FundSvcs Community

The IRS treats a quid pro quo as existing when the donor receives (or is entitled to) goods/services in return-it doesn't disappear just because the donor doesn't actually use the benefit.

Key IRS references you can cite:

• Rev. Rul. 67-246 (1967-2 C.B. 104) (as discussed in Treasury Decision TD 8690): the IRS explains that a taxpayer who chooses not to use tickets made available to them "is not entitled to a greater contribution" than otherwise allowed-i.e., the deduction is still reduced by the ticket value. IRS

  • TD 8690 also notes that if the donor properly rejects the right to the benefit (e.g., check-off box at time of gift), then a full deduction may be allowed. IRS

• Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(f)(6) (explained in TD 8690): confirms the reduction applies even if goods/services are provided in a different year-your deduction is limited by the value of what you got "in exchange," even if not yet available. IRS

• IRC § 6115 (quid pro quo disclosure rule): defines a "quid pro quo contribution" as a payment made partly as a contribution and partly in consideration for goods or services provided to the payor-the definition turns on consideration/return benefit, not usage. Legal Information Institute

• IRS Publication 1771 and the IRS quid pro quo guidance page: both frame quid pro quo as a payment made partly as a contribution and partly for goods/services provided in return, with the deductible amount limited to the excess over the value of those goods/services. (They don't emphasize "used vs. unused," but they're commonly cited for the core rule.) IRS+1

The IRS treats a quid pro quo as existing when the donor receives (or is entitled to) goods/services in return-it doesn't disappear just because the donor doesn't actually use the benefit.

Key IRS references you can cite:

• Rev. Rul. 67-246 (1967-2 C.B. 104) (as discussed in Treasury Decision TD 8690): the IRS explains that a taxpayer who chooses not to use tickets made available to them "is not entitled to a greater contribution" than otherwise allowed-i.e., the deduction is still reduced by the ticket value. IRS

  • TD 8690 also notes that if the donor properly rejects the right to the benefit (e.g., check-off box at time of gift), then a full deduction may be allowed. IRS

• Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(f)(6) (explained in TD 8690): confirms the reduction applies even if goods/services are provided in a different year-your deduction is limited by the value of what you got "in exchange," even if not yet available. IRS

• IRC § 6115 (quid pro quo disclosure rule): defines a "quid pro quo contribution" as a payment made partly as a contribution and partly in consideration for goods or services provided to the payor-the definition turns on consideration/return benefit, not usage. Legal Information Institute

• IRS Publication 1771 and the IRS quid pro quo guidance page: both frame quid pro quo as a payment made partly as a contribution and partly for goods/services provided in return, with the deductible amount limited to the excess over the value of those goods/services. (They don't emphasize "used vs. unused," but they're commonly cited for the core rule.) IRS+1

Core IRS Authorities (Refusal vs. Non-Use)

1. Revenue Ruling 67-246 (1967-2 C.B. 104)

Most frequently cited authority for this principle

• The ruling addresses charitable contributions where donors receive items of value (e.g., tickets).

• It explicitly states that a donor who does not use tickets or other benefits is not entitled to a larger charitable deduction.

• The deduction is reduced by the fair market value of the benefit made available, regardless of use.

Key concept:

This ruling is still routinely cited by the IRS and practitioners for gala tickets, event benefits, and similar scenarios.

2. Treasury Decision 8690 (1997)

(Final regulations implementing IRC §6115 - quid pro quo disclosure)

TD 8690 is critical because it clarifies how a donor may avoid a quid pro quo:

• It explains that if the donor affirmatively refuses or rejects the benefit at the time of payment, the transfer may be treated as fully deductible.

• Conversely, failing to attend or use the benefit does not constitute refusal.

This is the origin of the widely used "opt-out" or "benefits declined" checkbox language.

Key distinction introduced:

• ✔ Affirmative refusal at or before payment → benefit treated as not provided

• ✘ Silent non-use after entitlement → quid pro quo still exists

3. Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(f)(6)

(Timing and existence of goods/services)

This regulation reinforces the idea that:

• A contribution is quid pro quo if goods or services are provided or expected to be provided in return.

• The determination is made at the time of the payment, not based on later donor behavior.

This supports the IRS position that post-gift non-use is irrelevant to deductibility.

4. IRC § 6115 (Statutory definition of quid pro quo contributions)

While §6115 is a disclosure statute, its definition is important:

• A quid pro quo contribution is a payment made partly as a contribution and partly in consideration for goods or services provided.

• The statute hinges on consideration, not enjoyment or consumption.

This statutory framing supports the IRS's consistent interpretation in rulings and regulations.

5. IRS Publication 1771 (Charitable Contributions – Substantiation and Disclosure)

Publication 1771 repeatedly emphasizes:

• The deductible amount is limited to the excess of the payment over the value of goods/services received in return.

• It does not condition that reduction on use.

While not explicit about refusal vs. non-use, it aligns fully with the above authorities and is often cited operationally.

The IRS treats a quid pro quo as existing when the donor receives (or is entitled to) goods/services in return-it doesn't disappear just because the donor doesn't actually use the benefit.

Key IRS references you can cite:

• Rev. Rul. 67-246 (1967-2 C.B. 104) (as discussed in Treasury Decision TD 8690): the IRS explains that a taxpayer who chooses not to use tickets made available to them "is not entitled to a greater contribution" than otherwise allowed-i.e., the deduction is still reduced by the ticket value. IRS

  • TD 8690 also notes that if the donor properly rejects the right to the benefit (e.g., check-off box at time of gift), then a full deduction may be allowed. IRS

• Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(f)(6) (explained in TD 8690): confirms the reduction applies even if goods/services are provided in a different year-your deduction is limited by the value of what you got "in exchange," even if not yet available. IRS

• IRC § 6115 (quid pro quo disclosure rule): defines a "quid pro quo contribution" as a payment made partly as a contribution and partly in consideration for goods or services provided to the payor-the definition turns on consideration/return benefit, not usage. Legal Information Institute

• IRS Publication 1771 and the IRS quid pro quo guidance page: both frame quid pro quo as a payment made partly as a contribution and partly for goods/services provided in return, with the deductible amount limited to the excess over the value of those goods/services. (They don't emphasize "used vs. unused," but they're commonly cited for the core rule.) IRS+1