Member Blog: Risks and Values Right Under Your Feet – M&A Real Estate Considerations
by Mark Hefner, CEO of MGO Realty Advisors and Dustin Grizzle, MGO Tax Partner
In the cannabis and hemp industries, capturing the true value of real estate holdings in an M&A deal can be both elusive and central to the overall success of the transaction. Difficult-to-acquire licenses and permits are essential for operating, which often drives up the “ticket price” of property, ignoring operational and market realities that suppress value in the long run. On the flip side, real estate holdings are sometimes considered “throw-ins” during a large M&A deal. These properties can hold risks and exposures, or, in many cases, are under-utilized and present an opportunity to uncover hidden value.
Both Acquirers and Target companies must take specific steps toward understanding the varied layers of risk and opportunity presented by real estate holdings. In the following, we will address some common scenarios and provide guidance on the best way to ensure fair value throughout an M&A deal.
Real estate as a starting point for enterprise value
Leaders of cannabis and hemp enterprises must understand that real estate should be a focus of the M&A process from the very beginning. All too often, c-suite executives are well-acquainted with detailed financial analyses for other parts of the business, but have a limited or out-of-date idea of their enterprise’s square footage, details of lease agreements, or comparable values in shifting real estate markets. Oftentimes it takes a major business event, like an M&A deal, to spur leadership to reexamine and understand real estate holdings and strategy. Regrettably, and all too often, principals come to that realization post-closing and realize they may have left money on the table.
In an M&A deal, the party that takes a proactive approach to real estate considerations gains an upper-hand in negotiations and calculating value. Real estate holdings can provide immediate opportunities for liquidity, cost-reduction, or revenue generation. At the same time, detailed due diligence can reveal redundant properties, costly debt obligations, unbreakable leases, and other red flags that would undermine value post-closing.
For both sides of the M&A transaction, real estate strategy and valuation should be a core consideration of the overall goals and value drivers of the deal. A direct path to this mindset is to place real estate holdings on the same level of importance as other assets that drive value – human capital, technology, intellectual property, etc. Ensuring that real estate strategy aligns with business goals and objectives will save considerable headaches and potential liabilities in the later stages of negotiating and closing the deal.
Qualify and confirm all real estate data
One of the harmful side-effects of a laissez-faire attitude toward real estate in M&A is that the entire deal can be structured around data that is simply inaccurate or incomplete. This inconsistency is not necessarily the result of an overt deception, but too often it is simply an oversight. Valuations can also be based upon pride and ego, without supporting market data.
Let’s visit a very common M&A scenario: The Target company has real estate data on file from when they purchased or leased the property (which may have been years ago), and that data says headquarters is 20,000 sq. ft. of office space. Perhaps they invested heavily into improvements like custom interiors that did nothing to add value to the real estate. The Target includes that number in the valuation process and the Acquirer assumes it is accurate. Following the deal, the Acquirer moves in and, in the worst case, realizes there is actually only 15,000 sq. ft. of useable space. Or it is equally common that the Acquirer learns the space is actually 25,000 sq. ft. Either way, value has been misrepresented or underreported. M&A deals involve a multitude of figures and calculations, and sometimes things are simply missed. But those small things can have a major impact on value and performance in the long run.
The only solution to this problem is to dedicate resources to qualifying and quantifying data related to real estate holdings. When preparing to sell, Target companies should review all assumptions – square footage, usage percentage, useful life, etc. – and conduct field measurements and physical condition assessments (“PCA’s”). This will help your team understand the value of your holdings and set realistic expectations, and perhaps just as importantly, it saves you from the embarrassment of providing inaccurate numbers exposed during Acquirer’s due diligence—and getting re-traded on price and terms. That reputation will ripple through the marketplace.
From the Acquirer’s side, the details of real estate holdings should come under the same level of scrutiny as financials, control environment, etc. Your due diligence team should commission its own field measurements and PCA, and also seek out market comparables to confirm appraisals. It is simply unsafe and unwise to assume the accuracy of any of these details. Performing your own assessments could reveal a solid basis to re-negotiate the M&A, and will help shape post-merger integration planning.
Tax analysis will reveal risks and opportunities
The maze of tax regimes and regulatory requirements cannabis and hemp operators navigate naturally creates opportunities to maximize efficiencies. This is particularly the case when it comes to enterprise restructuring to navigate the tax burden of 280E.
For example, it may be possible to establish a real estate holding company that is a distinct entity from any “plant-touching” operations. By restructuring the real estate holdings and contributing those assets to this new entity it may be possible to take advantage of additional tax benefits not afforded to the group if owned directly by the “plant-touching” entity. This all assumes a fair market rent is charged between the entities.
Recently, operators have looked to sale/leaseback transactions to help with cash flow needs and thus these types of transactions have gained prominence for cannabis and hemp operators. It is important that these transactions be carefully reviewed prior to execution to ensure they can maintain their tax status as a true sale and subsequent lease, instead of being considered a deferred financing transaction. If a Target company has a sale/leaseback deal established but under audit the facts and circumstances do not hold up, this could open up major tax liabilities for the Acquirer.
When entering into an M&A transaction, it is important that the Acquirer look at the historical and future aspects of the Target’s assets, including the real estate, to maximize efficiencies of these potentially separate operations. It is also equally important to review pre-established agreements/transactions to ensure the appropriate tax classification has been made and that the appropriate facts and circumstances that gave rise to the agreements/transactions have been documented and followed to limit any potential negative exposure in the future.
Contract small print could make or break a deal
An area of particular focus during due diligence should be a review, and close read, of the Target company’s existing property leases and other contracts. There are any number of clauses and agreements that seem harmless and inconsequential on the surface but can have disastrous effects in difficult situations. In many cases, the lease/contract of a property is more important than the details of the property itself. For example, if the non-negotiable rent on a retail location is too high (and scheduled to go higher), there may be no way to ever turn a profit.
The financial distress resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has brought these issues to the forefront in the real estate industry. Rent payment and occupancy issues are shifting the fundamental economics of many property deals and contracts. If, for example, you are acquiring a commercial location that is under-utilized because of market demand or governmental mandate, you must confirm whether sub-leases or assignments are allowed at below the contract price. If not, you could be stuck with a costly, underperforming asset amid quickly shifting commercial real estate demand.
In many leases and contracts, there are Tenant Improvement Allowance conditions that require the landlord to fund certain property improvement projects. If utilizing these terms is part of the Acquirer’s plans, you may need to have frank and open conversations with landlords about whether the funds for these projects are still available, and if those contract obligations will be met. Details like these are often penned during times of financial comfort without consequences to the non-performing party, but a landlord struggling with cash flow may not have the capability to meet contract standards.
These are just a few examples from a multitude of potential real estate contract issues that can emerge. It is recommended to not only examine these contracts very closely, but have dedicated real estate industry experts perform independent assessments that account for broader social, economic, and market realities. That independent analysis will help your executive team formulate a real estate strategy that better aligns with core business objectives.
Dig deep to uncover real value
There are countless scenarios where issues related to real estate make or break an otherwise solid M&A transaction, whether before or after closing the deal. The only path forward is to treat real estate holdings with the same care and attention paid to the other asset classes driving the deal. The cannabis and hemp industries have recently endured micro-boom-and-bust cycles that have left many assets under-performing. As Target companies offload these assets, and Acquirers seek out good deals, both parties must undertake focused efforts to establish the fair value of complex real estate assets and obligations.
Access The Full Guide Here
Mark Hefner, CEO and Shareholder of MGO Realty Advisors, is a real estate investment professional with over 30 years of experience supporting occupiers and investors as they navigate commercial real estate markets. Mark focuses on providing strategic advisory, transaction advisory, capital markets guidance, and ownership formation support for all types of commercial properties, both nationally and globally.
Dustin Grizzle, CPA, Tax Partner and Office Managing Partner of MGO’s Boca Raton, has over 15 years of experience providing tax planning and compliance services to real estate management and investment companies, manufacturing companies and high-net-
worth individuals. Dustin focuses his practice on tax compliance and real estate structuring, as well as tax consulting for entities with large inventories and manufacturing-related needs. He also manages tax programs involving investment funds, corporate structuring and IRS examination representation.
About MGO
One of the top 100 CPA firms in the country, MGO has a 30-year history of providing trusted accounting and advisory services to many leading public corporations, private companies and government agencies. The MGO team has developed a suite of proven solutions to help operators, regulators and institutional investors navigate the complexities of the cannabis and hemp industries.
About the Cannabis M&A Field Guide
This serialized multi-media project is an educational resource for cannabis and hemp operators and investors. It focuses on the evolving market conditions driving mergers and acquisitions, and provides first-person insight on best practices for strategy, structuring, valuation, and other topics behind successful M&A transactions.
Member Blog: Off The Backburner – Compliance During COVID-19
by Mark Slaugh, CEO and Co-Founder of iComply, LLC
Operational cannabis compliance has been a vital but often ignored part of many owners’ guides to success. With the hustle and bustle that is the ever-expanding nature of the cannabis business, most owners and operators want to believe they are compliant 100% of the time.
However, anyone who owns a cannabis business and is honest with themselves knows that to understand the constantly changing regulatory updates is a constant challenge. Often, the needs of the business outweigh the time it takes to assess the best ways to remain compliant. Too often, the distractions of growing the brand, networking, and conferences distract us from what’s happening with staff, procedures, and operations behind the scenes.
This has become alarmingly evident during COVID-19.
The pandemic began affecting how different operators in different States had to adjust various emergency procedures and restrictions on how cannabis could be bought and sold. From there, pandora’s compliance box released a torrent of issues to look at.
In our experience, 95% of the industry has a reactive approach to compliance management and will scramble to take time and pay expensive attorneys fees to dig them out of trouble once they are caught.
And what you resist, persists.
During COVID-19, owners are already making procedural adjustments to remain compliant and are staying at home for a change – which has allowed them and their teams more focus and less distraction by avoiding conferences, travel, and in-person meetings as much as possible.
What they are finding is that the compliance train has been off the tracks for a while.
Naturally, as the industry grows, so does the responsibility of mitigating liability and staying on top of the backburner projects in dealing with compliance. It is not the sexiest or most fun aspect of the industry (if you aren’t compliance nerds like us).
People tend to resist being honest about it, managing it appropriately, or holding others accountable until it’s too late.
COVID has at least provided some breathing room for owners and operators to put on their facemask and dust off their SOPs or untangle the strings around poor inventory management.
Some cannabis companies are asking themselves how they can use the boredom of COVID-19 (to some degree) and the extra time saved from travel, conferences, and meetings to re-examine their operational compliance infrastructure.
We are finding that owners in the cannabis industry are lacking a transparent cannabis compliance plan that can be easily adjusted to stay ahead of regulators, rules, and to mitigate product liability. They lack accurate employee training to specific procedures with accountability and wonder why turnover is so high. They are starting to realize that inventory, books and records, and daily compliance management are creating more risk than is tolerable for a tangible reward.
The word “decimation” comes from the Roman times and was considered a military punishment in which squads of 10 (deci) would draw stones from a bag. One black stone among the white ones meant beating that soldier to death by his fellows. While extreme, the lesson was an important one and is still relevant in the cannabis industry today.
Out of every inspection by the MED, in Colorado, around 10% of licensees were found in violation and administratively punished. Having come from a banking risk management background, it is shocking to see that level of risk be “ok” with most operators.
No other heavily regulated industry tolerates such a high level of risk. Cannabis, in fact, tolerates 10x more risk loss on average than is acceptable in banking (less than 1%).
Some of the biggest backburner projects in compliance coming to the forefront are:
SOPs and Employee Training Manuals
It is crucial to have compliant procedures that are accurate to current operations. One cannot effectively and proactively run a cannabis company without valid and accurate Standard Operating Procedures and related documents. They are essential.
What we find is that most established operators have to dust these SOPs off from whatever shelf they placed them on when they finally come around to looking at them.
Inventory and METRC
Another big problem area is inventory inaccuracies which require regular reconciliation and clean up. As we all know, once the snowball effect of inaccuracy happens, it simply gets more entangled and difficult over time.
During COVID-19, regulators are doing fewer in-person visits and are relying more on their ability to look at seed to sale tracking systems to identify potential non-compliance to conduct their inspections and request specific information from operators.
Books and Records
Most cannabis companies think SOPs, audits, and inventory are compliance management in a nutshell. The detailed accountability over files, logs, and forms often escapes their mind as soon as the file is saved or placed into the file cabinet.
Like dusting off SOPs, opening the file cabinet to ensure the accuracy of these documents can be best done during COVID-19 as well. Insight to this helps improve procedures and ensure accountability of staff members from visitor logs, to pesticide applications, incident reports, and manifests.
Staff Knowledge
For many of our medium to large clients, COVID-19 has affected their staff members. When one person is infected, many others may not want to come to work, and companies are forced to hire in additional labor to meet operational demand. If this hasn’t happened, consider you might want to be prepared for it as it takes away employees for a minimum of 2 to 4 weeks.
COVID-19 is causing a wide gap due to faster training requirements and creating more risk for non-compliance, product liability, and workplace safety without proper education, knowledge and accountability for staff.
Challenges like COVID-19, rule changes, and human nature are greatly mitigated and proactively managed when cannabis companies commit to taking compliance off the backburner and putting it at the forefront. Taking the time now to do so may be better than any other time for experienced operators to better prepare for “normalcy” when it returns.
An ounce of prevention is literally worth pounds of cure. And, during COVID-19, cannabis companies would do well to prevent the “decimation” of their very valuable licenses and operations by taking advantage of the extra time and energy to do the heavy lifting necessary to take compliance off the backburner.
Mark Slaugh, CEO and owner of iComply, 
works in the specialist sector of compliance for the medical, retail, and hemp industries and has over 12 years’ experience in cannabis industry development, consulting, and operational compliance and over 21 years’ experience in regulations and risk management.
Due to his extensive background and education, Mark knows what it takes to move markets forward at political, policy, and operational levels. He has developed small and large startups, improved existing operations, and has protected some of the top companies in the field.
iComply provides operational compliance services and validation of over 200 cultivation, manufacturing and processing, and dispensing facilities since 2011 and iComply consults for a variety of communities, organizations, and governments. Engaging in legacy projects over the long-term, iComply builds trusted relationships to ensure industry integrity, standards, regulations, and best practices are implemented and adhered to within organizations.
Member Blog: IRC Section 471(c) of the TCJA May Mitigate the Curse of 280E for the Cannabis Industry
by Calvin Shannon, CPA, CVA, Principal at Bridge West LLC, and Nicholas J. Richards, Esq., Partner at GreenspoonMarder LLP
On March 30, 2020, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report titled “The Growth of the Marijuana Industry Warrants Increased Tax Compliance Efforts and Additional Guidance.” The 53-page report discussed several different topics, including that the IRS should conduct more audits under Section 280E, and this discussion focuses on Section 471(c).
The report states that certain qualifying cannabis taxpayers, who would otherwise be subject to business expenses being disallowed under Section 280E, could potentially account for their inventory under Section 471(c) using a method that would classify most or all of their expenditures as inventoriable costs and avoid Section 280E’s disallowance of such expenditures. Accordingly, as all the costs would be capitalized into inventory, they would then reduce taxable income as the inventory was sold. In other words, expenditures previously disallowed under Section 280E would be part of the cost of goods sold and allowed as a reduction of gross receipts. There was no public comment from the IRS in the report on the potential that 471(c) may eliminate 280E.
Before continuing to provide our additional comments, it is important to mention the impact of Section 471(c) on Section 280E has not been reviewed by the Courts and the Inspector General also stated that necessary guidance addressing 471(c) is lacking from the IRS. As such, the impact cannot be stated in certain terms.
The curse of Section 280E on the cannabis industry cannot be overstated – some businesses actually end up paying more in tax than they make and Section 280E can turn an economic loss into a taxable gain. This seemingly unconstitutional result has been justified by the courts and IRS under a very old principle of taxation that “deductions are a matter of legislative grace.” New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934) Legislative grace, according to these authorities, means the legislature has the power to deny all deductions, if they so choose, and it should be said that the limitation of such grace, under the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, is that 280E cannot disallow costs of goods sold. With Section 471(c), however, legislative grace appears to be on the side of the cannabis industry because, as discussed below, Congress created Section 471(c) and it appears to allow inclusion of deductions into the cost of goods sold where they can’t be disallowed under Section 280E.
The Code states that Section 471(c) allows a small taxpayer, one with less than $25 million in revenues, who is not a tax shelter or public company to account for inventory according to their applicable financial statements, or absent applicable financial statements, according to the actual books and records of the taxpayer. For a qualifying business that doesn’t have applicable financial statements, if their books and records include deductions in COGS, then these deductions may not be subject to 280E.
Question #1 – What are applicable financial statements, what does it mean to have them, and if a taxpayer does not have applicable financials statements what are the books and records of the taxpayer prepared in accordance with the taxpayer’s accounting procedures?
It is our opinion that under IRC § 451(b)(3) if a taxpayer is required to issue audited financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for credit purposes, to owners, or for any other nontax purpose, they have applicable financial statements. It would seem that “any other nontax purpose” would include audited GAAP statements required to be issued to state regulatory agencies. As such, because GAAP requires accounting for inventory in a manner similar to Section 471(a), taxpayers who have Applicable Financial Statements appear to be precluded from adding costs disallowed under Section 280E into COGS pursuant to Section 471(c). Of concern are states that require license holders to provide their licensing agency with audited financial statements. However, if the state doesn’t require GAAP financials, then the “Applicable Financial Statements” provision shouldn’t be a problem.
If the taxpayer does not have applicable financial statements, then they are allowed to account for inventory for tax purposes in the same way as they account for inventory on their internal books and records. Thus, their books and records would have to mirror their method of accounting for tax purposes.
Question #2 – Could a small cannabis company, who is not issuing applicable financial statements in accordance with GAAP and is subject to 280E, establish a method of accounting for inventory in which they consider all or most expenditures of the company to be inventoriable costs? If so, does characterizing these otherwise nondeductible costs as inventoriable costs change the nature of the expenditures from non-deductible business deductions to deductible costs of goods sold when the inventory is sold?
As noted above, there is currently no guidance from the IRS regarding this question and, we should assume, that the IRS will not acquiesce to the position that 471(c) eliminates 280E. So, let’s consider the arguments the IRS might make. First to consider is the Service’s conclusion in Chief Counsel Memorandum Number 201504011 regarding Sec 263A. Early on, cannabis taxpayers attempted to use Sec 263A to capitalize general and administrative costs, otherwise subject to 280E, into inventory and then deduct them as part of COGS. This does sound somewhat similar to the approach we are looking at under 471(c).
The IRS concluded in CCA 201504011 that Sec. 263A would not allow an expense disallowed under Section 280E to be added to COGS because of “flush language” added to Sec. 263A(a)(2) in a subsequent congressional amendment. The flush language states:
Any cost which (but for this subsection) could not be taken into account in computing taxable income for any taxable year shall not be treated as a cost described in this paragraph.
The U.S. Tax Court agreed with the Chief Counsel memo in several opinions including Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corporation d.b.a. Harborside Health Center v. Commissioner.
However, where this language was fatal to the cannabis industry’s attempt to use Section 263A to its benefit – it may help in the case of Section 471(c). It appears to have been necessary for the U.S. Congress to add the Flush Language to Section 263A to prevent the inclusion of otherwise disallowed expenses into COGS. There is no equivalent language added to Section 471(c) and so the argument is that in the absence of an equivalent provision, Section 471(c) can be used to include expenses disallowed under 280E into COGS where they can be used to reduce taxable income.
Another argument the IRS may make is that Treas. Reg. § 1.61-3(a) prevents the inclusion of deductions into cost of goods sold because the regulation states that Gross Income is determined without subtraction of “…selling expenses…” However, Section 1.61-3(a) is part of the Treasury Regs defining gross income and its reference to the non-inclusion of “selling expenses” is from the regulations under Section 471(a). Section 471(c) specifically states that Section 471(a) does not apply (which include the regulations) and a taxpayer’s method of accounting for inventory under Section 471(c) does not fail to accurately reflect income. And, Section 471(c) is a higher authority than the regulations. Thus, it appears that Section 471(c) trumps Treas. Reg. § 1.61-3(a).
Question #3 – Should a taxpayer, eligible to use 471(c) to account for inventory file their tax return taking positions regarding 471(c) as described in this article?
Every taxpayer is different, and accounting for inventory under Section 471(c) is not right for everyone in the cannabis industry. It is also important to understand that it may not work and for taxpayers who use the method to do so with caution and understanding. However, below is a list of issues to discuss with your tax professional:
What is your tolerance for risk and a legal dispute with the IRS? Such a dispute could be time-consuming and costly.
If 471(c) is proven not to eliminate 280E – how will you manage additional tax, interest, and possibly penalties?
Should the position be disclosed as part of your tax filing?
Does the entity have applicable financial statements?
Is the cannabis business a tax shelter?
How aggressive does management and ownership want to be regarding the position?
How will management accomplish the necessary accounting and records to support such a position?
In summary, 471 (c) has left the cannabis industry with several questions and definitive answers are probably not immediately available. License holders should work closely with their advisors as they navigate these questions. But, there is a possibility that Section 471(c) eliminates Section 280E for qualifying taxpayers. Cannabis businesses should take the necessary steps to understand it and protect their ability to benefit from Section 471(c) if it does work.
The Bridge West and GreenspoonMarder teams work tirelessly to understand the tax and accounting issues facing businesses in the cannabis industry and provide the best possible solutions to their clients.
To discuss any of the questions within this article please feel free to contact Calvin Shannon, Nick Richards or any of their team members.
Calvin Shannon is a Pricipal of Bridge West and has over 17 years of experience providing tax, audit, estate planning and trust services. Calvin is skilled at understanding client’s challenges and working with them to develop and implement innovative and unique solutions. Assists organizations to address the industry’s unique and ever-evolving issues. He enjoys having the opportunity to work with cannabis clients to understand their business needs, and to provide timely solutions
Calvin can be reached at: cshannon@bridgewestcpas.com and 651-287-6327.
Nick Richards is a Partner in the Tax practice group at Greenspoon Marder LLP. He represents individuals and businesses in tax audits & trials, M&A, in managing tax debt, and he advises cannabis companies, owners and investors regarding tax and regulatory compliance matters. Mr. Richards has been a tax attorney for more than twenty years beginning his career with the IRS where he was a leading trial attorney, a Chief Counsel advisor, and a Special Assistant United States Attorney.
With his broad experience and understanding at all phases of the tax system, from reporting and assessment through appeals, court, and tax debt resolution, Mr. Richards achieves successful legal solutions tailored to his individual client’s needs. Mr. Richards also teaches tax attorneys and CPAs throughout the US and he is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Denver, Graduate Tax Program, where he teaches State and Local Tax and Civil and Criminal Tax.
Nick can be reached at: nick.richards@gmlaw.com and 720-370-1169.
