Richard Bartolanzo, Mountain West Partner in Charge at Bennett Thrasher – Interview Series

Although the taxation of the cannabis industry and canna-businesses can be convoluted, given both Tax Code 280E and various other federal tax codes that are intertwined with the present state taxation laws, cannabis companies are still required to pay taxes regardless. One seasoned attorney with over three decades of experience in tax law for Fortune 500 companies that now offers that same expertise for budding canna-businesses is Richard Bartolanzo, Mountain West Partner in Charge at Bennett Thrasher.

What topics did you primarily study at UC-Boulder, and in particular, what courses did you study while obtaining your Master of Science in Accounting and Taxation? 

During my undergraduate years at University of Colorado (CU) Boulder, I earned a Bachelor of Science in Finance. This included finance-specific coursework beyond the business core, such as corporate finance and investments, along with undergraduate accounting classes that served as prerequisites for my master’s program.

My master’s studies placed a strong emphasis on financial accounting, auditing, tax fundamentals, and business law. In the 30 years since, much has changed, especially in CPA requirements and technology. Today’s accounting students can expect a more structured curriculum aligned with current CPA licensure requirements, along with technology-driven courses covering tools like Alteryx, AI in accounting, and data visualization.

So you’re one of the first accountants/taxation professionals I’ve interviewed who has a Master of Science in the subjects surrounding accounting and taxation. How would you say that your graduate degree has assisted your decades-long career in accounting/finance?

When I entered the MS in Accounting program at CU Boulder, the taxation emphasis was relatively new. As a result, I spent a lot of my time taking classes with students at the CU Law School. The environment was super competitive and there were many classes where the Socratic method was employed – so if you were not prepared for class and you got picked by the professor, you were set to have a miserable day. So, in essence, my time at CU taught me to thoroughly research issues and always show up prepared to address client technical and business needs.

When you started with Bennett Thrasher, what were some of your regular duties, and how was the company different when you first started with the firm compared to now? 

I began my career at Bennett Thrasher in the early 1990s working as a tax staff accountant during the firm’s early days in Atlanta, Georgia. During that time, my role primarily involved supporting individual income tax and closely held business tax return preparation. There were a lot of late nights and weekend work during the months leading up to Tax Day in April, and then a nice lull to balance out the tax season sprint.

In the early 1990’s, BT prepared returns the old-school way: with pencils and erasers. Tax preparation software did not exist back in those days.

Obviously, the way we manage day-to-day client needs has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The firm has consistently invested in cutting-edge technology to succeed in the ever-changing tax and accounting environment. Rather than the partners taking a larger share of profits, they reinvest these funds into innovation. This is all possible thanks to the firm’s commitment to remaining fiercely independent (not private equity-backed) as a mindset for long-term success, enhanced operations and productivity.

During your time with KPMG US, how did you provide taxation and advisory services to clients, and what did working in their Federal Tax Practice division usually entail?

When I first started at KPMG, I worked within a group focused on supporting technology companies, with a goal of helping entrepreneurs lead their shops to a strategic buy-out or an IPO. It’s there I discovered my passion for this vein of exciting, fast-paced work that’s core to Bennett Thrasher Denver’s offerings to tech and cannabis startup leaders today.

As my role changed over time, I found myself working more and more with large Fortune 500 companies providing tax advisory and audit support services for all income tax-related matters. This experience allowed me to understand how large corporate tax functions manage the complex taxes affecting business (i.e., income, sales and use, payroll, property, tariffs, etc.) and contributed to my clients’ bottom lines.

What were the deciding factors in your decision to return to Bennett Thrasher? And what were the most notable ways that the firm changed during your absence? 

While I enjoyed supporting these large Fortune 500 clients – and the technically complex, challenges and bottom-line impact that came with them – I felt a strong pull back to serving clients in the lower end of the middle market, where relationships are deeper and impact feels more personal.

When I returned to Bennett Thrasher in 2006, I was pleased to find a much larger firm that still embraced the same fundamental core values upon which it had been founded in 1980: integrity, family, and clients. It’s these core values and Bennett Thrasher’s commitment to fierce independence that drew me back. It’s rare to find a firm that truly upholds a “people first” culture, prioritizing employee development and retention and informing decision-making at every level. This autonomy allows for a true client-first approach with nimble service, strong relationships, and fair pricing driven by a team that feels supported, empowered, and invested in long-term success.

As a Colorado native, it’s a full-circle moment to be Bennett Thrasher’s first-ever Mountain West Partner-in-Charge supporting hometown clients’ growth.

When did Bennett Thrasher first start working with cannabis businesses? Because of the massive size of the company, were there any initial legal or regulatory worries about working with cannabis businesses?

While many accounting firms – particularly those backed by private equity – are limited in the industries they can serve, Bennett Thrasher is one of the few independent firms in Denver that can provide financial and advisory services for cannabis businesses. Recognizing a gap in the market, we’ve built the capabilities to support these complex needs. We’ve supported cannabis businesses for several years and now are sharpening our focus to expand our capabilities around the unique challenges facing both core and ancillary companies in the industry.

What services does Bennett Thrasher offer to cannabis companies, and how does the company alter their operations specifically for cannabis operators?

Bennett Thrasher Denver is well-versed in the unique challenges and regulatory complexities of the cannabis sector, offering tailored services in valuation, transaction advisory, and tax strategies for cannabis companies.

Ultimately, we don’t alter our business operations to provide services to our clients within this industry. Rather, we emphasize the need for innovative thinking and discretion.

From your and your colleagues’ experiences, what are the most widespread or commonplace issues that your cannabis clients face? How do you and your team provide solutions to those far-reaching problems?      

Despite increased legalization at the state level, a lingering stigma remains among professional service providers when it comes to the cannabis industry. Because cannabis is still classified as a Schedule I drug at the federal level, many attorneys, accountants, and other critical advisors remain hesitant to engage with these businesses.

But the reality is that the cannabis industry is vibrant, complex, and thriving, just like any other sector. Education is essential to ensure business owners have access to sound professional guidance. After all, beer, wine, and spirits were once in a similar legal gray area. Today, those industries are not only socially accepted but also among the most profitable in the economy. Cannabis has the potential to follow the same path with the right support.

How did the collaboration with Safe Harbor Financial come into fruition, and how do the two companies plan on combining each other’s strengths and services to better assist their cannabis clients? 

Our relationship with Safe Harbor Financial began when we recognized a critical need for their platform among businesses operating in or adjacent to the cannabis industry.

Together, Bennett Thrasher and Safe Harbor will provide rigorous financial compliance and advisory services to highly regulated cannabis businesses – supporting operation and financial compliance from startup through expansion. By teaming up, Safe Harbor as a leader in cannabis financial services and credit facilities and Bennett Thrasher as a leader in accounting and advisory will provide clients with:

• Annual audits and quarterly reviews to ensure transparency and boost stakeholder confidence

• Tax preparation and filing designed to navigate the complexities of tax law, including 280E

• Ongoing financial and tax advisory to support strategic planning and compliance

• Corporate valuations to guide capital raises, acquisitions, or succession planning

• M&A transaction support and due diligence for operators pursuing growth or consolidation

• CFO services and technical accounting to deliver executive-level guidance without in-house overhead

If a federal rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III were to be implemented, how would that change the taxation and accounting needs of your clients? In particular, how would the weakening of Tax Code 280E’s consequences impact the cannabis industry? 

While federal rescheduling could bring cannabis businesses fully under the U.S. federal income tax framework – rendering provisions like Section 280E largely inapplicable – it would also introduce new excise taxation complexities. Most states that have legalized cannabis already impose their own excise taxes on production and sales. Federal legalization would almost certainly introduce an additional layer of federal excise tax, potentially driving the price of legal cannabis to unsustainable levels. This poses a serious risk: if legal cannabis becomes too expensive, end-users may turn to unregulated markets, inadvertently fueling illicit trade.

Another key issue is the potential introduction of interstate commerce, particularly under proposed legislation like the STATES 2.0 Act. Today, states apply excise taxes differently (often based on value or weight), and each business operates within a closed-loop system. Introducing federal excise taxes on top of varying state tax regimes would create a significant administrative burden for cannabis businesses, requiring careful tracking and accurate remittance across jurisdictions.

To minimize complexity and compliance costs, it would be highly beneficial for federal and state governments to adopt a consistent methodology for excise tax application. Uniformity in how taxes are calculated and collected would help ensure proper reporting and reduce the risk of costly errors or penalties for cannabis operators navigating this rapidly evolving regulatory landscape. Without a cohesive approach, there’s a real danger of driving consumers away from the legal market and undermining public safety goals.

Thank you for joining us, Richard! For more information on Bennett Thrasher, please visit its website.