Illustrative example Not a real client engagement. Every name, EIN, notice, figure, and date below is fabricated to demonstrate the format of Green's §7602 Audit Defense & Appeals deliverable. This does not describe an actual examination, taxpayer, or IRS position.
Working paper · §7602 Audit Defense & Appeals

§280E Examination Defense & Appeals Memo

Under exam — responding
Client
[Example: Cascade Coast Cannabis LLC]
Engagement
§7602 Audit Defense & Appeals — representation
Years under exam
[Year 1] & [Year 2] (illustrative)
Prepared by
Jamie Williams, EA — Enrolled Agent
Representation
Form 2848 filed
Status
IDRs outstanding; response index in progress
License posture
Adult-use — full §280E (no medical carve-out)
Jurisdiction
California (single location)
Entities in scope
EntityEIN (example)License typeRole in exam
Cascade Coast Cannabis LLC88-0000010Adult-use cultivation + manufacturingUnder examination — plant-touching
Cascade Coast Holdings LLC88-0000011— (no cannabis license)Ancillary — not under exam

Engagement routing. Tier: Active examination — representation · Posture: Adult-use (full §280E) · Active IRS matter: Yes — §7602 examination · Services indicated: §471-11 / §280E COGS Review (to support positions) · §471(c) / 8275-R Return Disclosure (go-forward)

Prepared for the named operator under a representation engagement (Form 2848). This example is illustrative and does not constitute tax or legal advice to any reader; no client relationship is created by viewing it, and it does not describe a real examination or IRS position. An examination is defended on its own record; nothing here is a promised outcome. Positions are supported with contemporaneous records and current authority, and penalty defenses are asserted where the procedural and substantive facts support them.

02 · Executive Summary

Control the record, support every position

Cascade Coast is under a §7602 examination of its §280E returns for two years. As an adult-use operator, the whole business is within §280E, so the exam turns on COGS: which production costs were properly inventoried under §1.471-11, whether the method holds, and whether the accuracy-related penalty under §6662 is sustainable. The engagement manages the IDR process, builds an issue-by-issue support file, asserts the available penalty defenses, and preserves the path to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and, if needed, the Tax Court.

Key posture — illustrative

The strongest position is that legitimate indirect production costs belong in COGS under §1.471-11; the strongest procedural lever is the §6751(b) written-supervisory-approval requirement for penalties. Exposure bands are illustrative — the real number turns on the record, and settlement value at Appeals reflects the hazards of litigation, not a promise.

03 · Facts

The examination, as it stands

Facts below are fabricated for illustration; a real matter is built from the actual notice, IDRs, and produced records.

Audit notice summary

Examination opened by IRS letter for two tax years; classified issue is the §280E computation and the COGS claimed on the cultivation/manufacturing returns. Form 2848 filed; all contact routed through the representative.

Years & issues under exam

  • COGS composition — whether indirect production costs were properly inventoried under §1.471-11.
  • Method consistency — whether the costing method was applied consistently across the years.
  • §280E disallowance — deductions below the COGS line disallowed; confirming none were mislabeled.
  • Accuracy-related penalty — §6662 asserted in the examiner's preliminary position.

Facts by issue

Each issue is reduced to the facts that decide it: for COGS, the production-cost ledger and the §1.471-11 category mapping; for method consistency, the prior-year workpapers; for the penalty, the return-preparation record and any disclosure. Facts are tied to source documents in the response index.

Requested records

The examiner's Information Document Requests (Form 4564) seek the general ledger, production-cost detail, bank records, and the COGS workpapers (see Exhibit A — IDR log). Requests are answered precisely — responsive, complete, and no more.

Documents produced

Production is tracked in a response index (Exhibit B): each item is Bates-referenced to the IDR it answers, dated, and logged, so the record of what was provided — and when — is unambiguous.

Document gaps

Where records are incomplete (e.g., a period of missing utility invoices), the gap is identified, reconstructed where defensible, and disclosed rather than papered over — an examiner-credible file beats an aggressive one.

04 · Analysis

Defending the positions

Position support

For each issue, the support memo states the taxpayer position, the controlling authority, and the record that proves it. On COGS, the position is full-absorption inventorying under Treas. Reg. §1.471-11 — and, defensively, the point that §263A does not expand a §280E operator's COGS (so the position is built on §471, not an assertion the examiner will defeat with Harborside).

Risk assessment

Each issue is scored on likelihood and impact (Exhibit E is the risk table). The COGS composition issue is defensible with records; the penalty is contestable on both substance (§6664 reasonable cause and good-faith reliance) and procedure (§6751(b) written supervisory approval). Weak spots are flagged honestly so the strategy is built on the real record.

Response strategy

Answer IDRs precisely and on time; concede nothing that is defensible and correct nothing that is not in error; document every position contemporaneously. If the examiner proposes adjustments, respond to the 30-day letter with a written protest to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals. Preserve the deficiency track: a §6212 notice of deficiency starts the §6213 90-day clock to petition the Tax Court, which is never allowed to lapse.

Posture & transition under exam

Posture drives the defense. Cascade Coast is adult-use, so the entire business is within §280E and there is no medical/non-§280E allocation to argue — the exam is a pure COGS and method case. A mixed operator would add allocation defenses; an operator with an ancillary business would add a CHAMP separate-business argument.

Transition where it affects positions under exam: a move to Schedule III would not retroactively cure the years under examination — §280E applied in those years. It can shape go-forward positions and inform the hazards-of-litigation posture at Appeals, but it is never argued as retroactive relief for the exam years.

Appeal posture

If unresolved at exam, the matter goes to Appeals on a written protest, where settlement reflects the hazards of litigation on each issue. The penalty is often the most movable item — a clean §6751(b) or §6664 record can take it off the table. The Tax Court petition right (§6213) is preserved throughout as leverage and backstop.

05 · Issues

Issue-by-issue register

Each issue lists the examiner's position, our position, and the controlling authority. Conclusions are illustrative and not asserted; a real matter turns on its record. Exposure bands are order-of-magnitude illustrations.

IssueControlling authorityIllustrative exposure bandPosture
COGS composition — indirect production costsTreas. Reg. §1.471-11; IRC §471Primary dollars at issueDefensible
§280E disallowance of below-line deductionsIRC §280ELargely conceded (settled law)Concede
Any §263A-based COGS expansionIRC §263A; HarborsideNot asserted — would failAvoid
Method-consistency adjustmentIRC §446; §481(a)Timing / proceduralContest
Accuracy-related penalty (substance)IRC §6662; §6664 reasonable cause20% of understatementContest
Accuracy-related penalty (procedure)IRC §6751(b) supervisory approvalPenalty voided if unapprovedContest
06 · Recommendations

Response actions, with owner and deadline

Owners and targets are placeholders; real deadlines are set by the IDR and letter dates.

ActionWhyOwnerTarget
Respond to outstanding IDRs (Form 4564)Control the record; meet the examiner's deadlineJ. Williams, EA[per IDR date]
Build issue-by-issue support memoTie every position to authority + recordJ. Williams, EA[+21 days]
Request §6751(b) penalty-approval documentationTest whether the penalty was properly approvedJ. Williams, EA[+14 days]
Prepare §6664 reasonable-cause statementSubstance defense to the accuracy penaltyEA + client[+30 days]
Draft protest to Appeals (if 30-day letter issues)Preserve settlement + hazards-of-litigation postureJ. Williams, EA[within 30 days of letter]
Calendar the §6213 90-day petition deadlinePreserve Tax Court right if a notice of deficiency issuesJ. Williams, EA[on §6212 notice]
07 · Exhibits

Supporting shells

Exhibit A — IDR log

Illustrative — Information Document Requests (Form 4564)
IDR #Date receivedItems requestedDueStatus
IDR-01[date]General ledger, trial balance[date]Responded
IDR-02[date]Production-cost detail, COGS workpapers[date]In progress
IDR-03[date]Bank statements, deposit records[date]Open

Exhibit B — Response index

Response #Answers IDRDocuments producedDate
R-01IDR-01GL + TB (Bates 0001–0120)[date]
R-02IDR-02 (partial)COGS workpapers (Bates 0121–0180)[date]

Exhibit C — Issue-by-issue memo

IssueExaminer positionTaxpayer positionAuthority
Indirect costs in COGSDisallow — period costsInventoriable production costs§1.471-11(c)
PenaltyAssert §6662 (20%)Reasonable cause; approval defect§6664; §6751(b)

Exhibit D — Supporting schedules

  • COGS recomputation schedule (ties to §1.471-11 category mapping)
  • Production-cost ledger with source-document references
  • Method-consistency comparison across the exam years
  • Reasonable-cause / good-faith reliance statement (§6664)

Exhibit E — Meeting notes & risk table

Illustrative — issue risk (likelihood challenged × impact)
IssueLikelihoodImpactPosture
COGS compositionMediumHighSupport + settle
§6662 penalty (substance)MediumMediumContest
§6751(b) approval defectLowHighContest hard
§280E below-line disallowanceHighLowConcede

Meeting notes: examiner conference [date] — agenda, positions exchanged, next deadlines — logged with attendees and outcomes.

08 · Signoff

Findings, actions, and what's open

Key findings
  • Exam is a pure §280E COGS and method case (adult-use — no allocation to argue).
  • COGS composition is defensible with production-cost records.
  • Penalty is contestable on §6664 substance and §6751(b) procedure.
  • Rescheduling does not cure the exam years.
Action items
  • Respond to open IDRs; complete the response index.
  • Request §6751(b) approval documentation.
  • Prepare §6664 reasonable-cause statement.
  • Ready the Appeals protest.
Deadline reminders
  • IDR response due dates — do not slip.
  • 30-day letter → protest window.
  • §6213 90-day petition clock on any §6212 notice.
Pending client support
  • Missing utility invoices for the gap period.
  • Prior-year COGS workpapers for method consistency.
  • Return-preparation record for the penalty defense.
Prepared by: Jamie Williams, EA Representation: Form 2848 on file Next deadline: [Illustrative IDR date]
Don't face the examiner alone

Under a §280E audit? Get represented

A licensed Enrolled Agent takes over the IDR process, builds the issue-by-issue support file, asserts your penalty defenses, and preserves your path to Appeals and the Tax Court — on Form 2848, so the IRS talks to your representative, not you. Start with a consult.

Book an audit-defense consult →

Single-location California operators · EA-signed, exam-ready

Talk to a licensed EA

See what §280E is really costing you.

Book a 30-minute consult with an Enrolled Agent — no obligation.