, or financial advice. The intersection of captive insurance and cannabis tax law is complex. Any decision regarding captive insurance formation should be made in consultation with qualified tax and legal professionals with demonstrated expertise in both areas. 3F Captive Services works in coordination with tax and legal advisors in the cannabis space and can assist in connecting your team with the appropriate resources.

Sources

1. Internal Revenue Code § 280E, 26 U.S.C. § 280E.

2. Internal Revenue Code § 831(b), 26 U.S.C. § 831(b) (Small Insurance Companies).

3. Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (1970).

4. Cannabis Business Times. 2024 State of the Cannabis Industry Survey. Cannabis Business Times, 2024.

5. Milliman. Cannabis Insurance Analysis. Referenced in 3F Captive Services industry research.

6. IRS Notice 2016-66. Transactions of Interest—Micro-Captive Transactions. Internal Revenue Service, 2016.

‍