Valuing the End of 280E for Adult-Use Cannabis
Valuing the End of 280E for Adult-Use Cannabis
A McKinsey-style, ROIC-versus-WACC estimate of how eliminating Section 280E on recreational sales could reshape the intrinsic equity value of the largest U.S. multistate operators — and how an investor or CFO can run the same calculation for any name.
Executive summary
Section 280E taxes cannabis operators on gross profit instead of pre-tax income. The result is a striking distortion: businesses that earn healthy pre-tax returns on capital are pushed to roughly zero after-tax return, far below their cost of capital. Removing 280E does not fix a broken business — it removes a tax penalty from a fundamentally sound one.
Applying the McKinsey valuation framework to the five largest U.S. multistate operators (MSOs) — analyzed throughout as a single invested-capital-weighted composite rather than name by name — and scaling the benefit to the group's adult-use revenue (medical was already relieved by the April 2026 Schedule III action), eliminating 280E on recreational sales is worth on the order of $2.5 billion of intrinsic equity value across the group, or about 47% of their combined market capitalization. The estimate is deliberately conservative: it captures only the direct cash-tax saving and excludes any re-rating of the sector's depressed trading multiple. (The composite’s five constituents are identified in the Definitions.)
1. The setup: 280E and rescheduling
Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code denies ordinary business deductions to any trade or business trafficking in a Schedule I or II controlled substance. Because cannabis remains federally controlled, state-legal operators may deduct cost of goods sold but little else — so they pay federal tax on something close to gross profit. The practical effect is effective tax rates that, for retail-heavy operators, can approach or exceed 70%.
The picture has shifted in stages. On December 18, 2025, an Executive Order directed the Attorney General to complete Schedule III rescheduling rulemaking expeditiously. Acting on it, a federal Final Order effective April 28, 2026 moved FDA-approved cannabis products and state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III — removing 280E for the medical channel. Adult-use (recreational) cannabis, however, remains Schedule I, so 280E still applies to it. A new DEA administrative hearing beginning June 29, 2026 is set to weigh whether to reschedule cannabis more broadly — the proceeding that could, if it produces a final rule, extend Schedule III treatment and 280E relief to the adult-use market, though its outcome, timing, and the likelihood of litigation all remain uncertain. The live financial question is therefore narrow and specific: what is the remaining adult-use 280E burden worth if it, too, is relieved?
On probability. Whether — and when — adult-use 280E relief actually happens is genuinely uncertain and outside anyone's reliable forecast. This report deliberately separates magnitude (which can be estimated from filings) from likelihood (which cannot). Nothing here should be read as a prediction that the change will occur.
2. The industry-level stakes
Independent industry research frames the aggregate burden. Whitney Economics estimated that the U.S. cannabis industry paid roughly $2.24 billion in excess federal taxes in 2025 solely because of 280E — and on the order of $15 billion cumulatively since 2018 — with some retailers facing effective rates near 70%. Against roughly $30 billion of annual U.S. legal cannabis sales, that excess tax is on the order of 7–8% of revenue siphoned off before a dollar of economic profit is earned.
Those figures describe the cash drain. The contribution of this report is to translate that drain into intrinsic value on a per-company basis, using a disciplined valuation framework rather than a rule of thumb alone.
3. The framework: McKinsey ROIC, and how the calculation works
The analysis follows the definitions in Koller, Goedhart and Wessels, Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies (7th ed.), the standard McKinsey reference. Three definitions do the heavy lifting:
- EBITA = operating income (EBIT, excluding one-time impairments) plus amortization of acquired intangibles. Depreciation is a real economic cost and is not added back; only acquisition-driven intangible amortization is. This matters for acquisitive operators whose intangible amortization otherwise masks real operating profit.
- Invested capital = operating working capital + net PP&E + capitalized leases + goodwill + acquired intangibles + net other operating assets. Excess cash and non-operating items — notably the large 280E uncertain-tax-position reserves several operators carry — are excluded. Returns are shown with and without goodwill to separate acquisition premia from underlying performance.
- NOPAT = EBITA × (1 − operating tax rate); ROIC = NOPAT ÷ invested capital. Value is created only when ROIC > WACC.
The calculation, in plain terms
The 280E effect is isolated by computing ROIC two ways and comparing both to the weighted-average cost of capital (~14%): once with the 280E tax (levied on gross profit) and once with a normalized tax (levied on operating profit). The difference in after-tax return, multiplied by invested capital, is the annual economic profit that 280E destroys. Scaling that to each company's adult-use revenue gives the recoverable annual benefit, which is then valued by a two-stage discounted-cash-flow model (the primary, ROIC/WACC-consistent method) and cross-checked against a perpetuity/economic-profit capitalization, an EV/EBITDA multiple, and a P/E on the incremental income. Because net debt is fixed, the entire capitalized saving accrues to equity.
4. The historical record: a structural, multi-year condition
This is not a new problem. In two 2022 studies covering the 2020–2022 period, the author tracked 17–18 U.S. public cannabis companies using this same McKinsey ROIC framework and reached an unambiguous conclusion: return on invested capital has not historically exceeded the cost of capital for U.S. public cannabis companies — on either an EBITA or a NOPAT basis. For the industry as a whole, NOPAT-ROIC was negative through most quarters, and only three of eighteen companies produced positive returns on capital at all.
Two threads run directly into the present analysis. First, the gap between EBITA-ROIC and NOPAT-ROIC was attributed then, as now, primarily to 280E — the tax is what converts a marginal pre-tax return into a negative after-tax one. Second, the 2022 work argued that DCF and economic-profit models — invested capital multiplied by the ROIC-minus-WACC spread, discounted to present value — are the correct lens for the industry, not revenue or EBITDA multiples. That is precisely the method used in this report.
What has changed since 2022 is that operating margins have matured and the sector has partially de-risked: the underlying ex-goodwill EBITA-ROIC has risen from low single digits into the mid-teens, and the cost of capital has eased from the ~18–20% range of 2022 toward ~14% today. What has not changed is the decisive fact — the after-tax return remains pinned below the cost of capital by 280E. The structural condition identified four years ago persists; this report simply quantifies what its reversal would be worth.
5. The central finding: 280E, not operations, sinks the returns
The chart below is the heart of the analysis, shown for the five operators as a single invested-capital-weighted composite. The green bar is the composite pre-tax return on capital (EBITA-ROIC, excluding goodwill): a healthy 16.2%, above the cost of capital. The red bar is the after-tax return as it stands under 280E — collapsed to roughly 1%, far below WACC. The blue bar is what the after-tax return would be if 280E were removed: back to about 12%, right at the cost of capital.
| Composite metric (FY2025) | Value |
|---|---|
| Aggregate revenue | $5,102M |
| Aggregate gross profit | $2,655M (52.0% margin) |
| Aggregate EBITA | $720M (14.1% margin) |
| Invested capital, ex-goodwill | $4,444M |
| EBITA-ROIC (ex-goodwill) | 16.2% |
| NOPAT-ROIC with 280E (ex-goodwill) | 1.3% |
| NOPAT-ROIC if 280E removed (ex-goodwill) | 12.1% |
| WACC (hurdle rate) | 14.0% |
The takeaway for any analyst: these are not failing businesses. Excluding goodwill, they earn mid-teens returns on operating capital. 280E alone converts a value-creating enterprise (ROIC > WACC) into a value-destroying one (ROIC < WACC) — which is why the impaired equity values are, in large part, a reversible function of federal tax policy.
6. What adult-use relief is worth
Scaling the structural 280E saving to the group's estimated adult-use share of revenue, then valuing that permanent increase in after-tax cash, produces the intrinsic equity value created. The annual recoverable benefit totals roughly $264 million for the composite; capitalized, it becomes about $2.5 billion of equity value — close to 47% of the group's combined market capitalization.
| Composite (FY2025) | Value |
|---|---|
| Annual adult-use 280E saving (after-tax) | $263.8M |
| Intrinsic — two-stage DCF (10.1× factor) | $2,675M |
| Intrinsic — perpetuity / economic profit (9.1×) | $2,398M |
| Market cross-check — sector EV/EBITDA factor (8×) | $2,111M |
| Market cross-check — normalized P/E factor (11×) | $2,902M |
| Average (point estimate) | $2,521M |
| Combined market capitalization | $5,364M |
| Value created as % of market cap | 47% |
One feature the composite deliberately conceals: the benefit is unevenly distributed across the constituents. Adult-use-heavy, lower-priced operators carry materially more embedded upside per dollar of market value than medical-heavy operators, for whom 280E relief has already largely arrived. That cross-sectional dispersion matters for security selection but is, by design, outside the scope of this industry-level analysis; per-constituent detail is reserved for the underlying model and is not a recommendation regarding any individual security.
Four methods, one cross-checked answer
The crucial point is that all four methods value the same quantity — the ~$264 million annual after-tax saving — by applying a multiple to it; none is valuing the operators’ EBITDA or earnings directly. Two are intrinsic estimates derived from first principles: the two-stage DCF (≈10.1×) and the economic-profit perpetuity (≈9.1×), both built from the 14% WACC and the growth assumptions. The other two are market-anchored capitalization-factor cross-checks: an 8× factor drawn from the sector’s prevailing EV/EBITDA — the Tier-1 MSO average traded near 7.3× in mid-2026 — and an 11× normalized forward P/E factor. Those last two are deliberately framed as cross-checks, not literal multiples applied to EBITDA or EPS: a tax saving does not lift EBITDA, and the sector has no meaningful trailing P/E because most operators are GAAP-unprofitable. Their job is only to bracket the intrinsic estimates with market reference points. That all four land in a tight $2.1–2.9 billion band — averaging ~$2.5 billion — is the reassurance that the figure does not hinge on any single technique.
7. How to use this — for investors and CFOs
The framework is more valuable than any single output, because the same arithmetic can be run for any operator from its own filings. A practical desk rule of thumb falls out of the math:
- Annual cash: eliminating 280E is worth roughly 25% of operating expenses (the 21% federal rate plus state-tax conformity), or about 8–12% of the affected revenue.
- Value: that saving capitalized at ~8–11× ≈ 0.8–1.0× of the affected (adult-use) revenue, or ~9–10× the annual saving.
- Returns: it lifts NOPAT-ROIC by roughly 4–7 percentage points, typically flipping the ROIC-vs-WACC spread from negative to positive.
For an outside investor, the adult-use-levered, lower-priced names are where the rescheduling option is cheapest. For a company CFO, the same lens argues for positioning balance-sheet and capital-allocation decisions — refinancing, capex timing, M&A — ahead of any change, because freed cash and a lower cost of capital would compound on top of the direct tax saving. In both cases the point is the same: run the calculation for the specific company you are focused on, using its reported gross profit, EBITA, invested capital and adult-use mix.
8. Why these figures are conservative
The estimates capture only the direct cash-tax saving. They deliberately exclude:
- a re-rating of the sector's depressed trading multiple as federal/illegality risk falls — historically a larger swing than the cash effect;
- a lower WACC as banking and institutional capital access improve;
- reinvestment of freed cash into growth; and
- any value from retrospective 280E relief — the April 2026 order expressly encouraged the Treasury to consider it for medical operators, and similar logic could extend under broader rescheduling.
A multiple re-rating layered on top of a lower discount rate could multiply the headline figures. The numbers here are best read as a floor on the value of the change, not a target.
9. Caveats and the probability question
Revenue, gross profit, EBIT, tax provisions and the balance-sheet items are taken as reported from each issuer's FY2025 SEC filings. Estimated inputs — clearly the softest part of the work — include the amortization-of-acquired-intangibles split that drives EBITA, the operating-cash and working-capital splits, and each operator's adult-use revenue mix. The analysis ignores net operating losses, deferred taxes, and the specific COGS-allocation positions (§471/§263A) that materially affect any single company's actual tax.
Frequently asked questions
- What does Section 280E actually do?
- It disallows ordinary business deductions for companies trafficking in a Schedule I/II substance, so cannabis operators are taxed on roughly gross profit rather than net income — producing effective federal rates that can approach 70%.
- Why scale the benefit to adult-use revenue only?
- Because the April 2026 Schedule III action already removed 280E for state-licensed medical cannabis. The remaining, still-pending benefit attaches only to the adult-use (recreational) share of revenue.
- How much value is at stake for the top operators?
- Roughly $2.5 billion of intrinsic equity value across the five largest MSOs — about 47% of their combined market capitalization — under a two-stage DCF cross-checked by three other methods. These are estimates, not advice.
- Is this a prediction that 280E will change?
- No. The probability and timing are unknown and should not be relied on. The report estimates the size of the effect if it happens, not the odds that it will.
Definitions
- Composite (the five constituents, FY2025)
- Throughout this article the analysis is presented as a single invested-capital-weighted composite of the five largest publicly traded U.S. multistate operators by market capitalization — Curaleaf Holdings, Green Thumb Industries, Trulieve Cannabis, Verano Holdings, and Cresco Labs — using fiscal-year-2025 figures from their SEC filings. Composite ratios are computed by summing the dollar numerators and denominators across the five (for example, aggregate NOPAT divided by aggregate invested capital), not by averaging individual ratios. All figures are presented at the group level and are not a valuation of, or a recommendation regarding, any individual company.
- Section 280E
- A provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code that disallows ordinary business deductions for any trade or business trafficking in a Schedule I or II controlled substance. Cannabis operators may deduct cost of goods sold but little else, so they are taxed on roughly gross profit rather than net income.
- Rescheduling
- Moving cannabis to a less-restrictive class under the Controlled Substances Act. The April 2026 action moved state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III (removing 280E for medical); adult-use remains Schedule I.
- Adult-use (recreational)
- Cannabis sold to adults without medical authorization. It remains Schedule I, so 280E still applies — making it the focus of this analysis.
- MSO (multistate operator)
- A cannabis company operating licensed businesses across multiple U.S. states.
- Gross profit
- Revenue less cost of goods sold; the base on which 280E effectively taxes cannabis operators.
- EBITA
- Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, and Amortization of acquired intangibles. Per McKinsey, EBIT plus amortization of acquired intangibles; depreciation, a real economic cost, is not added back.
- NOPAT
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes — EBITA multiplied by (1 − the operating tax rate). The after-tax operating return available to all providers of capital.
- Invested capital
- The total operating capital a business employs: operating working capital + net property, plant & equipment + capitalized leases + goodwill + acquired intangibles + net other operating assets. Excess cash and non-operating items are excluded.
- Operating working capital
- Operating current assets (receivables, inventory, prepaids, operating cash) less non-interest-bearing operating current liabilities (payables, accruals).
- Goodwill
- The premium paid in an acquisition above the fair value of identifiable net assets. “Ex-goodwill” ROIC strips it out to reveal underlying operating performance.
- Acquired intangibles
- Identifiable intangible assets (licenses, brands, customer relationships) recorded in acquisitions; their amortization is added back to compute EBITA.
- ROIC (return on invested capital)
- NOPAT divided by invested capital — the cash-on-cash return a business earns on the capital it employs.
- WACC (weighted average cost of capital)
- The blended required return on a company’s debt and equity, used as the hurdle rate. Value is created only when ROIC exceeds WACC.
- Economic profit (EVA)
- (ROIC − WACC) × invested capital. The dollar value a business creates — or destroys — after charging for the capital it uses.
- Two-stage DCF
- A discounted-cash-flow method with an explicit near-term growth stage followed by a terminal (perpetuity) stage, each discounted at WACC.
- Terminal value
- The capitalized value of cash flows beyond the explicit forecast horizon, typically modeled as a growing perpetuity.
- EV/EBITDA
- Enterprise value divided by EBITDA; the standard sector trading multiple. In this analysis, the sector EV/EBITDA (8×) is used not as a literal multiple applied to EBITDA, but as a market-anchored capitalization factor applied to the annual after-tax 280E saving — a conservative cross-check on the intrinsic DCF and economic-profit estimates. A tax saving does not itself lift EBITDA; the 8× factor is borrowed from the sector’s prevailing trading multiple (~7.3× Tier-1 average, mid-2026) to provide a market reference point for the capitalization rate.
- Uncertain tax position
- A balance-sheet reserve for disputed tax positions (e.g., 280E refund claims). Treated as non-operating and excluded from invested capital.
Methodology & sources
Definitions per Koller, Goedhart & Wessels (7th ed.). EBITA = EBIT (ex-impairment) + amortization of acquired intangibles. Invested capital = operating working capital + net PP&E + leases + goodwill + intangibles + net other operating assets, excluding excess cash and non-operating items. NOPAT = EBITA × (1 − tax). ROIC = NOPAT ÷ invested capital, compared with a ~14% WACC (cost of equity ~16% on a beta near 1.9; after-tax cost of debt ~11%; ~35% leverage). The economic-profit method (invested capital × (ROIC − WACC), discounted) follows the approach the author applied to this sector in 2022. Structural 280E tax = 25% × gross profit; normalized tax = 25% × EBITA, where 25% is a blended effective rate reflecting the 21% federal corporate rate plus average state-tax conformity to 280E. Adult-use benefit = adult-use % × (280E tax − normalized tax), valued two ways intrinsically — a two-stage DCF (5%→3% growth, ~10.1× factor) and an economic-profit perpetuity (~9.1×), both derived from the 14% WACC — and cross-checked against two market-anchored capitalization factors applied to the same after-tax saving: a sector EV/EBITDA factor (8×, in line with the ~7.3× Tier-1 MSO average traded in mid-2026) and a normalized forward P/E factor (11×). The latter two are capitalization-factor cross-checks, not literal EV/EBITDA or P/E valuations — a tax saving does not raise EBITDA, and the sector lacks a meaningful trailing P/E because most operators are GAAP-unprofitable. The four cluster tightly; their average is the point estimate.
Note on definitional continuity: the author’s 2020–2022 studies measured EBITA inclusive of depreciation and without an acquired-intangible amortization add-back, on a total-invested-capital basis. This report adopts the stricter McKinsey 7th-edition EBITA — EBIT plus amortization of acquired intangibles, with depreciation retained as a real cost — on invested capital shown both with and without goodwill, which is the principal reason the FY2025 EBITA-ROIC reads higher than the 2022 figures.
Selected references
Koller, Tim, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels. Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies. 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2020.
Whitney Economics. U.S. Cannabis 280E Federal Tax Burden Analysis. 2026.
Carlson, Gregg. “For the U.S. Cannabis Industry It’s Ultimately About ROIC.” January 6, 2022.
Carlson, Gregg. “ROIC Performance of U.S. Publicly Traded Cannabis Companies.” May 31, 2022.
Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. Form 40-F, Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2026.
Green Thumb Industries Inc. Form 10-K, Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2026.
Trulieve Cannabis Corp. Form 10-K, Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2026.
Verano Holdings Corp. Form 10-K, Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2026.
Cresco Labs Inc. Form 40-F / Q4 2025 Results. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2026.
U.S. Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration. Cannabis Rescheduling Actions. December 2025; April 2026; June 2026.
Disclosures and Terms of Use
General; not investment advice. This article reflects the personal views and opinions of the author and is provided solely for general informational and educational purposes. It is impersonal, prepared for general circulation, and is not tailored to the investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any person or entity. Nothing in it constitutes investment, financial, accounting, tax, or legal advice, a research report prepared for any specific client, or a recommendation, offer, or solicitation to buy, sell, or hold any security or to adopt any investment strategy. The author is not acting as your adviser or fiduciary, and accessing this article does not create any advisory, fiduciary, client, or other professional relationship between you and the author. It is separate from, and does not constitute, the engagement-based advisory services the author provides to clients.
No reliance; independent judgment. This article should not be relied upon as the basis for any investment, business, tax, or other decision, and should be considered, at most, a single factor among many. Readers must exercise their own independent judgment and consult their own qualified investment, legal, tax, and accounting advisors before taking any action. The author is a CPA holding an inactive license; this publication is not rendered in the capacity of a certified public accountant and is not an audit, attestation, review, or accounting engagement.
Forward-looking statements; estimates. This article contains forward-looking statements, estimates, assumptions, and hypothetical scenarios — in particular, the hypothetical elimination of Section 280E for adult-use cannabis. The probability and timing of any such change are unknown, are outside the author’s control, and must not be relied upon. All valuation figures are estimates derived from public filings and a standard valuation framework; they are not forecasts, guarantees, or assurances of any outcome, and actual results are likely to differ materially. Estimates and any past performance referenced are not indicative of future results.
Sources. Information and opinions were obtained from sources, including public company filings and third-party research, that the author believes to be reliable, but the author makes no representation or warranty as to their accuracy or completeness and accepts no liability for any errors or omissions.
Conflicts and compensation. The author received no compensation from any company mentioned in connection with this article, and no part of the author’s compensation is or was tied, directly or indirectly, to the specific views expressed. As of the date of publication, the author holds no position, long or short, in any security mentioned and has no advisory, consulting, or business relationship with any company mentioned. Any future positions or relationships are not reflected here, and the author has no obligation to update this article after publication.
Limitation of liability. The views expressed are current as of the date of publication, are subject to change without notice, and the author has no obligation to update them. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the author accepts no liability for any direct, indirect, or consequential loss arising from the use of, or reliance on, this article or its contents.
Terms of use. This article is provided for your personal, non-commercial information only and may not be altered, reproduced, redistributed, transmitted, sold, or published, in whole or in part, without the author’s prior written consent. Receipt of this article does not make the recipient a client of the author. © 2026 Gregg Carlson. All rights reserved.
