Filed: Dec. 19, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 105 T.C. No. 28 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LUCKY STORES, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4446-93. Filed December 19, 1995. P made donations of its surplus bread inventory to food banks which qualified as permissible charitable donees under sec. 170(e)(3)(A), I.R.C., and claimed charitable contribution deductions based upon full retail prices for the bread. R determined the fair market value to be approximately 50 percent of full retail p
Summary: 105 T.C. No. 28 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LUCKY STORES, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4446-93. Filed December 19, 1995. P made donations of its surplus bread inventory to food banks which qualified as permissible charitable donees under sec. 170(e)(3)(A), I.R.C., and claimed charitable contribution deductions based upon full retail prices for the bread. R determined the fair market value to be approximately 50 percent of full retail pr..
More
105 T.C. No. 28
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LUCKY STORES, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 4446-93. Filed December 19, 1995.
P made donations of its surplus bread inventory to
food banks which qualified as permissible charitable
donees under sec. 170(e)(3)(A), I.R.C., and claimed
charitable contribution deductions based upon full
retail prices for the bread. R determined the fair
market value to be approximately 50 percent of full
retail prices. Held, fair market value of P's bread
contributions redetermined.
Eric W. Jorgensen, Grady M. Bolding, and Russell D. Uzes,
for petitioner.
Alan Summers and Kevin G. Croke, for respondent.
NIMS, Judge: Respondent determined the following
deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax:
Taxable Year Ending (TYE) Deficiency
Jan. 30, 1983 $8,797,328
Feb. 3, 1985 2,175,135
Feb. 2, 1986 48,255,017
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
sections of the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at
issue, and all Rule references are to Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.
This case involves a number of issues that are being handled
in proceedings that are separate from the one under present
consideration. In this proceeding, the parties dispute the fair
market value of bakery products, unsold canned goods, and other
general merchandise contributed to food banks by petitioner
during the years in issue.
On its Federal income tax returns for TYE February 3, 1985
and TYE February 2, 1986, the charitable contribution years in
issue, petitioner claimed deductions for the above charitable
contributions in the amounts of $576,258 and $909,055,
respectively. The parties agree that the cost basis of the
contributed bakery inventory for purposes of section 170(e)(3)(B)
was $1,753,495 for TYE February 3, 1985, and $3,471,236 for TYE
February 2, 1986.
For the taxable years in issue, petitioner concedes the
portions of its claimed deductions relating to its contribution
- 3 -
of unsold canned goods and other general merchandise. The amount
of petitioner's charitable deduction that relates to unsold
canned goods and other general merchandise is $85,040 for TYE
February 3, 1985 and $198,286 for TYE February 2, 1986.
For TYE February 3, 1985, petitioner concedes the charitable
deduction amount of $91,624 relating to its contributions from
its stores in Florida.
After these concessions, the only contributions at issue are
the 4-day-old bread and other "aged" bakery goods from
petitioner's California and Nevada stores. At the trial, the
parties focused almost entirely on the 4-day-old bread, so we
proceed upon the assumptions that the dollar amounts of the
donations of other bakery products were relatively insignificant,
and that our conclusion as to the value of the 4-day-old bread
will establish the method for valuing these items.
The parties also appear to agree that (1) after petitioner's
concession of the portions of its claimed deductions for the
Florida donations and the donations of canned goods and other
general merchandise, (2) after adjusting the cost basis for the
remaining contributed bakery inventory, and (3) after the
reduction required under section 170(e)(3)(B), the amounts of
charitable deductions in dispute are $663,855 for TYE February 3,
1985 and $1,300,558 for TYE February 2, 1986, based on the retail
- 4 -
price of the contributed bakery inventory at the time of
contribution.
Petitioner is a Delaware corporation. At the time it filed
its petition, its principal place of business was Dublin,
California.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated.
During the years in issue, petitioner operated bakeries in
northern and southern California that baked several varieties of
white and wheat bread, muffins and buns, and other bakery
products. Petitioner sold these private label products in its
retail stores under the "Harvest Day" label. In addition,
petitioner's bakeries purchased from unrelated bakeries other
bakery products, including tortillas, fried pies, doughnuts, and
dinner, gourmet, and brown and serve rolls, and other items, for
sale in its stores.
Commercial bakers generally use one of three processes for
preparing commercially baked bread: the sponge dough method, the
liquid sponge method and the liquid brew method. These methods
differ significantly in terms of ingredients and baking times.
The method used affects the aroma, keeping quality, and texture
of the bread. Petitioner used the sponge dough method during the
tax years at issue. The sponge dough method is the most time-
consuming baking process of the three general methods.
- 5 -
Petitioner's baking process resulted in a high quality bread,
with good aroma, keeping quality, and texture. Petitioner used
no preservatives or inhibitors in the manufacture of this bread.
During the years in issue, petitioner closed its bread bags
with a flat plastic disc called a "Kwik Lok." Petitioner date
stamped each Kwik Lok with a date that was 4 days after the
bakery delivered the bread to a specific store. For example,
petitioner date stamped the Kwik Loks for bread delivered to a
store on September 16, 1985 (a Monday) with the date "Sep 20" (a
Friday). The date was stamped on the Kwik Lok in very small
print. The Kwik Lok contained no other words, such as "sell by,"
"fresh through," or the like.
Petitioner delivered to its stores each morning, except on
Wednesdays and Sundays, bread and other bakery products that had
been baked either earlier the same morning or after 6 p.m. the
previous day. Bakery products that had been acquired by
petitioner's bakeries were also delivered at the same time.
Each of petitioner's stores determined its need for delivery
of fresh bread on a daily basis, based on amounts of bread on
hand and anticipated sales. Each store transmitted its daily
order to the bakery, which then adjusted its production to
accommodate store orders. Petitioner's goal was to supply each
store with 5 percent more bread on hand than was actually
- 6 -
expected to be sold. In fact, store orders exceeding actual
sales were in the 6 percent range during the years in issue.
Petitioner's in-store employees placed the newly delivered
bread either on the store shelves or in the stock room. If the
bread were placed in the stock room, petitioner's employees later
placed it on the shelves. Petitioner's bread shelves are
generally 20 inches deep. In the front part of the shelf, a
store's merchandisers typically stacked loaves of bread two-high,
with the label, or "gusset," end facing out, and the date coded
Kwik Lok facing in. In the back part of the shelf the loaves
were also stacked two-high, but in this case the loaves were
stacked parallel with the customer aisle. The older bread would
be placed on the top layer; the newer bread on the bottom or in
the back. Thus, the customer would have access to the oldest
bread first, unless he/she deliberately "dug through" and "read
the codes" to find the newest bread. A customer could buy a loaf
of petitioner's bread on the third or fourth day after delivery,
take it home, put it in a bread box or leave it on the counter
for a week to 10 days, and still have a good, edible product.
The customer could further extend the life of the bread by
freezing it.
Bread that sits on the store shelf for 5 days does not lose
nutritional value or taste, but does lose moisture, so the bread
firms up a little bit, losing some "squeezeability." During the
- 7 -
years at issue, petitioner did not offer age-related discounts on
its bread or other bakery products.
Petitioner regularly sold 4-day-old bread at full retail
price on Sundays during the years in issue. In addition,
individual stores sometimes sold 4-day-old bread on other days of
the week. This would happen if a store found itself with an
oversupply of bread inventory, in which case the store would cut
off its order for new bread, and sell the 4-day-old bread
instead.
On the five bread delivery days (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday,
Friday, and Saturday) petitioner's policy was to remove any
unsold bread on the fourth day after delivery. For example,
bread that was delivered on the morning of Monday, September 16,
1985 (and date stamped "Sep 20", a Friday) if unsold, would be
removed on the morning of Thursday, September 19, 1985, before
the Thursday bread delivery.
As to petitioner's Southern California stores, pick-up
vehicles from charitable organizations went to each store and
picked up the unsold bread and other bakery products on the same
day the unsold bread and other bakery products were removed from
the shelves. As to petitioner's Northern California stores,
petitioner's delivery drivers loaded the removed bread and other
bakery products into the delivery trucks and returned them to
petitioner's San Leandro bakery. Pick-up vehicles from
- 8 -
charitable organizations then picked up the unsold bread and
other bakery products at the bakery that same day.
Petitioner incurred significant additional labor costs as a
result of its charitable food donation program (i.e., the labor
necessary to return the 4-day-old bread to the bakery).
The following chart is based upon petitioner's self-baked
bread rotation schedule for the Northern California stores during
the years at issue.
- 9 -
LUCKY STORES
BREAD SCHEDULE
PRODUCT INFORMATION DELIVERY, PICKUP, DONATION INFORMATION
BREAD KWIK LOK LAST SALE BREAD REMOVED REMOVED
BAKED BETWEEN COLOR DAY PER DELIVERED BREAD BREAD
KWIK LOK TO STORES PICKED PICKED UP
DATE UP FROM
BY
STORES
CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS
6:00 pm Saturday Brown Friday By 9:00 am By 9:00 am By 2:00 pm
to 5:00 pm Sunday Monday Thursday Thursday
6:00 pm Sunday Pink Saturday By 9:00 am By 9:00 am By 2:00 pm
to 5:00 pm Monday Tuesday Friday Friday
6:00 pm Tuesday White Monday By 9:00 am By 9:00 am By 2:00 pm
to 5:00 pm Thursday Monday Monday
Wednesday
6:00 pm Wednesday White Tuesday By 9:00 am By 9:00 am By 2:00 pm
to 5:00 pm Friday Monday Monday
Thursday
6:00 pm Thursday Green Wednesday By 9:00 am By 9:00 am By 2:00 pm
to 5:00 pm Friday Saturday Tuesday Tuesday
As the chart reveals, white Kwik Loks were used for both Thursday
and Friday deliveries. Each of the other three delivery days had
its own Kwik Lok color.
Petitioner's Southern California stores generally adhered to the
same schedule as the Northern California stores, except that
petitioner's Southern California stores used different colored Kwik
Loks and the charitable organizations picked up the bread at the
Southern California stores rather than at the bakery.
More than 75 percent of the donated bread products consisted of
4-day-old bread, and the remaining percentage consisted of
- 10 -
tortillas, fried pies, doughnuts, bagels, brown and serve rolls and
English muffins.
Petitioner began its policy of donating unsold 4-day-old bread
and claiming a deduction based on its full retail price in 1983.
Prior to 1983, petitioner removed, or "pulled," bread from its
shelves two days a week--Mondays and Thursdays. Prior to 1983,
petitioner offered its pulled bread for sale, which included three,
4- and 5-day-old bread (depending on the pull day), on discount
racks. Bread that did not sell after being on the discount rack for
24 hours was either destroyed or donated. Under petitioner's pre-
1983 policy the pulled bread was discounted approximately 50
percent, for one day only, before it was discarded or donated.
Regional and national bakers, such as Continental (Orowheat),
Kilpatrick's, and Campbell-Taggertt (Wonder Bread), which have a
substantial share of the California pan bread market, sell their pan
bread, after that bread is pulled from the retail selling shelves of
supermarkets and other retailers, at thrift or bakery outlets at
discounts ranging from 20 to 70 percent.
Petitioner's donations of bakery products to charitable
organizations were "qualified contributions" of inventory under
section 170(e)(3)(A) and section 1.170A-4A(b), Income Tax Regs. The
retail price of the contributed bakery inventory for purposes of
section 170(e)(3)(B) was $3,081,204 for TYE February 3, 1985, and
$6,072,353 for TYE February 2, 1986.
- 11 -
OPINION
Neither party has brought to our attention any prior case
involving the application of section 170(e)(1) and (3) to charitable
contributions of rapidly perishable inventory, and we know of none.
However, Rev. Rul. 85-8, 1985-1 C.B. 59 deals with the application
of section 170(e)(3) to charitable contributions of dated products,
and is discussed infra.
The relevant provisions of section 170(e), in effect for the
years in issue, are as follows:
(e) Certain Contributions of Ordinary Income and Capital Gain
Property.--
(1) General Rule.--The amount of any charitable
contribution of property otherwise taken into account under this
section shall be reduced by the sum of
(A) the amount of gain which would not have been long-
term capital gain if the property contributed had been sold
by the taxpayer at its fair market value (determined at the
time of such contribution), and
* * * * * * *
(3) Special Rule for Certain Contributions of Inventory and
Other Property.--
(A) Qualified Contributions.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a qualified contribution shall mean a charitable
contribution of property described in paragraph (1) or (2)
of section 1221, by a corporation (other than a corporation
which is an S corporation) to an organization which is
described in section 501(c)(3) and is exempt under section
501(a) (other than a private foundation, as defined in
section 509(a), which is not an operating foundation, as
defined in section 4942(j)(3)), but only if--
(i) the use of the property by the donee is related
to the purpose or function constituting the basis for
its exemption under section 501 and the property is to
- 12 -
be used by the donee solely for the care of the ill, the
needy, or infants;
(ii) the property is not transferred by the donee
in exchange for money, other property, or services;
(iii) the taxpayer receives from the donee a
written statement representing that its use and
disposition of the property will be in accordance with
the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii); and
(iv) in the case where the property is subject to
regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, as amended, such property must fully satisfy the
applicable requirements of such Act and regulations
promulgated thereunder on the date of transfer and for
one hundred and eighty days prior thereto.
(B) Amount of Reduction.--The reduction under paragraph
(1)(A) for any qualified contribution (as defined in
subparagraph (A)) shall be no greater than the sum of--
(i) one-half of the amount computed under paragraph
(1)(A) (computed without regard to this paragraph), and
(ii) the amount (if any) by which the charitable
contribution deduction under this section for any
qualified contribution (computed by taking into account
the amount determined in clause (i), but without regard
to this clause) exceeds twice the basis of such
property.
Thus, section 170(e)(1) limits the deduction for charitable
contributions of ordinary income property to the basis of the
property. However, section 170(e)(3) allows a limited deduction in
excess of basis for charitable contributions of inventory and other
property to qualified donees. (As previously stated, we have found
(based upon the parties' stipulation) that petitioner's
contributions were qualified contributions under section
170(e)(3)(A)). If the inventory contributed to qualified donees has
- 13 -
appreciated in value, the reduction of the deduction otherwise
required under section 170(e)(1) is limited to one-half of the
ordinary income that would be recognized on a sale of the property
for its fair market value, except that the deduction may not exceed
twice the taxpayer's adjusted basis for the property. See Bittker &
Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts, par. 35.2.2.,
at 35-25 (2d ed. 1990).
Section 170(e)(3) was added to the Internal Revenue Code by
section 2135(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, 90
Stat. 1520, 1928. The staff report notes that under prior law
(section 170(e) before amendment) the donor of appreciated ordinary
income property (property the sale of which would not give rise to
long-term capital gain) could deduct only his/her basis in the
property rather than its full fair market value. The purpose of
section 170(e) as originally enacted in 1969 was to prevent high-
bracket taxpayers from donating substantially appreciated ordinary
income property to charities so as to be better off after tax than
if they had simply sold the property. Staff of Joint Committee on
Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, at 672
(J. Comm. Print 1976), 1976-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 684.
The General Explanation goes on to explain the reasons for the
change:
The rule that the donor of appreciated ordinary income
property could deduct only his basis in the property
effectively eliminated the abuses which led to its
enactment; however, at the same time, it has resulted in
- 14 -
reduced contributions of certain types of property to
charitable institutions. In particular, those charitable
organizations that provide food, clothing, medical
equipment, and supplies, etc., to the needy and disaster
victims have found that contributions of such items to those
organizations were reduced.
Congress believed that it was desirable to provide a
greater tax incentive than in prior law for contributions of
certain types of ordinary income property which the donee
charity uses in the performance of its exempt purposes.
However, Congress believed that the deduction allowed should
not be such that the donor could be in a better after-tax
situation by donating the property than by selling it.
[Id., 1976-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 684-685.]
The Committee Report thus reflects Congressional intent to allow a
modified deduction, in limited situations, consisting of the
taxpayer's basis plus a fraction of the unrealized ordinary income
inherent in the donated property, but subject to an overall
limitation of twice adjusted basis.
Section 1.170A-1(c), Income Tax Regs., deals with the valuation
of a charitable contribution in property. Section 1.170A-1(c)(2)
and (3) provide:
(2) The fair market value is the price at which the
property would change hands between a willing buyer and
a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to
buy or sell and both having a reasonable knowledge of
relevant facts. If the contribution is made in property
of a type which the taxpayer sells in the course of his
business, the fair market value is the price which the
taxpayer would have received if he had sold the
contributed property in the usual market in which he
customarily sells, at the time and place of the
contribution and, in the case of a contribution of goods
in quantity, in the quantity contributed. The usual
market of a manufacturer or other producer consists of
the wholesalers or other distributors to or through whom
- 15 -
he customarily sells, but if he sells only at retail the
usual market consists of his retail customers.
(3) If a donor makes a charitable contribution of
property, such as stock in trade, at a time when he could
not reasonably have been expected to realize its usual
selling price, the value of the gift is not the usual
selling price but is the amount for which the quantity of
property contributed would have been sold by the donor at
the time of the contribution.
In the case before us, petitioner argues that it could have sold
to its regular customers at full retail prices the same quantity of
bread that it donated to food banks. Respondent argues that the
donated bread was surplus inventory that petitioner could have sold
only at a 50-percent discount, which would have brought the selling
price below petitioner's adjusted basis.
Section 1.170A-1(c)(2), Income Tax Regs., after reciting the
familiar general definition of "fair market value," provides the
method for establishing fair market value in the case of donated
inventory. Under the regulation, the fair market value is the price
which the taxpayer would have received "if he had sold the
contributed property in the usual market in which he customarily
sells," in the quantity contributed. Sec. 1.170A-1(c)(2), Income
Tax Regs. If the taxpayer sells only at retail (as here), the
"usual market" consists of the taxpayer's retail customers.
Section 1.170A-1(c)(3), Income Tax Regs., limits the scope of
the preceding section in those cases where it cannot be established
that the taxpayer could have realized his usual selling price. In
- 16 -
this situation, the value of the gift is not the usual selling
price, but rather the amount for which the quantity of property
contributed could have been sold at the time of contribution.
It is our task in this case to match the facts against the set
of hypotheses specified by the regulations so as to determine the
fair market value of petitioner's donated bread. Fair market value
is not to be determined in a vacuum. To the contrary, it must be
determined with respect to the particular property in question at
the time of contribution, subject to any conditions or restrictions
on marketability. Cooley v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 223, 225 (1959),
affd. per curiam
283 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1960). Viewing the approach
taken by the parties in presenting this case, we can perceive no
principled basis upon which we could reach a compromise value that
lies somewhere between petitioner's claim of full retail price, and
respondent's claim of 50 percent of full retail price, nor do we
think it would be appropriate to do.
We think respondent's proposed application of the regulations in
question is unduly restrictive and inconsistent with Congressional
intent. In the years at issue, petitioner contributed about 6
percent of its private label bread production to food banks.
Contributions of excess inventory that is not obsolete could seldom
be valued at full retail price under respondent's view of the
regulations because in most cases if a taxpayer could have sold
contributed excess inventory at the time and in the quantity
- 17 -
contributed, it would have done so. In this case, petitioner
deliberately overproduced its private label bread so to protect its
stores against the possibility of empty shelves. We do not believe
it should be penalized for doing so.
The parties focus mainly on the characteristics of the donated
bread. Was there something about the 4-day-old bread that made it
unsalable in petitioner's stores at full retail price? Petitioner's
bakery delivered bread to the stores every day except Wednesdays and
Sundays. Any unsold bread was removed from the shelves at the
beginning of the fourth day after delivery, except for bread
delivered on Thursdays, which was removed on Mondays.
The bread wrappers were closed with color coded Kwik Loks
indicating the so-called "pull date." Each delivery day of the week
had its own color code except for Thursdays and Fridays. For both
of these days, white Kwik Loks were used indicating a Monday pull
date for both. While the white Kwik Loks for bread delivered on
Thursday and Friday bore different date codes, the date codes were
significant only to someone deliberately seeking to distinguish
between Thursday and Friday bread. The date codes were of no
significance to the store merchandisers, who relied on the colors on
the Kwik Loks to determine pull dates. (The date codes could
presumably have had significance to the store operators if week-old
bread somehow got scrambled with fresh bread; e.g., the date codes
- 18 -
would have been useful to distinguish between Monday's bread from
Week One and Monday's bread from Week Two.)
The bread donated to the food banks was "4-day" bread except on
Mondays, when the donation was a combination of 4- and 5-day bread
(a combination of Thursday and Friday deliveries). The parties
focus their attention on Sunday sales, since that was the day on
which sales of 4-day bread were most likely to be made. Respondent
argues that petitioner has not proved that any Thursday (4-day)
bread was sold, and that even if some 4-day bread was sold, the
quantity sold was insignificant.
Petitioner has no records that would establish the quantity of
Thursday bread sold on Sundays, or delivered to food banks on
Mondays. The maintenance of such records would have required the
reading and counting of the minutely printed date codes early on
Sunday and Monday mornings, and would have served no apparent
corporate purpose.
When the store merchandisers periodically stocked the shelves,
they placed the older bread on the top layer in the front of the
shelves, where the older bread was more likely to be sold than the
newer bread that was placed under the older bread or in the back of
the shelves, perpendicular to the bread in front whose labels faced
the customers. But the Thursday and Friday bread eventually were
intermingled, since both bear white Kwik Loks and the store
merchandisers are indifferent to the date codes, which the Court has
- 19 -
found, based upon actual observation of a sample Kwik Lok, to have
been obscurely printed and hard to read. At trial the Court
observed that petitioner's own bakery chief, Alvin Lewis, had
trouble reading the date code on the specimen in evidence without
adjusting his glasses.
It also appears unlikely that many customers would have rejected
the Thursday bread merely on the basis of "squeezeability". Mr.
Lewis testified that while "one day" bread is distinctive in feel
from 3- and 4-day bread, since it contains more moisture, "from the
third and fourth [day] you [can] probably never tell any
difference."
Respondent argues that even admitting for the sake of argument
that petitioner sold Thursday--4-day--bread on Sundays, the amount
sold was small because Friday and Saturday deliveries intervened,
and the quantity of Thursday bread remaining for Sunday sale
necessarily had to be small. Referring to the phrase "quantity
contributed" in section 1.170A-1(c)(2), Income Tax Regs., respondent
seeks to compare unfavorably the quantity of 4-day bread sold on
Sunday to the quantity of 4-day bread petitioner normally
contributed on other days. We do not think this argument holds
water. Obviously, the amount of Thursday bread available for sale
on Sundays, after Friday and Saturday sales of Thursday bread had
depleted the supply, would be less than the amount of 4-day bread
donated to the food banks on other days. The significant fact is
- 20 -
that 4-day bread was sold on Sundays at the usual retail price, not
the quantity that was sold, which necessarily had to be smaller than
the Friday and Saturday bread remaining on the shelves.
Respondent asserts that it is "industry practice" to pull bread
after 3 days and that other grocery chains sell it at a 50- percent
discount on discount racks or in thrift stores. Even though
petitioner chose to do otherwise, respondent argues, the industry
practice establishes the price, and therefore the fair market value,
at which petitioner could have sold the donated bread at the time of
the contribution. Respondent points to section 1.170A-1(c)(3),
Income Tax Regs., which limits the fair market value of contributed
inventory to the amount for which the quantity of property in
question could have been sold at the time of the contribution.
Petitioner disputes respondent's assumption as to what is industry
practice. While respondent's argument has some force on this point,
we do not believe industry practice, such as it is, establishes the
price for which petitioner could have sold the donated bread.
First, the record does not establish when other supermarket
chains pulled their bread for sale at discount. Mr. Lewis testified
that he was uncertain what practice petitioner's competitors
followed regarding the time bread was left on the shelf, although he
believed that during the years in issue one of the competitors,
Alpha Beta, left its bread on its shelves a little longer than did
petitioner. He conceded, however, that petitioner makes an effort
- 21 -
to remain abreast of the competition, so it stands to reason that
petitioner would try to avoid getting a reputation for selling stale
bread by leaving it on the shelves longer than its competition did.
The parties stipulated that regional and national bakers that
have a substantial share of the California pan bread market sell
their bread, after it is pulled from the shelves, at thrift or
bakery outlets at discounts ranging from 20 to 70 percent.
Undoubtedly petitioner could have sold its bread at thrift outlets
had it chosen to do so, but this fact does not establish that
petitioner could not sell its 4-day bread at regular retail prices.
At best it merely tends to show that petitioner could have sold
"old" bread at a discount when it had in effect announced to the
public that the bread being offered at a discount was old.
Respondent points to the general definition of fair market value
contained in the first sentence of section 1.170A-1(c)(2), Income
Tax Regs., and argues that 4-day bread could not have been sold to
"fully informed consumers," that common sense forces the conclusion
that the Sunday sales were the product of "ignorance on the part of
the customer," and "compulsion; i.e., the older bread was all that
was left and the customer had no other choice." But by focusing
solely on the first sentence of the regulation, as respondent has
done, it is necessary to disregard the rest of the regulation which,
as we have already pointed out, provides the specific method by
which fair market value is determined in the context of contributed
- 22 -
inventory. Accordingly, generalized concepts such as respondent
would have us apply must give way in this instance to specific
rules.
Rev. Rul. 85-8, 1985-1 C.B. 59, as noted above, deals with
charitable contributions of dated products. Neither party
discusses, or even cites, this ruling, but for completeness we deem
it necessary to consider it. Revenue Rulings are not accorded the
force of precedent in the Tax Court. Rather, they represent the
position of the Commissioner on a given issue, and we deal with Rev.
Rul. 85-8 in that light. Estate of Lang v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.
404, 406-407 (1975), affd. in part and revd. in part on other
grounds
613 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1980).
Rev. Rul. 85-8 holds that when a corporation donates products in
inventory to a charitable organization shortly before the products'
expiration date, the amount allowable as a charitable contribution
deduction is equal to the taxpayer's basis in the property plus one-
half of the unrealized appreciation, not to exceed twice the
taxpayer's basis in the property. The ruling, however, presupposes
the fact that we are charged with determining, namely, the amount of
"unrealized appreciation." We quote the "facts" of the ruling as
follows:
Corporation X, which is not an S corporation as defined
in section 1361(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, is a
pharmaceutical manufacturer. X manufactures products that
are subject to the requirement that an "expiration date" be
- 23 -
imprinted on the product or its container. The products may
not be legally sold after the expiration date.
Shortly before the expiration date of products that
ordinarily were sold by X for 10x dollars, X made a qualified
contribution of such products within the meaning of section
170(e)(3)(A) of the Code. On its Federal income tax return, X
claimed a deduction of 10x dollars for this contribution. At
the time of the donation, if X had sold the products in the
usual market in which it sold such products, X would have
realized only 5x dollars. X could not reasonably have been
expected to realize its usual selling price for the products due
to the imminence of the expiration date after which the products
could not be sold legally. X's basis in the products was 1x
dollars. [Rev. Rul. 85-8, 1985-1 C.B. at 59.]
It will be seen that under the postulated facts an "expiration
date" was required, presumably by law, and the products could not be
legally sold after the expiration date. In the case before us an
expiration date was not a legal requirement, nor is there any legal
impediment related to the expiration date. We recognize, of course,
that market forces would no doubt impose a practical impediment to
retail sales after the date on the Kwik Lok, except at a substantial
discount at thrift stores or on discount racks.
The ruling assumes that because the expiration date was
imminent, "X could not reasonably have been expected to realize its
usual selling price ". Id. We think our case is different. Here,
we are dealing with donations of rapidly perishable inventory which
petitioner had on hand for sale for a very short time, so that the
bread donations on the pull date--the day before the date code
expiration date--have to be viewed in a context different from that
of the ruling. This was not inventory which had been on hand for a
- 24 -
considerable period of time before it was donated. Instead, it was
very much "fast in, fast out," inventory. Consequently, while we do
not necessarily quarrel with the Commissioner's conclusions in Rev.
Rul. 85-8, based upon its specific facts, we do not believe the
revenue ruling suggests that similar conclusions necessarily need be
reached in this case.
Petitioner retained Professor Daniel L. Rubinfeld to furnish an
expert opinion as to the value of the 4-day-old bread that
petitioner donated. Professor Rubinfeld teaches law and economics
at the University of California at Berkeley and is a principal with
the Law and Economics Consulting Group. His expert report is a
statistical analysis based upon a physical count of petitioner's
bread sales over a 2-week period in six representative stores.
Professor Rubinfeld concludes from his statistics that, if bread is
only a few days old, consumers are indifferent to its age and will
pay full retail price for it.
Neither party addresses Professor Rubinfeld's statistical
analysis on brief (although respondent does attack certain perceived
defects in the "survey" upon which it is based). Professor
Rubinfeld's conclusion is founded upon certain statistical averages
referred to in his report. This report, however, fails to explain
why these statistical averages are reliable estimates; the standard
deviations of these averages are left uninterpreted. Without some
assistance from the parties, therefore, we are unwilling to
- 25 -
undertake the kind of detailed analysis that would permit us to
determine whether Professor Rubinfeld's analysis supports the
opinion he expresses or rejects it. We have therefore not relied
upon his report in deciding this case.
Our review of the facts convinces us that on Sundays, and
occasionally on other days, petitioner could and did sell 4-day
bread at regular retail prices, and in sufficient quantities so as
to constitute meaningful sales. Congress, by enacting section
170(e)(3), intended to encourage donations of the type in question
for the direct use of a special and narrowly limited class of
recipients; namely, the ill, the needy, and infants. Section
170(e)(3)(A). As the Conference Committee Report quoted above
notes, before the addition of section 170(e)(3), contributions of
food, clothing, medical equipment, and supplies for the benefit of
such persons had dried up as a result of the limitations imposed by
section 170(e)(1). We think section 170(e)(3) and sections 1.170A-
1(c)(2) and (3), Income Tax Regs., should not be interpreted in such
a restrictive way as to unnecessarily inhibit donations of the type
Congress meant to encourage, and certainly petitioner's bread
donations are of that type.
Furthermore, we again note that Congress was careful to draft
section 170(e)(3)(B) in such a way as to prevent the situation where
a taxpayer would be better off, after tax, by donating the property
than it would have been if it had sold the donated property and
- 26 -
retained all the after-tax proceeds of the sale. Staff of Joint
Comm. on Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of
1976, at 672 (J. Comm. Print 1976), 1976-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 684.
Thus, petitioner's donations do not present an opportunity for the
type of tax avoidance unintended by Congress.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with petitioner that its
bakery product donations to food banks should be valued at full
retail prices, and we so hold.
At the trial, petitioner sought to have a letter stipulated into
evidence to which respondent raised a hearsay objection. See Fed.
R. Evid. 801(a). The letter was addressed to a revenue agent, and
was obtained by petitioner from respondent in the course of informal
discovery. Petitioner did not call the author of the letter as a
witness, nor did petitioner attempt to account for his
unavailability. The Court reserved judgment as to the admissibility
of the letter. After further consideration, the Court now rules
that respondent's objection is sustained. Informal discovery is
used, in part, to lead the discovering party to admissible evidence,
not to automatically validate it. Zaentz v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.
469, 471-472 (1979).
To reflect the foregoing, and to give effect to settled issues
and the issue remaining to be resolved,
An appropriate order will be
- 27 -
issued directing entry of decision
under Rule 155 upon completion of
proceedings resolving the remaining
issue in this case, and sustaining
respondent's hearsay objection.
