I wasn't sure but found this, FWIW.

If you are donating Waterford Crystal to a qualified organization, the tax deduction value is generally the fair market value (FMV) of the item at the time of the contribution. Fair Market Value (FMV) is defined by the IRS as: "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 to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts". Important Considerations for Valuation:

• Condition: The condition of the crystal is a significant factor in determining its FMV. The IRS states that you generally cannot take a deduction for household items unless they are in good used condition or better.
• Age and Quality: The quality when the item was new and its age also need to be considered.
• Market Trends and Demand: The value can fluctuate based on current market trends and the desirability of the specific Waterford crystal piece.
• Comparable Sales: Looking at the selling prices of similar Waterford crystal pieces in the resale market can help you determine the FMV.
• Appraisal: For donations of non-cash property with a claimed value exceeding $5,000, you must obtain a qualified appraisal. For items valued at more than $500 that are not in good used condition or better, a qualified appraisal is also required. A qualified appraiser's opinion, when well-supported by experience and facts, can be given significant weight in determining the FMV.

I don’t know for a Waterford bowl, but for other items I’ve used Goodwill’s estimation page.

Goodwill donation value

The difference between FMV and Goodwill's value is substantial. If you think your generous donation will be that value to SVA you would be better to sell it then donate the money. When we take donations for our Church garage sales we let the give fill out the form with the reminder that God is watching. We sell most items for a quarter.

I doubt you can deduct more than $500 in donations on your taxes anyway; maybe it's $300?

Sadly, nobody wants beautiful china, crystal, or silver these days, so 'market value' is pretty low.

Two consideratios:

The federal standard deduction for single persons is $15,000 this year and double that, $30,000 for those filing jointly. Unless the total of one's deductible expenses exceeds which of these values applies to them, there is no need to worry about a charitable deduction valuation. Because whatever it is won't result in a deduction from income and so no reduction of federal tax.

Next, chloebud's definition is an accurate version of the theoretical definition. Practical answers and theoretical answers often differ.

Everyone knows that flotsam and jetsam discarded from households, representing accumulated detritus in cupboards, closets, drawers and garages, has little if any value. Such stuff could as easily be taken to a dump as "donated" but for kind thoughts that maybe someone in need is better off with it than without it.

The value of such stuff is accurately approximated by what it would sell for at a store run by the likes of a Goodwill or Salvation Army, That's why there's a "guideline" that bpath included, it's not as if Goodwill employs professional appraisers.

Everyone knows, the IRS included, that it's more likely pennies on the dollar than tens or twenties for each hundred of original cost.

That's the practical (and real) answer. And a reply to what arcy said above - there is no difference between real FMV and "Goodwill value". They're the same. Funny about her comment that someone is watching, because so many adherents to her way of thinking act in ways that suggest they personally have no ethical standards and are unrestrained by any notion of accountability for what they do.

.

And no donation deduction unless you are over the standard deduction level.

I never value the items I donate. I do believe that you lose for yourself the positive, lets call it Karma. from donating things to charity. That is why it is called charity.

Plus If I take a valuation for tax purposes I expect the entirety of America to pay me for my donation to a charity not of their choice.

You might consider this mind set or not.

patriciae

Are the items you donate of substantial value or are they the normal types of household discards?

Do your itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction, such that you're foregoing a tax reduction, or does your practice not affect your federal tax bill?

If you do itemize, do you give cash contributions and forego deducting those too?

What would you pay for it at the garage sale? Well not you, specifically, general people.

That's what I remember it being.

All great points. I am cleaning out house for LO going to memory care. Just trying to get it done. It's their stuff. I'm helping. They will be way over the 15K standard deduction due to all the medical and caretaker services needed to keep them going. I thought that every little bit might be helpful to them at tax time. I'm going to offer up to neighbors and then take whatever is left over to salvation army/good will. THANK YOU.

You might consider this mind set or not.

I don’t have qualms with others “paying me” for the donation that I choose to make, any more than I allow them to “pay me” for my children which I, not they, chose for me to have, or the interest on the mortgage for the house that I, not they, chose to buy, and a portion of the state and local taxes I choose to pay by virtue of where I, not they, decided I would live.

The government has decided that these things and more, and including charitable donations, are worth reducing my taxes for. They write the code with the expectation that we take advantage of it. If they decide it’s unfair, they can reduce or eliminate it, as with SALT.

If I really felt conflicted about “benefitting” from my donations (in quotes because it’s always a net cost to me) then instead of donating $600 and forgoing the deduction, I’d donate $1000 and reduce my taxes by $400. Or whatever my personal math would be.

Just my mindset, which you might equally consider, or not.

" What would you pay for it at the garage sale? "

Sure, that's the idea. $1 here, $ 2 there.

I think "real" charity is:

-volunteering time that you don't have, to an organization you don't personally get a benefit (real or spiritual) from. Meaning, not related to one's particular religion or religious congregation.

-giving more money than you can afford, to help people in need. Again, unrelated to religious organizations or activities.

I've done both, very many times. Cash donations have been deducted. Not doing so is foolish.

I've never thought that giving household discards to a Salvation Army or Goodwill as being charitable donations. It's an alternative to a dump run and usually cheaper.

I understand not everyone has enough money to donate more than they can afford. Everyone has time. That's giving of yourself. And, no tax deduction results so no imagined martyrdom needs to be felt about tax consequences.

Here's a way to put your money where your mouth is. Once you turn 73, people with balances in IRAs or qualified plans need to start taking what's called Required Minimum Distributions. The amount is about 4% of the balance each year but that's not a fully accurate answer, it's an approximation.

The amount of the distribution is subject to regular income tax. However, it is possible to earmark a portion of the required distribution to be paid to a charity. That makes it an animal called a QCD, Qualified Charitable Distribution. Those amounts are treated as part of an RMD but are not taxable.

Say you have an IRA balance of $2500. In the first year, the required distribution is 4%, $100.

You must take out at least $100 though you can take out more. You're taxed on what you take out.

Or, of the $100, you can tell your plan custodian or administrator - "Send $50 to me, send $50 to Doctors Without Borders as a QLD". $50+$50 = $100, your required minimum distribution is met. But since you receive only $50, that's all you're taxable on. The other $50 goes as you designated it and there's no taxable income and no charitable deduction for that second $50.

There's no need to itemize deductions to get this benefit.

I dont expect anyone to do as I do. I just offered it for consideration. It saves a lot of bother as well in deciding what something is worth. It is hard to estimate whether or not something you donate will be useful to a charity. When I peruse a charity Thrift shop I see mountains of stuff I would not take home if it came with a cash premium. On the other hand I would pick up table linen for very cheap prices as I like that sort of thing.

As for fancy stuff in general when I was graduating and everyone was getting married most of them did not get china etc but it came back into style and then went out again so I wouldnt trash the china and silver. I would wait a bit.

patriciae

Elmer - I was aware of RMDs, but not the neat way to donate them to charity. I love it, thank you for sharing it. I am a few years away from that - but hope to be in a position to do just what you shared when I am.

Ally De, using the Qualified Charitable Distributions, QCD, is a very useful tool. I don't know about you but I hear from time to time people griping about having to start taking distributions from their qualified plans. How they gripe is usually "now I have to start triggering more tax because I have to take out money I don't need or want to spend, from my retirement plans" . BIngo, I make the suggestion. Funny how there's a range of reactions. A reminder of what I suggested above - some people "get" charitable actions, others are selfish and have no time at all for it. Too bad.

I'll mention briefly another tax efficient technique. Give appreciated stock - it works the same way. Say you have shares that have appreciated greatly. A sale would trigger taxable gain. If you make a charitable contribution of the shares themself, you don't get taxed on the underlying gain AND you get a charitable contribution for the value. As above, any tax savings from the contribution deduction depends on your having more than the standard deduction. Even if not, the shares are disposed of without paying tax on the gain.

All brokerage firms know how to handle this and all but the smallest charities have accounts in place to receive stock. And they do so gratefully, because they can sell such shares and similarly pay no tax in doing so.

I read somewhere recently that the house version of the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' had a provision to allow charitable donations to be deducted from taxable income without having to itemize. Don't know the limit on the amount.

Who knows what will come out on the final bill after the Senate reconciliation.

I need to donate some of my lighter worn work clothes now that I'm retired. I usually just bag it up and drop it in one of the Planet Aid drop boxes. I have no idea where it goes from there.

ETA: I did a quick look see and found this. Bigly difference in the House and Senate versions.

Charitable deduction for nonitemizers

• Current law: Taxpayers who do not elect to itemize are not currently eligible for a charitable deduction.
• What’s in the initial Senate Finance Committee text: Section 70424 would create a permanent deduction for taxpayers do not itemize, capped at $1,000 ($2,000 for joint filers). This does not include contributions to donor-advised funds.
• What’s in the House-passed version: Section 110112 creates a charitable deduction for nonitemizers set at $150 ($300 for joint filers), not including contributions to donor-advised funds. It would sunset at the end of 2028.
• Estimated cost: JCT estimates the Senate provision would cost $73.75 billion over 10 years, while the House provision would cost $6.94 billion over 10 years.
• Impact on philanthropy: The Council supports this provision, which would recognize a broader swath of Americans for their giving.

The tax law process in Congress used to be part of my business. Monitoring developments, sometimes being involved in providing information to consider for developments, and then ultimately, applying developments at the industry and taxpayer level.

This change has several features seen repeatedly over the years.

-it's what's sometimes called a "Christmas Tree" provision. Once a tree is put up (ie, a bill is being considered), then it's a free for all for what ornaments (new rules) get hung on it.

-rules that do not contribute to any major policy change, such as this, need to be large enough to gain political points with voters but small enough to have a minor impact. The low dollar levels insure that the impact is minor.

-Finally, any glow fades after awhile. Get the political kudos, if any, then run. Provisions with no contribution to policy changes need to be in place for only a few years. This one has that, a "sunset". Expiration in the House version after 2028.

We've used the required IRA withdrawal to give to charity since we first learned about it. It's a win for us not paying tax on money we'd give away anyway, and the charities get the same amount or more.

I think the changes being considered for deduction are pleasing to home owners who want to be able to deduct their RE taxes and mortgage interest. They claim double taxation on the RE taxes. Realtors and lenders would be happy, too, but the whole idea of the standardized deduction was to simplify filing.

Lord only knows how any taxes will be monitored with this government's decimated IRS staff.

chisue, there is an animal that exists that one can call foundational principles of tax theory. But over time, changes in policy direction, actions to enact new rules, change or repeal old rules, or movements generally creating havoc preventing any hope for stability, are what history shows is what's to be expected.

Since the lid was blown off of what used to be an obligation to keep reasonably balanced budgets, it honestly matters less than it used to. I know the expression used about weather in the Midwest and it applies to the tax world too. Whether you like or dislike current conditions, don't get too comfortable because change is right around the corner. Expect things to be different sooner than later.