Additions to valuation allowance charged to income tax expense

[Table of](#i56e1b64ac11b4f908f713ce45f591ccd_10) [Contents](#i56e1b64ac11b4f908f713ce45f591ccd_10)The following chart provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending valuation allowances for the period ended September 30, 2022:

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| (in millions) |  |  |
| Balance at beginning of year |  | $ | 3,097  |  |
| Additions to valuation allowance charged to income tax expense |  | 395  |  |
| Releases to valuation allowance credited to income tax benefit |  | (65) |  |
| Foreign currency translation |  | —  |  |
| Balance at end of period |  | $ | 3,427  |  |

We determine the realizability of deferred tax assets based on the weight of available evidence, that it is more-likely-than-not that the deferred tax asset will not be realized. In reaching this determination, we consider all available positive and negative evidence, including the character of the loss, carryback and carryforward considerations, future reversals of temporary differences and available tax planning strategies.The additions in valuation allowances for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 were due primarily to deferred tax assets recorded in connection with decreases in the estimated fair value of our investment in JUUL. The releases in valuation allowances for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 were due to realizability of anticipated capital losses related to our Cronos warrant. The cumulative valuation allowance at September 30, 2022 was primarily attributable to deferred tax assets recorded in connection with our investment in JUUL and our Investment in Cronos.  
Note 11. ContingenciesLegal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United States and foreign jurisdictions against Altria and certain of our subsidiaries, including PM USA and USSTC, as well as our indemnitees and investees. Various types of claims may be raised in these proceedings, including product liability, unfair trade practices, antitrust, income tax liability, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims alleging violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), claims for contribution and claims of competitors, shareholders or distributors. Legislative action, such as changes to tort law, also may expand the types of claims and remedies available to plaintiffs.Litigation is subject to uncertainty and it is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending or future cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related or other litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. Damages claimed in some tobacco-related and other litigation are or can be significant and, in certain cases, have ranged in the billions of dollars. The variability in pleadings in multiple jurisdictions, together with the actual experience of management in litigating claims, demonstrate that the monetary relief that may be specified in a lawsuit bears little relevance to the ultimate outcome. In certain cases, plaintiffs claim that defendants’ liability is joint and several. In such cases, we may face the risk that one or more co-defendants decline or otherwise fail to participate in the bonding required for an appeal or to pay their proportionate or jury-allocated share of a judgment. As a result, under certain circumstances, we may have to pay more than our proportionate share of any bonding- or judgment-related amounts. Furthermore, in those cases where plaintiffs are successful, we also may be required to pay interest and attorneys’ fees.Although PM USA has historically been able to obtain required bonds or relief from bonding requirements in order to prevent plaintiffs from seeking to collect judgments while adverse verdicts have been appealed, there remains a risk that such relief may not be obtainable in all cases. This risk has been substantially reduced given that 47 states and Puerto Rico limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all. As discussed below, however, tobacco litigation plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of Florida’s bond cap statute in several cases and plaintiffs may challenge state bond cap statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Such challenges may include the applicability of state bond caps in federal court. States, including Florida, also may seek to repeal or alter bond cap statutes through legislation. Although we cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, it is possible that our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome of one or more such challenges.We record provisions in our condensed consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. At the present time, while it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, except to the extent discussed elsewhere in this Note 11. Contingencies: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in any of the pending cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in our condensed consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. Litigation defense costs are expensed as incurred.25
