Charitable Deductions for Defective Inventory – Houston Tax Attorneys


Manufacturers and retailers frequently face the challenge of handling defective or obsolete inventory that cannot be sold. This situation often results in waste. The inventory has some utility or value, but the benefit of repurposing or rehabilitating the inventory is often outweighed by the cost of handling or repurposing the inventory.

Examples are easy to envision, such as a clothing manufacturer with items that are mis-sewn and unsuitable for sale under a major brand or grocery stores and restaurants with day-old food items that cannot be sold.

While simply writing off inventory or taking a tax loss is one option, there may be a more beneficial alternative—donating it to charity. The tax code provides specific provisions to encourage this practice, aiming to prevent waste and incentivize for-profit businesses to consider options beyond disposal. For certain C corporations, these provisions include an enhanced charitable deduction that can make donating inventory even more advantageous.

The recent IQ Holdings v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-95, case provides an opportunity to consider this issue and, although not addressed in the case, the enhanced inventory deduction.

Facts & Procedural History

The taxpayer in this case is a C corporation. It manufactured aerosol consumer products through its subsidiary. The part of the case relevant to this article is the taxpayer’s inventory.

The taxpayer ended up with two sets of defective inventory: its own branded products that had become rusted and damaged, and WD-40 products that had a design defect making them non-compliant with Department of Transportation regulations. The total cost basis of this inventory was approximately $4.7 million.

The company formed a non-profit focused on healthcare products in 2012. While waiting for IRS approval of the organization’s tax-exempt status, the taxpayer made a seller-financed sale of the inventory to the non-profit. The plan was to forgive the loan once tax-exempt status was granted. However, by the time approval came in 2014, the inventory had further deteriorated and the taxpayer changed course by reversing the sale to the non-profit and deducting the inventory by reducing cost of goods sold.

The IRS conducted an audit and proposed several adjustments. One of the adjustments was to the cost of goods sold deduction for the inventory adjustment. The IRS dispute ended up in tax court and this court opinion was just an order on a motion for summary judgment. The inventory issue gets into how the rules apply when the inventory may have no value. The court will likely take that issue up further in this litigation, but for purposes of this article, we are just focused on the fact pattern of the C corporation with defective inventory and how that can benefit some taxpayers–which isn’t the issue that the court will eventually decide in this case.

The Accrual Method Requirement

Before getting into the charitable deduction rules, it’s important to understand that inventory donations for businesses primarily involve accrual method taxpayers.

The accrual method requires taxpayers to report income when earned and expenses when incurred, regardless of when payment is received or made. This method aims to match income and expenses in the proper tax year. For example, if a business performs services in December but isn’t paid until January, the income is reported in December under the accrual method. The same goes for expenses. If the taxpayer purchases inventory, they generally deduct the cost of the inventory when the item is sold.

Compare this to the cash method, where income is reported when received and expenses are deducted when paid. The cash method is generally simpler and preferred by most small businesses as it matches the actual cash flow.

Most taxpayers prefer to use the cash method and look for ways to qualify. There are several reasons for this, such as the need to maintain accounting records which often requires the business to hire a proper accountant. The other major consideration is inventory which has several nuanced requirements, as noted above. Accrual method taxpayers cannot immediately deduct inventory costs when purchased. Instead, these costs are capitalized and later deducted through costs of goods sold when the inventory is actually sold.

So who has to use the accrual method? Generally, C corporations (other than qualified personal service corporations) must use the accrual method if their average annual gross receipts exceed $27 million. Other businesses may have to use the accrual method if they maintain inventory that is a material income-producing factor in their business.

General Charitable Deduction Rules for Property

With that understanding, we can turn to the charitable deduction rules. These rules are found in Section 170.

Section 170 provides for an income tax deduction for charitable contributions made during the tax year to qualifying organizations. For corporations, the deduction is generally limited to 10% of taxable income (with adjustments), with any excess carried forward for up to five years.

For property donations, additional requirements apply beyond those for cash donations. These include:

  • The property must be owned by the taxpayer at the time of contribution
  • The contribution must be complete and irrevocable
  • The property must be properly valued
  • For certain property valued over $5,000, a qualified appraisal is required
  • The taxpayer must maintain reliable written records of the contribution

The amount of the deduction depends on several factors, including the type of property donated and its potential tax treatment if sold.

When a business donates appreciated property to charity, there is a basis limitation that applies. Generally, the deduction is limited to the taxpayer’s basis in the property. However, if the property would have generated long-term capital gain if sold (such as stock held more than one year), the deduction is for fair market value. However, for inventory and other ordinary income property, the deduction is usually limited to basis. This is because inventory, by definition, generates ordinary income rather than capital gain when sold. The basis limitation prevents businesses from claiming a deduction for appreciation that would have been taxed as ordinary income if the inventory had been sold instead of donated.

This limitation on inventory donations created a disincentive for businesses to donate inventory to charitable organizations. Congress addressed this issue by adding Section 170(e)(3), which provides an enhanced deduction for certain inventory donations.

The Enhanced Deduction Under 170(e)(3)

Section 170(e)(3) provides an exception to this general rule. This deduction is only available for C corporations and is only helpful for those that are on the accrual method.

A C corporation can claim an enhanced deduction for inventory donations if:

  1. The donation is to a public charity (not a private foundation);
  2. The property will be used solely for care of the ill, needy, or infants;
  3. The charity cannot charge for the donated items;
  4. The donor receives a written statement from the charity confirming these requirements; and
  5. If the property is regulated (like food or drugs), it meets applicable regulations.

The enhanced deduction amount is tax basis plus half of the appreciation. So the fair market value minus tax basis. These combined amounts cannot exceed twice the amount of the tax basis. This creates a significant opportunity for businesses with defective or obsolete inventory.

Definition of Ill, Needy, and Infant

To qualify for the enhanced deduction the property must be used solely for the care of the “ill, needy, or infants.” The regulations provide detailed definitions for each of these categories:

The regulations define an “ill person” as one requiring medical care. This includes individuals:

  • Suffering from physical injury
  • With significant impairment of a bodily organ
  • With an existing handicap (whether from birth or later injury)
  • Suffering from malnutrition
  • With a disease, sickness, or infection significantly impairing physical health
  • Partially or totally incapable of self-care (including due to old age)
  • With mental illness if hospitalized/institutionalized or if the illness constitutes a significant health impairment

A “needy person” is defined as one who lacks life’s necessities involving physical, mental, or emotional well-being due to poverty or temporary distress. Examples include:

  • Those financially impoverished due to low income
  • Individuals temporarily lacking food or shelter
  • Victims of natural disasters (like fires or floods)
  • Victims of civil disasters
  • Those temporarily not self-sufficient due to sudden crisis
  • Refugees or immigrants experiencing language, cultural, or financial difficulties
  • Former prisoners or mental institution patients who are not self-sufficient

The regulations define an “infant” as a minor child, as determined under the laws of the jurisdiction where the child resides. The “care of an infant” means performing parental functions and providing for the child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs.

It should be noted that the donated property must either be transferred directly to these individuals or retained for their care. No other person may use the contributed property except as incidental to the primary use in caring for the ill, needy, or infants. However, the charity may transfer the property to relatives, guardians, or other individuals if it makes reasonable efforts to ensure the property will primarily benefit the intended recipients.

An Example of the Numbers

Using and modifying the facts from the court case cited above as an example, let’s say the taxpayer established a public charity that provides hygiene products to the needy and donated its defective inventory to the charity. Assuming:

  • Inventory basis: $4.7 million
  • Fair market value (if not defective): $7 million

The potential enhanced deduction would be the lesser of:

  • Basis + 1/2 appreciation ($4.7M + $1.15M = $5.85M) or
  • 2 × basis ($9.4M)

Here, the taxpayer could have claimed a $5.85 million deduction, significantly more than the $4.7 million tax basis that would be allowed to deduct as a reduction to costs of goods sold under the general rules.

However, the IRS may take issue with using defective inventory’s fair market value. The regulations suggest using the FMV at the time of contribution, so if the inventory is truly defective, its FMV might be much lower than $7 million. This could affect the calculation and could lead to a dispute with the IRS. This is why one has to take care to document the value if they are going to try to benefit from this enhanced tax deduction.

The Takeaway

The charitable deduction can mean that defective or obsolete inventory can have some value for taxpayers. For those that qualify, the enhanced charitable deduction under Section 170(e)(3) should be considered before simply writing these amounts off. While there are requirements to qualify, including getting proper documentation from the charity, this provision can turn a business challenge into an enhanced tax deduction while helping those in need. As with the taxpayer in this case, creating a charititable organization specifically for this purpose and tax planning can help unlock this benefit for just about any taxpayer.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


The IRS’s historical abuses led Congress to create specific taxpayer rights, including rights stemming from collection due process (“CDP”) hearings. These administrative hearings are intended to pause IRS collection actions while the IRS Office of Appeals considers whether the collection is both lawful and warranted.

One might assume these rights extend to any liability assessed by the IRS. Since the IRS is part of the U.S. Treasury, it would seem logical that these rights would apply to any liability owed to the Treasury, especially when the Treasury delegates assessment authority for the liability from one of its sub-departments to the IRS, which is another one of its sub-departments.

The fact that a liability originated with another sub-department shouldn’t matter if that original sub-department never handles the liability because it has been fully delegated to the IRS, the other sub-department. However, as the Jenner v. Commissioner, 163 T.C. No. 7, case demonstrates, this assumption is incorrect. The case involves Foreign Bank Account Reporting (“FBAR”) penalties assessed by the IRS.

Facts & Procedural History

This case involves a couple who were assessed FBAR penalties for tax years 2005 through 2009. The penalties relate to foreign bank accounts that were not reported to the Treasury Department.

When the couple did not pay the penalties, the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (“BFS”) informed the couple that funds would be withheld from their monthly Social Security benefits through the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”) to pay these penalties.

In response, the couple submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, with the IRS. The IRS issued a letter to the couple saying that FBAR penalties are not taxes and therefore not subject to CDP requirements.

The taxpayers filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court under the CDP hearing procedures, which was the subject of the court opinion described in this article.

About FBAR Penalties

FBAR penalties can be imposed on U.S. persons who fail to report certain foreign financial accounts to the government. The reporting requirement generally applies if the aggregate value of all foreign accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year.

This reporting is done on FinCEN Form 114 (formerly TD F 90-22.1). The form is due on April 15th and there is an automatic extension to October 15th.

The amount of the penalties can be severe. Non-willful violations can result in penalties of $10,000 per violation. Willful FBAR violations can result in penalties of the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the account balance at the time of the violation. Criminal penalties can also apply in some situations. Notably, for purposes of this article, these penalties are assessed under Title 31 of the U.S. Code (which is the Bank Secrecy Act) and not under the Internal Revenue Code (which is Title 26 of the U.S. Code).

Assessment of FBAR Penalties

While FBAR penalties are not tax penalties, the IRS has been delegated the authority to assess FBAR penalties through a chain of delegation.

The Secretary of Treasury first delegated authority to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). FinCEN is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury that works to detect and prosecute financial crimes and money laundering. FinCEN then redelegated this authority to the IRS for FBAR penalties.

The typical assessment process begins when an IRS agent conducts an audit and proposes penalties. The IRS then issues Letter 3709 proposing the penalties, and account holders have 30 days to either pay the penalty, request an appeals conference, or provide additional information.

The taxpayer may also trigger an assessment by voluntarily submitting FBAR forms after the due date. The IRS will review the late filing and determine whether to impose penalties. When FBARs are filed through FinCEN’s BSA E-Filing System, the IRS receives this information through an information-sharing agreement with FinCEN. The IRS can then review these late filings as part of its normal examination process.

If the taxpayer files a timely request for appeals review, the IRS Office of Appeals has the ability to consider the proposed FBAR penalties, including whether the violations occurred, whether they were willful or non-willful, whether reasonable cause exists, and whether the penalty amounts are appropriate. Appeals officers can sustain, reduce, or eliminate the proposed penalties based on their review of the facts and circumstances. They can also consider hazards of litigation, meaning they can take into account the IRS’s likelihood of success if the case were to proceed to court. This review is particularly important for willful FBAR penalties, where the government must prove willfulness by clear and convincing evidence in any subsequent litigation. Appeals officers may also consider the ability to pay and can help facilitate alternative payment arrangements if the penalties are sustained.

Remedies After Missing or Unsuccessful Appeal

If account holders miss the appeals deadline or receive an unfavorable appeals decision, there are still several options that may provide remedies.

For example, the account holder can challenge the administrative offset through Treasury procedures. When the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service initiates an offset (such as withholding Social Security benefits), they must provide notice to the account holder. The account holder then has certain due process rights under Title 31, including the right to inspect records, request a review of the debt, and establish a payment schedule. They can also present evidence that the offset would create a financial hardship or that the debt is not valid or legally enforceable.

Account holders can also wait for the government to file suit to collect the penalties and raise their defenses in the collection suit. They do not have to pay the penalty and file a refund claim first with this option. This is different from tax assessments, where taxpayers typically must “pay first, litigate later.” When the government files suit to collect FBAR penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5321(b)(2), the account holder can raise defenses such as reasonable cause, lack of willfulness, statute of limitations, or constitutional challenges. The government bears the burden of proving its case, including proving willfulness by clear and convincing evidence for willful FBAR penalties.

Collection Due Process Not Allowed

Notably absent from the discussion above are the IRS collection programs and procedures. That is the issue in this Jenner court case.

In Jenner, the tax court answers the question as to whether the traditional CDP hearings and rights are available for FBAR penalties. As noted by the court, FBAR penalties are not “taxes” under the Internal Revenue Code and CDP rights only apply to collection of “taxes.”

The court emphasized that the IRS’s authority to assess FBAR penalties does not convert them into tax liabilities. Instead, Title 31 provides its own separate procedures for assessment and collection. The collection mechanism for FBAR penalties is through civil action or administrative offset, not through IRS liens and levies that would give rise to CDP rights.

Thus, while the IRS may assess these penalties, they remain non-tax debts subject to Title 31’s collection procedures rather than the Internal Revenue Code’s collection provisions. The CDP hearing is not a viable option for contesting the assessment or underlying liability for FBAR penalties.

The Takeaway

Unless Congress changes the law, account holders who are assessed FBAR penalties by the IRS do not have fundamental rights, such as CDP rights, that are afforded to taxpayers for tax balances. This is the case even though the same agency whose abuses gave rise to the CDP hearing and CDP rights for taxpayers, the IRS, is involved in assessing FBAR penalties. The remedies outside of the IRS are there, even though they do not afford taxpayers the rights and remedies available for taxes. Account holders have to contend with this when assessed FBAR penalties by the IRS and do not agree with the assessments.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link