Let’s see. I suspect 280E can readily be traced back to claimed legislative authority of the Commerce Clause. This authority would properly be restricted to international - interstate trade.
I suggest the Cannabis materials proffered can be shown to be of domestic California production and not items of interstate trade subject to Federal Regulation.
Congresses taxing power is plenary and 280E mentions nothing about interstate commerce.
Congress chose to disallow these businesses expenses to punish the business owner, not to regulate interstate commerce.
Remember the luxary tax on autos over $30K and on boats? Well that killed the boat building industry and was a stupid idea, but that didn't mean congress enacted the tax inappropriately.
280E is bad law and the only real hope is that the 9th circut makes a similar ruling as federal judge who allowed payroll deductions as caregiveing expense (NOT and expense of drug trafficking).
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes. (wiki)
AND even where the production is entirely for personal home consumption.
Because of this case I think we need to look away from the commerce clause and towards other remedies (such as 14th amendment equal rights protections).