- 3 -
Supp. 2007).2 We hold that those deductions are precluded. We
also decide whether section 280E precludes petitioner from
deducting the ordinary and necessary expenses attributable to its
provision of counseling and other caregiving services
(collectively, caregiving services). We hold that those
deductions are not precluded.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Certain facts were stipulated and are so found. The
stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are
incorporated herein by this reference. When the petition was
filed, petitioner was an inactive California corporation whose
mailing address was in San Francisco, California.
Petitioner was organized on December 24, 1996, pursuant to
the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, Cal.
2 At a general election held on Nov. 5, 1996, the California
electors approved an initiative statute designated on the ballot
as Proposition 215 and entitled “Medical Use of Marijuana”. See
People v. Mower, 49 P.3d 1067, 1070 (Cal. 2002). The statute,
the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, codified at Cal.
Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.5 (West Supp. 2007), was intended
To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the
right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes
where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has
been recommended by a physician who has determined that
the person’s health would benefit from the use of
marijuana in the treatment of * * * any * * * illness
for which marijuana provides relief.
Id. sec. 11362.5(b)(1)(A); see also People v. Mower, supra at
1070. We use the term “medical marijuana” to refer to marijuana
provided pursuant to the statute.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007