TaxEar

TaxEarPart 2Business expenses, deductions and credits

Business Tax Preparation · Business expenses, deductions and credits

Business bad debts

Verification 2026 Verified
tax year · reviewed 2026-08-21 · Draft for N. O. review
  1. Loss bears a proximate relation to your own trade or business (Reg. § 1.166-5(b)) Business bad debt — ordinary deduction, partial write-off allowed
  2. No such relation to your own trade or business Non-business bad debt — short-term capital loss, only once wholly worthless
What kind of bad debt is it — and what follows for the deduction
This page covers deducting money someone owes you that you will never get back. It affects a business owed money by a customer. It also affects anyone who lends money out of their own pocket, not through a business. Two things depend on the source of the loan: how much you can write off, and how you write it off. A debt tied to your own business gets kind treatment — you can write off part of it as soon as part goes bad. A personal loan gets much harsher treatment. It only counts once it is a total loss, and even then it is a small, limited write-off, not a full one.

Two questions decide a bad debt deduction and the second is worth far more than the first. Is there a debt that has become worthless, and is it a business debt? The answer to the second turns an ordinary deduction into a short-term capital loss, or the reverse.

The rule

The deduction. Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(a)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(a)(1)). For less than the whole, Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(a)(2), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(a)(2)).

How much. Verified 2026-08-19IRC § 166(b) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(b)), and Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-1(e), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1 (Reg. § 1.166-1(e)).

Business or not. Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(d)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(d)(1)). A business debt is Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(d)(2), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(d)(2)), and the test is applied so that Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-5(b), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-5 (Reg. § 1.166-5(b)).

Proving worthlessness. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-2(a) and (b), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-2 (Reg. § 1.166-2(a), (b)), and Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-2(c)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-2 (Reg. § 1.166-2(c)(1)).

If it comes back. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-1(f), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1 (Reg. § 1.166-1(f)).

Current figures

ItemRuleAuthority
Wholly worthless debtVerified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(a)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166IRC § 166(a)(1)
Partially worthless debtVerified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(a)(2), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166IRC § 166(a)(2)
Amount of the deductionVerified 2026-08-19IRC § 166(b) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166IRC § 166(b)
Prior inclusion requiredVerified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-1(e), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1Reg. § 1.166-1(e)
Non-business debtVerified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(d)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166IRC § 166(d)(1)
Business debt definedVerified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(d)(2), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166IRC § 166(d)(2)
The proximate relation testVerified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-5(b), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-5Reg. § 1.166-5(b)
Evidence of worthlessnessVerified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-2(a) and (b), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-2Reg. § 1.166-2(a), (b)
BankruptcyVerified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-2(c)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-2Reg. § 1.166-2(c)(1)
RecoveryVerified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-1(f), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1Reg. § 1.166-1(f)
The repealed reserve methodVerified 2026-08-21Repeal note at IRC § 166(c) and Reg. § 1.166-1(a), (b), both opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 and /cfr/text/26/1.166-1IRC § 166(c), Reg. § 1.166-1(a)

How it works in practice

Three differences follow from the business or non-business classification, not one. A business bad debt is an ordinary deduction; a non-business bad debt is Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(d)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(d)(1)), and therefore runs into the capital loss limitation. A business bad debt may be deducted in part under IRC § 166(a)(2); a non-business one may not, because IRC § 166(d)(1)(A) switches off IRC § 166(a) entirely and IRC § 166(d)(1)(B) engages only when the debt “becomes worthless.” And a business bad debt takes the holding period of nothing at all, while a non-business one is deemed short-term however long it was outstanding.

A corporation cannot have a non-business bad debt. IRC § 166(d)(1) opens “In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation.” Every debt a corporation holds is therefore within IRC § 166(a), and the classification question does not arise.

The classification test is about the loss, not the loan. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-5(b), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-5 (Reg. § 1.166-5(b)). Two points in that sentence do the work. The relation is tested “at the time the debt becomes worthless,” so a loan made in the course of a business the taxpayer has since left may have lost its character. And “the use to which the borrowed funds are put by the debtor is of no consequence” — lending to a business does not make the debt a business debt of the lender.

Basis is the ceiling, and a cash method business often has none. Verified 2026-08-19IRC § 166(b) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(b)) and Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-1(e), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1 (Reg. § 1.166-1(e)). A cash method consultant whose client never pays has no deduction: she never included the fee in income, so she has no basis in the receivable and nothing to write off. An accrual method consultant on identical facts included the fee, has basis equal to it, and deducts it. This is the same structural point that governs discharge of indebtedness under IRC § 108(e)(2), running in the opposite direction.

Partial worthlessness needs a charge-off; total worthlessness does not. Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(a)(2), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(a)(2)) — the deduction may not exceed “the part charged off within the taxable year,” so the books must show the write-down in the year claimed. IRC § 166(a)(1) imposes no such requirement, though in practice a taxpayer claiming a wholly worthless debt will have written it off anyway.

Worthlessness is a facts question with a low procedural bar. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-2(a) and (b), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-2 (Reg. § 1.166-2(a), (b)). Suing is not required where suing would be futile, and Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-2(c)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-2 (Reg. § 1.166-2(c)(1)). What the regulation does require is that the year be right: a debt is deductible in the year it becomes worthless, not in a later year when the taxpayer gets round to it, and an early claim is as wrong as a late one.

And if the money arrives after all. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-1(f), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1 (Reg. § 1.166-1(f)). The recovery is income only to the extent the earlier deduction produced a tax benefit, which is the rule in IRC § 111.

Two consultants, one deadbeat client

Two consultants each bill a client $24,000 in November 2025 for work done that month. The client fails in March 2026 and neither is paid.

Hardwicke Advisory uses the accrual methodA way of accounting that reports income when it's earned and expenses when they're incurred, regardless of when cash actually changes hands.. It included the $24,000 in 2025 income, so it has a $24,000 basis in the receivable. When the debt becomes worthless in 2026 it deducts $24,000 as an ordinary business bad debt under IRC § 166(a)(1).

Selborne Consulting uses the cash methodA way of accounting that reports income when it's actually received and expenses when they're actually paid.. It never included the fee, so Verified 2026-08-19IRC § 166(b) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(b)) gives it a basis of zero, and Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-1(e), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1 (Reg. § 1.166-1(e)) states the point directly for unpaid fees. It deducts nothing.

Selborne is not worse off in substance — it was never taxed on income it did not receive. But a question that asks for its deduction is testing whether you noticed that the deduction and the income are two sides of one entry, and the intuitive answer of $24,000 is wrong.

The loan to a supplier, and the loan to a friend

Rushmere, who runs a printing business as a sole proprietor, makes two loans in the same month. She lends $40,000 to a paper mill that supplies her, to keep it operating and protect her supply. She lends $40,000 to a friend who is opening a restaurant. Both borrowers fail two years later and both loans become worthless.

The loan to the mill is a business bad debt if the loss bears a proximate relation to her printing business at the time it becomes worthless. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-5(b), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-5 (Reg. § 1.166-5(b)) — protecting a supply line for the business she is still carrying on is that relation, and she deducts $40,000 as an ordinary loss.

The loan to the friend is not, and note why. The restaurant is a business, and the funds were certainly put to business use, but “the use to which the borrowed funds are put by the debtor is of no consequence.” The relation that matters is to her trade or business, and there is none. Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(d)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(d)(1)) makes it a short-term capital loss.

The two losses are the same size and arise the same way. One reduces her ordinary income in full; the other joins her capital losses and is deductible against capital gains plus the annual allowance for individuals.

The debt written down twice

Aldringham Supplies is owed $80,000 by a customer that enters bankruptcy in 2026. The trustee indicates a likely distribution of about 25 cents. Aldringham charges off $60,000 on its books in 2026 and claims that as a deduction. In 2028 the estate distributes $14,000 and the case closes.

The 2026 deduction is allowable. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-2(c)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-2 (Reg. § 1.166-2(c)(1)), and Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(a)(2), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(a)(2)) permits a deduction not exceeding the part charged off — $60,000. Had Aldringham claimed $60,000 without writing it off, the deduction would fail on that ground alone.

In 2028 the remaining $20,000 of the debt is settled for $14,000, so a further $6,000 becomes wholly worthless and is deducted under IRC § 166(a)(1).

Now suppose the estate had instead distributed $30,000. The first $20,000 clears the unwritten balance; the extra $10,000 is a recovery of an amount previously deducted. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-1(f), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1 (Reg. § 1.166-1(f)) includes it in 2028 income, to the extent the 2026 deduction produced a tax benefit under IRC § 111.

The "loan" that was never a debt

A father advances his adult son $50,000 to help him through a rough patch, taking no note, charging no interest, and setting no repayment date. Two years later the son still has not repaid anything, and the father wants to deduct it as a bad debtA debt owed to the taxpayer that has become worthless. It's deducted differently depending on whether it arose from the taxpayer's business or was a personal loan. once the son says he cannot pay.

Verified 2026-08-19Treas. Reg. § 1.166-1(c) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1 (Reg. § 1.166-1(c)) requires a genuine debtor-creditor relationship founded on a valid and enforceable obligation to repay a fixed sum. An advance with no note, no interest, and no repayment terms looks like a gift the moment it is made, not a loan that later went bad. There is no bad debt deduction here at all — not a limited one, not a delayed one — because there was never a debt to begin with.

The refund claim built on a worthless debt

A small manufacturer discovers in 2026 that a customer’s $90,000 receivable, which it fully included in income when it accrued back in 2022, became completely worthless that same year — the customer vanished and the manufacturer never claimed the deduction on its 2022 return. The ordinary three-year deadline for amending that return has long since passed.

A bad debt deduction gets its own, longer refund window. Verified 2026-08-19IRC § 6511(d)(1)(A), (B) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6511 runs from the return’s due date, specifically because worthlessness is often discovered well after the ordinary limitations period would otherwise close a return. The manufacturer can still file a claim for the 2022 tax year based on the bad debt, well past the point an ordinary missed deduction would be barred. Filing the right form and identifying 2022 — the year of worthlessness, not the year of discovery — is what makes the claim work at all.

Traps.

A cash method taxpayer has no bad debt deduction for an unpaid receivable. {fig:baddebt.prior_inclusion} (Reg. § 1.166-1(e)). No inclusion, no basis, no deduction.

Only a business bad debt can be deducted in part. {fig:baddebt.partial} (IRC § 166(a)(2)). IRC § 166(d)(1)(A) switches off IRC § 166(a) for a non-business debt, so partial worthlessness gives nothing.

A non-business bad debt is short-term whatever its age. {fig:baddebt.nonbusiness} (IRC § 166(d)(1)(B)) deems it a loss on a capital asset held for not more than one year. A ten-year-old loan does not produce a long-term loss.

The debtor's use of the money is irrelevant. {fig:baddebt.proximate} (Reg. § 1.166-5(b)). What matters is the relation of the loss to the **lender's** trade or business.

A corporation has no non-business bad debts. IRC § 166(d)(1) applies only to "a taxpayer other than a corporation."

The year matters. A debt is deducted in the year it becomes worthless. Waiting for certainty past that year forfeits the deduction unless the return is amended within the limitation period.

How this has changed

The regulation still offers a method the statute abolished in 1986. Verified 2026-08-21Repeal note at IRC § 166(c) and Reg. § 1.166-1(a), (b), both opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 and /cfr/text/26/1.166-1. Reg. § 1.166-1(a) says bad debts “shall … be taken into account either as (1) A deduction in respect of debts which become worthless in whole or in part; or as (2) A deduction for a reasonable addition to a reserve for bad debts,” and Reg. § 1.166-1(b) then sets out how a taxpayer selects between the two methods and how the district director approves the selection. The authority for the second method was IRC § 166(c), and the bracketed note in the current statutory text records that Pub. L. 99-514 § 805(a) repealed it on 22 October 1986.

This is a familiar shape by now: the regulation was never conformed, so a reader working from the regulation alone will find a choice that no longer exists. The only reserve methods that survive are the special ones for financial institutions in IRC § 585 and IRC § 593, which are outside this topic. A taxpayer other than one of those uses the specific charge-off method and has no election to make.

Nothing in Pub. L. 119-21 amended IRC § 166, so the 2026 rules are the 2025 rules. The one adjacent change that reaches this topic in practice is the information reporting threshold. A business will receive fewer Forms 1099-NEC and 1099-K for 2026 than for 2025, which means fewer of its own receivables will have been reported to the customer — but this changes nothing about the deduction, because IRC § 166(b) and Reg. § 1.166-1(e) turn on whether the creditor included the income, not on whether anyone filed a form.

Exam focus

Classify first. Business or non-business decides the character, decides whether a partial deduction is available, and decides the holding period, and almost every question in the topic turns on it.

Apply the proximate relation test of Reg. § 1.166-5(b) to the lender’s business, at the time the debt becomes worthless, and ignore what the borrower did with the money.

Watch for a cash method creditor. If the facts mention the method of accounting at all, the answer is usually that there is no deduction, because there is no basis.

Finally, remember that partial worthlessness requires a charge-off in the year claimed and total worthlessness does not, and that a later recovery is income only so far as the earlier deduction gave a tax benefit.

Check yourself

1. A cash method architect is never paid a $30,000 fee she billed last year. What is her bad debt deduction?

Answer: None. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-1(e), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-1 (Reg. § 1.166-1(e)) and Verified 2026-08-19IRC § 166(b) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(b)) — she never included the fee in income, so she has no adjusted basis in the receivable and nothing to deduct.

2. An individual lends $25,000 to an unrelated company in which he has no interest and is not repaid after six years. How is the loss treated?

Answer: As a short-term capital loss. Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(d)(1), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(d)(1)) — the loss bears no proximate relation to any trade or business of his, so it is a non-business debt, deemed a loss from the sale of a capital asset held for not more than one year regardless of the six years it was outstanding.

3. A business is owed $50,000, charges off $30,000 as uncollectible in the current year, and believes the rest may still be paid. May it deduct $30,000?

Answer: Yes, if the debt is recoverable only in part. Verified 2026-08-21IRC § 166(a)(2), opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 (IRC § 166(a)(2)) — the deduction may not exceed the part charged off within the taxable year, and $30,000 has been. A non-business debtor could not do this at all.

4. A sole proprietor lends money to a key supplier to keep it in business, and the supplier fails. Is this a business bad debt?

Answer: Yes, if the loss bears a proximate relation to the lender’s own trade or business at the time the debt becomes worthless. Verified 2026-08-21Reg. § 1.166-5(b), opened at law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.166-5 (Reg. § 1.166-5(b)) — protecting a supply line for a business the taxpayer is still carrying on supplies that relation, and the deduction is ordinary.

5. May a taxpayer today elect the reserve method for bad debts described in Reg. § 1.166-1(a)(2)?

Answer: No. Verified 2026-08-21Repeal note at IRC § 166(c) and Reg. § 1.166-1(a), (b), both opened at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/166 and /cfr/text/26/1.166-1 — IRC § 166(c), which authorised it, was repealed by Pub. L. 99-514 § 805(a) in 1986. The regulation was never conformed and still describes the election, but the only surviving reserve methods are those for financial institutions in IRC § 585 and IRC § 593.

Change log

  • Initial draft. Sets out IRC § 166(a) and the difference between a wholly worthless debt and a partially worthless one that requires a charge-off, the IRC § 166(b) basis measure, and the IRC § 166(d) recharacterisation of a non-corporate taxpayer's non-business debt as a short-term capital loss. Adds the Reg. § 1.166-5(b) proximate relation test, the Reg. § 1.166-1(e) prior inclusion requirement, and the Reg. § 1.166-2 evidence rules. Records that Reg. § 1.166-1(a)(2) still offers the reserve method that Pub. L. 99-514 § 805(a) repealed in 1986.
  • Added a plain-language summary, a decision diagram of the business/non-business fork, glossary marks, and two typed scenarios (fails, procedural) rounding the scenario set out to five types.

Related topics