UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
xANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20172021
OR
¨TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to
Commission File Number 1-08940

ALTRIA GROUP, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Virginia13-3260245
(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)
6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, VirginiaRichmond,Virginia23230
(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)

804-274-2200
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
Trading Symbols
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.33   1/1/3 par value
MONew York Stock Exchange
1.000% Notes due 2023MO23ANew York Stock Exchange
1.700% Notes due 2025MO25New York Stock Exchange
2.200% Notes due 2027MO27New York Stock Exchange
3.125% Notes due 2031MO31New York Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. þ Yes ¨ No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ¨ Yes þ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days þ Yes ¨ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files) þ Yes ¨ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. þ Yes ¨ No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ¨ Yes þ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days þ Yes ¨   No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files) þ Yes ¨ No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer
þAccelerated filer¨
Non-accelerated filer¨ (Do not check if smaller
Smaller reporting company) Smaller operating company¨
Emerging growth company¨
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). ¨Yes þ No
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☑
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes þ No
As of June 30, 2017,2021, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $143$88 billion based on the closing sale price of the common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange.
Class                           
Outstanding at February 13, 2018
15, 2022
Common Stock, $0.33  1/3 par value
1,900,449,362 1,817,257,322 shares



DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for use in connection with its annual meeting of shareholders to be held on May 17, 2018,19, 2022, to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on or about April 5, 2018,7, 2022, are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.









TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART I
Item 1.
Item 1A.
Item 1B.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
PART IITABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART I
Item 1.5.
Item 1A.
Item 1B.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
PART II
Item 5.
Item 6.
Item 7.
Item 7A.
Item 8.
Item 9.
Item 9A.
Item 9B.
Item 9C.
PART III
PART III
Item 10.
Item 11.
Item 12.
Item 13.
Item 14.
PART IV
Item 15.
Item 16.








Part I
Item 1. Business.
General Development of Business
General: When used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Form 10-K”), the terms “Altria,” “we,” “us” and “our” refers to Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, unless the context requires otherwise.
Altria’s Vision by 2030 is to responsibly lead the transition of adult smokers to a smoke-free future (“Vision”). Altria is MovingBeyond SmokingTM, leading the way in moving adult smokers away from cigarettes by taking action to transition millions to potentially less harmful choices - believing it is a holding company incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1985. At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc.’s wholly-ownedsubstantial opportunity for adult tobacco consumers, Altria’s businesses and society.
Altria’s wholly owned subsidiaries includedinclude Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States; John Middleton Co. (“Middleton”), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-ownedwholly owned subsidiary of PM USA; Sherman Group Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries (“Nat Sherman”), which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium cigars; and UST LLC (“UST”), which through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, includingwholly owned subsidiary U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC (“USSTC”) and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. (“Ste. Michelle”), is engaged in the manufacture and sale of moist smokeless tobacco products (“MST”) and wine. Altria Group, Inc.’s other operating companies included Nu Marksnus products; Helix Innovations LLC (“Nu Mark”Helix”), a wholly-owned subsidiary that iswhich operates in the United States and Canada, and Helix Innovations GmbH and its subsidiaries (“Helix ROW”), which operate internationally in the rest-of-world, are engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco products,on! oral nicotine pouches; and Philip Morris Capital Corporation (“PMCC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary thatwhich maintains a portfolio of finance assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases. Other Altria Group, Inc. wholly-ownedwholly owned subsidiaries includedinclude Altria Group Distribution Company, which provides sales and distribution services to certain Altria Group, Inc.Altria’s domestic tobacco operating subsidiaries,companies, and Altria Client Services LLC (“ALCS”), which provides various support services in areas such as legal, regulatory, consumer engagement, finance, human resources and external affairs to Altria Group, Inc.Altria.
On October 1, 2021, UST sold its subsidiary, International Wine & Spirits Ltd. (“IWS”), which included Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. (“Ste. Michelle”), in an all-cash transaction with a net purchase price of approximately $1.2 billion and the assumption of certain liabilities of IWS and its subsidiaries.subsidiaries (the “Ste. Michelle Transaction”).
In 2019, Helix acquired Burger Söhne Holding and its subsidiaries as well as certain affiliated companies that are engaged in the manufacture and sale of on! oral nicotine pouches. At September 30, 2016,closing, Altria Group, Inc. hadowned an approximate 27% ownership of SABMiller plc (“SABMiller”),80% interest in Helix, for which Altria Group, Inc. accounted for under the equity method of accounting. In October 2016, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (“Legacy AB InBev”) completed its business combination with SABMiller, and Altria Group, Inc. received cash and shares representing a 9.6% ownership in the combined company (the “Transaction”). The newly formed Belgian company, which retained the name Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (“AB InBev”), became the holding company for the combined businesses. Subsequently, Altria Group, Inc. purchased approximately 12 million ordinary shares of AB InBev, increasing Altria Group, Inc.’s ownership to approximately 10.2% at December 31, 2016.paid $353 million. At December 31, 2017,2021, Altria Group, Inc. had an approximate 10.2% ownershipowned 100% of AB InBev, which Altria Group, Inc. accounts for under the equity method of accounting using a one-quarter lag. Asglobal on! business as a result of transactions in December 2020 and April 2021 to purchase the one-quarter lagremaining 20% interest in (i) Helix ROW and the timing(ii) Helix, respectively. The total purchase price of the completion of the Transaction, no earnings from Altria Group, Inc.’s equity investment in AB InBev were recorded for the year ended December 31, 2016. For further discussion, see Note 6. Investment in AB InBev/SABMiller to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8. Financial Statements2020 and Supplementary Data of this Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Item 8”).
April 2021 transactions was approximately $250 million.
In January 2017, Altria Group, Inc. acquired Nat Sherman, which joined PM USA and Middleton as part of Altria Group, Inc.’s smokeable products segment.
Source of Funds: Because Altria Group, Inc. is a holding company, its access to the operating cash flows of its wholly-owned subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and distributions, and the payment of interest on intercompany loans by its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc.’s principal wholly-owned subsidiaries were not limited by long-term debt or other agreements in their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their equity interests. In addition, Altria Group, Inc. receives cash dividends on its interest in AB InBev if and when AB InBev pays such dividends.     
Financial Information About Segments
Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s reportable segments are smokeable products smokeless products and wine.oral tobacco products. The financial services and the innovative tobacco products businesses are included in an all other category due to the continued reduction of the lease portfolio of PMCC and the relative financial contribution of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s innovative tobacco products businesses to AltriaAltria’s consolidated results. Prior to October 1, 2021, wine products produced and/or distributed by Ste. Michelle constituted the reportable wine segment. For further information, see Note 15. Segment Reporting to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K (“Item 8”).
Altria’s investments in equity securities consist of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (“ABI”), Cronos Group Inc.’s consolidated results. (“Cronos”) and JUUL Labs, Inc. (“JUUL”). Altria accounts for its investments in ABI and Cronos under the equity method of accounting using a one-quarter lag. Altria accounts for its equity investment in JUUL under the fair value option.
Altria Group, Inc.’s chief operating decision maker (the “CODM”) reviews operating companies income to evaluate the performanceFor further discussion of and allocate resources to, the segments. Operating companies income for the segments is defined as operating income before general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles. Interest and other debt expense, net, and provision for income taxes are centrally managed at the corporate level and, accordingly, such items are not presented by segment since they are excluded from the measure of segment profitability reviewed by the CODM. Net revenues and operating companies income (together with a reconciliation to earnings before income taxes) attributable to each such segment for each of the last three years are set forthAltria’s investments in equity securities, see Note 15. Segment Reporting6. Investments in Equity Securities to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 15”6”). Information about total assets by segment is not disclosed because such information is not reported to or used by the CODM. Segment goodwill and other intangible assets, net, are disclosed in Note 3. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, net to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 3”). The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 2”).


1


The relative percentages of operating companies income (loss) attributable to each reportable segment and the all other category were as follows:
 2017
2016
2015
Smokeable products85.8 %86.2 %87.4 %
Smokeless products13.2
13.1
12.8
Wine1.5
1.8
1.8
All other(0.5)(1.1)(2.0)
Total100.0 %100.0 %100.0 %

For items affecting the comparability of the relative percentages of operating companies income (loss) attributable to each reportable segment, see Note 15.
Narrative Description of Business
Portions of the information called for byrelating to this Item are included in Operating Results by Business Segment in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operationsof this Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Item 7”).
Tobacco Space
Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco operating companies include PM USA, USSTC and other subsidiaries of UST, Middleton Nu Mark and Nat Sherman. Altria Group Distribution Company provides sales and distribution services to Altria Group, Inc.’s tobacco operating companies.Helix.
The products of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries includeoperating companies include: (i) smokeable tobacco products, consisting of combustible cigarettes manufactured and sold by PM USA and Nat Sherman, machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco manufactured and sold by MiddletonMiddleton; and premium cigars sold by Nat Sherman; smokeless(ii) oral tobacco products, consisting of MST and snus products manufactured and sold by USSTC;USSTC and innovative tobacco products, including e-vapor productsoral nicotine pouches manufactured and sold by Nu Mark.Helix.
Cigarettes: PM USA is the largest cigarette company in the United States and substantially all cigarettes are manufactured and sold to customers in the United States. Marlboro, the principal cigarette brand of PM USA, has been the largest-selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 4045 years. Nat Sherman sells substantially all of its super premium cigarettes in the United States. Total smokeable products segment’s cigarettes shipment volume in the United States was 116.693.8 billion units in 2017,2021, a decrease of 5.1%7.5% from 2016.2020.

1

Cigars:Middleton is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco. Middleton contracts with a third-party importer to supply a majority of its cigars and sells substantially all of its cigars to customers in the United States. Black & Mild is the principal cigar brand of Middleton. Nat Sherman sources all of its cigars from third-party suppliers and sells substantially all of its cigars to customers in the United States. Total smokeable products segment’s cigars shipment volume was approximately 1.51.8 billion units in 2017, an increase of 9.9%2021, essentially unchanged from 2016.
2020.
SmokelessOral tobacco products: USSTC is the leading producer and marketer of moist smokeless tobacco (“MST”)MST products. The smokelessoral tobacco products segment includes the premium brands, Copenhagen and Skoal, and value brands, brand, Red Seal and Husky.,sold by USSTC. In addition, the oral tobacco products segment includes on! oral nicotine pouches sold by Helix. Substantially all of the smokelessoral tobacco products are manufactured and sold to customers in the United States. Total smokelessoral tobacco products segment’s shipment volume was 841.3820.3 million units in 2017, a decrease of 1.4%2021, essentially unchanged from 2016.2020.
Innovative tobacco products: Nu Mark participates in the e-vapor category and has developed and commercialized other innovative tobacco products. In addition, Nu Mark sources the production of its e-vapor products through overseas contract manufacturing arrangements. In 2013, Nu Mark introduced MarkTen e-vapor products. In April 2014, Nu Mark acquired the e-vapor business of Green Smoke, Inc. and its affiliates (“Green Smoke”), which began selling e-vapor products in 2009. In 2017, Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries purchased certain intellectual property related to innovative tobacco products.
In December 2013, Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s subsidiaries entered into a series of agreements with Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”) pursuant to which, including an agreement that grants Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries provide an exclusive licenseright to PMI to sell Nu Mark’s e-vapor products outside the United States, and PMI’s subsidiaries provide an exclusive license to Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries to sell twocommercialize certain of PMI’s heated tobacco product platforms in the United States. Further, in July 2015, Altria Group, Inc. announced the expansion of its strategic framework with PMI to include a joint research, development and technology-sharing agreement. Under this agreement, Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries and PMI will collaborate to develop e-vapor products for commercialization in the United States, by Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries and in markets outsidesubject to the United States by PMI. This agreement also provides for exclusive technology cross licenses, technical information sharing and cooperation on scientific assessment, regulatory engagement and approval related to e-vapor products.
In the fourth quarter of 2016, PMI submitted a Modified Risk Tobacco Product (“MRTP”) application for an electronically heated tobacco product with the United StatesU.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) Center for Tobacco Products and filed its correspondingauthorization of the applicable products. PMI submitted a pre-market tobacco product application (“PMTA”) and modified risk tobacco product (“MRTP”) application with the FDA for its electronically heated tobacco products, comprising the IQOS Tobacco Heating System. In 2019, based on FDA authorized PMTAs, PM USA began commercialization of the IQOS Tobacco Heating Systemin select markets.
In connection with a patent dispute, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued a limited exclusion order barring the importation of the IQOS devices, Marlboro HeatSticks and infringing components into the United States and a cease and desist order barring domestic sales, marketing and distribution of these imported products effective November 29, 2021. In December 2021, defendants appealed the orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Due to this litigation, PM USA removed the IQOS devices and Marlboro HeatSticks from the marketplace. PM USA does not expect to have access to IQOS devices or Marlboro HeatSticks in 2022. For a further discussion of the ITC decision, see Note 18. Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 18”).
In October 2021, the FDA authorized the marketing and sale of four of USSTC’s Verve oral nicotine products, including Green Mint and Blue Mint varieties, representing the first quarter of 2017. Upon regulatory authorizationflavored product authorizations issued by the FDA Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries will have an exclusive license to sell this heated tobacco product in the United States.for newly deemed products. These products are not currently marketed or sold.
Distribution, Competition and Raw Materials: Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries sell their tobacco products principally to wholesalers (including distributors), and large retail organizations, including chain stores, and the armed services.stores.
The market for tobacco products is highly competitive, characterized by brand recognition and loyalty, with product quality, taste, price, product innovation, marketing, packaging and distribution constituting the significant methods of competition. Promotional activities include, in certain instances and where permitted by law, allowances, the distribution of incentive items, price promotions, product promotions, coupons and other discounts.


2


In June 2009, the President of the United States of America signed into law theThe Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“FSPTCA”), which provides the FDA with broad authority to regulate the design, manufacture, packaging, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of tobacco products; the authority to require disclosures of related information; and the authority to enforce the FSPTCA and related regulations. The FSPTCA went into effect in 2009 for cigarettes, cigarette tobacco and smokeless tobacco products and in August 2016 for all other tobacco products, including cigars, e-vapor products, pipe tobacco and oral tobacco-derived nicotine products (“Other Tobacco Products”). The FSPTCA imposes restrictions on the advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of tobacco products, including at retail. PM USA, Middleton, Nat Sherman and USSTC are subject to quarterly user fees as a result of the FSPTCA. Their respective FDA user fee amounts are determined by an allocation formula administered by the FDA that is based on the respective market shares of manufacturers and importers of each kind of tobacco product. PM USA, Nat Sherman, USSTC and other U.S. tobacco manufacturers have agreed to other marketing restrictions in the United States as part of the settlements of state health care cost recovery actions.
In the United States, under a contract growing program, PM USA purchases the majority of its burley and flue-cured leaf tobaccos directly from domestic tobacco growers. Under the terms of this program, PM USA agrees to purchase the amount of tobacco specified in the grower contracts.contracts that meets PM USA’s grade and quality standards. PM USA also purchases a portion of its tobacco requirements through leaf merchants.
Nat Sherman purchases its tobacco requirements through leaf merchants.
USSTC purchases dark fire-cured, dark air-cured and burley leaf tobaccos from domestic tobacco growers under a contract growing program. Under the terms of this program, as well as from leaf merchants.USSTC agrees to purchase the amount of tobacco specified in the grower contracts that meets USSTC’s grade and quality standard.
Middleton purchases burley, dark air-cured and flue-cured leaf tobaccos through leaf merchants. Middleton does not have a contract growing program.
Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries believe there is an adequate supply of tobacco in the world markets to satisfy their current and anticipated production requirements. See
For further discussion of the foregoing matters, the tobacco business environment, trends in market demand and competitive conditions, and related risks, see Item 1A. Risk Factors of this Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Item 1A”) and Tobacco Space - Business Environment - Price, Availability and Quality of Agricultural Productsin Item 7 for a discussion of risks associated with tobacco supply.7.
Wine
Ste. Michelle is a producer and supplier of premium varietal and blended table wines and of sparkling wines. Ste. Michelle is a leading producer of Washington state wines, primarily Chateau Ste. Michelle, Columbia Crest and 14 Hands,and owns wineries in or distributes wines from several other domestic and foreign wineregions. Ste. Michelle’s total 2017 wine shipment volume of approximately 8.5 million cases decreased 8.6% from 2016.
Ste. Michelleholds an 85% ownership interest in Michelle-Antinori, LLC, which owns Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars in Napa Valley. Ste. Michelle also owns Conn Creek in Napa Valley, Patz & Hall in Sonoma and Erath in Oregon. In addition, Ste.
Michelle imports and markets Antinori, Torres and Villa Maria Estate wines and Champagne Nicolas Feuillatte in the United States.
Distribution, Competition and Raw Materials: Key elements of Ste. Michelle’s strategy are expanded domestic distribution of its wines, especially in certain account categories such as restaurants, wholesale clubs, supermarkets, wine shops and mass merchandisers, and a focus on improving product mix to higher-priced, premium products.
Ste. Michelle’s business is subject to significant competition, including competition from many larger, well-established domestic and international companies, as well as from many smaller wine producers. Wine segment competition is primarily based on quality, price, consumer and trade wine tastings, competitive wine judging, third-party acclaim and advertising. Substantially all of Ste. Michelle’s sales occur in the United States through state-licensed distributors. Ste. Michelle also sells to domestic consumers through retail and e-commerce channels and exports wines to international distributors.
Federal, state and local governmental agencies regulate the beverage alcohol industry through various means, including licensing requirements, pricing rules, labeling and advertising restrictions, and distribution and production policies. Further regulatory restrictions or additional excise or other taxes on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages may have an adverse effect on Ste. Michelle’s wine business.
Ste. Michelle uses grapes harvested from its own vineyards or purchased from independent growers, as well as bulk wine purchased from other sources. Grape production can be adversely affected by weather and other forces that may limit production. At the present time, Ste. Michelle believes that there is a sufficient supply of grapes and bulk wine available in the market to satisfy its current and expected production requirements. See Item 1A for a discussion of risks associated with competition, unfavorable changes in grape supply and governmental regulations.
Financial Services Business
In 2003, PMCC ceased making new investments and began focusing exclusively on managing its portfolio of finance assets in order to maximize its operating results and cash flows from its existing lease portfolio activities and asset sales. For further information on PMCC’s finance assets, see Note 7. Finance Assets, netAltria expects to complete the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.wind-down of this business by the end of 2022.

2

Other Matters
Customers: The largest customerFor a discussion of PM USA, USSTC, MiddletonHelix and Nat Sherman, McLane Company, Inc., accounted for approximately 26%, 25% and 26%Middleton’s largest customers, including their percentages of Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated net revenues for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. In addition, Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. accounted for approximately 14%, 14% and 10% of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated net revenues for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015, respectively. Substantially all of these net revenues were reported2019, see Note 15. Segment Reporting to the consolidated financial statements in the smokeable products and smokeless products segments.
Item 8 (“Note 15”).


3


Sales to three distributors accounted for approximately 67%, 69% and 66% of net revenues for the wine segment for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Employees: At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries employed approximately 8,300 people.
Executive Officers of Altria Group, Inc.: Altria: The disclosure regarding executive officers is included in Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance - Information about Our Executive Officers as of February 13, 2018 15, 2022 of this Annual ReportForm 10-K.
Human Capital Resources: We believe our workforce is critical to achieving our Vision. Attracting, developing and retaining the best talent with the skills to make significant progress toward our Vision is a key business priority. Moreover, we recognize the importance of doing business the right way. We believe culture influences employee actions and decision-making. This is why we dedicate resources to promoting a vibrant, inclusive workplace; attracting, developing and retaining talented, diverse employees; promoting a culture of compliance and integrity; creating a safe workplace; and rewarding and recognizing employees for both the results they deliver and, importantly, how they deliver them.
Oversight and Management
Our Human Resources department is responsible for managing employment-related matters, including recruiting and hiring, onboarding, compensation and benefits design and implementation, performance management, advancement and succession planning and professional and learning development. Our inclusion, diversity and equity (“ID&E”) programs are managed by our Corporate Citizenship department. Our Board of Directors (“Board of Directors” or “Board”) and the Compensation and Talent Development Committee provide oversight of human capital matters, including reviewing initiatives and programs related to corporate culture and enterprise-wide talent development, including our ID&E initiatives.
Inclusion, Diversity and Equity
We recognize the critical importance of ID&E in pursuing our Vision and believe in the value of a workforce composed of a broad spectrum of backgrounds and cultures. In 2020, we established the following aspirational Inclusion & Diversity Aiming Points to help guide our efforts:
Be an inclusive place to work for all employees, regardless of level, demographic group or work function.
Have equal numbers of men and women among our vice president and director-level employees.
Increase our vice president and director-level employees who are Asian, Black, Hispanic or two or more races to at least 30%.
Increase our vice president and director-level employees who are LGBTQ+, a person with a disability or a veteran.
Have diverse functional leadership teams that reflect the organizations they lead.
As of December 31, 2021, women represented 32% of vice president-level and 41% of director-level roles; Asian, Black, Hispanic or employees of two or more races represented 24% of our vice president-level and 26% of our director-level roles.
Compensation and Benefits
Our compensation and benefits programs are designed to help us attract, retain and motivate strong talent. However, we recognize that the decreasing social acceptance of tobacco usage may impact our ability to attract and retain talent. We work to manage this risk by, among other things, targeting total compensation packages to be above peer companies for which we compete for talent. Depending on Form 10-K.employee level, total compensation includes different elements – base salary, annual cash incentives, long-term equity and cash incentives and benefits. Our goal is to provide total compensation packages between the 50th and 75th percentiles of total compensation packages paid to employees in comparable positions at our peer companies upon attainment of business and individual goals.
ResearchWe are committed to pay equity across our companies. Based on the most recent annual analysis we conducted in November 2021, adjusting for factors generally considered to be legitimate differentiators of salary, such as performance and Development: Researchtenure, salaries of our female employees were 99.6% of those of our male employees, and salaries of our non-white employees were 99.9% of those of our white employees.
In addition to cash and equity compensation, we offer generous employee benefits such as significant company contributions to deferred profit sharing plans, consumer-driven health plan coverage, vacation and holiday pay, disability and life insurance, and up to 12 weeks paid parental and family leave for birth, adoption and foster placement and an additional six weeks paid leave for birth mothers. Our benefits also include mental health and wellness benefits and family creation assistance benefits, such as adoption assistance and coverage for fertility treatments. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, for 2020 and 2021, we expanded dependent care coverage to include $5,000 employee reimbursement for remote learning and other dependent care costs. In addition, we offered financial incentives to our employees to encourage vaccination against COVID-19. While there is some variability in employee benefits across our companies, the examples we provide are available to most employees.
We are also committed to investing in the educational development of our workforce through an unlimited tuition refund program for job-related courses or company-related degrees.

3

Attracting, Developing and Retaining Talent
Our salaried entry-level recruitment efforts focus on recruiting relationships with universities, internship opportunities and partnerships with organizations that support diverse students. We complement these recruiting efforts with hiring experienced employees with demonstrated leadership capabilities.
To help our employees succeed in their roles and develop in their careers, we emphasize ongoing training and leadership development opportunities. Building skills that drive innovation and aligning our employees to our Vision is important for our long-term success. The Human Resources department leads our learning and development expenseefforts partnering with learning professionals embedded in functions throughout our operating and services companies. Employees have access to a wide variety of development programs, including new employee onboarding, classroom and self-guided training programs, technical training, including training to maintain professional certifications, and our educational refund program for continuing education.
We regularly conduct anonymous employee engagement surveys to seek feedback on a variety of topics, including employee satisfaction, support from leadership, corporate culture and culture of compliance. In addition, in 2021, we conducted quarterly employee surveys to gauge topics such as employee well-being in light of the years ended COVID-19 pandemic, inclusion and workload. Survey results, including comparisons to prior results, are shared with our employees and our Board and are used to modify or enhance our human capital management programs.
Workplace Safety
Our goal is for every Altria employee to have an injury-free career, which is supported by our Safety Management System (“SMS”). We strive for continuous improvement in our employee safety program through SMS infrastructure. Our Occupational Safety and Health Administration recordable injury rate for 2021 was 1.7% (versus 1.9% for 2020) and remains below the benchmark for companies in the U.S. Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing industry classification.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented safety measures aligned with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines to help protect our employees, including remote work for non-manufacturing salaried employees and additional cleaning and sanitation practices. We also established a COVID-19 Task Force and a Return to Workplace team to facilitate the decision-making process as we navigated the evolving COVID-19 environment and its impacts on our employees.
Number of Employeesand Labor Relations
At December 31, 2017, 20162021, we employed approximately 6,000 people (a decrease from approximately 7,100 at December 31, 2020 driven by the sale of the wine business). Thirty percent of our employees were hourly manufacturing employees and 2015 is set forthmembers of labor unions subject to collective bargaining agreements. We believe we engage and collaborate effectively with our hourly employees, as demonstrated by the positive working relationship between our companies and the unions. We also have long-term agreements that resolve any collective bargaining dispute through binding arbitration, which further demonstrates the trust-based relationship with the unions.
Supply Chain Human Capital Matters
We support efforts to address human capital concerns in Note 17. Additional Informationthe tobacco supply chain. For example, in our domestic tobacco supply chain, we use on-farm good agricultural practices assessments to the consolidated financial statementsassess growers’ compliance with practices related to labor management. Our tobacco companies also establish contract terms and conditions with tobacco growers addressing child and forced labor and conduct social compliance audits in Item 8.high-risk tobacco growing regions.
More information about efforts discussed in this section can be found in our Corporate Responsibility Reports at www.altria.com/responsibility.
Intellectual Property: Trademarks are of material importance to Altria Group, Inc. and its operating companies, and are protected by registration or otherwise. In addition, as of December 31, 2017,2021, the portfolio of approximately 800 United States patents owned by Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s businesses, as a whole, was material to Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco businesses. However, no one patent or group of related patents was material to Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s business or its tobacco businesses as of December 31, 2017. Altria Group, Inc.’s2021. Altria’s businesses also have proprietary trade secrets, technology, know-how, processes and other intellectual property rights that are protected by appropriate confidentiality measures. Certain trade secrets are material to Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco businesses.
Government Regulations: Altria and wine businesses.its subsidiaries are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations. For discussion of laws and regulations impacting Altria’s tobacco operating companies, see Tobacco Space - Business Environment in Item 7.
Environmental Regulation: Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (and former subsidiaries) are also subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise related to environmental protection, including, in the United States: Thethe Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (commonly known as “Superfund”), which can impose joint and several liability on each responsible party. Subsidiaries (and former subsidiaries) of Altria Group, Inc. are involved in several matters subjecting them to potential costs of remediation

4

and natural resource damages under Superfund or other laws and regulations. Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s subsidiaries expect to continue to make capital and other expenditures in connection with environmental laws and regulations. As discussed in Note 22. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 2”), Altria Group, Inc. provides for expenses associated with environmental remediation obligations on an undiscounted basis when such amounts are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Such accruals are adjusted as new information develops or circumstances change. Other than those amounts, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the cost of any environmental remediation and compliance efforts that subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. may undertake in the future. In the opinion of management, however, compliance with environmental laws and regulations, including the payment of any remediation and compliance costs or damages and the making of
related expenditures, has not had, and is not expected to have, a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, financial position or cash flows.
Financial Information About Geographic Areas
Substantially all of Altria Group, Inc.’s net revenues are from sales generated in the United States for each of the last three fiscal years and substantially all of Altria Group, Inc.’s long-lived assets are located in the United States.
Available Information
Altria Group, Inc. is required to file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Investors may read and copy any document that Altria Group, Inc. files, including this Annual Report on Form 10-K, at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Investors may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains an Internet site at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, from which investors can electronically access Altria Group, Inc.’s SEC filings.
Altria Group, Inc. makes available free of charge on or through its website (www.altria.com) its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as soon as reasonably practicable after Altria Group, Inc. electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. Investors can access Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s filings with the SEC by visiting www.altria.com/secfilings.
The information on the respective websites of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this reportForm 10-K or incorporated into any other filings Altria Group, Inc. makes with the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.
The following risk factors should be read carefully in connection with evaluating our business and the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Any of the following risks could materially adversely affect our business, our results of operations, our cash flows, our financial position and the actual outcome of matters as to which forward-looking statements are made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We(1) may from time to time make written or oral forward-looking statements, including earnings guidance and other statements contained in filings with the SEC, reports to security

(1) This section uses the terms “we,” “our” and “us” when it is not necessary to distinguish among Altria Group, Inc. and its various operating subsidiaries or when any distinction is clear from the context.


4


holders, press releases and investor webcasts.webcasts and presentations. You can identify these forward-looking statements by use of words such as “strategy,” “expects,” “continues,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “will,” “estimates,” “forecasts,” “intends,” “projects,” “goals,” “objectives,” “guidance,” “targets” and other words of similar meaning. You can also identify them by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts.
We cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statement will be realized, although we believe we have been prudent in our plans, estimates and assumptions. Achievement of future results is subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions that may prove to be inaccurate. Should known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying estimates or assumptions prove inaccurate, actual results could vary materially from those anticipated, estimated or projected. You should bear this in mind as you consider forward-looking statements and whether to invest in or remain invested in Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s securities. In connection with the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, we are identifying important factors that, individually or in the aggregate, could cause actual results and outcomes to differ materially from those contained in, or implied by, any forward-looking statements made by us; any such statement is qualified by reference to the following cautionary statements. We elaborate on these and other risks we face throughout this document,Form 10-K particularly in the “Business Environment” sections preceding our discussion of the operating results of our subsidiaries’ businesses below in Item 7. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all risk factors. Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties. We do not undertake to update any forward-looking statement that we may make from time to time except as required by applicable law.
Risks Related to Litigation, Legislative or Regulatory Action
Unfavorable litigation outcomes could materially adversely affect the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc., or the businesses of one or more of its subsidiaries.subsidiaries or investees and Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.
Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United States and foreign jurisdictions against Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including PM USA, and UST and its subsidiaries, as well as their respective indemnitees.indemnitees, indemnitors and Altria’s investees. Various types of claims may be raised in these proceedings, including product liability, consumer protection,unfair trade practices, antitrust, tax, contraband-related claims, patent infringement, employment matters, claims alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), claims for contribution and claims of competitors, shareholders and 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 or other litigation are significant and, in certain cases, have ranged in the billions

5

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, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries 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, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries under certain circumstances may have to pay more than their proportionate share of any bonding- or judgment-related amounts. Furthermore, in those cases where plaintiffs are successful, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries may also 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 now limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all. As discussed in Note 18. Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 18”),18, 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. Although we cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, it is possible that the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria, Group, Inc., or the businesses of one or more of its subsidiaries or investees, could be materially adversely affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome of one or more such challenges.
In certain litigation, Altria, Group, Inc.its subsidiaries and its subsidiariesinvestees may face potentially significant non-monetary remedies which may cause reputational harm.that could have a material adverse effect on our businesses. For example, in the Federal Government’s lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice, discussed in detail in Note 18, the district court did not impose monetary penalties but ordered significant non-monetary remedies, including the issuance of “corrective statements”statements.” In the patent lawsuit adjudicated before the ITC discussed in Note 18, the ITC banned the importation of the IQOS devices, MarlboroHeatSticks and component parts into the United States and the sale and marketing of any such products previously imported into the United States. As a result of the ITC’s decision, PM USA removed the IQOS devices, Marlboro HeatSticks and any infringing components from the marketplace.
In 2019, we determined that our investment in JUUL was impaired in part due to the increase in the number and type of legal cases pending against JUUL. Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA began makingare also defendants in various mediamany of these cases. In addition, in April 2020 the fourth quarter Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued an administrative complaint against Altria and JUUL alleging that Altria’s 35% investment in JUUL and the associated agreements constitute unreasonable restraint on trade. In February 2022, the administrative law judge dismissed the FTC’s complaint. FTC complaint counsel appealed that decision to the FTC Commissioners. E-vapor litigation and the FTC action, including the remedies the FTC is seeking, are further discussed in Item 3. Legal Proceedingsof 2017.this Form 10-K (“Item 3”) and Note 18.
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries have achieved substantial success in managing litigation. Nevertheless, litigation is subject to uncertainty, and significant challenges remain.
It is possible that the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria, Group, Inc., or the businesses of one or more of its subsidiaries or investees, could be materially adversely affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. In addition, an unfavorable outcome in certain pending litigation could adversely affect our ability to achieve our Vision. Altria Group, Inc. and each of its subsidiaries named as a defendant believe, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that it has valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. Each of the companies has defended, and will continue to defend, vigorously against litigation challenges. However, Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries may enter into


5


settlement discussions in particular cases if they believe it is in the best interests of Altria Group, Inc. to do so. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings of this Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Item 3”),3, Note 18 and Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of pending tobacco-related litigation.
Significant federal, state and local governmental actions, including actions by the FDA, and various private sector actions may continue to have an adverse impact on ourAltria and its tobacco subsidiaries’operating companies’ or its investees’ businesses and sales volumes.volumes and on Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.
As described in Tobacco Space - Business Environment in Item 7, our cigarette subsidiaries facePM USA faces significant governmental and private sector actions, including efforts aimed at reducing the incidence of tobacco use and efforts seeking to hold these subsidiariesPM USA responsible for the adverse health effects associated with both smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. These actions, combined with the diminishing social acceptance of smoking, have resulted in reduced cigarette industry volume, and we expect that these factors will continue to reduce cigarette consumption levels.
ActionsMore broadly, actions by the FDA and other federal, state or local governments or agencies, including those specific actions described in Tobacco Space - Business Environment in Item 7,, may (i) impact the adult tobacco consumer acceptability of or access to tobacco products (for example, through product standards)nicotine or constituent limits or menthol or other flavor bans), limit adult tobacco consumer choices,(ii) delay or prevent the launch of new or modified tobacco products or products with claims of reduced risk, (iii) limit adult tobacco consumer choices, (iv) require the recall or other removal of tobacco products from the marketplace (for example as a result of (a) product contamination, (b) legislation and rulemaking that bans menthol or other flavors, (c) a determination by the FDA that one or more tobacco products do not satisfy the statutory requirements for substantial equivalence, or(d) because the FDA requires that a modification to a currently-marketedcurrently marketed tobacco product proceed

6

through the pre-market review process)process or (e) because the FDA does not authorize a PMTA or otherwise determines that removal is necessary for the protection of public health), (v) restrict communications to adult tobacco consumers, (vi) restrict the ability to differentiate tobacco products, (vii) create a competitive advantage or disadvantage for certain tobacco companies, (viii) impose additional manufacturing, labeling or packing requirements, (ix) interrupt manufacturing or otherwise significantly increase the cost of doing business, (x) result in increased illicit trade in tobacco products or (xi) restrict or prevent the use of specified tobacco products in certain locations or the sale of tobacco products by certain retail establishments. Any one or more of these actions may have a material adverse impact on the business, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies, including adversely affecting Altria’s investment in JUUL and Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision. See Tobacco Space - Business Environment in Item 7for a more detailed discussion.
Tobacco products are subject to substantial taxation, which could have an adverse impact on sales of the tobacco products of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies and JUUL and on Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.
Tobacco products are subject to substantial excise taxes, and significant increases in tobacco product-related taxes or fees have been proposed or enacted and are likely to continue to be proposed or enacted within the United States at the federal, state and local levels. The frequency and magnitude of excise tax increases can be influenced by various factors, including federal and local levels.state budgets and the composition of executive and legislative bodies. Tax increases are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of the tobacco products of our tobacco
subsidiaries operating companies and JUUL through lower consumption levels and the potential shift in adult tobacco consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments or to other low-priced or low-taxed tobacco products or to counterfeit and contraband products. Such shifts may also have an adverse impact on the reported share performance of tobacco products of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies. In addition, excise taxes on e-vapor and oral nicotine products may negatively impact adult smokers’ transition to these products, which could adversely affect Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision. For further discussion, seeTobacco Space - Business Environment - Excise Taxes in Item 7.7.
OurUnfavorable outcomes of any governmental investigations could materially affect the businesses of Altria and its subsidiaries or its investees and Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.
From time to time, Altria, its subsidiaries and its investees are subject to federal and state governmental investigations on a range of matters. For further discussion of current pending investigations, see Tobacco Space - Business Environment - Other International, Federal, State and Local Regulation and Governmental and Private Activity in Item 7. We cannot predict the outcome of any such investigation, and it is possible that our business or the businesses of our subsidiaries and investees and our ability to achieve our Vision could be materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome of any current or future investigation.
A challenge to our tax positions, an increase in the income tax rate or other changes to federal or state tax laws could adversely affect our earnings or cash flow.
Tax laws and regulations are complex and subject to varying interpretations. A successful challenge to one or more of Altria’s tax positions (which could give rise to additional liabilities, including interest and potential penalties), an increase in the corporate income tax rate or other changes to federal or state tax laws, including changes to how foreign investments are taxed, could adversely affect Altria’s earnings or cash flow.
International business operations subject Altria, its subsidiaries and its investees to various United States and foreign laws and regulations, and violations of such laws or regulations could result in reputational harm, legal challenges and/or significant costs.
While Altria and its subsidiaries are primarily engaged in business activities in the United States, they do engage (directly or indirectly) in certain international business activities that are subject to various United States and foreign laws and regulations, such as foreign privacy laws, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other laws prohibiting bribery and corruption. Although we have a Code of Conduct for Compliance and Integrity and a compliance system designed to prevent and detect violations of applicable law, no system can provide assurance that it will always protect against improper actions by employees, investees or third parties. Altria’s investees also engage in international business operations. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, by Altria, its subsidiaries or its investees could result in reputational harm, legal challenges and/or significant costs.
Risks Related to Business Operations
Altria, its subsidiaries and its investees face various risks related to health epidemics and pandemics, including the COVID-19 pandemic and similar outbreaks, which could have a material adverse effect on the business, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria and its tobacco operating companies and investees.
Altria’s, its subsidiaries’ and its investees’ business and financial results, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be negatively impacted by health epidemics, pandemics and similar outbreaks. The continuing COVID-19 pandemic could have negative impacts, such as (i) a global or U.S. recession or other economic crisis, including a financial crisis, (ii) credit and capital markets volatility (and limited access to these markets, including by those in the distribution and supply chains), (iii) significant volatility in demand for our tobacco operating companies’ and investees’ products, (iv) changes in adult tobacco consumer accessibility to those products, including due to government action, (v) changes in adult tobacco consumer behavior and preferences, including trading down to lower-priced products or the reduction in, or the cessation of, product use due to public health actions or concerns and

7

economic conditions (including those stemming from potential changes in government stimulus or reductions in unemployment payments or other benefits), and (vi) extended or multiple disruptions in our tobacco operating companies’ or investees’ manufacturing operations, or in their distribution and supply chains. In addition, our subsidiaries and investees may incur increased costs and otherwise be negatively affected if significant portions of their respective workforces (or the workforces within their respective distribution or supply chains) are unable to work or work effectively, including because of illness, unavailability of personal protective equipment, quarantines, government actions, facility closures or other restrictions.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends on factors beyond our knowledge or control, including the duration and severity of the outbreak (including new variants), increases in the number of cases in future periods, and actions taken to contain its spread and mitigate the public health effects. We cannot at this time predict the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our or our investees’ future financial or operational results, but the impact could be material over time. See the risks below related to extended disruptions at a facility, of a distributor or in service by a service provider and the risks related to our investments in JUUL, ABI and Cronos and the earnings from and carrying value of those investments. For further discussion on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our tobacco operating companies and investees, see Executive Summary - COVID-19 Pandemic in Item 7.
Altria’s tobacco businesses face significant competition within their categories(including across categories) and their failure to compete effectively could have an adverse effect on the consolidated results of operations or cash flows of Altria, Group, Inc., or the business of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies and on Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.
Each of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies operates in highly competitive tobacco categories. This competition also exists across categories as adult tobacco consumer preferences evolve. Significant methods of competition include product quality, taste, price, product innovation, marketing, packaging, distribution and promotional activities. AThis highly competitive environment could negatively impact the profitability, market share (including as a result of down-trading to lower-priced competitive brands) and shipment volume of ourAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries,operating companies, which could have an adverse effect on the consolidated results of operations or cash flows of Altria. See Tobacco Space - Business Environment - Summary in Item 7 for additional discussion concerning evolving adult tobacco consumer preferences. Growth of the e-vapor product category and other innovative tobacco products, including oral nicotine pouches, has further contributed to reductions in cigarette consumption levels and cigarette industry sales volume and in the consumption levels and sales volumes of other tobacco products, including MST. In addition, growth of unregulated synthetic nicotine products, which may not be subject to the same regulatory restrictions (including marketing restrictions and FDA pre-marketing requirements) as the tobacco-derived e-vapor and oral nicotine products of Altria’s tobacco operating companies and JUUL, could negatively impact the growth of e-vapor and oral nicotine pouch products. Continued growth in these categories could have a material adverse impact on the business, results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc.and its tobacco operating companies if they are unable to compete effectively (directly or through Altria’s investments) in these innovative product categories, which could also negatively impact Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.
PM USA also faces competition from lowest pricedlower-priced brands sold by certain United States and foreign manufacturers that have cost advantages because they are not parties to settlements of certain tobacco litigation in the United States.States and, as such, are not required to make annual settlement payments as required by the parties to the settlements. These settlement payments are significant for PM USA, as described in Liquidity and Capital Resources - Payments under State Settlement Agreements and FDA Regulation in Item7. These settlements, among other factors, have resulted in substantial cigarette price increases. These manufacturers may failincreases to comply with relatedhelp cover the cost of the settlement payments. Manufacturers not party to the settlements are subject to state escrow legislation orrequiring escrow deposits. Such manufacturers may avoid these escrow deposit obligations on the majority of their sales by concentrating on certain states where escrow deposits are not required or are required on fewer than all such manufacturers’ cigarettes sold in such states. Additional competition has resulted from diversion into the United States market of cigarettes intended for sale outside the United States, the sale of counterfeit cigarettes by third parties, the sale of cigarettes by third parties over the Internet and by other means designed to avoid collection of applicable taxes, and imports of foreign lowest priced brands. USSTC faces significant competition in the smokeless tobacco category and has experienced consumer down-trading to lower-priced brands. In the cigar category, additional competition has resulted from increased imports of machine-made large cigars manufactured offshore.
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiariestobacco operating companies may be unsuccessful in anticipating changes in adult tobaccoconsumer preferences, responding to changes in adult tobacco consumer purchase behavior or managing through difficult competitive and economic conditions.conditions, which could have an adverse effect on the consolidated results of operations and cash flows of Altria or the business of Altria’s tobacco operating companies.
Each of our tobacco and wine subsidiariesoperating companies is subject to intense competition and changes in adult tobacco consumer preferences. To be successful, they must continue to:
promote brand equity successfully;
promote brand equity successfully;

anticipate and respond to new and evolving adult tobacco consumer preferences;
develop, manufacture, market and distribute new and innovative products that appeal to adult tobacco consumers (including, where appropriate, through arrangements with, or investments in, third parties);
improve productivity; and
protect or enhance margins through cost savings and price increases.


68


anticipate and respond to new and evolving adult consumer preferences;
develop, manufacture, market and distribute products that appeal to adult consumers (including, where appropriate, through arrangements with, or investments in, third parties);
improve productivity; and
protect or enhance margins through cost savings and price increases.
See Tobacco Space - Business Environment - Summary in Item 7 and the immediately preceding risk factor for additional discussion concerning evolving adult tobacco consumer preferences, including e-vapor products. Growth of this product category could contribute to reductions in cigarette consumption levels and cigarette industry sales volume and could adversely affectspecifically the growth rates of e-vapor and other innovative tobacco products.products and the effects on our tobacco operating companies.
The willingness of adult tobacco consumers to purchase premium consumer product brands depends in part on economic conditions.conditions, including inflation. In periods of economic uncertainty and/or high inflation, among other conditions, adult tobacco consumers may purchase more discount brands and/or, in the case of tobacco products, consider lower-priced tobacco products, including different categories of tobacco products than those they traditionally purchase, which could have a material adverse effect on the business, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.tobacco operating companies. While our tobacco and wine subsidiariesoperating companies work to broaden their brand portfolios to compete effectively with lower-priced products, the failure to do so could negatively impact our companies’their ability to compete in these circumstances. During the second half of 2021, discount cigarette products resumed share growth driven primarily by deep discount products. See Tobacco Space - Business Environment - Summary in Item 7 for further discussion of economic conditions, including the impact of the current high inflationary environment on our businesses.
Our financial services business (conducted through PMCC) holds investments in finance leases, principally in transportation (including aircraft), power generation, real estateAltria’s tobacco operating companies and manufacturing equipment. Its lessees are subject to significant competition and uncertain economic conditions. If parties to PMCC’s leases fail to manage through difficult economic and competitive conditions, PMCC may have to increase its allowance for losses, which would adversely affect our earnings.
Altria Group, Inc.’s tobacco subsidiariesinvestees may be unsuccessful in developing and commercializing adjacentinnovative products or processes, including innovative tobacco products that may reduce the health risks associated with currentcertain other tobacco products and that appeal to adult tobacco consumers, which may have an adverse effect on their ability to grow new revenue streams and/or put them at a competitive disadvantage.disadvantage and may also have an adverse effect on Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiariestobacco operating companies have growth strategies involving moves and potential moves into adjacentinnovative products or processes, including innovative tobacco products.processes. Some innovative tobacco products may reduce the health risks associated with currentcertain other tobacco products, while continuing to offer adult tobacco consumers (within and outside the United States) products that meet their taste expectations and evolving preferences. Examples include tobacco-containing and nicotine-containing products that reduce or eliminate exposure to cigarette smoke and/or constituents identified by public health authorities as harmful. Theseharmful, such as electronically heated tobacco products, oral nicotine pouches and e-vapor products.
In addition to internal product development, these efforts may include arrangements with, or
investments in, third parties. parties such as our arrangement with PMI to commercialize IQOS devices and related Marlboro HeatSticks in the United States, which is governed by an exclusive license and distribution agreement. The IQOS devices and related MarlboroHeatSticks are currently subject to an importation ban and cease-and-desist orders imposed by the ITC. PM USA does not expect to have access to IQOS devices or the related Marlboro HeatSticks for sale and distribution during 2022. In addition, the initial 5-year term of this agreement expires in April 2024 and renews at our option for an additional 5-year period so long as we have achieved certain performance objectives. The initial term performance objectives are based on achieving 0.5% dollar share of the cigarette category within a certain period of time in a certain number of geographic areas. In addition, we maintain our exclusive distribution rights as to PMI during the term of the agreement so long as we have achieved certain performance objectives within a specified time period by April 2022. The exclusive distribution rights performance objectives are based on achieving 0.5% dollar share of the cigarette category within a certain period of time in a single geographic area. While we believe Altria has met the initial term and exclusive distribution rights performance objectives, PMI has communicated to us that it disagrees as to whether those objectives have been met. If we do not resolve this disagreement in a manner favorable to PM USA, it could result in the loss of (i) our unilateral right to extend the agreement for the additional 5-year period, and therefore we would no longer be able to commercialize IQOS devices and related Marlboro HeatSticks after April 2024, or (ii) our exclusive distribution rights as to PMI. For further discussion, see Note 18.
Additionally, our investment in JUUL subjects us to non-competition obligations restricting us from investing or engaging in the e-vapor business other than through JUUL, subject to certain exceptions.
Our tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies and investees may not succeed in their efforts to introduce such newdevelop and commercialize these innovative products, which would have an adverse effect on the ability to grow new revenue streams.streams and on our ability to achieve our Vision.
Further, we cannot predict whether regulators, including the FDA, will permit the marketing or sale of any particular innovative products (including products with claims of reduced risk to adult consumers,tobacco consumers), the speed with which they may make such determinations or whether regulators will impose an unduly burdensome regulatory framework on such products. Nor can weIn addition, the FDA could, for a variety of reasons, determine that innovative products currently on the market but pending FDA review of the associated PMTA (such as on! oral nicotine pouches), or those that have previously received authorization, including with a claim of reduced exposure (such as IQOS), are not appropriate for the public health and the FDA could require such products be taken off the market. See Tobacco Space - Business Environment - FSPTCA and FDA Regulation in Item 7 for further discussion. We also cannot predict whether these products will appeal to adult tobacco consumers or whether adult tobacco consumers’ purchasing decisions would be affected by reduced riskreduced-risk claims on such products if permitted. Adverse developments on any of these matters could negatively impact the commercial viability of such products.
If our tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies or investees do not succeed in their efforts to develop and commercialize innovative tobacco products or to obtain or maintain regulatory approval for the marketing or sale of products, including with claims of reduced risk, but one or more of their competitors dodoes succeed, our tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies or investees may be at a competitive disadvantage.disadvantage, which could have an adverse effect on their financial performance and on our ability to achieve our Vision.

9

Significant changes in tobacco leaf price, availability or quality of tobacco, other raw materials or component parts could have an adverse effect on the profitability and business of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies and investees.
Any significant change in tobacco leaf prices, quality or availability of tobacco, other raw materials or component parts, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic conditions (including inflation, labor shortages and supply chain disruptions) or other factors, could adversely affect our tobacco subsidiaries’operating companies’ and our investees’ profitability and business.business, as well as their ability to remain compliant with FDA and other regulatory requirements for tobacco products. For further discussion, seeTobacco Space - Business Environment - Price, Availability and Qualityof Agricultural ProductsTobacco, Other Raw Materials and Component Parts in Item 7.7.
Because Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies and investees rely on a few significant facilities and a small number of key suppliers, andistributors and distribution chain service providers. An extended disruption at a facility or in service by a supplier, distributor or distribution chain service provider could have a material adverse effect on the business, the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies and investees.
Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies and investees face risks inherent in reliance on a few significant manufacturing facilities and a small number of key suppliers.suppliers, distributors and distribution chain service providers. A natural or man-made disaster, cyber-incident, global pandemic or other disruption that affects the manufacturing operations of any of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies or investees, the operations of any key supplierssupplier, distributor or distribution chain service provider of any of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries, including as a resultoperating companies or investees or any other disruption in the supply or distribution of goods or services (including a key supplier’s inability to comply with government regulations, lack of available workers or unwillingness to supply goods or services to a tobacco company,company) could adversely impact the operations of the affected subsidiaries.subsidiaries and investees. Operations of Altria’s tobacco operating companies, suppliers, distributors and distribution chain service providers and those of its investees could be suspended temporarily once or multiple times, or closed permanently, depending on various factors. An extended disruption in operations experienced by one or more of Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiariesAltria’s tobacco operating companies, investees or in the supply or distribution of goods or services by one or more key suppliers, distributors or distribution chain service providers, could have a material adverse effect on the business, the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies and investees.
Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiariesAltria’s tobacco operating companies and investees could decide or be required to recall products, which could have a material adverse effect on the business, reputation, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria, Group, Inc.its tobacco operating companies and its subsidiaries.investees.


7


In addition to a recall required by the FDA, as referenced above, our subsidiariestobacco operating companies and investees could decide, or other laws or regulations could require them, to recall products due to the failure to meet quality standards or specifications, suspected or confirmed and deliberate or unintentional product contamination, or other adulteration, product misbranding or product tampering. In January 2017, USSTC announced that it was voluntarily recalling certain of its smokeless tobacco products manufactured at a USSTC facility due to product tampering. USSTC recorded a charge during the first quarter of 2017 related to this recall. While this charge was not material to Altria Group, Inc.’s financial statements, futureProduct recalls (if any) could have a material adverse effect on the business, reputation, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria, Group, Inc.its tobacco operating companies and its subsidiaries.
Altria Group, Inc. may be unable to attract and retain the best talent due to the impact of decreasing social acceptance of tobacco usage and tobacco control actions.
Our ability to implement our strategy of attracting and retaining the best talent may be impaired by the impact of decreasing social acceptance of tobacco usage and tobacco regulation and control actions. The tobacco industry competes for talent with the consumer products industry and other companies that enjoy greater societal acceptance.  As a result, we may be unable to attract and retain the best talent.
Acquisitions or other events may adversely affect Altria Group, Inc.’s credit rating, and Altria Group, Inc. may not achieve its anticipated strategic or financial objectives of a transaction.
From time to time, Altria Group, Inc. considers acquisitions and may engage in confidential acquisition negotiations that are not publicly announced unless and until those negotiations result in a definitive agreement. Although we seek to maintain or improve our credit ratings over time, it is possible that completing a given acquisition or the occurrence of other events could negatively impact our credit ratings or the outlook for those ratings. Any such change in ratings or outlook may negatively affect the amount of credit available to us and may also increase our costs and adversely affect our earnings or our dividend rate.
Furthermore, acquisition opportunities are limited, and acquisitions present risks of failing to achieve efficient and effective integration, strategic objectives and anticipated revenue improvements and cost savings. There can be no assurance that we will be able to acquire attractive businesses on favorable terms or that we will realize any of the anticipated benefits from an acquisition.
Disruption and uncertainty in the debt capital markets could adversely affect Altria Group, Inc.’s access to the debt capital markets, earnings and dividend rate.
Access to the debt capital markets is important for us to satisfy our liquidity and financing needs. Disruption and uncertainty in the credit and debt capital markets and any resulting adverse impact on credit availability, pricing, credit terms or credit rating
may negatively affect the amount of credit available to us and may also increase our costs and adversely affect our earnings or our dividend rate.
Altria Group, Inc. may be required to write down intangible assets, including goodwill, due to impairment, which would reduce earnings.
We periodically calculate the fair value of our reporting units and intangible assets to test for impairment. This calculation may be affected by several factors, including general economic conditions, regulatory developments, changes in category growth rates as a result of changing adult consumer preferences, success of planned new product introductions, competitive activity and tobacco-related taxes. Certain events can also trigger an immediate review of intangible assets. If an impairment is determined to exist in either situation, we will incur impairment losses, which will reduce our earnings.
Competition, unfavorable changes in grape supply and new governmental regulations or revisions to existing governmental regulations could adversely affect Ste. Michelle’s wine business.
Ste. Michelle’s business is subject to significant competition, including from many large, well-established domestic and international companies.  The adequacy of Ste. Michelle’s grape supply is influenced by consumer demand for wine in relation to industry-wide production levels as well as by weather and crop conditions, particularly in eastern Washington. Supply shortages related to any one or more of these factors could increase production costs and wine prices, which ultimately may have a negative impact on Ste. Michelle’s sales. In addition, federal, state and local governmental agencies regulate the alcohol beverage industry through various means, including licensing requirements, pricing, labeling and advertising restrictions, and distribution and production policies. New regulations or revisions to existing regulations, resulting in further restrictions or taxes on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, may have an adverse effect on Ste. Michelle’s wine business. For further discussion, see Wine Segment - Business Environment in Item 7.investees.
The failure of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s or its investees’ information systems or service providers’ or key suppliers’ information systems to function as intended, or cyber-attacks or security breaches, could have a material adverse effect on the business, reputation, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria, Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.subsidiaries or its investees.
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries rely extensively on information systems, many of which are managed by third-party service providers (such as cloud providers), to support a variety of business processes and activities, including: complying with regulatory, legal, financial reporting and tax requirements; engaging in marketing and e-commerce activities; managing and improving the effectiveness of our operations; manufacturing and distributing our products; collecting and storing sensitive data and confidential information; and communicating internally and externally with employees, investors, suppliers, trade customers,


8


adult tobacco consumers and others. Suppliers and supply chain service providers also rely extensively on information systems. We continue to make appropriate investments in administrative, technical and physical safeguards to protect our information systems and data from cyber-threats, including human error and malicious acts. Our safeguards include employee training, testing and auditing protocols, backup systems and business continuity plans, maintenance of security policies and procedures, monitoring of networks and systems, and third-party risk management.
ToFrom time-to-time Altria and its suppliers experience attempts to infiltrate and interrupt information systems. While infiltration attempts have increased, to date, interruptions of ourthese information systems have been infrequent andas a result of infiltration attempts have not had a material impact on our operations. However, because technology is increasingly complex and cyber-attacks are increasingly sophisticated and more frequent, there can be no assurance that such incidents will not have a material adverse effect on us in the future. Failure of ourAltria’s or its investees’ information systems or service providers’ or key suppliers’ information systems to function as intended, or cyber-attacks or security breaches, could result in loss of revenue, assets, personal data, intellectual property, trade secrets or other sensitive and confidential data, violation of applicable privacy and data security laws, damagereputational harm to the reputation of our companies and their brands, operational disruptions, legal challenges and significant remediation and other costs to Altria, Group, Inc.its subsidiaries and its subsidiaries.investees.
Unfavorable outcomes

10

Altria may be unable to attract and retain the best talent due to the impact of decreasing social acceptance of tobacco usage, tobacco control actions and other factors, which could materiallyadversely affect Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.
Our ability to implement our strategy of attracting and retaining the businessesbest talent may be impaired by the impact of decreasing social acceptance of tobacco usage and tobacco regulation and control actions. The tobacco industry competes for talent with the consumer products industry and other companies that may enjoy greater societal acceptance and fewer longer-term challenges. As a result, we may be unable to attract and retain the best talent. In addition, our ability to retain the best talent may be adversely affected by current labor market dynamics in which the number of U.S. workers leaving their jobs increased significantly. Failure to attract and retain the best talent could adversely affect Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.
Altria Group, Inc.may be required to write down intangible assets, including goodwill, due to impairment, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.
We periodically calculate the fair value of our reporting units and intangible assets to test for impairment. This calculation may be affected by several factors, including general economic conditions (such as continued uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic), regulatory developments, changes in category growth rates as a result of changing adult tobacco consumer preferences, success of planned new product expansions, competitive activity and income and excise taxes. Certain events also can trigger an immediate review of intangible assets. If an impairment is determined to exist in either situation, we will incur impairment losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position. For further discussion, see Discussion and Analysis - Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates in Item 7.
Risks Related to the Capital Markets and Financing
Acquisitions or other events may adversely affect Altria’s credit rating, and Altria may not achieve its subsidiaries.anticipated strategic or financial objectives of a transaction.
From time to time, Altria Group, Inc.considers acquisitions, investments or dispositions and its subsidiariesmay engage in confidential negotiations that are subjectnot publicly announced unless and until those negotiations result in a definitive agreement. Although we seek to governmental investigations on a range of matters. We cannot predict whether new investigations may be commencedmaintain or the outcome of any such investigation, andimprove our credit ratings over time, it is possible that completing a given acquisition, investment, disposition or the occurrence of other events could negatively impact our businessinvestment grade credit ratings or the outlook for those ratings as occurred following our investment in JUUL. Any such change in ratings or outlook may negatively affect the amount of credit available to us and also may increase our costs and adversely affect our earnings or our dividend rate. Furthermore, acquisition opportunities are limited, and acquisitions present risks of failing to achieve efficient and effective integration, strategic objectives and anticipated revenue improvements and cost savings. There can be no assurance that we will be able to acquire attractive businesses on favorable terms or that we will realize any of the anticipated benefits from an acquisition or an investment. Additionally, there can be no assurance that we will be able to dispose of our businesses or investments on favorable terms, which may result in a loss in our consolidated statements of earnings (losses).
Disruption and uncertainty in the credit and capital markets could adversely affect Altria’s access to these markets, earnings and dividend rate.
Access to the credit and capital markets is important for us to satisfy our liquidity and financing needs. For example, we typically access the commercial paper market early in the second quarter to help fund payments under the Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) tax obligations and shareholder dividends. Disruption and uncertainty in these markets and any resulting adverse impact on credit availability, pricing, credit terms or credit rating may negatively affect the amount of credit available to us and may also increase our costs and adversely affect our earnings or our dividend rate.
Altria may be materially adversely affectedunable to attract investors due to the impact of decreasing social acceptance of tobacco usage.
There is increasing investor focus on environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) matters. Organizations that provide ESG information to investors have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to ESG matters. Such ratings are used by ansome investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. Decreasing social acceptance of tobacco products or unfavorable outcome of a future investigation.
Expanding international business operations subjectsESG ratings may lead to increased negative investor sentiment toward Altria, Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries to various United States and foreign laws and regulations, and violations of such laws or regulationswhich could result in reputational harm, legal challengesshareholders choosing to divest their ownership in Altria stock or potential investors choosing not to invest in Altria stock and could have a negative impact on the market performance of Altria stock.
Risks Related to Our Investments
A challenge to our investment in JUUL, if successful, could result in a broad range of resolutions, including divestiture of the investment or rescission of the transaction.
A challenge to our investment in JUUL, if successful, could result in a broad range of resolutions such as divestiture of the investment or rescission of the transaction. In April 2020, the FTC issued an administrative complaint against Altria and JUUL alleging that Altria’s 35% investment in JUUL and the associated agreements constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act, and substantially lessened competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The FTC seeks a broad range of remedies, including divestiture of Altria’s investment in JUUL, rescission of the transaction and prohibition against any officer or director of either Altria or JUUL serving on the other’s board of directors or attending meetings. The

11

administrative trial was held before an FTC administrative law judge in June 2021. In February 2022, the administrative law judge dismissed the FTC’s complaint. FTC complaint counsel appealed that decision to the FTC Commissioners. Any adverse ruling the FTC Commissioners issue following their review may be appealed to a federal appellate court.
Also, various putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria (and in some cases, subsidiaries of Altria) and JUUL. The lawsuits cite the FTC administrative complaint referenced above and allege claims similar to those made by the FTC. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking various remedies, including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, a declaration that the agreements between Altria and JUUL are invalid, divestiture of Altria’s investment in JUUL and rescission of the transaction.
A successful challenge by the FTC or the plaintiffs in the lawsuits to the investment would adversely affect us, including by eliminating, or substantially limiting, our rights with respect to our investment in JUUL, and could adversely affect the estimated fair value of our investment. For further discussion of the FTC administrative complaint, see Item 3 and Note 18.
The expected benefits of the JUUL transaction may not materialize in the expected manner or timeframe or at all.
Regardless of whether we successfully defend against the FTC’s challenge to the JUUL transaction, the expected benefits of the JUUL transaction may not materialize in the expected manner or timeframe or at all, including due to the risks encountered by JUUL in its business, some of which are described in various risk factors above, such as operational risks, competitive risks and regulatory and legislative risks at the international, federal, state and local levels, including actions by the FDA, and adverse publicity due to underage use of e-vapor products and other factors; unanticipated impacts on JUUL’s relationships with employees, customers, suppliers and other third parties; potential disruptions to JUUL’s management or current or future plans and operations; or domestic or international litigation developments, investigations or otherwise. As discussed in Note 18, JUUL and Altria and/or significant costs.
While Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including PM USA, are primarily engagednamed as defendants in business activitiesvarious individual and class action lawsuits, including independent lawsuits initiated by certain state attorneys general. JUUL also is named in a significant number of additional individual and class action lawsuits to which neither Altria nor its subsidiaries is a party. See Tobacco Space - Business Environment in Item 7 for a discussion of certain FDA-related regulatory risks applicable to the e-vapor category, including the potential removal of certain e-vapor products from the market as a result of FDA enforcement action and the potential denial of new tobacco product applications for e-vapor products. Failure to realize the expected benefits of our JUUL investment could adversely affect the value of the investment and could also adversely affect our ability to achieve our Vision.
As discussed in Note 6, as part of the preparation of our financial statements for the quarters ended September 30, 2019, December 31, 2019 and September 30, 2020, we performed valuations of our investment in JUUL as a result of the existence of impairment indicators. As a result, we determined that our investment in JUUL was impaired and recorded total non-cash pre-tax impairment charges of $11.2 billion. Following Share Conversion (as defined in Note 6) in the fourth quarter of 2020, Altria elected to account for its equity method investment in JUUL under the fair value option. Under this option, Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses) include any cash dividends received from its investment in JUUL and any changes in the estimated fair value of its investment, which is calculated quarterly. While we believe the December 31, 2021 valuation of $1.7 billion is the appropriate current estimated fair value of our investment, the risks identified in this paragraph, some of which are also further discussed in Discussion and Analysis - Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates - Investment in JUUL and Tobacco Space - Business Environment in Item 7 and in Note 18, are ongoing with respect to the current estimated fair value. Quarterly fair value changes could create volatility in Altria’s consolidated financial position and earnings and, if the estimated fair value of our investment in JUUL decreases, it could have a material adverse effect on Altria’s consolidated financial position or earnings.
Our investment in JUUL includes non-competition, standstill and transfer restrictions that prevent us from gaining control of JUUL. Furthermore, if we elect not to extend our non-competition obligations beyond December 20, 2024, we would lose certain of our governance, consent, preemptive and other rights with respect to our investment in JUUL.
The shares of JUUL we hold generally cannot be sold or otherwise transferred until December 20, 2024, subject to limited exceptions. We also generally agreed not to compete with JUUL in the e-vapor category until at least December 20, 2024, which may be extended at our election. If, however, JUUL is prohibited by federal law from selling e-vapor products in the United States they do engage (directlyfor at least one year or indirectly)if Altria’s carrying value of the JUUL investment is not more than 10% of its initial carrying value of $12.8 billion, we may elect to compete with JUUL in certain international business activitiesthe e-vapor category prior to December 20, 2024. In addition, in the event we elect to exercise our board designation rights at JUUL, JUUL’s board of directors will include nine members, three of whom will be designated by Altria, including one independent designee. JUUL’s strategy and its material decisions are not and will not be controlled by us, and the terms of our agreements with JUUL mean that we are required to bear the risks associated with our investment in JUUL and are restricted from competing with JUUL until at least December 20, 2024, subject to various United States and foreign laws and regulations,the exceptions mentioned above. Further, if we elect not to extend our non-competition obligations beyond that date or to terminate such asobligations in the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Actcircumstances described above, we would lose some or all of our board designation rights, preemptive rights, consent rights and other laws prohibiting bribery and corruption.  Although we have a Coderights with respect to our investment in JUUL.

12

Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s reported earnings from and carrying value of its equity investment in AB InBevABI and the dividends paid by AB InBevABI on shares owned by Altria Group, Inc. may be adversely affected by unfavorablevarious factors, including foreign currency exchange rates and other factors.ABI’s business results, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and ABI’s stock price.
For purposes of financial reporting, the earnings from and carrying value of our equity investment in AB InBevABI are translated into U.S. dollars (“USD”) from various local currencies. In addition, AB InBevABI pays dividends in euros, which we convert into U.S. dollars.USD. During times of a strengthening U.S. dollarUSD against these currencies, our reported earnings from and carrying value of our equity investment in AB InBevABI will be reduced because these currencies will translate into fewer U.S. dollarsUSD and the dividends that we receive from AB InBevABI will convert into fewer U.S. dollars.
USD. Dividends and earnings from and carrying value of our equity investment in AB InBevABI are also subject to the risks encountered by AB InBevABI in its business. We cannot provide any assurancebusiness, its business outlook, cash flow requirements and financial performance, the state of the market and the general economic climate, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in 2020, as a result of the uncertainty, volatility and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ABI’s business, ABI reduced by 50% its final 2019 dividend paid in the second quarter of 2020 and did not pay its interim 2020 dividend that AB InBev willwould have been paid in the fourth quarter of 2020, which resulted in a reduction of cash dividends Altria received from ABI.
If the carrying value of our investment in ABI exceeds its fair value and the loss in value is other than temporary, the investment is considered impaired, which would result in additional impairment losses and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or earnings.
As further discussed in Note 6, in preparing our financial statements for the period ended September 30, 2021, we concluded that the carrying value of our investment in ABI exceeded the fair value of our equity investment in ABI and that the decline in fair value of our investment in ABI below its carrying value was other than temporary at September 30, 2021. As a result, we recorded a non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge of $6.2 billion for the nine and three months ended September 30, 2021 to (income) losses from equity investments in Altria’s condensed consolidated statements of earnings (losses). If ABI is unable to successfully execute its business plans and strategies. Earnings fromstrategies and the carrying value of our equity investment in AB InBev are also subject to fluctuations in AB InBev’s stock price, for example through mark-to-market losses on AB InBev’s derivative financial instruments used to hedge certain share commitments.
We received a substantial portionABI again exceeds the fair value of our consideration from the Transactioninvestment in the form of restricted shares subject toABI, it could result in additional impairment losses, which could have a five-year lock-up. Furthermore, ifmaterial adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or earnings.
If our percentage ownership in AB InBevABI were to decrease below certain levels, we may be subject to additional tax liabilities, sufferincur a reduction in the number of directors that we can have appointed to the AB InBev BoardABI board of Directorsdirectors and be unable to account for our investment in ABI under the equity method of accounting.
Upon completion of the Transaction, we received a substantial portion of our consideration in the form of restricted shares that cannot be sold or transferred for a period of five years following the Transaction, subject to limited exceptions. These transfer restrictions will require us to bear the risks associated with our investment in AB InBev for a five-year period that expires on October 10, 2021. Further, inIn the event that our ownership percentage in AB InBevABI were to decrease below certain levels, (i) we may be subject to additional tax liabilities, (ii) the number of directors that we have the right to have appointed to the AB InBev BoardABI board of Directorsdirectors could be reduced from two to one or zero and (iii) we may be unable to continue to account for our use ofinvestment in ABI under the equity method of accounting for our investment in AB InBev could be challenged.accounting.
OurTax authorities may challenge the tax treatment of the Transaction consideration may be challengedAltria received in the October 2016 SABMiller plc/ABI business combination (“ABI Transaction”) and the tax treatment of AB InBev dividendsour investment in ABI may not be as favorable as Altria Group, Inc. anticipates.
While we expect the equitytax treatment of the consideration that we received from the ABI Transaction to qualifybe respected, the statute of limitations for tax-deferred treatment,the tax year in which the transaction occurred has not expired. Therefore, we cannot provide any assurance that federal and state tax authorities will not challenge the expected tax treatment and, if they do, what the outcome of any such challenge will be. In addition, there is a risk that the tax treatment of the dividends Altria Group, Inc. expects to receive from AB InBevour investment in ABI may not be as favorable as we anticipate.
The expected benefits of the Cronos transaction may not materialize in the expected manner or timeframe or at all.
In March 2019, we acquired common shares representing a 45% equity interest in Cronos, a warrant to acquire common shares representing an additional 10% equity interest in Cronos and anti-dilution protections to purchase Cronos shares to maintain our ownership percentage. There can be no assurance that we will realize the expected benefits of the Cronos transaction, including due to the risks encountered by Cronos in its business, some of which are described in various risk factors above, such as operational risks and legal and regulatory risks; unanticipated impacts on Cronos’s relationships with third parties, its management, or its current or future plans and operations due to the Cronos transaction or other factors; or domestic or international litigation developments, tax disputes, investigations, or otherwise; or that Cronos will successfully execute its business plans and strategies. Further, a failure by Cronos or Altria Group, Inc. anticipates.to comply with applicable laws, including cannabis laws, could result in criminal, civil or tax liability or reputational harm for Altria.
If the carrying value of our investment in Cronos exceeds its fair value and the loss in value is other than temporary, the investment is considered impaired, which would result in impairment losses and could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or earnings.
As further discussed in Note 6, in preparing our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021, we concluded that our equity method investment in Cronos declined below its carrying value and that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the impairment was temporary. As a result, we recorded a non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge of $205 million to (income) losses from equity investments in our consolidated statement of earnings (losses) for the year ended December 31, 2021. If Cronos is unable to

13

successfully execute its business plans and strategies and the fair value of our investment in Cronos continues to decrease, it could result in additional impairment losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or earnings.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.



9


Item 2. Properties.
In 2017, Altria Client Services LLC purchased the previously leasedALCS owns one property in Richmond, Virginia that serves as the headquarters facilityfacilities for Altria, Group, Inc., PM USA, USSTC, Middleton, Nu MarkHelix and certain other subsidiaries.
At December 31, 2017, PM USA ownedowns and operatedoperates a manufacturing sitefacility located in Richmond, Virginia (“Richmond Manufacturing Center”), that PM USA uses in the manufacturing of cigarettes. Portionscigarettes (smokeable products segment). PM USA leases portions of this facility are leased by Middleton and USSTCto other Altria subsidiaries for use in the manufacturing of cigars (smokeable products segment) and smokelessMST, snus and oral nicotine pouch products (oral tobacco products respectively.
At December 31, 2017, the smokeable products segment used five manufacturing and processing facilities, including the Richmond Manufacturing Center. In addition to the Richmond Manufacturing Center, PM USA owns and operates a cigarette tobacco processing facility located in the Richmond, Virginia area. Nat Sherman owns and operates a cigarette manufacturing facility in Greensboro, North Carolina. Middleton, in addition to the Richmond Manufacturing Center, operates two manufacturing and processing facilities - one, which it owns, in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and one, which it leases, in Limerick, Pennsylvania, that are used in the manufacturing and processing of cigars and pipe tobacco.segment). In addition, PM USA owns a research and technology center in Richmond, Virginia that is leasedleases to an affiliate, Altria Client Services LLC.ALCS.
At December 31, 2017, in addition to the Richmond Manufacturing Center, the smokelessThe oral tobacco products segment used five smokeless tobaccohas various manufacturing and processing facilities, located in Clarksville, Tennessee; Franklin Park, Illinois; Nashville, Tennessee; and two facilities in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, allthe most significant of which are owned and operated by USSTC, with the exception of the facility leased by USSTClocated in Franklin Park, Illinois.
As disclosed in Note 4. Asset Impairment, Exit and Implementation Costs to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 4”), in October 2016, Altria Group, Inc. announced the consolidation of certain of its operating companies’ manufacturing facilities to streamline operations and achieve greater efficiencies. Middleton is in the process of transferring its Limerick, Pennsylvania operations to the Richmond Manufacturing Center. USSTC is in the process of transferring its Franklin Park, Illinois operations to its Nashville, Tennessee facility and the Richmond Manufacturing Center. The consolidation is expected to be substantially completed by the end of the first quarter of 2018.
At December 31, 2017, the wine segment used 12 wine-making facilities - seven in Washington, four in California and one in Oregon. All of these facilities are owned and operated by Ste. Michelle, with the exception of a facility that is leased by Ste. Michelle in Washington. In addition, in order to support the production of its wines, the wine segment used vineyards in Washington, California and Oregon that are leased or owned by Ste. Michelle.Tennessee.
The plants and properties owned or leased and operated by Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries are maintained in good
condition and are believed to be suitable and adequate for present needs.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
The information required by this Item is included in Note 18 and Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes for the year ended December 31, 20172021 were filed on Form 8-K on February 1, 2018January 27, 2022 (such consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes are also included in Item 8). The following summarizes certain developments in Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s litigation since the filing of the Form 8-K.
Recent Developments
Smoking and Health Litigation
Engle Progeny Trial Results:Results
In Gloger, in February 2018, a Miami-Dade County jury returned a2022, the Florida Third District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“R.J. Reynolds”) awarding $7.5 million in compensatory damages. The jury also awarded plaintiff $5 million in punitive damages against each defendant. PM USA postedand remanded the case for a bond in the amount of $2.5 million. Defendants filed various post-trial motions, which remain pending, and appealed to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.new trial.
In WallaceJordan, in February 2018,2022, PM USA filed an appeala notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal and posted a bond in the amount of approximately $3 million.Supreme Court.
In AllenKaplan, in February 2018,2022, the Florida Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition to invokevacated the court’s discretionary jurisdiction.$2 million compensatory damages award against PM USA will record a pre-tax provision of approximately $10 million forbased on its decision in Sheffield and remanded the judgment plus interest in the first quarter of 2018.
In Gore, in February 2018,case to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmedAppeals for reconsideration.
E-Vapor Product Litigation
In the judgmentlawsuit filed by the Alaska Attorney General, in favor of plaintiff, withdrewFebruary 2022, the comparative fault reduction forcourt granted Altria’s motion to dismiss the compensatory damages award and granted plaintiff leavepublic nuisance claim, but denied its motion to seek a new trial on punitive damages. PM USA will record a pre-tax provision of approximately $1 million fordismiss the judgment plus interestother claims.
Antitrust Litigation
In February 2022, in the first quarterFTC administrative complaint against Altria and JUUL, the administrative law judge dismissed the FTC’s complaint. FTC complaint counsel appealed that decision to the FTC Commissioners. Any adverse ruling the FTC Commissioners issue following their review may be appealed to any U.S. Court of 2018.Appeals.
In Bryant, in February 2018, the trial court denied all post-trial motions and entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.


14


10


Part II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Performance Graph
The graph below compares the cumulative total shareholder return of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s common stock for the last five years with the cumulative total return for the same period of the S&P 500 Index and the AltriaS&P Food, Beverage and Tobacco Industry Group Inc. Peer Group (1).Total Return Index. The graph assumes the investment of $100 in common stock and each of the indices as of the market close on December 31, 20122016 and the reinvestment of all dividends on a quarterly basis.
mo-20211231_g1.jpg
Date Altria Group, Inc. Altria Group, Inc. Peer Group S&P 500
December 2012 $100.00
 $100.00
 $100.00
December 2013 $128.56
 $124.66
 $132.37
December 2014 $172.93
 $139.49
 $150.48
December 2015 $212.87
 $162.74
 $152.55
December 2016 $256.43
 $177.01
 $170.78
December 2017 $280.65
 $193.86
 $208.05
DateAltriaS&P Food, Beverage & TobaccoS&P 500
December 2016$100.00 $100.00 $100.00 
December 2017$109.45 $112.35 $121.82 
December 2018$79.80 $95.59 $116.47 
December 2019$86.15 $119.42 $153.14 
December 2020$77.21 $126.06 $181.31 
December 2021$95.94 $146.45 $233.36 
Source: Bloomberg - “Total Return Analysis” calculated on a daily basis and assumes reinvestment of dividends as of the ex-dividend date.
(1)In 2017, the Altria Group, Inc. Peer Group consisted of U.S.-headquartered consumer product companies that are competitors to Altria Group, Inc.’s tobacco operating companies subsidiaries or that have been selected on the basis of revenue or market capitalization: Campbell Soup Company, The Coca-Cola Company, Colgate-Palmolive Company, Conagra Brands, Inc., General Mills, Inc., The Hershey Company, Kellogg Company, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, The Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelēz International, Inc., PepsiCo, Inc., Reynolds American Inc. and British American Tobacco p.l.c. headquartered in London, England.
Note - On July 2, 2015, Kraft Foods Group, Inc. merged with and into a wholly owned subsidiary of H.J. Heinz Holding Corporation, which was renamed The Kraft Heinz Company (KHC). On June 12, 2015, Reynolds American Inc. (RAI) acquired Lorillard, Inc. (LO). On November 9, 2016, ConAgra Foods, Inc. (CAG) spun off Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. (LW) to its shareholders and then changed its name from ConAgra Foods, Inc. to Conagra Brands, Inc. (CAG). On July 24, 2017, British American Tobacco p.l.c. (BTI) acquired RAI. For 2017, Altria Group, Inc. Peer Group total shareholder return calculation includes RAI through July 24, 2017 and BTI American Depository Receipts for the remainder of the year.


11


Market and Dividend Information
The principal stock exchange on which Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s common stock (par value $0.33 1/3 per share) is listed is the New York Stock Exchange.Exchange under the trading symbol “MO”. At February 13, 2018,15, 2022, there were approximately 64,00052,000 holders of record of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s common stock.
The table below discloses the high and low sales prices andAltria has a history of paying cash dividends declaredand maintains its dividend payout ratio target of approximately 80% of its adjusted diluted earnings per share for Altria Group, Inc.’s common stock as reported byshare. Future dividend payments remain subject to the New York Stock Exchange.discretion of the Board of Directors.

15

 Price Per Share Cash Dividends Declared Per Share
 High Low 
2017:     
Fourth Quarter$74.38
 $62.32
 $0.66
Third Quarter$74.98
 $60.01
 $0.66
Second Quarter$77.79
 $69.79
 $0.61
First Quarter$76.55
 $67.25
 $0.61
2016:     
Fourth Quarter$68.03
 $60.82
 $0.61
Third Quarter$70.15
 $62.46
 $0.61
Second Quarter$69.26
 $59.48
 $0.565
First Quarter$63.15
 $56.15
 $0.565
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities During the Quarter Ended December 31, 20172021
In July 2015, Altria Group, Inc.’sJanuary 2021, the Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors”) authorized a $1.0$2.0 billion share repurchase program that it expanded to $3.0$3.5 billion in October 2016 and to $4.0 billion in July 20172021 (as expanded, the “July 2015“January 2021 share repurchase program”). The July 2015 share repurchase program was completed in January 2018. In January 2018, the Board of Directors authorized a new $1.0 billion share repurchase program,, which Altria Group, Inc. expects to complete by the end of 2018.December 31, 2022. The timing of share repurchases under this program depends upon marketplace conditions and other factors, and the program remains subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors.Board.
Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s share repurchase activity for each of the three months in the period ended December 31, 2017,2021, was as follows:
Period
Total Number of Shares Purchased (1)
Average Price Paid Per ShareTotal Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or ProgramsApproximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs
October 1- October 31, 20212,299,678 $47.49 2,299,435 $2,418,402,110 
November 1- November 30, 20216,626,237 $44.58 6,625,750 $2,123,017,842 
December 1- December 31, 20216,547,494 $45.51 6,545,903 $1,825,142,753 
For the Quarter Ended December 31, 202115,473,409 $45.40 15,471,088 
Period 
Total Number of Shares Purchased (1)
 Average Price Paid Per Share Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs
October 1- October 31, 2017 2,983,437
 $64.36
 2,982,371
 $383,869,878
November 1- November 30, 2017 2,798,299
 $64.98
 2,790,984
 $202,512,372
December 1- December 31, 2017 2,587,120
 $71.16
 2,587,120
 $18,411,335
For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2017 8,368,856
 $66.67
 8,360,475
 
(1)
The total number of shares purchased includes (a) shares purchased under the July 2015 share repurchase program (which totaled 2,982,371 shares in October, 2,790,984 shares in November and 2,587,120 shares in December) and (b) shares withheld by Altria Group, Inc. in an amount equal to the statutory withholding taxes for holders who vested in stock-based awards (which totaled 1,066 shares in October and 7,315 shares in November).

(1) The total number of shares purchased includes (a) shares purchased under the January 2021 share repurchase program and (b) shares withheld by Altria in an amount equal to the statutory withholding taxes for vested stock-based awards previously granted to eligible employees (which totaled 243 shares in October, 487 shares in November and 1,591 shares in December).




12


Item 6. Selected Financial Data.[Reserved].
(in millions of dollars, except per share and employee data)

 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
Summary of Operations:         
Net revenues$25,576
 $25,744
 $25,434
 $24,522
 $24,466
Cost of sales7,543
 7,746
 7,740
 7,785
 7,206
Excise taxes on products6,082
 6,407
 6,580
 6,577
 6,803
Operating income9,556
 8,762
 8,361
 7,620
 8,084
Interest and other debt expense, net705
 747
 817
 808
 1,049
Earnings from equity investment in AB InBev/SABMiller532
 795
 757
 1,006
 991
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination445
 13,865
 5
 
 
Earnings before income taxes (2)
9,828
 21,852
 8,078
 7,774
 6,942
Pre-tax profit margin (2)
38.4% 84.9% 31.8% 31.7% 28.4%
(Benefit) provision for income taxes (1)(2)
(399) 7,608
 2,835
 2,704
 2,407
Net earnings (1)(2)
10,227
 14,244
 5,243
 5,070
 4,535
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc. (1)(2)
10,222
 14,239
 5,241
 5,070
 4,535
Basic and Diluted EPS — net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc. (1)(2)
5.31
 7.28
 2.67
 2.56
 2.26
Dividends declared per share2.54
 2.35
 2.17
 2.00
 1.84
Weighted average shares (millions) — Basic and Diluted1,921
 1,952
 1,961
 1,978
 1,999
Capital expenditures199
 189
 229
 163
 131
Depreciation188
 183
 204
 188
 192
Property, plant and equipment, net1,914
 1,958
 1,982
 1,983
 2,028
Inventories2,225
 2,051
 2,031
 2,040
 1,879
Total assets (2)
43,202
 45,932
 31,459
 33,440
 33,858
Long-term debt13,030
 13,881
 12,843
 13,610
 13,907
Total debt13,894
 13,881
 12,847
 14,610
 14,432
Total stockholders’ equity (1)(2)
15,380
 12,773
 2,873
 3,010
 4,118
Common dividends declared as a % of Basic and Diluted EPS (1)(2)
47.8% 32.3% 81.3% 78.1% 81.4%
Book value per common share outstanding (1)(2)
8.09
 6.57
 1.47
 1.53
 2.07
Market price per common share — high/low77.79-60.01
 70.15-56.15
 61.74-47.31
 51.67-33.80
 38.58-31.85
Closing price per common share at year end71.41
 67.62
 58.21
 49.27
 38.39
Price/earnings ratio at year end — Basic and Diluted (1)(2)
13
 9
 22
 19
 17
Number of common shares outstanding at year end (millions)1,901
 1,943
 1,960
 1,971
 1,993
Approximate number of employees8,300
 8,300
 8,800
 9,000
 9,000
(1) Certain 2017 amounts include the impact of the enactment of the Tax Reform Act (as defined in Item 7). For further discussion, see Note 14 in Item 8.
(2) Certain 2016 amounts include the impact of the gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination. For further information, see Note 6 in Item 8.

The Selected Financial Data should be read in conjunction with Item 7 and Item 8.



13



Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the other sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the consolidated financial statements and related notes contained in Item 8, and the discussion of cautionaryrisk factors that may affect future results in Item 1A. Additionally, refer to Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in Altria’s 2020 Annual Report on Form 10-K for management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to the year ended December 31, 2019.
Description of the Company
At December 31, 2017,For a description of Altria, Group, Inc.’s wholly-owned subsidiaries included PM USA, which is engagedsee Item 1. Business of this Form 10-K (“Item 1”), and Background in the manufactureNote 1. Background and saleBasis of cigarettes in the United States; Middleton, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PM USA; Nat Sherman, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium cigars; and UST, which through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, including USSTC and Ste. Michelle, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco products and wine. Altria Group, Inc.’s other operating companies included Nu Mark, a wholly-owned subsidiary that is engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco products, and PMCC, a wholly-owned subsidiary that maintains a portfolio of finance assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases. Other Altria Group, Inc. wholly-owned subsidiaries included Altria Group Distribution Company, which provides sales and distribution services to certain Altria Group, Inc. operating subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services LLC, which provides various support services in areas, such as legal, regulatory, consumer engagement, finance, human resources and external affairs to Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries. In addition, Nu Mark, Middleton and Nat Sherman use third-party arrangements in the manufacture of their products. Altria Group, Inc.’s access to the operating cash flows of its wholly-owned subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and distributions, and the payment of interest on intercompany loans by its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc.’s principal wholly-owned subsidiaries were not limited by long-term debt or other agreements in their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their equity interests.
At September 30, 2016, Altria Group, Inc. had an approximate 27% ownership of SABMiller, which Altria Group, Inc. accounted for under the equity method of accounting. In October 2016, Legacy AB InBev completed the Transaction, and AB InBev became the holding company for the combined SABMiller and Legacy AB InBev businesses. Upon completion of the Transaction, Altria Group, Inc. had a 9.6% ownership of AB InBev based on AB InBev’s shares outstanding. Subsequently, Altria Group, Inc. purchased approximately 12 million ordinary shares of AB InBev, increasing Altria Group, Inc.’s ownership to approximately 10.2% at December 31, 2016. At December 31, 2017, Altria
Group, Inc. had an approximate 10.2% ownership of AB InBev, which Altria Group, Inc. accounts for under the equity method of accounting using a one-quarter lag. As a result of the one-quarter lag and the timing of the completion of the Transaction, no earnings from Altria Group, Inc.’s equity investment in AB InBev were recorded for the year ended December 31, 2016. Altria Group, Inc. receives cash dividends on its interest in AB InBev if and when AB InBev pays such dividends. For further discussion, see Note 6. Investment in AB InBev/SABMillerPresentation to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 6”).8.
Altria Group, Inc.’s reportable segments are smokeable products, smokeless products and wine. The financial services and the innovative tobacco products businesses are included in an all other category due to the continued reduction of the lease portfolio of PMCC and the relative financial contribution of Altria Group, Inc.’s innovative tobacco products businesses to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results.
In January 2017, Altria Group, Inc. acquired Nat Sherman, which joined PM USA and Middleton as part of Altria Group, Inc.’s smokeable products segment.


14


Executive Summary
The following executive summary is intended to provide significant highlights of theIn this Management’s Discussion and Analysis that follows.
Consolidatedof Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The changes in section, Altria Group, Inc.’srefers to the following “adjusted” financial measures: adjusted operating companies income (loss) (“OCI”); adjusted OCI margins; adjusted net earnings andattributable to Altria; adjusted diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) attributable to Altria Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017, from the year ended December 31, 2016, were due primarily to the following:
(in millions, except per share data)
Net
Earnings

 
Diluted
EPS

For the year ended December 31, 2016$14,239
 $7.28
2016 NPM Adjustment Items11
 0.01
2016 Asset impairment, exit, implementation and acquisition-related costs135
 0.07
2016 Tobacco and health litigation items71
 0.04
2016 SABMiller special items(57) (0.03)
2016 Loss on early extinguishment of debt541
 0.28
2016 Patent litigation settlement13
 0.01
2016 Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination(9,001) (4.61)
2016 Tax items(30) (0.02)
Subtotal 2016 special items(8,317) (4.25)
2017 NPM Adjustment Items(2) 
2017 Asset impairment, exit, implementation and acquisition-related costs(55) (0.03)
2017 Tobacco and health litigation items(50) (0.03)
2017 AB InBev special items(105) (0.05)
2017 Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination289
 0.15
2017 Settlement charge for lump sum pension payments(49) (0.03)
2017 Tax items3,674
 1.91
Subtotal 2017 special items3,702
 1.92
Fewer shares outstanding
 0.05
Change in tax rate124
 0.06
Operations474
 0.25
For the year ended December 31, 2017$10,222
 $5.31
See the discussion of events affecting the comparability of statement of earnings amounts in the Consolidated Operating Results section of the following DiscussionAltria; and Analysis.
Fewer Shares Outstanding: Fewer shares outstanding during 2017 compared with 2016 were due primarily to shares repurchased by Altria Group, Inc. under its share repurchase program.
Change in Tax Rate: The change in tax rate was driven primarily by no tax being due on the dividends Altria Group, Inc. received from AB InBev during 2017 as a result of a deemed repatriation tax associated with the Tax Reform Act (as defined below). For further discussion, see Note 14. Income Taxes to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 14”).
Operations: The increase of $474 million in operations shown in the table above was due primarily to higher income from the smokeable products and smokeless products segments.
For further details, see the Consolidated Operating Results and Operating Results by Business Segment sections of the following Discussion and Analysis.
2018 Forecasted Results
In February 2018, Altria Group, Inc. forecasted that its 2018 full-year adjusted diluted EPS growth rate is expected to be in the range of 15% to 19% over 2017 full-year adjusted diluted EPS. This forecasted growth rate excludes the income and expense items in the table below. Altria Group, Inc.’s 2018 guidance reflects investments in focus areas for long-term growth, including innovative product development and launches, regulatory science, brand equity, retail fixtures and future retail concepts. Altria Group, Inc. expects its 2018 full-year adjusted effective tax rate will be in a range of approximately 23% to 24%.
Altria Group, Inc.’s full-yearrates. These adjusted diluted EPS guidance and full-year forecast for its adjusted effective tax rate exclude the impact of certain income and expense items that management believesfinancial measures are not part of underlying operations. These items may include, for example, loss on early extinguishment of debt, restructuring charges, gain on the Transaction, AB InBev/SABMiller special items, certain tax items, charges associatedrequired by, or calculated in accordance with, tobacco and health litigation items, and resolutions of certain non-participating manufacturer (“NPM”) adjustment disputes under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (such dispute resolutions are referred to as “NPM Adjustment Items” and are more fully described in Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation - NPM Adjustment Disputes in Note 18).
Altria Group, Inc.’s management cannot estimate on a forward-looking basis the impact of certain income and expense items, including those items noted in the preceding paragraph, on Altria Group, Inc.’s reported diluted EPS and reported effective tax rate because these items, which could be significant, may be infrequent, are difficult to predict and may be highly variable. As a result, Altria Group, Inc. does not provide a corresponding United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) measure for, or reconciliation to, its adjusted diluted EPS guidance or its adjusted effective tax rate forecast.
In addition, the factors described in Item 1A represent continuing risks to this forecast.


15


Expense (Income), Net Excluded from Adjusted Diluted EPS
 2018
 2017
Asset impairment, exit, implementation and acquisition-related costs$
 $0.03
Tobacco and health litigation items
 0.03
AB InBev special items
 0.05
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination 

 (0.15)
Settlement charge for lump sum pension payments
 0.03
Tax items0.09
(1) 
(1.91)
 $0.09
 $(1.92)
(1) Represents tax expense for a tax basis adjustment related to the deemed repatriation tax associated with the Tax Reform Act (as defined below). For further discussion, see Note 14.
Altria Group, Inc. reports its financial results in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Altria Group, Inc.’s management reviews certain financial results, including diluted EPS, on an adjusted basis, which excludes certain income and expense items, including those items noted above. Altria Group, Inc.’s management does not view any of these special items to be part of Altria Group, Inc.’s underlying results as they may be highly variable, may be infrequent, are difficult to predict and can distort underlying business trends and results. Altria Group, Inc.’s management also reviews income tax rates on an adjusted basis. Altria Group, Inc.’s adjusted effective tax rate may exclude certain tax items from its reported effective tax rate. Altria Group, Inc.’s management believes that adjusted financial measures provide useful additional insight into underlying business trends and results and provide a more meaningful comparison of year-over-year results. Adjusted financial measures are used by management and regularly provided to the CODM for planning, forecasting and evaluating business and financial performance, including allocating resources and evaluating results relative to employee compensation targets. These adjusted financial measures are not consistent with U.S. GAAP and may not be calculated the same as similarly titled measures used by other companies. These adjusted financial measures should thus be considered as supplemental in nature and not considered in isolation or as a substitute for the related financial information prepared in accordance with U.S.GAAP. Except as noted in the 2022 Forecasted Results section below, when Altria provides a non-GAAP measure in this Form 10-K, it also provides a reconciliation of that non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure. OCI for the segments is defined as operating income before general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles. For a further description of these non-GAAP financial measures, see the Non-GAAP Financial Measures section below.
COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to adverse impacts on the United States and global economies and continues to create economic uncertainty, including due to variants of the COVID-19 virus, even as COVID-19 vaccines have been and continue to be administered and certain portions of the United States and global economies have begun to operate with reduced restrictions on consumer movements and business operations. Uncertainty still surrounds the pandemic, including its duration, the impact of COVID-19 variants and the ultimate overall impact on United States and global economies, Altria’s operations and those of its investees. Altria continues to monitor the macroeconomic risks arising in part from the COVID-19 pandemic (including labor shortages, inflation and supply change shortages) and continues to carefully evaluate potential outcomes and work to mitigate risks. Specifically, Altria remains focused on any potential impact to its liquidity, operations, supply and distribution chains and on economic conditions. In terms of Altria’s liquidity,

16

despite some temporary volatility in commercial paper markets in 2020, Altria has not experienced a material adverse impact to its liquidity.
As with so many other companies throughout the United States and globally, Altria’s operations have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, Altria believes its tobacco businesses have not experienced any material adverse effects associated with governmental actions to restrict consumer movement or business operations, but continues to monitor these factors. Altria continues to operate in a remote working environment for many employees and believes that remote working due to the COVID-19 pandemic has had minimal impact on productivity. Also, Altria’s critical information technology systems have remained operational. Although Altria’s tobacco businesses previously suspended operations temporarily at several of their manufacturing facilities in March 2020, the businesses resumed operations at those facilities under enhanced safety protocols in April 2020, and all manufacturing and non-manufacturing facilities are currently operational under enhanced safety protocols recommended by public health authorities. Altria continues to monitor the risks associated with facility disruptions and workforce availability as a result of uncertainty related to the COVID-19 pandemic and guidance from public health officials as it evolves its safety protocols.
Altria also continues to monitor the inflationary environment arising in part from the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on Altria’s financial position and results of operations. For the year ended December 31, 2021, inflation did not have a material impact on Altria’s MSA expense or on direct materials and other costs. While Altria anticipates that inflation will continue at increased levels in 2022, it does not believe the impacts will be material to Altria’s financial position and results of operations. See Operating Results by Business Segment - Tobacco Space - State Settlement Agreements below for further discussion on MSA expense.
Altria’s suppliers and those within its distribution chain continue to be subject to potential facility closures, remote working protocols, labor shortages, supply chain disruptions and inflation. To date, Altria has not experienced any material disruptions to its supply chains or distribution systems. Altria continues to monitor the risk that the business of one or more suppliers, distributors or any other entities within its supply and distribution chains may be disrupted.
Altria believes that the COVID-19 pandemic altered adult tobacco consumer behaviors and purchasing patterns, particularly in the earlier stages of the pandemic. While the number of adult tobacco consumer trips to the store remain below pre-pandemic levels and tobacco expenditures per trip remain elevated, the environment continues to evolve as the effects of government stimulus have lessened and consumer mobility returns to more normal levels. Although Altria’s tobacco businesses have not experienced a material adverse impact to date by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is continued uncertainty as to how the COVID-19 pandemic (including changes in COVID-19-related restrictions and guidelines and new variants) may impact adult tobacco consumers in the future. Altria continues to monitor the macroeconomic risks of the COVID-19 pandemic (including risks associated with the timing and extent of vaccine administration and the impact of COVID-19 variants), and their effect on adult tobacco consumers, including stay-at-home practices and disposable income, which may be further impacted by unemployment rates and inflation. Altria also continues to monitor adult tobacco consumers’ purchasing behaviors, including overall tobacco product expenditures, mix between premium and discount brand purchases and adoption of smoke-free products. See Operating Results by Business Segment - Tobacco Space Business Environment - Summary below for further discussion of economic conditions and the impact on adult tobacco consumer purchasing behavior.
During 2021, ABI continued to be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the effects of COVID-19 variants, supply-chain constraints across certain markets, adverse transactional foreign exchange rates, inflation and commodity cost headwinds. While Altria considers the impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic that have negatively impacted ABI’s global business to be transitory, Altria will continue to monitor its investment in ABI, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ABI’s business and market valuation. See Note 6 for further discussion of Altria’s investment in ABI, including the recording of a $6.2 billion non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge in 2021.
Altria considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the business of JUUL, including its sales, distribution, operations, supply chain and liquidity, in conducting its periodic impairment assessment and quantitative valuations. JUUL’s operations were negatively impacted in 2020 and 2021 by the COVID-19 pandemic due to stay-at-home practices and government-mandated restrictions. While the impact was considered in Altria’s quantitative valuations conducted in connection with the preparation of its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, Altria does not believe the COVID-19 pandemic was a primary driver of the non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge recorded during 2020 or any quarterly changes in fair value recorded since the fourth quarter of 2020. Altria will continue to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on JUUL’s business, including near-term supply chain constraints, component part shortages and inflation, in Altria’s quarterly quantitative valuations of JUUL. See Note 6 for further discussion of Altria’s investment in JUUL.
Altria considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the business of Cronos, including its sales, distribution, operations, supply chain and liquidity. During 2020 and 2021, Cronos was adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, due in part to government actions limiting access to retail stores in the United States and Canada. Altria will continue to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Cronos’s business, including as a result of new variants, near-term supply chain challenges, inflation and market valuation. See Note 6 for further discussion of Altria’s investment in Cronos.

17

Consolidated Results of Operations
The changes in net earnings (losses) attributable to Altria and diluted earnings (losses) per share (“EPS”) attributable to Altria for the year ended December 31, 2021, from the year ended December 31, 2020, were due primarily to the following:
(in millions, except per share data)Net Earnings (Losses)Diluted EPS
For the year ended December 31, 2020$4,467 $2.40 
2020 NPM Adjustment Items— 
2020 Asset impairment, exit, implementation, acquisition and disposition-related costs342 0.18 
2020 Tobacco and health and certain other litigation items62 0.03 
2020 Impairment of JUUL equity securities2,600 1.40 
2020 JUUL changes in fair value(100)(0.05)
2020 ABI-related special items603 0.32 
2020 Cronos-related special items53 0.03 
2020 COVID-19 special items37 0.02 
2020 Tax items50 0.03 
Subtotal 2020 special items3,650 1.96 
2021 NPM Adjustment Items57 0.03 
2021 Asset impairment, exit, implementation, acquisition and disposition-related costs(99)(0.05)
2021 Tobacco and health and certain other litigation items(138)(0.07)
2021 ABI-related special items(4,901)(2.66)
2021 Cronos-related special items(470)(0.25)
2021 Loss on early extinguishment of debt(496)(0.27)
2021 Tax items3  
Subtotal 2021 special items(6,044)(3.27)
Fewer shares outstanding 0.03 
Change in tax rate(33)(0.02)
Operations435 0.24 
For the year ended December 31, 2021$2,475 $1.34 
2021 Reported Net Earnings (Losses)$2,475 $1.34 
2020 Reported Net Earnings (Losses)$4,467 $2.40 
% Change(44.6)%(44.2)%
2021 Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Diluted EPS$8,519 $4.61 
2020 Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Diluted EPS$8,117 $4.36 
% Change5.0 %5.7 %
For a discussion of special items and other business drivers affecting the comparability of statements of earnings (losses) amounts and reconciliations of adjusted earnings attributable to Altria and adjusted diluted EPS attributable to Altria, see the Consolidated Operating Results section below.
Fewer Shares Outstanding: Fewer shares outstanding were due to shares repurchased by Altria under its share repurchase program in 2021.
Change in Tax Rate: The change in the tax rate (which excludes the impact of special items shown in the table above) was driven primarily by a higher foreign tax rate differential and higher state tax expense.
Operations: The increase of $435 million in operations (which excludes the impact of special items shown above) was due primarily to the following:
higher OCI from the smokeable products segment;
lower losses in the all other category (primarily driven by reductions in the estimated residual values of certain assets at PMCC in 2020);

18

favorable net periodic benefit income, excluding service cost; and
higher income from Altria’s equity investment in ABI.
For further details, see the Consolidated Operating Results and Operating Results by Business Segment sections below.
2022 Forecasted Results
Altria expects its 2022 full-year adjusted diluted EPS to be in a range of $4.79 to $4.93, representing a growth rate of 4% to 7% over its 2021 full-year adjusted diluted EPS of $4.61, as shown in the table below. Altria expects 2022 adjusted diluted EPS growth to be weighted toward the second half of the year. While the 2022 full-year adjusted diluted EPS guidance accounts for a range of scenarios, the external environment remains dynamic. Altria will continue to monitor conditions related to (i) the economy, including the impact of increased inflation, (ii) the impact of current and future COVID-19 variants and mitigation strategies, (iii) adult tobacco consumer dynamics, including tobacco usage occasions, available disposable income, purchasing patterns and adoption of smoke-free products and (iv) regulatory and legislative developments.
Altria’s 2022 full-year adjusted diluted EPS guidance range includes planned investments in support of its Vision, such as (i) costs to enhance its digital consumer engagement system, (ii) increased smoke-free product research, development and regulatory preparation expenses and (iii) marketplace activities in support of Altria’s smoke-free products. The guidance range also includes anticipated inflationary increases in MSA expenses and direct materials costs and Altria’s current expectation that PM USA will not have access to the IQOS system in 2022.
Altria expects its 2022 full-year adjusted effective tax rate will be in a range of 24.5% to 25.5%.
Reconciliation of 2021 Reported Diluted EPS to 2021 Adjusted Diluted EPS
2021 Reported diluted EPS$1.34
NPM Adjustment Items(0.03)
Asset impairment, exit, implementation, acquisition and disposition-related costs0.05
Tobacco and health and certain other litigation items0.07
ABI-related special items2.66
Cronos-related special items0.25
Loss on early extinguishment of debt0.27
2021 Adjusted diluted EPS$4.61
For a discussion of certain income and expense items excluded from the forecasted results above, see the Consolidated Operating Results section below.
Altria’s full-year adjusted diluted EPS forecast and full-year forecast for its adjusted effective tax rate exclude the impact of certain income and expense items, including those items noted in the Non-GAAP Financial Measures section below, that management believes are not part of underlying operations. Altria’s management cannot estimate on a forward-looking basis the impact of these items on its reported diluted EPS or its reported effective tax rate because these items, which could be significant, may be unusual or infrequent, are difficult to predict and may be highly variable. As a result, Altria does not provide a corresponding GAAP measure for, or reconciliation to, its adjusted diluted EPS forecast or its adjusted effective tax rate forecast.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
While Altria reports its financial results in accordance with GAAP, its management also reviews certain financial results, including OCI, OCI margins, net earnings (losses) attributable to Altria and diluted EPS, on an adjusted basis, which excludes certain income and expense items that management believes are not part of underlying operations. These items may include, for example, loss on early extinguishment of debt, restructuring charges, asset impairment charges, acquisition-related and disposition-related costs, COVID-19 special items, equity investment-related special items (including any changes in fair value of the equity investment and any related warrants and preemptive rights), certain tax items, charges associated with tobacco and health and certain other litigation items, and resolutions of certain non-participating manufacturer (“NPM”) adjustment disputes under the MSA (such dispute resolutions are referred to as “NPM Adjustment Items”). Altria’s management does not view any of these special items to be part of Altria’s underlying results as they may be highly variable, may be unusual or infrequent, are difficult to predict and can distort underlying business trends and results. Altria’s management also reviews income tax rates on an adjusted basis. Altria’s adjusted effective tax rate may exclude certain tax items from its reported effective tax rate.
Altria’s management believes that adjusted financial measures provide useful additional insight into underlying business trends and results, and provide a more meaningful comparison of year-over-year results. Adjusted financial measures are used by management and regularly provided to Altria’s chief operating decision maker (the “CODM”) for planning, forecasting and evaluating business and financial performance, including allocating resources and evaluating results relative to employee compensation targets. These adjusted financial measures are not required by, or calculated in accordance with GAAP and may not be calculated the same as similarly titled

19

measures used by other companies. These adjusted financial measures should thus be considered as supplemental in nature and not considered in isolation or as a substitute for the related financial information prepared in accordance with GAAP.
Discussion and Analysis
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Note 2 includes a summary of the significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated financial statements. In most instances, Altria Group, Inc. must use an accounting policy or method because it is the only policy or method permitted under U.S. GAAP.
The preparation of financial statements includes the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts
of net revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. If actual amounts are ultimately different from previous estimates, the revisions are included in Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated results of operations for the period in which the actual amounts become known. Historically, the aggregate differences, if any, between Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s estimates and actual amounts in any year have not had a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.
The following is a review of the more significant assumptions and estimates, as well as the accounting policies and methods, used in the preparation of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated financial statements:
Consolidation: The consolidated financial statementsRevenue Recognition: Altria’s businesses generate substantially all of their revenue from sales contracts with customers. Net revenues are defined as revenues, which include Altria Group, Inc., as well as its wholly-ownedexcise taxes and majority-owned subsidiaries. Investments in which Altria Group, Inc. has the ability to exercise significant influence are accounted for under the equity method of accounting. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.
Revenue Recognition: Altria Group, Inc.’s businesses recognize revenues, net of sales incentives and sales returns, and including shipping and handling charges billed to customers, upon shipmentnet of goods when titlecash discounts for prompt payment, sales returns (also referred to as returned goods) and risksales incentives. Altria’s businesses exclude from the transaction price sales taxes and value-added taxes imposed at the time of loss passsale.
Altria’s businesses record sales incentives, which consist of consumer incentives and trade promotion activities, as a reduction to customers. Payments receivedrevenues (a portion of which is based on amounts estimated as being due to wholesalers, retailers and consumers at the end of a period) based principally on historical volume, utilization and redemption rates. Expected payments for sales incentives are included in advance of revenue recognition are deferred and recordedaccrued marketing liabilities on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets.
For further discussion, see Note 3. Revenues from Contracts with Customers to the consolidated financial statements in other accrued liabilities until revenue is recognized. Altria Group, Inc.’s businesses also include excise taxes billed to customers in net revenues. Shipping and handling costs are classified as part of cost of sales.Item 8.
Depreciation, Amortization, Impairment Testing and Asset Valuation: Altria Group, Inc. depreciates property, plant and equipment and amortizes its definite-lived intangible assets using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. Machinery and equipment are depreciated over periods up to 25 years, and buildings and building improvements over periods up to 50 years. Definite-lived intangible assets are amortized over their estimated useful lives up to 25 years.
Altria Group, Inc. reviews long-lived assets, including definite-lived intangible assets, for impairment whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be fully recoverable. Altria Group, Inc. performs undiscounted operating cash flow analyses to determine if an impairment exists. These analyses are affected by general economic conditions and projected growth rates. For purposes of recognition and measurement of an impairment for assets held for use, Altria Group, Inc. groups assets and liabilities at the lowest level for which cash flows are separately identifiable. If Altria determines that an impairment is determined to exist,exists, any related impairment loss is calculated based on fair value. Impairment losses on assets to be disposed of, if any, are based on the estimated proceeds to be received, less costs of disposal. Altria Group, Inc. also reviews the estimated remaining useful lives of long-lived assets whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate the lives may have changed.


16


Substantially all of the goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets recorded by Altria Group, Inc. at December 31, 2017 relate to the acquisitions of Nat Sherman in 2017, Green Smoke in 2014, UST in 2009 and Middleton in 2007. Altria Group, Inc. conducts a required annual review of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for potential impairment, and more frequently if an event occurs or circumstances change that would require Altria Group, Inc. to perform an interim review. Altria has the option of first performing a qualitative assessment to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit or indefinite-lived intangible asset is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform a quantitative impairment test. If necessary, Altria will perform a single step quantitative impairment test. Additionally, Altria has the option to unconditionally bypass the qualitative assessment and perform a single step quantitative assessment. If the carrying value of a reporting unit that includes goodwill exceeds its fair value, which is determined using discounted cash flows, goodwill is considered impaired. The amount of impairment loss is measured as the difference between the carrying value and the implied fair value.value of a reporting unit, but is limited to the total amount of goodwill allocated to a reporting unit. If the carrying value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset exceeds its fair value, which is determined using discounted cash flows, the indefinite-lived intangible asset is considered impaired and is reduced to fair value. For substantially all goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets,value in the fair values are determined using discounted cash flows.period identified.

20

Goodwill by reporting unit and indefinite-lived intangible assets at December 31, 20172021 were as follows:
(in millions)GoodwillIndefinite-Lived
Intangible Assets
Cigarettes$22 $2 
MST and snus products5,023 8,801 
Cigars77 2,640 
Oral nicotine pouches55  
Total$5,177 $11,443 
(in millions)Goodwill
 
Indefinite-Lived
Intangible Assets

Cigarettes$22
 $172
Smokeless products5,023
 8,801
Cigars77
 2,640
Wine74
 287
E-vapor111
 31
Other
 194
Total$5,307
 $12,125
During 2017, 2016 and 2015,2021, Altria Group, Inc. completed its quantitative annual impairment test of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets performed as of October 1, 2021 and the results of this testing were as follows:
no impairment charges resulted. At December 31, 2017, were recorded; and
the estimated fair values of all reporting units and the indefinite-lived intangible assets within thoseall reporting units substantially exceeded their carrying values, exceptvalues.
During 2020, Altria’s quantitative annual impairment test of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets resulted in no impairment charges. For further discussion on goodwill, see Note 4. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, net to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 4”).
In 2021, Altria elected to perform a qualitative assessment for the Columbia Crest trademark withincertain of its reporting units and indefinite-lived intangible assets. This qualitative assessment included the wine reporting unit. At December 31, 2017,review of certain macroeconomic factors and entity-specific qualitative factors to determine if it was more likely than not that the fair valuevalues of its reporting units were below carrying value. For certain of its other reporting units and indefinite-lived intangible assets, Altria elected to unconditionally bypass the Columbia Crest trademark exceeded its book value of $54 million by approximately 9%. Results for Columbia Crest in 2017 were negatively impacted by increased competitive activityqualitative assessment and continued trade inventory reductions.
In 2017,perform a single step quantitative assessment. Altria Group, Inc. used an income approach to estimate the fair values of substantially all of its reporting units and indefinite-lived intangible assets. The income approach reflects the discounting of expected future cash flows to their present value at a rate of return that incorporates the risk-free rate for the use of those funds, the expected rate of inflation and the risks associated with realizing expected future cash flows. The weighted-average discount rate used in performing the valuations was approximately 9%10%.
In performing the 20172021 discounted cash flow analysis, Altria Group, Inc. made various judgments, estimates and assumptions, the most significant of which were volume, income, growth rates and discount rates. The analysis incorporated assumptions used in Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s long-term financial forecast, which is used by Altria Group, Inc.’s
Altria’s management to evaluate business and financial performance, including allocating resources and evaluating results relative to setting employee compensation targets. The assumptions incorporated the highest and best use of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s indefinite-lived intangible assets and also included perpetual growth rates for periods beyond the long-term financial forecast. The perpetual growth rate used in performing all of the valuations was 2%. Fair value calculations are sensitive to changes in these estimates and assumptions, some of which relate to broader macroeconomic conditions outside of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s control.
Although Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s discounted cash flow analysis is based on assumptions that are considered reasonable and based on the best available information at the time that the discounted cash flow analysis is developed, there is significant judgment used in determining future cash flows. The following factors have the most potential to impact expected future cash flows and, therefore, Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s impairment conclusions: general economic conditions;conditions (such as continued uncertainty from the COVID-19 pandemic); federal, state and local regulatory developments; category growth rates; consumer preferences; success of planned new product expansions; competitive activity; and income and tobacco-relatedexcise taxes. For further discussion of these factors, see Operating Results by Business Segment - Tobacco Space - Business Environmentbelow.
While Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s management believes that the estimated fair values of each reporting unit and indefinite-lived intangible asset at December 31, 2021 are reasonable, actual performance in the short-term or long-term could be significantly different from forecasted performance, which could result in impairment charges in future periods.
For additional information onfurther discussion of goodwill and other intangible assets, see Note 3.4.
Investments in Equity Securities: Altria reviews its equity investments accounted for under the equity method of accounting (ABI and Cronos) for impairment by comparing the fair value of each of its investments to their carrying value. If the carrying value of an investment exceeds its fair value and the loss in value is other than temporary, the investment is considered impaired and reduced to fair value, and the impairment is recognized in the period identified. The factors used to make this determination include the duration and magnitude of the fair value decline, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee, and Altria’s intent and ability to hold its investment until recovery.
Following Share Conversion (as defined in Note 6) in the fourth quarter of 2020, Altria elected to account for its equity investment in JUUL under the fair value option. Under this option, any cash dividends received and any changes in the fair value of the equity investment in JUUL, which is calculated quarterly using level 3 fair value measurements, are included in (income) losses from equity investments in the consolidated statements of earnings (losses).

21

Investment in ABI
At December 31, 2021, Altria’s investment in ABI consisted of 185 million restricted shares of ABI (the “Restricted Shares”) and 12 million ordinary shares of ABI. The fair value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI is based on: (i) unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for ABI’s ordinary shares and was classified in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy and (ii) observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets for the Restricted Shares, and was classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Altria can convert its Restricted Shares to ordinary shares at its discretion. Therefore, the fair value of each Restricted Share is based on the value of an ordinary share.
The fair value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI at December 31, 2021 and 2020 was $11.9 billion (carrying value of $11.1 billion) and $13.8 billion (carrying value of $16.7 billion), respectively, which was above its carrying value by approximately 7% at December 31, 2021, and less than its carrying value by approximately 17% at December 31, 2020.
In October 2019, the fair value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI declined below its carrying value and at September 30, 2021 had not recovered. In preparing its financial statements for the period ended September 30, 2021, Altria evaluated the factors related to the fair value decline, including the impact on the fair value of ABI’s shares during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has negatively impacted ABI’s business. Altria evaluated the duration and magnitude of the fair value decline at September 30, 2021, ABI’s financial condition and near-term prospects, and Altria’s intent and ability to hold its investment in ABI until recovery. Altria concluded that the decline in fair value of its investment in ABI at September 30, 2021 was other than temporary. As a result, Altria recorded a non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge of $6.2 billion during the third quarter of 2021, which was recorded to (income) losses from equity investments in its condensed consolidated statements of earnings (losses). This impairment charge reflected the difference between the fair value using ABI’s share price at September 30, 2021 and the carrying value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI at September 30, 2021, prior to recording the impairment charge. This conclusion was based on the following factors:
the fair value of Altria’s investment in ABI had been below its carrying value since October 2019 and had not fully recovered. At its lowest point in March 2020, the fair value of Altria’s investment in ABI was below its carrying value by approximately 52% and at December 31, 2020 had recovered to approximately 17% below its carrying value. During the first nine months of 2021, ABI’s share price continued to fluctuate, ultimately resulting in a share price decline of 18% since December 31, 2020. At September 30, 2021, prior to recording the impairment charge, the fair value of Altria’s investment in ABI was below its carrying value by approximately 35%;
the fair value of Altria’s investment in ABI historically exceeded its carrying value since October 2016 (when Altria obtained its ownership interest in ABI) with the exception of certain periods starting in September 2018 and since October 2019. Altria was optimistic about a near-term recovery because ABI’s share price demonstrated significant recovery, including during 2019, the second half of 2020 and the first half of 2021. However, during the third quarter of 2021, the decline in ABI’s share price resumed and, at September 30, 2021, the share price was lower than at December 31, 2020, erasing much of the recovery experienced in the second half of 2020 and first half of 2021;
ABI’s share price continued to decline following the release of ABI’s second quarter of 2021 earnings report in which ABI’s performance in the first half of 2021 improved meaningfully versus the same period in 2020. Despite ABI’s second quarter of 2021 results, which also included top-line growth ahead of the pre-pandemic levels from the second quarter of 2019 as well as the reaffirmation of its 2021 outlook, ABI’s income growth was impacted by, among other things, transactional foreign exchange and commodity cost headwinds; and
the industry disruption and volatility associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, including the impact of COVID-19 variants and related cost headwinds, have continued. While Altria continues to believe that ABI’s share price performance is not reflective of its underlying long-term equity value, and ABI’s share price will recover, Altria determined that it will take longer than previously expected as Altria believes that COVID-19 variants, supply-chain constraints across certain markets, transactional foreign exchange and commodity cost headwinds may continue to impact ABI’s near-term financial results and share price performance.
Although Altria recorded an impairment charge on its investment in ABI during the third quarter of 2021, Altria continues to have confidence in ABI’s (i) long-term strategies, (ii) premium global brands, (iii) experienced management team and (iv) capability to successfully navigate its near-term challenges. While Altria considers the impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic that have negatively impacted ABI’s global business to be transitory, Altria determined, as of the third quarter of 2021, that the full recovery to carrying value would take longer than previously expected.
At February 22, 2022, the fair value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI was $12.2 billion, which exceeded its carrying value by approximately 9%. Altria will continue to monitor its investment in ABI, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recovery on ABI’s business and market valuation.

22

Investment in JUUL
At December 31, 2021, the estimated fair value of Altria’s investment in JUUL was $1.7 billion, unchanged from December 31, 2020, as Altria’s projections of lower JUUL revenues in the United States over time due to lower JUUL volume assumptions were offset by (i) the effect of passage of time on the projected cash flows and (ii) a decrease in the discount rate due to change in market factors.
Altria uses an income approach to estimate the fair value of its investment in JUUL. The income approach reflects the discounting of future cash flows for the United States and international markets at a rate of return that incorporates the risk-free rate for the use of those funds, the expected rate of inflation and the risks associated with realizing future cash flows. Future cash flows are based on a range of scenarios that consider various potential regulatory and market outcomes.
In determining the fair value of its investment in JUUL in 2021, Altria made various judgments, estimates and assumptions, the most significant of which were sales volume, operating margins, discount rates and perpetual growth rates. All significant inputs used in the valuation are classified in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The discount rates used in performing the valuations ranged from 17.0% to 19.0% at December 31, 2021. The perpetual growth rates used in performing each valuation ranged from (0.5%) to 0.0%. Additionally in determining these significant assumptions, Altria made judgments regarding the: (i) likelihood and extent of various potential regulatory actions and the continued adverse public perception impacting the e-vapor category and specifically JUUL; (ii) risk created by the number and types of legal cases pending against JUUL; (iii) expectations for the future state of the e-vapor category including competitive dynamics; and (iv) timing of international expansion plans.
Although Altria’s discounted cash flow analyses were based on assumptions that Altria’s management considered reasonable and were based on the best available information at the time that the analyses were developed, there is significant judgment used in determining future cash flows. If the following factors, in isolation, significantly deviate from current expectations, Altria believes that they have the potential to materially impact Altria’s significant assumptions of sales volume, operating margins, discount rate, and perpetual growth rate, thus potentially materially decreasing Altria’s valuation of its investment in JUUL:
adverse developments related to litigation;
a successful challenge by the FTC in its administrative complaint against Altria and JUUL, for a further discussion, see Item 3 and Note 18;
a substantial increase in state and federal e-vapor excise taxes;
adverse publicity due to underage use of e-vapor products and other factors;
supply chain constraints and component part shortages, if not transitory;
unanticipated adverse impacts on JUUL’s relationships with employees, customers, suppliers and other third parties;
unfavorable financial and market performance, including substantial changes in competitive dynamics;
delay in timing of international expansion plans;
disruption in JUUL’s current and future plans or operations in domestic and international markets; and
unfavorable regulatory and legislative developments at the international, federal, state and local levels such as the potential removal of certain e-vapor products from the market as a result of FDA enforcement action or the potential denial of new tobacco product applications for e-vapor products.
If the following factors, in isolation, significantly deviate from current expectations, Altria believes that they have the potential to materially impact Altria’s significant assumptions of sales volume, operating margins, discount rate, and perpetual growth rate, thus potentially materially increasing Altria’s valuation of its investment in JUUL:
favorable developments related to litigation;
favorable financial and market performance, including substantial changes in competitive dynamics;
improvement of public perception around JUUL and the e-vapor category; and
favorable regulatory and legislative developments at the international, federal, state and local levels such as FDA authorization of future tobacco product applications for JUUL flavored e-vapor products, which are currently not permitted in the market without authorization.
While Altria’s management believes that the recorded value of its investment in JUUL at December 31, 2021 represents its best estimate of the fair value of the investment, JUUL’s actual performance in the short term or long term could be significantly different from forecasted performance due to changes in the factors noted above. Additionally, the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL could be significantly impacted by changes in the discount rate, which could be caused by numerous factors, including changes in market inputs, as well as risks specific to JUUL and its litigation environment.
Investment in Cronos
The fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos is based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for Cronos’s common shares and was classified in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. The fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos

23

at December 31, 2020 was $1.1 billion (carrying value of $1.0 billion), which exceeded its carrying value by approximately 8% at December 31, 2020.
In September 2021, the fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos declined below its carrying value (by approximately 2% as of September 30, 2021) and had not recovered as of December 31, 2021. Accounting guidance requires the evaluation of the following factors when determining if the decline in fair value is other than temporary: (i) the duration and magnitude of the fair value decline; (ii) the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee; and (iii) the investor’s intent and ability to hold its equity method investment until full recovery to its carrying value in the near-term. In preparing its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021, Altria evaluated these factors and determined that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the impairment was temporary. As a result, Altria recorded a non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge of $205 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, which was recorded to (income) losses from equity investments in its consolidated statement of earnings (losses). The impairment charge reflects the difference between the fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos using Cronos’s share price at December 31, 2021 and the carrying value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos at December 31, 2021. At December 31, 2021, prior to recording the impairment charge, the fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos was less than its carrying value by approximately 25%. After recording the impairment charge, the fair value and carrying value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos at December 31, 2021 were $617 million.
At February 22, 2022, the fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos was $524 million, which was less than its carrying value by approximately 15%. Altria will continue to assess the fair value of its equity method investment in Cronos to determine if any decline in fair value below its carrying value is other than temporary.
For further discussion of Altria’s investments in ABI, JUUL and Cronos, see Note 6.
Marketing Costs: Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s businesses promote their products with consumer incentives, trade promotions and consumer engagement programs,programs. These consumer incentivesincentive and trade promotions. Such programspromotion activities, which include discounts, coupons, rebates, in-store display incentives event marketing and volume-based incentives. Consumer engagement programsincentives, do not create a distinct deliverable and are, expensed as incurred. Consumer incentive and trade promotion activities aretherefore, recorded as a reduction of revenues, a portionrevenues. Consumer engagement program payments are made to third parties. Altria’s businesses expense these consumer engagement programs, which include event marketing, as incurred and such expenses are included in marketing, administration and research costs in Altria’s consolidated statements of which is based on amounts estimated as being due to wholesalers, retailers and consumers at the end of a period, based principally on historical volume, utilization and redemption rates.earnings (losses). For interim reporting purposes, Altria’s businesses charge consumer engagement programs and certain consumer incentive expenses are charged to operations as a percentage of sales, based on estimated sales and related expenses for the full year.
Contingencies:As discussed in Note 18 and Item 3, legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United StatesU.S. and foreign jurisdictions against Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including PM USA and UST and its subsidiaries, as well as their respective indemnitees.indemnitees and Altria’s investees. In 1998, PM USA and certain other U.S. tobacco product manufacturers entered into the 1998 Master Settlement


17


Agreement (the “MSA”)MSA with 46 states and various other governments and jurisdictions to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other U.S. tobacco product manufacturers had previously entered into agreements to settle similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). PM USA’s portion of ongoing adjusted payments and legal fees is based on its relative share of the settling manufacturers’ domestic cigarette shipments, including roll-your-own cigarettes, in the year preceding that in which the payment is due. In addition, PM USA, Middleton Nat Sherman and USSTC are subject to quarterly user fees imposed by the FDA as a result of the FSPTCA. Payments under the State Settlement Agreements and the FDA user fees are based on variable factors, such as volume, operating income, market share and inflation, depending on the subject payment. Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s subsidiaries account for the cost of the State Settlement Agreements and FDA user fees as a component of cost of sales. Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s subsidiaries recorded approximately $4.7 billion, $4.9$4.6 billion and $4.8$4.7 billion of charges to cost of sales for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021 and 2015,2020, respectively, in connection with the State Settlement Agreements and FDA user fees.
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they 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 in Note 18 and Item 3: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related cases;litigation; (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 tobacco-related cases;case; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. Litigation defense costs are expensed as incurred and included in marketing, administration and research costs in the consolidated statements of earnings.earnings (losses).
Employee Benefit Plans: As discussed in Note 16. Benefit Plans to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 16”), Altria Group, Inc. provides a range of benefits to itscertain employees and retired employees, including pension, postretirement health care and postemployment benefits. Altria Group, Inc. records annual amounts relating to these plans based on calculations specified by U.S. GAAP, which include various actuarial assumptions as to discount rates, assumed rates of return on plan assets, mortality, compensation increases, turnover rates and health care cost trend rates. Altria Group, Inc. reviews its actuarial assumptions on an annual basis and makes modifications to the assumptions based on current rates and trends when it is deemed appropriate to do so. Any effect of the modifications is generally amortized over future periods.
Altria Group, Inc. recognizes the funded status of its defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans on the consolidated balance sheet and records as a component of other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes, the gains or losses and prior service

24

costs or credits that have not been recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost.cost (income). The gains or losses and prior service costs or credits recorded as components of other comprehensive earnings (losses) are subsequently amortized into net periodic benefit cost (income) in future years.
At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc.’sDue to changes in market inputs, Altria’s discount rate assumptions for its pension and postretirement plans obligations decreased from 4.1%increased to 3.7%3.0% and 2.9%, respectively, at December 31, 2017.2021 from 2.7% and 2.6%, respectively, at December 31, 2020. Altria Group, Inc. presently anticipates an increase of approximately $30 million in its 2018net pre-tax pension and postretirement expenseincome of $103 million in 2022 versus 2017,net pre-tax income of $114 million in 2021, excluding amounts in each year related to termination, settlement and curtailment. This anticipated increasechange is due primarily to: (i) lower expected return on plan assets due to the change in the target asset allocation for its pension plan assets for 2022, which lowered the expected rate of return from 6.6% in 2021 to 6.1% in 2022; (ii) higher amortization of unrecognized losses,interest costs, driven by the impact of higher discount rates; and (iii) lower amortization of unrecognized losses, primarily driven by the impact of higher discount rates partially offset by the expected return on postretirement assets resulting from the December 2017 $270 million contributionand changes to fund certain postretirement benefits.mortality rate assumptions. Assuming no change to the shape of the yield curve, a 50 basis point decrease (increase) in Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s discount rates would increase Altria Group, Inc.��s(decrease) Altria’s pension and postretirement expense by approximately $53 million, and a 50 basis point increase in Altria Group, Inc.’s discount rates would decrease Altria Group, Inc.’s pension and postretirement expense by approximately $49$10 million. Similarly, a 50 basis point decrease (increase) in the expected return on plan assets would increase (decrease) Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s pension and postretirement expense by approximately $38$40 million. See
For additional information see Note 16 for a sensitivity discussion of16. Benefit Plans to the assumed health care cost trend rates.consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 16”).
Income Taxes: Significant judgment is required in determining income tax provisions and in evaluating tax positions. Altria Group, Inc.’s deferredDeferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities, using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. Altria Group, Inc. records a valuation allowance whendetermines the realizability of deferred tax assets based on the weight of available evidence, that it is more-likely-than-notmore likely than not that some portion or all of athe deferred tax asset will not be realized. In reaching this determination, Altria considers 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.
Altria Group, Inc. recognizes a benefit for uncertain tax positions when a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return is more-likely-than-notmore likely than not to be sustained upon examination by taxing authorities. The amount recognized is measured as the largest amount of benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement. Altria Group, Inc. recognizes accrued interest and penalties associated with uncertain tax positions as part of the provision for income taxes in its consolidated statements of earnings.earnings (losses).
Altria Group, Inc. recognized income tax benefits and charges in the consolidated statements of earnings (losses) during 2017, 20162021 and 20152020 as a result of various tax events, including the impact of the Tax Reform Act (as defined below).
events.


18


On December 22, 2017, the U.S. Government enacted comprehensive tax legislation commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Reform Act”). The main provisions of the Tax Reform Act that impact Altria Group, Inc. include: (i) a reduction in the U.S. federal statutory corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective January 1, 2018, and (ii) changes in the treatment of foreign-source income, commonly referred to as a modified territorial tax system.
The transition to a modified territorial tax system required Altria Group, Inc. to record a deemed repatriation tax and an associated tax basis benefit in 2017. The tax impact related to the tax basis benefit and the deemed repatriation tax was based on provisional estimates as of January 18, 2018, substantially all of which were related to Altria Group, Inc.’s share of AB InBev’s accumulated earnings and associated taxes. Altria Group, Inc. may be required to adjust these provisional estimates based on (i) additional guidance related to, or interpretation of, the Tax Reform Act and associated tax laws and (ii) additional information to be received from AB InBev, including information regarding AB InBev’s accumulated earnings and associated taxes for the 2016 and 2017 tax years. This additional guidance and information could result in increases or decreases to the provisional estimates, which may be significant in relation to these estimates. Altria Group, Inc. will record any such adjustments in 2018.
For additional information on income taxes, see Note 14.Income Taxes to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 14”).


25


Consolidated Operating Results
 For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Net Revenues:     
Smokeable products$22,636
 $22,851
 $22,792
Smokeless products2,155
 2,051
 1,879
Wine698
 746
 692
All other87
 96
 71
Net revenues$25,576
 $25,744
 $25,434
Excise Taxes on Products:     
Smokeable products$5,927
 $6,247
 $6,423
Smokeless products132
 135
 133
Wine23
 25
 24
Excise taxes on products$6,082
 $6,407
 $6,580
Operating Income:     
Operating companies income (loss):     
Smokeable products$8,408
 $7,768
 $7,569
Smokeless products1,300
 1,177
 1,108
Wine147
 164
 152
All other(51) (99) (169)
Amortization of intangibles(21) (21) (21)
General corporate expenses(227) (222) (237)
Reductions of PMI tax-related receivable
 
 (41)
Corporate asset impairment and exit costs
 (5) 
Operating income$9,556
 $8,762
 $8,361
 For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Net Revenues:
Smokeable products$22,866 $23,089 
Oral tobacco products2,608 2,533 
Wine494 614 
All other45 (83)
Net revenues$26,013 $26,153 
Excise Taxes on Products:
Smokeable products$4,754 $5,162 
Oral tobacco products132 130 
Wine14 19 
All other2 
Excise taxes on products$4,902 $5,312 
Operating Income:
OCI:
Smokeable products$10,394 $9,985 
Oral tobacco products1,659 1,718 
Wine21 (360)
All other(97)(172)
Amortization of intangibles(72)(72)
General corporate expenses(345)(227)
Corporate asset impairment and exit costs 
Operating income$11,560 $10,873 
As discussed further in Note 15, the CODM reviews operating companies incomeOCI to evaluate the performance of, and allocate resources to, the segments. Operating companies income for the segments is defined as operating income before general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles. Management believes it is appropriate to disclose this measure to help investors analyze the business performance and trends of the various business segments.

26

The following events that occurred during 2017, 2016table provides a reconciliation of adjusted net earnings attributable to Altria and 2015adjusted diluted EPS attributable to Altria for the years ended December 31:
(in millions of dollars, except per share data)Earnings (Losses) before Income TaxesProvision for Income TaxesNet Earnings (Losses)Net Earnings (Losses) Attributable
to Altria
Diluted EPS
2021 Reported$3,824 $1,349 $2,475 $2,475 $1.34 
NPM Adjustment Items(76)(19)(57)(57)(0.03)
Asset impairment, exit, implementation, acquisition and disposition-related costs120 21 99 99 0.05 
Tobacco and health and certain other litigation items
182 44 138 138 0.07 
ABI-related special items6,203 1,302 4,901 4,901 2.66 
Cronos-related special items466 (4)470 470 0.25 
Loss on early extinguishment of debt649 153 496 496 0.27 
Tax items 3 (3)(3) 
2021 Adjusted for Special Items$11,368 $2,849 $8,519 $8,519 $4.61 
2020 Reported$6,890 $2,436 $4,454 $4,467 $2.40 
NPM Adjustment Items— 
Asset impairment, exit, implementation, acquisition and disposition-related costs431 89 342 342 0.18 
Tobacco and health and certain other litigation items83 21 62 62 0.03 
Impairment of JUUL equity securities2,600 — 2,600 2,600 1.40 
JUUL changes in fair value(100)— (100)(100)(0.05)
ABI-related special items763 160 603 603 0.32 
Cronos-related special items51 (2)53 53 0.03 
COVID-19 special items50 13 37 37 0.02 
Tax items— (50)50 50 0.03 
2020 Adjusted for Special Items$10,772 $2,668 $8,104 $8,117 $4.36 
The following special items affected the comparability of statementstatements of earnings (losses) amounts.
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller Business Combination: For the year ended December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax gains of $445 million related to the planned completion of the remaining AB InBev divestitures of certain SABMiller assets and businesses in connection with Legacy AB InBev obtaining necessary regulatory clearances for the Transaction. As a result of the Transaction, for the year ended December 31, 2016, Altria Group, Inc. recorded a pre-tax gain of approximately $13.9 billion. For further discussion, see Note 6.
NPM Adjustment Items:For a discussion of NPM Adjustment Items and a breakdown of these items by segment, see Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation in Note 18 and NPM Adjustment Items in Note 15, respectively.
Asset Impairment, Exit, Implementation, Acquisition and Disposition-Related Costs: For the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021 and 2015,2020, Altria recorded pre-tax expense (income) for NPM Adjustment Items was recorded in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statements of earnings as follows:
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Smokeable products segment$(5) $12
 $(97)
Interest and other debt expense, net9
 6
 13
Total$4
 $18
 $(84)
The amounts shown in the table above for the smokeable products segment were recorded by PM USA as increases (reductions) toasset impairment, exit and implementation costs of sales, which decreased (increased) operating companies income in the smokeable products segment.$1 million and $407 million, respectively. For further discussion see Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation - NPM Adjustment Disputes in Note 18.
Tobacco and Health Litigation Items: For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, pre-tax charges related to certain tobacco and health litigations items were recorded in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statements of earnings as follows:
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Smokeable products segment$72
 $88
 $127
Interest and other debt expense, net8
 17
 23
Total$80
 $105
 $150
During 2017, PM USA recorded pre-tax charges of $72 million in marketing, administration and research costs and $8 million in interest costs, substantially all of which related to 11 Engle progeny cases.
During 2016, PM USA recorded pre-tax charges of $88 million in marketing, administration and research costs, primarily


19


related to settlements in the Miner and Aspinall cases totaling approximately $67 million and $16 million related to a judgment in the Merino case. In addition, during 2016, PM USA recorded $17 million in interest costs primarily related to Aspinall.
During 2015, PM USA recorded pre-tax charges in marketing, administration and research costs in seven state Engle progeny cases and Schwarz of $59 million and $25 million, respectively, as well as $14 million and $9 million, respectively, in interest costs related to these cases. Additionally in 2015, PM USA and certain other cigarette manufacturers reached an agreement to resolve approximately 415 pending federal Engle progeny cases. As a result of the agreement, PM USA recorded a pre-tax provision of approximately $43 million in marketing, administration and research costs.
For further discussion, see Note 18.
Settlement for Lump Sum Pension Payments: In the third quarter of 2017, Altria Group, Inc. made a voluntary, limited-time offer to former employees with vested benefits in the Altria Retirement Plan who had not commenced receiving benefit payments and who met certain other conditions. Eligible participants were offered the opportunity to make a one-time election to receive their pension benefit as a single lump sum payment or as a monthly annuity. As a result of the 2017 lump sum distributions, a one-time pre-tax settlement charge of $81 million was recorded in 2017 in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statement of earnings as follows:
For the Year Ended December 31, 2017
(in millions)Cost of Sales
 Marketing, Administration and Research Costs
 Total
Smokeable products$39
 $18
 $57
Smokeless products
 16
 16
General corporate and other
 8
 8
Total$39
 $42
 $81
For further discussion, see Note 16.
Asset Impairment, Exit, Implementation, Integration and Acquisition-Related Costs: Pre-tax asset impairment, exit, implementation, integration and acquisition-related costs for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 were $89 million, $206 million and $11 million, respectively.
In October 2016, Altria Group, Inc. announced the consolidation of certain of its operating companies’ manufacturing facilities to streamline operations and achieve greater efficiencies. The consolidation is expected to be substantially completed by the end of the first quarter of 2018 and deliver approximately $50 million in annualized cost savings by the end of 2018.
As a result of the consolidation, Altria Group, Inc. expects to record total pre-tax charges of approximately $150 million, or $0.05 per share. Of this amount, during 2017, Altria Group, Inc.
recorded pre-tax charges of $78 million and, in 2016, recorded $71 million.
In January 2016, Altria Group, Inc. announced a productivity initiative designed to maintain its operating companies’ leadership and cost competitiveness. The initiative, which reduces spending on certain selling, general and administrative infrastructure and implements a leaner organizational structure, delivered Altria Group, Inc.’s goal of approximately $300 million in annualized productivity savings as of December 31, 2017. As a result of the initiative, during 2016, Altria Group, Inc. incurred total pre-tax restructuring charges of $132 million. Total pre-tax charges related to the initiative have been completed.
For further discussion on asset impairment, exit and implementation costs, including a breakdown of these costs by segment, see Note 4.5. Asset Impairment, Exit and Implementation Costs to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 5”).
For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, Altria also recorded pre-tax acquisition and disposition-related costs of $119 million and $24 million, respectively. The 2021 costs included a net pre-tax charge of $51 million related to the Ste. Michelle Transaction and $37 million for the settlement of an arbitration related to the 2019 on! transaction. For further discussion of these acquisition and disposition-related costs, see Note 15.
Tobacco and Health and Certain Other Litigation Items: For a discussion of tobacco and health and certain other litigation items and a breakdown of these costs by segment, see Note 18 and Tobacco and Health and Certain Other Litigation Items in Note 15, respectively.
Impairment of JUUL Equity Securities: For the year ended December 31, 2020, Altria recorded a non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge of $2,600 million, reported as impairment of JUUL equity securities in its consolidated statements of earnings (losses). A full tax valuation allowance was recorded in 2020 attributable to the tax benefit associated with the impairment charge. For further discussion, see Note 6 and Note 14.
JUUL Changes in Fair Value: For the year ended December 31, 2021, there was no change in the estimated fair value of Altria’s investment in JUUL. For the year ended December 31, 2020, Altria recorded a non-cash, pre-tax unrealized gain of $100 million, reported as (income) losses from equity investments in its consolidated statements of earnings (losses) as a result of an increase

27

in the estimated fair value of Altria’s investment in JUUL. A corresponding adjustment was made to the JUUL tax valuation allowance. For further discussion, see Note 6 and Note 14.
ABI-Related Special Items: Altria’s losses from its equity investment in ABI for the year ended December 31, 2021, included net pre-tax charges of $6,203 million, substantially all of which related to a non-cash impairment ($6,157 million) of Altria’s equity investment in ABI. For further discussion, see Note 6.
Altria’s losses from its equity investment in ABI for the year ended December 31, 2020 included net pre-tax charges of $763 million, consisting primarily of Altria’s share of ABI’s (i) mark-to-market losses on certain ABI financial instruments associated with its share commitments, (ii) completion of the sale of its Australia subsidiary and (iii) goodwill impairment charge associated with its Africa businesses.
These amounts include Altria’s respective share of the amounts recorded by ABI and additional adjustments related to (i) conversion from international financial reporting standards to GAAP and (ii) adjustments to Altria’s investment required under the equity method of accounting.
Cronos-Related Special Items: For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, Altria recorded net pre-tax (income) expense, consisting of the following:
(in millions)20212020
Loss on Cronos-related financial instruments (1)
$148 $140 
(Income) losses from equity investments (2)
318 (89)
Total Cronos-related special items - (income) expense$466 $51 
(1) Amounts are related to the non-cash change in the fair value of the warrant and certain anti-dilution protections (the “Fixed-price Preemptive Rights”) acquired in the Cronos transaction.
(2) Amounts include Altria’s share of special items recorded by Cronos and additional adjustments, if required under the equity method of accounting, related to Altria’s investment in Cronos including the $205 million non-cash, pre-tax impairment of Altria’s investment in Cronos in 2021, discussed above.
For further discussion, see Note 6 and Note 7. Financial Instruments to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8.
Loss on Early Extinguishment of Debt:During 2016 and 2015,2021, Altria Group, Inc.recorded pre-tax losses of $649 million as a result of the completed debt tender offers to purchase for cashand redemption of certain of itslong-term senior unsecured notes in aggregate principal amounts of $0.9 billion and $0.8 billion, respectively.
As a result of these debt tender offers, pre-tax losses on early extinguishment of debt were recorded as follows:
(in millions) 2016
 2015
Premiums and fees $809
 $226
Write-off of unamortized debt discounts and debt issuance costs 14
 2
Total $823
 $228
notes. For further discussion, see Note 9.Long-TermDebtto the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 9”).
AB InBev/SABMillerCOVID-19 Special Items: For the year ended December 31, 2020, Altria Group, Inc.’s earnings from its equity investment in AB InBev for 2017 includedrecorded net pre-taxcharges totaling $50 million directly related to disruptions caused by or efforts to mitigate the impact of $160 million, consisting primarilythe COVID-19 pandemic. For further discussion and a breakdown of these costs by segment, see Note 15.
Tax Items: For the year ended December 31, 2020, Altria Group, Inc.’s sharerecorded net tax expense of AB InBev’s Brazilian tax item and Altria Group, Inc.’s share of AB InBev’s mark-to-market losses on AB InBev’s derivative financial instruments used to hedge certain share commitments. Altria Group, Inc.’s earnings from its equity investment in SABMiller for 2016 included net pre-tax income of $89$50 million, due primarily to a pre-tax non-cash gainnet tax expense of $309$27 million reflecting Altria Group, Inc.’s share of SABMiller’s increase to shareholders’ equity,for adjustments resulting from the completion of the SABMiller, The Coca-Cola Companyamended returns and Gutsche Family Investments transaction, combining bottling operations in Africa, partially offset by Altria Group, Inc.’s share of SABMiller’s costsaudit adjustments related to the Transactionprior years, and asset impairment charges. Altria Group, Inc.’s earnings from its equity investment in SABMiller for 2015 included net pre-tax chargestax expense of $126 million, consisting primarily of Altria Group, Inc.’s share of SABMiller’s asset impairment charges.
Tax Items: Tax items for 2017 included net tax benefits of $3,367 million related to the Tax Reform Act recorded in the


20


fourth quarter of 2017 as follows: (i) a tax benefit of $3,017 million to re-measure Altria Group, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries’ net deferred tax liabilities based on the new U.S. federal statutory rate; and (ii) a net tax benefit of $763$23 million for a tax basis adjustment associated with the deemed repatriation tax, partially offset by tax expense of $413 million for the deemed repatriation tax. Additional tax items for 2017 included tax benefits for the release of a valuation allowance related to deferred income tax assets for foreign tax credit carryforwards; and tax benefits related primarily to the effective settlementAltria’s investment in 2017 of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) audit of Altria Group, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries’ 2010-2013 tax years (“IRS 2010-2013 Audit”), partially offset by tax expense for tax reserves related to the calculation of certain foreign tax credits. Tax items for 2016 primarily included the reversal of tax accruals no longer required. Tax items for 2015 primarily included the reversal of tax reserves and associated interest due primarily to the closure in August 2015 of the IRS audit of Altria Group, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries’ 2007-2009 tax years, partially offset by a reversal of foreign tax credits primarily associated with SABMiller dividends. For further discussion, see Note 14.ABI.
20172021 Compared with 2016
The following discussion compares consolidated operating results for the year ended December 31, 2017 with the year ended December 31, 2016.2020
Net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, decreased $168$140 million (0.7%(0.5%), due primarily to lower net revenues in the smokeable products and wine segments (resulting from the sale of the wine business in October 2021), partially offset by higher net revenues in the smokelessfinancial services business (primarily driven by reductions in the estimated residual values of certain assets at PMCC in 2020) and the oral tobacco products segment.
Cost of sales decreased $203$699 million (2.6%(8.9%), due primarily to changes in the wine segment, which included the inventory-related charges in 2020 (as discussed in Note 15) and the sale of the wine business in October 2021, lower shipment volume in the smokeable products segment, shipment volume,NPM Adjustment Items in 2021 and COVID-19 special items in 2020, partially offset by higher per unit settlement charges.charges, higher manufacturing costs and volume and mix in the oral tobacco products segment.
Excise taxes on products decreased $325$410 million (5.1%(7.7%), due primarily to lower smokeable products segment shipment volume.
Marketing, administration and research costs decreased $288 million (10.9%), due primarily to lower costsvolume in the smokeable products segment.
Marketing, administration and research costs increased $278 million (12.9%), due primarily to higher general corporate expenses (including an agreement to resolve a shareholder class action lawsuit in 2021 as discussed in Note 18), higher spending in the oral tobacco products (including higher acquisition-related costs as discussed in Note 15) and smokeable products segments and higher spending associated with the retail expansion of IQOS and Marlboro HeatSticks.
Operating income increased $794$687 million (9.1%(6.3%), due primarily to higher operating results fromin the smokeable products and smokelesswine segments and the all other category (primarily driven by reductions in the estimated residual value of certain assets at PMCC in 2020), partially offset by higher general corporate expenses and lower operating results in the oral tobacco products segments (which included lower asset impairment and exit costs).segment.
Interest and other debt expense, net, decreased $42

28

Net periodic benefit income, excluding service cost, increased by $125 million (5.6%(100.0%+), due primarily to lower interest costs on debtcost resulting from a decrease in 2017 as a result of debt refinancing activities in 2016discount rates and higher interest income dueamendments to higher interest rates in 2017.Altria’s salaried retiree healthcare plans during 2021. For further discussion, see Note 16.
Earnings(Income) losses from Altria Group, Inc.’s equity investment in AB InBev/SABMiller,investments, which decreased $263$5,868 million (33.1%(100.0%+), were negatively impacted by AB InBev/SABMiller special items.
Altria Group, Inc.’s effective income tax rate decreased 38.9 percentage points to an effective income tax benefit rate of 4.1%, substantially all of which ishigher losses from Altria’s equity investment in ABI (primarily due to the Tax Reform Act. For further discussion, see Note 14.
non-cash impairment of Altria’s equity investment in ABI in 2021 discussed above), unfavorable Cronos special items (as discussed above) and a non-cash, unrealized gain resulting from an increase in the estimated fair value of Altria’s investment in JUUL in 2020.
NetReported net earnings (losses) attributable to Altria Group, Inc. of $10,222$2,475 million decreased $4,017$1,992 million (28.2%(44.6%), due primarily to a lower gain onhigher net losses from Altria’s equity investments and the Transaction in 2017 and lower earnings from Altria Group, Inc.’s equity investment in AB InBev/SABMiller, partially offset by a lower effective income tax rate, a loss on early extinguishment of debt, in 2016 andpartially offset by the 2020 impairment of JUUL equity securities, higher operating income. Dilutedincome and favorable net periodic benefit income, excluding service cost. Reported basic and diluted EPS attributable to Altria Group, Inc. of $5.31,$1.34, each decreased by 27.1% 44.2%,due to lower reported net earnings (losses) attributable to Altria, Group, Inc., partially offset by fewer shares outstanding.
2016 Compared with 2015
The following discussion compares consolidated operating results for the year ended December 31, 2016 with the year ended December 31, 2015.
Net revenues, which include excise taxes billedAdjusted net earnings attributable to customers,Altria of $8,519 million increased $310$402 million (1.2%(5.0%), due primarily to higher net revenues in the smokeless products, smokeable products and wine segments.
Cost of sales was essentially unchanged as higher per unit settlement charges and NPM Adjustment Items in 2015 were offset by lower shipment volume and lower pension and benefit costs in the smokeable products segment.
Excise taxes on products decreased $173 million (2.6%), due primarily to lower smokeable products shipment volume.
Marketing, administration and research costs decreased $58 million (2.1%), due primarily to lower costs in the smokeable products segment (which includedOCI, favorable net periodic benefit income, excluding service cost, higher income from Altria’s investment in ABI and lower tobacco and health litigation items), partially offset by higher costslosses in the smokeless products segment.
Operating income increased $401 million (4.8%), due primarily to higher operating results from the smokeable products and smokeless products segments (which included asset impairment, exit and implementation costs in connection with the facilities consolidation and productivity initiative in 2016), lower investment spendingall other category (primarily driven by reductions in the innovative tobacco products businesses, a reductionestimated residual values of a PMI tax-related receivablecertain assets at PMCC in 2015 and higher operating results from the financial services business.
Interest and other debt expense, net, decreased $70 million (8.6%)2020), due primarily to lower interest costs on debt as a result of a debt maturity in 2015 and debt tender offers in 2016 and 2015.
Earnings from Altria Group, Inc.’s equity investment in SABMiller, which increased $38 million (5.0%), were positively impacted by SABMiller special items, mostly offset by three fewer months of SABMiller’s earnings in 2016 versus 2015, as a result of the timing of the completion of the Transaction.
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc. of $14,239 million increased $8,998 million (171.7%), due primarily to the gain on the Transaction, higher operating income and lower interest and other debt expense, partially offset by a higher loss on early extinguishment of debt. Diluted and basicincome tax rate. Adjusted diluted EPS attributable to Altria Group, Inc. of $7.28, each$4.61 increased by


21


172.7% 5.7%, due to higher adjusted net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc. and fewer shares outstanding.
Operating Results by Business Segment
Tobacco Space
Business Environment
Summary
The United StatesU.S. tobacco industry faces a number of business and legal challenges that have adversely affected and may adversely affect the business and sales volume of ourAltria’s tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies and ourinvestees and Altria’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.position or Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision. These challenges, some of which are discussed in more detail below, in Note 18, Item 1A and Item 3, include:
pending and threatened litigation and bonding requirements;
the requirement to issue “corrective statements” in various media in connection with the federal government’s lawsuit;
restrictions and requirements imposed by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“FSPTCA”), and restrictions and requirements (and related enforcement actions) that have been, and in the future will be, imposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”);
actual and proposed excise tax increases, as well as changes in tax structures and tax stamping requirements;
bans and restrictions on tobacco use imposed by governmental entities and private establishments and employers;
other federal, state and local government actions, including:
increases in the minimum age to purchase tobacco products above the current federal minimum age of 18;
restrictions on the sale of tobacco products by certain retail establishments, the sale of certain tobacco products with certain characterizing flavors (such as menthol) and the sale of tobacco products in certain package sizes;
additional restrictions on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products;
other actual and proposed tobacco product legislation and regulation; and
governmental investigations;
the diminishing prevalence of cigarette smoking and increased efforts by tobacco control advocates and others (including retail establishments) to further restrict tobacco use;
changes in adult tobacco consumer purchase behavior, which is influenced by various factors such as economic
pending and threatened litigation and bonding requirements;
restrictions and requirements imposed by the FSPTCA, and restrictions and requirements (and related enforcement actions) that have been, and in the future will be, imposed by the FDA;
actual and proposed excise tax increases, as well as changes in tax structures and tax stamping requirements;
bans and restrictions on tobacco use imposed by governmental entities and private establishments and employers;
other federal, state and local government actions, including:
restrictions on the sale of certain tobacco products, the sale of tobacco products by certain retail establishments, the sale of tobacco products with characterizing flavors and the sale of tobacco products in certain package sizes;
additional restrictions on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products;
other actual and proposed tobacco-related legislation and regulation; and
governmental investigations;
reductions in cigarette and MST consumption levels due to growth of innovative tobacco products;
increased efforts by tobacco control advocates and other private sector entities (including retail establishments) to further restrict the availability and use of tobacco products;
changes in adult tobacco consumer purchase behavior, which is influenced by various factors such as economic conditions (including inflation), excise taxes and price gap relationships, may result in adult tobacco consumers switching to discount products or other lower pricedlower-priced tobacco products;
the highly competitive nature of the tobacco categories in which our tobacco subsidiaries operate, including competitive disadvantages related to cigarette price increases attributable to the settlement of certain litigation;
illicit trade in tobacco products; and
potential adverse changes in tobacco leaf and other raw material prices, availability and quality.
the highly competitive nature of all tobacco categories, including competitive disadvantages related to cigarette price increases attributable to the settlement of certain litigation and the proliferation of innovative tobacco products, such as e-vapor and oral nicotine pouch products;
illicit trade in tobacco products;
potential adverse changes in prices, availability and quality of tobacco, other raw materials and component parts; and
the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition to and in connection with the foregoing, evolving adult tobacco consumer preferences pose challenges for Altria Group, Inc.’sare continuing to impact the tobacco subsidiaries. Ourindustry. Altria’s tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies believe that a significant number of adult tobacco consumers switch betweenamong tobacco

29

categories, use multiple forms of tobacco products and try innovative tobacco products, such as e-vapor products. The e-vapor category grew rapidly from 2012 through early 2015 off a small base, but then slowed. The growth trend resumed in 2017. Nu Mark believes the category willproducts and oral nicotine pouches. Adult smokers continue to be dynamic as adult tobacco consumers explore a varietytransition from cigarettes to exclusive use of smoke-free tobacco product options.alternatives, which aligns with Altria’s Vision.
Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies work to meet these evolving adult tobacco consumer preferences over time by developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing products both within and outside the United States through innovation and adjacencyother growth strategies (including, where appropriate, arrangements with, or investments in, third parties). See
Over the discussions regarding new product technologies, adjacencypast two years, the legislative and regulatory activities discussed below negatively impacted growth strategyin the e-vapor category. While these activities continue to impact the e-vapor category, the category experienced moderate growth in 2021 and evolving consumer preferences in Item1A for certain risks associated withremains competitive.
Oral nicotine pouch retail share of the foregoing discussion.total oral tobacco category grew significantly over the prior year from 8.4% during 2020 to 15.4% during 2021. The oral nicotine pouch category has become increasingly competitive.
We are monitoring the sale and continued introduction of unregulated synthetic nicotine products, which may lead to further competition for regulated tobacco products, including oral nicotine pouches and e-vapor products, and may result in underage use of these unregulated products if not marketed responsibly by manufacturers.
Altria and its tobacco operating companies believe the innovative tobacco products categories will continue to be dynamic due to competition, adult tobacco consumer exploration of a variety of tobacco product options, adult consumer perceptions of the relative risks of smoke-free products compared to cigarettes, FDA determinations on product applications and legislative actions.
For the year ended December 31, 2021, we estimate that, when adjusted for trade inventory movements, calendar differences and other factors, domestic cigarette industry volume declined by 5.5%. Altria expects 2022 cigarette industry volume trends to continue to be most influenced by (i) changes to adult smoker stay-at-home practices, disposable income, purchasing patterns and adoption of smoke-free products, (ii) economic conditions (including unemployment rates, the impact of increased inflation and gasoline prices), (iii) fiscal stimulus, (iv) cross-category movement, (v) the timing and extent of COVID-19 vaccine administration and the impact of COVID-19 variants, and (vi) regulatory and legislative (including excise tax) developments.
Economic conditions (including a high inflationary environment) can also impact adult tobacco consumer purchasing behavior. For example, economic downturns have provided additional detail onresulted in adult tobacco consumers choosing discount products and other lower priced tobacco products. Although the following topics below:economic impact resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic did not meaningfully increase the growth of discount and lower priced tobacco products throughout much of the pandemic, in part due to stimulus payments, discount cigarette products resumed share growth in the second half of 2021 driven primarily by deep discount products. Share gains for discount cigarette products typically coincide with rising gas prices, higher inflation and increased consumer mobility. We expect fluctuations in discount cigarette product segment share to continue as price sensitive adult tobacco consumers react to economic conditions in the current high inflationary environment.
FSPTCA and FDA Regulation;
Excise Taxes;
International Treaty on Tobacco Control;
State Settlement Agreements;
Other Federal, State and Local Regulation and Activity;
Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products;
Price, Availability and Quality of Agricultural Products; and
Timing of Sales.
FSPTCA and FDA Regulation
The Regulatory Framework:The FSPTCA, expressly establishes certainits implementing regulations and its 2016 deeming regulations establish broad FDA regulatory authority over all tobacco products and, among other provisions:
impose restrictions and prohibitions on our tobacco businesses and authorizes or requires further FDA action. Under the FSPTCA, the FDA has broad authority to (1) regulate the design, manufacture, packaging, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of tobacco products; (2) require disclosuresproducts (see Final Tobacco Marketing Rule below);
establish pre-market review pathways for new and modified tobacco products (see Pre-Market Review Pathways for Tobacco Products and Market Authorization Enforcement below);
prohibit any express or implied claims that a tobacco product is or may be less harmful than other tobacco products without FDA authorization;
authorize the FDA to impose tobacco product standards that are appropriate for the protection of related information;the public health; and (3) enforce
equip the FDA with a variety of investigatory and enforcement tools, including the authority to inspect product manufacturing and other facilities.
The FSPTCA also bans descriptors such as “light,” “low” or “mild” when used as descriptors of modified risk, unless expressly authorized by the FDA. In connection with a 2016 lawsuit initiated by Middleton, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the FDA, informed Middleton that the FDA does not intend to bring an enforcement action against Middleton for the use of the term “mild” in the trademark “Black & Mild.” Consequently, Middleton dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice. If the FDA were to change its position at some later date, Middleton would have the opportunity to bring another lawsuit.
Final Tobacco Marketing Rule: As required by the FSPTCA, in March 2010, the FDA promulgated a wide range of advertising and related regulations.promotion restrictions for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco(1) products (the “Final Tobacco Marketing Rule”). The FSPTCA went intoMay
(1)“Smokeless tobacco,” as used in this section of this Form 10-K, refers to smokeless tobacco products first regulated by the FDA in 2009, including MST. It excludes oral nicotine pouches, which were first regulated by the FDA in 2016.

30

2016 deeming regulations amended the Final Tobacco Marketing Rule to expand specific provisions to all tobacco products, including cigars, pipe tobacco and e-vapor and oral nicotine products containing tobacco-derived nicotine or other tobacco derivatives, but do not include any component or part that is not made or derived from tobacco.
The Final Tobacco Marketing Rule, as amended, among other things:
restricts the use of non-tobacco trade and brand names on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products;
prohibits sampling of all tobacco products except that sampling of smokeless tobacco products is permitted in qualified adult-only facilities;
prohibits the sale or distribution of items such as hats and tee shirts with cigarette or smokeless tobacco brands or logos;
prohibits cigarettes and smokeless tobacco brand name sponsorship of any athletic, musical, artistic or other social or cultural event, or any entry or team in any event; and
requires the development by the FDA of graphic warnings for cigarettes, establishes warning requirements for other tobacco products, and gives the FDA the authority to require new warnings for any type of tobacco product (see FDA Regulatory Actions - Graphic Warnings below).
Subject to certain limitations arising from legal challenges, the Final Tobacco Marketing Rule took effect in 2009June 2010 for cigarettes cigarette tobacco and smokeless tobacco products and in August 2016 for


22


all other tobacco products, including cigars, e-vapor products, pipe tobacco and oral nicotine pouch products containing tobacco-derived nicotine products (“Other Tobacco Products”). See FDA Regulatory Actions - Deeming Regulations below.nicotine.
Among other measures, the FSPTCA or its implementing regulations:
imposes restrictions on the advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of tobacco products, including at retail;
bans descriptors such as “light,” “mild” or “low” or similar descriptors when used as descriptors of modified risk unless expressly authorized by the FDA;
requires extensive product disclosures to the FDA and may require public disclosures;
prohibits any express or implied claims that a tobacco product is or may be less harmful than other tobacco products without FDA authorization;
imposes reporting obligations relating to contraband activity and grants the FDA authority to impose recordkeeping and other obligations to address illicit trade in tobacco products;
changes the language of the cigarette and smokeless tobacco product health warnings, enlarges their size and requires the development by the FDA of graphic warnings for cigarettes, establishes warning requirements for Other Tobacco Products, and gives the FDA the authority to require new warnings for any type of tobacco products;
authorizes the FDA to adopt product regulations and related actions, including imposing tobacco product standards that are appropriate for the protection of the public health (e.g., related to the use of menthol in cigarettes, nicotine yields and other constituents or ingredients) and imposing manufacturing standards for tobacco products (see FDA’s Comprehensive Regulatory Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation, and FDA Regulatory Actions - Product Standards below);
establishes pre-market review pathways for new and modified tobacco products for the FDA to follow (see Pre-Market Review Pathways Including Substantial Equivalence below); and
equips the FDA with a variety of investigatory and enforcement tools, including the authority to inspect tobacco product manufacturing and other facilities.
Pre-Market Review Pathways Including Substantial Equivalence: The FSPTCA imposes restrictions on marketing new and modified tobacco products, requiring FDA review to begin marketing a new product or continue marketing a modified product. Specifically, cigarettes, cigarette tobacco and smokeless tobacco products modified or first introduced into the market after March 22, 2011, and Other Tobacco Products modified or first introduced into the market after August 8, 2016, are subjected to new tobacco product application and pre-market review and authorization requirements unless a manufacturer can demonstrate they are “substantially equivalent” to products commercially marketed as of February 15, 2007. The FDA could deny any such
new tobacco product application, thereby preventing the distribution and sale of any product affected by such denial.
For cigarettes, cigarette tobacco and smokeless tobacco products modified or first introduced into the market between February 15, 2007 and March 22, 2011 (“provisional products”) for which a manufacturer submitted substantial equivalence reports that the FDA determines are not “substantially equivalent” to products commercially marketed as of February 15, 2007, the FDA could require the removal of such products from the marketplace (see FDA Regulatory Actions - Substantial Equivalence and Other New Product Processes/Pathways below).
Similarly, the FDA could determine that Other Tobacco Products modified or first introduced into the market between February 15, 2007 and August 8, 2016 for which a manufacturer submits substantial equivalence reports that the FDA determines are not “substantially equivalent” to products commercially marketed as of February 15, 2007, or rejects a new tobacco product application submitted by a manufacturer, both of which could require the removal of such products from the marketplace (see FDA’s Comprehensive Regulatory Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation, and FDA Regulatory Actions - Substantial Equivalence and Other New Product Processes/Pathways below).
Modifications to currently-marketed products, including modifications that result from, for example, a supplier being unable to maintain the consistency required in ingredients or a manufacturer being unable to obtain the ingredients with the required specifications, can trigger the FDA’s pre-market review process described above. As noted, adverse determinations by the FDA during that process could restrict a manufacturer’s ability to continue marketing such products.
FDA’s Comprehensive Regulatory Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation: In July 2017, the FDA announced a new comprehensive plan for tobacco and nicotine regulation that will serve as the FDA’s multi-year regulatory road map (the “July 2017 Comprehensive Plan”). The FDA has stated its belief that this approach will strike an appropriate balance between regulation and encouraging development of innovative tobacco products that may be less risky than cigarettes. Major components of the July 2017 Comprehensive Plan include the following:
the FDA’s planned issuance of advance notices of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) seeking comments for potential future regulations establishing product standards for (i) nicotine in combustible cigarettes, (ii) flavors in tobacco products and (iii) e-vapor products (see FDA Regulatory Actions - Product Standards below);
the FDA’s planned extension of the timelines to submit applications for Other Tobacco Products that were on the market as of August 8, 2016, which the FDA extended in August 2017 (see FDA Regulatory Actions - Substantial Equivalence and Other New Product Processes/Pathways below);



23


the FDA’s reconsideration of whether its current plan, which is to review all “provisional” products pending in the substantial equivalence queue, is an effective use of its resources and, if not, whether it should continue to pursue its current approach to these reviews (see FDA Regulatory Actions - Substantial Equivalence and Other New Product Processes/Pathways below). As previously noted, a “provisional” product refers to cigarettes, cigarette tobacco and smokeless tobacco products modified or first commercially available after February 15, 2007 and before March 22, 2011; and
the FDA’s planned issuance of foundational regulations identifying the information the FDA expects to be included in substantial equivalence reports and applications for “new tobacco products” and “modified risk tobacco products.” The FDA also plans to finalize guidance on how it intends to review new product applications for e-vapor products.
Implementation Timing, Rulemaking and Guidance: The implementation of the FSPTCA began in 2009 for cigarettes, cigarette tobacco and smokeless tobacco products and in August 2016 for Other Tobacco Products and will continue over time. The provisions of the FSPTCA that require the FDA to take action through rulemaking generally involve consideration of public comment and, for some issues, scientific review. As required by the FSPTCA, the FDA has established a tobacco product scientific advisory committee (the “TPSAC”), which consists of voting and non-voting members, to provide advice, reports, information and recommendations to the FDA on scientific and health issues relating to tobacco products. TPSAC votes are considered by the FDA, but are not binding. From time to time, the FDA issues proposed regulations and guidance, that also generally involves public comment, which may be issued in draft or final form.
Altria Group, Inc.’sform, generally involve public comment and may include scientific review. The FDA also may request comments on broad topics through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”). Altria’s tobacco subsidiaries participateoperating companies actively in processes established byengage with the FDA to develop and implement the FSPTCA’s regulatory framework, including submission of comments to various FDA policies and proposals and participation in public hearings and engagement sessions.
The FDA’s implementation of the FSPTCA and related regulations and guidance also may have an impact on enforcement efforts by United States states, territories and localities of the United States of their laws and regulations as well as of the State Settlement Agreements discussed below (see State Settlement Agreements below).  Such enforcement efforts may adversely affect ourthe ability of Altria’s tobacco subsidiaries’ abilityoperating companies and investees to market and sell regulated tobacco products in those states, territories and localities.
FDA’s Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation: In July 2017, the FDA announced a “Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation” (“Comprehensive Plan”) designed to strike a balance between regulation and encouraging the development of innovative tobacco products that may be less risky than cigarettes. Since then, the FDA has issued additional information about its Comprehensive Plan in response to concerns associated with the rise in the use of e-vapor products by youth and the potential youth appeal of flavored tobacco products (see Underage Access and Use of Certain Tobacco Products below). As part of the Comprehensive Plan, the FDA:
issued ANPRMs relating to potential product standards for nicotine in cigarettes, flavors in all tobacco products (including menthol in cigarettes and characterizing flavors in all cigars) and, for e-vapor products, to protect against known public health risks such as concerns about youth exposure to liquid nicotine;
took actions to restrict youth access to e-vapor products; and
reconsidered the processes used by the FDA to review certain reports and new product applications.
Pre-Market Review Pathways for Tobacco Products and Market Authorization Enforcement: The FSPTCA permits the sale of tobacco products on the market as of February 15, 2007 and not subsequently modified (“Grandfathered Products”) and new or modified products authorized through the PMTA, Substantial Equivalence (“SE”) or SE Exemption pathways. Subsequent FDA rules also provide a Supplemental PMTA pathway designed to increase the efficiency of submission and review for modified versions of previously authorized products.
The FDA pre-market authorization enforcement policy varies based on product type and date of availability in the market, specifically:
Grandfathered Products are exempt from the pre-market authorization requirement;
cigarette and smokeless tobacco products that were modified or first introduced into the market between February 15, 2007 and March 22, 2011 are generally considered “Provisional Products” for which SE reports were required to be filed by March 22, 2011. These reports must demonstrate that the product has the same characteristics as a product on the market as of February 15, 2007 or to a product previously determined to be substantially equivalent, or has different characteristics but does not raise different questions of public health; and
tobacco products that were first regulated by the FDA in 2016, including cigars, e-vapor products and oral nicotine pouches that are not Grandfathered Products, are generally products for which either an SE report or PMTA needed to be filed by September 9, 2020.

31

Modifications to currently marketed products, including modifications that result from, for example, changes to the quantity of tobacco product(s) in a package, a manufacturer being unable to acquire ingredients or a supplier being unable to maintain the consistency required in ingredients, could trigger the FDA’s pre-market or SE review processes. Through these processes, a manufacturer could receive (i) a “not substantially equivalent” determination, (ii) a denial of a PMTA or (iii) a marketing order withdrawal by the FDA on one or more products, which would require the removal of the product or products from the market. Such actions could have a material adverse impact on the business and consolidated results of operations of Altria’s tobacco operating companies and investees, and the cash flows or financial position of Altria and its tobacco operating companies, including adversely affecting the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL.
Provisional Products:Most cigarette and smokeless tobacco products currently marketed by PM USA and USSTC are “Provisional Products.” Altria’s subsidiaries timely submitted SE reports for these Provisional Products. PM USA and USSTC have received SE determinations on certain Provisional Products. Those products that were found by the FDA to be not substantially equivalent (certain smokeless tobacco products) had been discontinued for business reasons prior to the FDA’s determinations; therefore, those determinations did not impact business results. PM USA and USSTC have other Provisional Products that continue to be subject to the FDA’s pre-market review process. In the meantime, they can continue marketing these products unless the FDA determines that a specific Provisional Product is not substantially equivalent.
In addition, the FDA has communicated that it will not review a certain subset of Provisional Product SE reports and that the products that are the subject of those reports can continue to be legally marketed without further FDA review. PM USA and USSTC have Provisional Products included in this subset of products.
While Altria’s cigarette and smokeless tobacco operating companies believe their current Provisional Products meet the statutory requirements of the FSPTCA, they cannot predict how the FDA will ultimately apply law, regulation and guidance to their various SE reports. Should Altria’s cigarette and smokeless tobacco operating companies receive unfavorable determinations on any SE reports currently pending with the FDA, they believe they can replace the vast majority of their respective product volumes with other FDA authorized products or with Grandfathered Products.
Non-Provisional Products: Cigarette and smokeless tobacco products introduced into the market or modified after March 22, 2011 are “Non-Provisional Products” and must receive a marketing order from the FDA prior to being offered for sale. Marketing orders for Non-Provisional Products may be obtained by filing an SE report, PMTA or using another pre-market pathway established by the FDA. Altria’s cigarette and smokeless tobacco operating companies may not be able to obtain a marketing order for non-provisional products because the FDA may determine that any such product does not meet the statutory requirements for approval.
Products Regulated in 2016: Manufacturers of products first regulated by the FDA in 2016, including cigars, oral nicotine pouches and e-vapor products, that were on the market as of August 8, 2016 and not subsequently modified must have filed an SE report or PMTA by the filing deadline of September 9, 2020 in order for their products to remain on the market. These products can remain on the market during FDA review through court-allowed, case-by-case discretion, so long as the report or application was timely filed with the FDA. Due to the large number of applications received by September 9, 2020, the FDA did not complete its review of all submitted applications by September 9, 2021, although it represents that it has made decisions on more than 98% of the applications, with most being marketing denial orders and a few marketing granted orders for tobacco flavor e-vapor products. A number of the marketing denial orders are subject to litigation challenges initiated by the affected manufacturers. For those products still under FDA review, it is uncertain when and for how long the FDA may permit continued marketing and sale of those products pursuant to its case-by-case discretion. For products (new or modified) not on the market as of August 8, 2016, manufacturers must file an SE report or PMTA and receive FDA authorization prior to marketing and selling the product.
Helix submitted PMTAs for on! oral nicotine pouches in May 2020. JUUL submitted PMTAs to the FDA for its e-vapor device and the related tobacco and menthol flavors in July 2020. As of February 22, 2022, the FDA has not issued marketing order decisions for any on! or JUUL products. In addition, as of February 22, 2022, Middleton has received market orders or exemptions that cover over 99% of its cigar product volume.
In December 2013, Altria’s subsidiaries entered into a series of agreements with PMI, including an agreement that grants Altria an exclusive right to commercialize certain of PMI’s heated tobacco products in the United States, subject to FDA authorization of the applicable products. PMI submitted a PMTA and a MRTP application with the FDA for its electronically heated tobacco products comprising the IQOS Tobacco Heating System. The IQOS devices heat, but do not burn tobacco. In April 2019, the FDA authorized the PMTA for the IQOS Tobacco Heating System and in July 2020, the FDA authorized the marketing of this system as a MRTP with a reduced exposure claim. In December 2020, the FDA authorized the PMTA for IQOS 3, an updated version of the IQOS devices. The MRTP authorization for the original IQOS device currently does not apply to the IQOS 3device. PMI submitted an MRTP application for the IQOS 3 device in March 2021, which is currently under review by the FDA.
In September 2021, in connection with a patent dispute, the ITC issued a cease and desist order, effective as of November 29, 2021, banning (i) the importation of the IQOS devices, Marlboro HeatSticks and infringing components into the United States and (ii) the sale, marketing and distribution of such imported products in the United States. As a result, PM USA removed the products from the

32

marketplace. For a further discussion of the ITC decision, see Note 18. For a further discussion of risks associated with the agreements with PMI, see Risks Related to Our Businesses in Item 1A.
In October 2021, the FDA authorized the marketing and sale of four of USSTC’s Verve oral nicotine products, including Green Mint and Blue Mint varieties, representing the first flavored product authorizations issued by the FDA for newly deemed innovative products. These products are not currently marketed or sold.
Post-Market Surveillance: Manufacturers that receive product authorizations through the PMTA process must submit to the FDA post-market records and reports, as detailed in market orders. This includes notification of all marketing activities. The IQOS Tobacco Heating System is subject to this post-market surveillance requirement. The FDA may amend requirements of a market order or withdraw the market order based on this information if, among other reasons, it determines that the continued marketing of the products is no longer appropriate for the protection of the public health.
Effect of Adverse FDA Determinations: FDA review time frames have varied. It is therefore difficult to predict the duration of FDA reviews of SE reports or PMTAs. Failure of manufacturers to submit applications by the applicable deadline, an unfavorable determination on an application or the withdrawal by the FDA of a prior marketing order could result in the removal of products from the market. These manufacturers would have the option of marketing products that have received FDA pre-market authorization or Grandfathered Products. A “not substantially equivalent” determination, a denial of a PMTA or a marketing order withdrawal by the FDA on one or more products (which would require the removal of the product or products from the market) could have a material adverse impact on the business and consolidated results of operations of our tobacco operating companies and investees, and the cash flows or financial position of Altria and its tobacco operating companies, including adversely affecting the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL. Also, an adverse FDA determination on one or more innovative tobacco products could impede our ability to achieve our Vision.
FDA Regulatory Actions
Graphic Warnings:In March 2020, the FDA issued a final rule requiring 11 textual warnings accompanied by color graphics depicting certain negative health consequences of smoking on cigarette packaging and advertising. As a result of a March 2021 court order related to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent court orders resulting from a lawsuit brought by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and others against the FDA, the final rule is presently anticipated to become effective on April 9, 2023. PM USA and other cigarette manufacturers have filed lawsuits challenging the final rule on substantive and procedural grounds.
In the preamble to the final rule, the FDA stated that it would not exempt Marlboro HeatSticks,a heated tobacco productused with the IQOS devices, as part of the rulemaking, but would consider the Marlboro HeatSticks marketing order, and other marketing orders, on a case-by-case basis. To date, the FDA has not taken any action to exempt Marlboro HeatSticks from the graphic health warnings requirements.
Underage Access and Use of Certain Tobacco Products:The FDA announced regulatory actions in September 2018 to address underage access and use of e-vapor products. Altria has engaged with the FDA on this topic and has reaffirmed to the FDA its ongoing and long-standing commitment to preventing underage use. For example, during 2019, Altria advocated raising the minimum legal age to purchase all tobacco products to 21 at the federal and state levels to further address underage use, which is now federal law. See Federal, State and Local Legislation to Increase the Legal Age to Purchase Tobacco Products below for further discussion.
Additionally, the FDA issued final guidance in April 2020, stating that it intends to prioritize enforcement action against certain product categories, including cartridge-based, flavored e-vapor products and products targeted to minors.
Flavored Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (“ENDS”) Products: Some e-vapor product manufacturers filed PMTAs for flavored tobacco products. As of February 22, 2022, many of these manufacturers received marketing denial orders for failure to provide sufficiently strong product-specific scientific evidence to demonstrate that the benefit of their products to adult smokers overcomes the risk that their products pose to youth. FDA has communicated in these marketing denial orders that vapor products with non-tobacco flavors present unique questions relevant to the FDA’s “Appropriate for the Protection of Public Health” standard and that successful applications will require strong, product-specific evidence. A number of manufacturers are appealing the marketing denial orders for their products. If the FDA does not ultimately allow for the reintroduction of flavors other than tobacco, it could adversely affect the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL.
Some ENDS manufacturers, including some that have received marketing denial orders, have indicated their intention to market ENDS products containing synthetically-derived nicotine, which is not currently FDA-regulated. If these products are sold in higher volumes, and marketed outside of FDA oversight, it could adversely affect the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL, have a material adverse effect on Altria’s consolidated financial position or earnings and adversely affect Altria’s ability to achieve its Vision.

33

Potential Product Standards
Nicotine in Cigarettes and Other Combustible Tobacco Products:In March 2018, the FDA issued an ANPRM seeking comments on the potential public health benefits and any possible adverse effects of lowering nicotine in combustible cigarettes to non-addictive or minimally addictive levels. Among other issues, the FDA sought comments on (i) whether smokers would compensate by smoking more cigarettes to obtain the same level of nicotine as with their current product and (ii) whether the proposed rule would create an illicit trade of cigarettes containing nicotine at levels higher than a non-addictive threshold that may be established by the FDA. The FDA also sought comments on whether a nicotine product standard should apply to other combustible tobacco products, including cigars. Were the FDA to develop and finalize a product standard for nicotine in combustible products, and if the standard was appealed and upheld in the courts, it could have a material adverse effect on the business, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria and its tobacco operating companies.
Flavors in Tobacco Products:As discussed above under FDA’s Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation,the FDA indicated that it is considering proposing rulemaking for a product standard that would seek to ban menthol in combustible tobacco products, including cigarettes and cigars, and that it intends to propose a product standard that would ban characterizing flavors in all cigars, including Grandfathered Products and those that have received SE determinations from the FDA - an intention reiterated in the FDA’s January 2020 guidance. In March 2018, the FDA issued an ANPRM seeking comments on the role, if any, that flavors (including menthol) in tobacco products may play in attracting youth and in helping some smokers switch to potentially less harmful forms of nicotine delivery. In the context of litigation, in April 2021, the FDA issued a response to a 2013 citizen petition requesting that the FDA prohibit menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes. In the response, the FDA announced it intends to develop and propose two product standards, which are expected by the second quarter of 2022, that would (i) ban menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes and (ii) ban all characterizing flavors (including menthol) in cigars. While the FDA has yet to define “characterizing flavors” with respect to cigars, most of Middleton’s cigar products contain added flavors and may be subject to any action by the FDA to ban flavors in cigars.
If any such product standards become final and are appealed and upheld in the courts, it could have a material adverse effect on the business of Altria’s tobacco operating companies, and the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria and its tobacco operating companies, including adversely affecting the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL (due to the impact on JUUL’s business) if the FDA pursues broader flavor restrictions beyond cigarettes and cigars.
NNN in Smokeless Tobacco:In January 2017, the FDA proposed a product standard for N-nitrosonornicotine (“NNN”) levels in finished smokeless tobacco products.  If the proposed rule, in present form, were to become final and was appealed and upheld in the courts, it could have a material adverse effect on the business, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria and USSTC.
Good Manufacturing Practices: The FSPTCA requires that the FDA promulgate good manufacturing practice regulations (referred to by the FDA as “Requirements for Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice”) for tobacco product manufacturers, but does not specify a timeframe for such regulations. Compliance with any such regulations could result in increased costs, which could have a material adverse effect on the financial position of Altria, its tobacco operating companies and its investees, including adversely affecting the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL.
Impact on Our Business; Compliance Costs and User Fees: Regulations imposed and otherFDA regulatory actions taken by the FDA under the FSPTCA could have a material adverse effect on the business, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies in a number of differentvarious ways. For example, actions by the FDA could:
impact the consumer acceptability of tobacco products;
impact the consumer acceptability of tobacco products;
delay, discontinue or prevent the sale or distribution of existing, new or modified tobacco products;
limit adult tobacco consumer choices;
impose restrictions on communications with adult tobacco consumers;
create a competitive advantage or disadvantage for certain tobacco companies;
impose additional manufacturing, labeling or packaging requirements;
impose additional restrictions at retail;
result in increased illicit trade in tobacco products; or
otherwise significantly increase the cost of doing business.
delay, discontinue or prevent the sale or distribution of existing, new or modified tobacco products;
limit adult tobacco consumer choices;
impose restrictions on communications with adult tobacco consumers;
create a competitive advantage or disadvantage for certain tobacco companies;
impose additional manufacturing, labeling or packaging requirements;
impose additional restrictions at retail;
result in increased illicit trade in tobacco products; and/or
otherwise significantly increase the cost of doing business.
The failure to comply with FDA regulatory requirements, even inadvertently, and FDA enforcement actions also could also have a material adverse effect on the business of Altria’s tobacco operating companies and investees, and the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies, including adversely affecting the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL.
The FSPTCA imposes user fees on cigarette, cigarette tobacco, smokeless tobacco, cigar and pipe tobacco manufacturers and importers to pay for the cost of regulation and other matters. The FSPTCA does not impose user fees on e-vapor product or oral nicotine pouch

34

manufacturers. The cost of the FDA user fee is allocated first among tobacco product categories subject to FDA regulationuser fees and then among manufacturers and importers within each respective category based on their relative market shares, all as prescribed by the statuteFSPTCA and FDA regulations. Payments for user fees are adjusted for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume. For a discussion of the impact of the FDA user fee payments on Altria, Group, Inc., see Financial Review - Off-Balance Sheet ArrangementsLiquidity and Aggregate Contractual ObligationsCapital Resources - Payments Under State Settlement Agreements and FDA Regulation below. In addition, compliance with the FSPTCA’s regulatory requirements has resulted, and will continue to result, in additional costs for ourAltria’s tobacco businesses.operating companies. The amount of additional compliance and related costs has not been material in any given quarter or year to date period but could become material, either individually or in the aggregate, to one or more of ourAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries.
Investigation and Enforcement: The FDA has a number of investigatory and enforcement tools available to it, including document requests and other required information submissions, facility inspections, examinations and investigations, injunction proceedings, monetary penalties, product withdrawal and recall orders, and product seizures. The use of any of these investigatoryInvestigations or enforcement tools by the FDAactions could result in significant costs to the tobacco businesses of Altria Group, Inc. or otherwise have a material adverse effect on the business of Altria’s tobacco operating companies and investees, and the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries.


24


Final Tobacco Marketing Rule: As required by the FSPTCA, the FDA re-promulgatedAltria’s investment in March 2010 a wide range of advertising and promotion restrictions in substantially the same form as regulations that were previously adopted in 1996 (but never imposed on tobacco manufacturers due to a United States Supreme Court ruling) (the “Final Tobacco Marketing Rule”). The May 2016 amendments to the Final Tobacco Marketing Rule (instituted as part of the FDA’s deeming regulations) apply certain provisions to certain “covered tobacco products,” which include cigars, e-vapor products containing nicotine or other tobacco derivatives, pipe tobacco and oral tobacco-derived nicotine products, but do not include any component or part that is not made or derived from tobacco. The Final Tobacco Marketing Rule as so amended:JUUL.
bans the use of color and graphics in cigarette and smokeless tobacco product labeling and advertising;
prohibits the sale of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and covered tobacco products to persons under the age of 18;
restricts the use of non-tobacco trade and brand names on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products;
requires the sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in direct, face-to-face transactions;
prohibits sampling of cigarettes and covered tobacco products and prohibits sampling of smokeless tobacco products except in qualified adult-only facilities;
prohibits the sale or distribution of items such as hats and tee shirts with cigarette or smokeless tobacco brands or logos; and
prohibits cigarettes and smokeless tobacco brand name sponsorship of any athletic, musical, artistic or other social or cultural event, or any entry or team in any event.
Subject to the limitations described below, the Final Tobacco Marketing Rule took effect in June 2010 for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products and in August 2016 for covered tobacco products. At the time of the re-promulgation of the Final Tobacco Marketing Rule, the FDA also issued an ANPRM regarding the so-called “1000 foot rule,” which would establish restrictions on the placement of outdoor tobacco advertising in relation to schools and playgrounds. PM USA and USSTC submitted comments on this ANPRM.
Since enactment in 2009, several lawsuits have been filed challenging various provisions of the FSPTCA, the Final Tobacco Marketing Rule and the deeming regulations, including their constitutionality and the scope of the FDA’s authority thereunder. One lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of an FDA regulation that restricts tobacco manufacturers from using the trade or brand name of a non-tobacco product on cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products. The case was dismissed and the FDA agreed not to enforce the current or any amended trade name rule until at least 180 days after rulemaking on the amended rule concludes. In November 2011, the FDA proposed an amended rule, but has not yet issued a final rule. PM USA and USSTC submitted comments on the proposed amended rule.
FDA Regulatory Actions
Graphic Warnings: In June 2011, as required by the FSPTCA, the FDA issued its final rule to modify the required warnings that appear on cigarette packages and in cigarette advertisements.  The FSPTCA requires the warnings to consist of nine new textual warning statements accompanied by color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking.  The graphic health warnings will (i) be located beneath the cellophane, and comprise the top 50% of the front and rear panels of cigarette packages and (ii) occupy 20% of a cigarette advertisement and be located at the top of the advertisement. After a legal challenge to the rule initiated by R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard and several other plaintiffs, in which plaintiffs prevailed both at the federal trial and appellate levels, the FDA decided not to seek further review of the U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision and announced its plans to propose a new graphic warnings rule in the future.
Substantial Equivalence and Other New Product Processes/Pathways: In general, in order to continue marketing provisional products, manufacturers of such products were required to send to the FDA a report demonstrating substantial equivalence by March 22, 2011 for the FDA to determine if such tobacco products are “substantially equivalent” to products commercially available as of February 15, 2007.  All cigarette and smokeless tobacco products currently marketed by PM USA and USSTC are provisional products, as are some of the products currently marketed by Nat Sherman. Our subsidiaries submitted timely substantial equivalence reports for these provisional products and can continue marketing these products unless the FDA makes a determination that a specific provisional product is not substantially equivalent. If the FDA ultimately makes such a determination, it could require the removal of such products from the marketplace. PM USA and USSTC also submitted substantial equivalence reports on products proposed to be marketed after March 22, 2011 (“non-provisional” products). While our cigarette and smokeless tobacco subsidiaries believe all of their current products meet the statutory requirements of the FSPTCA, they cannot predict whether, when or how the FDA ultimately will apply its guidance to their various respective substantial equivalence reports or seek to enforce the law and regulations consistent with its guidance.
PM USA and USSTC have received decisions on certain provisional and non-provisional products, some of which were found to be substantially equivalent and others were found to be not substantially equivalent. The provisional products (all smokeless tobacco products) found to be not substantially equivalent had been discontinued for business reasons prior to the FDA’s determination; therefore, the determinations did not impact business results. In February 2018, USSTC filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s determination that certain of its non-provisional products are not substantially equivalent. There remain a significant number of substantial equivalence reports for products for


25


which the FDA has not announced decisions. At the request of the FDA, our cigarette and smokeless tobacco subsidiaries have provided additional information with respect to certain of these substantial equivalence reports. We cannot predict whether this additional information will be satisfactory to the FDA to result in substantial equivalence determinations for the products covered by those reports. It is also not possible to predict how long reviews by the FDA of substantial equivalence reports or new tobacco product applications for any tobacco product will take. A “not substantially equivalent” determination or denial of a new tobacco product application on one or more products could have a material adverse impact on the business, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries.
In order to continue marketing Other Tobacco Products modified or introduced into the market for the first time between February 15, 2007 and August 8, 2016, manufacturers originally were required to send to the FDA a report demonstrating substantial equivalence by May 8, 2018 or a new tobacco product application by November 8, 2018. In August 2017, the FDA extended the filing deadlines for combustible Other Tobacco Products, such as cigars and pipe tobacco, to August 8, 2021, and for non-combustible Other Tobacco Products, such as e-vapor and oral nicotine products, to August 8, 2022. The FDA also announced that it will permit manufacturers to continue to market such Other Tobacco Products until the FDA renders a decision on the applicable substantial equivalence report or new tobacco product application.
Because of the limited number of e-vapor products on the market as of February 15, 2007, Nu Mark may not be able to file substantial equivalence reports with the FDA on its e-vapor products in the market as of August 8, 2016. In such case, Nu Mark would have to file new tobacco product applications which, among other things, demonstrate that the marketing of the e-vapor products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. It is uncertain how the FDA will interpret the requirements for obtaining a “new tobacco product marketing order,” although as noted above the FDA has indicated its intention to issue appropriate regulations to clarify the requirements.
Manufacturers intending to first introduce new and modified cigarette, cigarette tobacco and smokeless tobacco products into the market after March 22, 2011 or intending to first introduce new and modified Other Tobacco Products into the market after August 8, 2016, must submit substantial equivalence reports to the FDA and obtain “substantial equivalence orders” from the FDA or submit new tobacco product applications to the FDA and obtain “new tobacco product marketing orders” from the FDA before introducing the products into the market.
In March 2015, the FDA issued a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Demonstrating the Substantial Equivalence of a New Tobacco Product: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions” (“Substantial Equivalence
Guidance”). In that document, the FDA announced that (i) certain label changes and (ii) changes to the quantity of tobacco product(s) in a package would each require submission of newly required substantial equivalence reports and authorization from the FDA prior to marketing tobacco products with such changes, even when the tobacco product itself is not changed. Our cigarette and smokeless tobacco subsidiaries market various products that fall within the scope of the Substantial Equivalence Guidance.
In September 2015, after industry objections to the Substantial Equivalence Guidance, the FDA issued a second edition of the guidance (the “Revised SE Guidance”), which continued to require FDA pre-authorization for certain label changes and for product quantity changes. PM USA, USSTC and other tobacco product manufacturers initiated litigation challenging the Revised SE Guidance. In August 2016, the court held that a modification to an existing product’s label does not result in a “new tobacco product” and therefore such a label change does not give rise to the substantial equivalence review process. However, the court upheld the Revised SE Guidance in all other respects, including its treatment of product quantity changes as modifications that give rise to a new tobacco product requiring substantial equivalence review.
Deeming Regulations: As discussed above under FSPTCA and FDA Regulation - The Regulatory Framework, in May 2016, the FDA issued final regulations for all Other Tobacco Products, imposing the FSPTCA regulatory framework on the tobacco products manufactured, marketed and sold by Middleton and Nu Mark. At the same time the FDA issued its final deeming regulations, it also amended the Final Tobacco Marketing Rule as described above in FSPTCA and FDA Regulation - Final Tobacco Marketing Rule. Under the new regulations, for Other Tobacco Products modified or introduced into the market for the first time between February 15, 2007 and August 8, 2016, manufacturers must demonstrate substantial equivalence to a product on the market as of February 15, 2007 or obtain a “new tobacco marketing order” by certain specified dates to continue marketing those products. For further details, see FSPTCA and FDA Regulation - FDA Regulatory Actions - Substantial Equivalence and Other New Product Processes/Pathways above.
Among the FSPTCA requirements that apply to Other Tobacco Products is a ban on descriptors, including “mild,” when used as descriptors of modified risk unless expressly authorized by the FDA. In May 2016, Middleton filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the FDA challenging the application of the descriptor ban on the use of the word “mild” as it relates to the “Black & Mild” trademark. In July 2016, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the FDA, informed Middleton that at present the FDA does not intend to bring an enforcement action against Middleton for the use of the term “mild” in the trademark “Black & Mild.” Consequently, Middleton dismissed its


26


lawsuit without prejudice. If the FDA were to change its mind at some later date, Middleton would have the opportunity to make a submission to the FDA and ultimately, if necessary, to bring another lawsuit.
Potential Product Standards
Menthol in cigarettes: As required by the FSPTCA, the TPSAC submitted a report on the impact of the use of menthol in cigarettes on the public health and related recommendations to the FDA in March 2011. It recommended, among other things, that the “[r]emoval of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States” and also noted that any ban on menthol cigarettes could lead to an increase in contraband cigarettes and other potential unintended consequences. Also in March 2011, PM USA submitted a report to the FDA outlining its position that regulatory actions related to the use of menthol cigarettes are not warranted based on available science and evidence and that any significant restrictions on the use of menthol in cigarettes would have unintended consequences detrimental to public health and society.
In July 2013, the FDA released its preliminary scientific evaluation on menthol, which states “that menthol cigarettes pose a public health risk above that seen with non-menthol cigarettes.” At the same time, the FDA also issued an ANPRM requesting comments on the FDA’s preliminary scientific evaluation and information that may inform potential regulatory actions regarding menthol in cigarettes. PM USA submitted comments to the FDA raising a number of concerns about the preliminary scientific evidence and unintended consequences.
The July 2017 Comprehensive Plan contemplates the issuance of an ANPRM seeking comments on the role that flavors including menthol in tobacco products play in attracting youth. No future action can be taken by the FDA to regulate the manufacture, marketing or sale of menthol cigarettes (including a possible ban) until the completion of a full rulemaking process.
NNN in Smokeless Tobacco: In January 2017, the FDA proposed a product standard for N-nitrosonornicotine (“NNN”) levels in finished smokeless tobacco products.  USSTC believes that the FDA has not adequately considered whether the proposed standard is technically achievable and further believes it would have a significant negative impact on farmers and manufacturers.  USSTC is advocating for withdrawal of the proposed rule. In March 2017, the FDA extended the comment period and acknowledged what it described as a “typographical error” in a formula it used in documentation supporting the proposed rule. USSTC submitted comments to the FDA in July 2017. If the proposed rule as presently proposed were to become final and upheld in the courts, it could have a material adverse effect on the business, consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and USSTC.
Nicotine and Flavors: As noted above, the FDA announced in the July 2017 Comprehensive Plan its intent to seek comments through an ANPRM on the following matters, among others:
Nicotine in cigarettes: The potential public health benefits and any possible adverse effects of lowering nicotine in combustible cigarettes to non-addictive or minimally addictive levels through achievable product standards. Specifically, the FDA intends to seek comments on the potential unintended consequences of such product standard, including (i) smokers compensating by smoking more cigarettes to obtain the same level of nicotine as with their current product and (ii) the illicit trade of cigarettes containing nicotine at levels higher than a non-addictive threshold that may be established by the FDA; and
Flavors in all tobacco products: The role that flavors (including menthol) in tobacco products play in attracting youth and may play in helping some smokers switch to potentially less harmful forms of nicotine delivery.
These ANPRM processes may ultimately lead to the FDA’s development of product standards for nicotine and flavors. The July 2017 Comprehensive Plan also includes the FDA’s intent to develop e-vapor product standards to protect against known public health risks such as battery issues and concerns about children’s exposure to liquid nicotine.
Good Manufacturing Practices: The FSPTCA requires that the FDA promulgate good manufacturing practice regulations (referred to by the FDA as “Requirements for Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice”) for tobacco product manufacturers, but does not specify a timeframe for such regulations.
Excise Taxes
Tobacco products are subject to substantial excise taxes in the United States. Significant increases in tobacco-related taxes or fees have been proposed or enacted (including with respect to e-vapor products) and are likely to continue to be proposed or enacted at the federal, state and local levels within the United States. The frequency and magnitude of excise tax increases can be influenced by various factors, including the composition of executive and legislative bodies.
During 2021, Congress considered legislation that would have significantly increased the federal excise tax for all tobacco products and created a new tax for e-vapor products and other products containing nicotine that are not currently subject to a tobacco federal excise tax (“novel tobacco products”). The U.S. House of Representatives removed the proposal to increase the federal excise tax on tobacco products currently subject to the tax from the legislation it was considering, but retained the proposed nicotine tax for novel tobacco products. The U.S. Senate debated the legislation and removed the nicotine tax for novel tobacco products; however, as of February 22, 2022, the legislation is still pending before the Senate and could be subject to further tax related amendments.
Federal, state and local cigarette excise taxes have increased substantially over the past decade,two decades, far outpacing the rate of inflation. By way of example, in 2009, the federal excise tax (“FET”) on cigarettes increased from $0.39 per pack to approximately $1.01 per pack, in 2010, the New York state excise tax increased by $1.60 to $4.35 per pack, in October 2014, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania enacted a $2.00 per pack local cigarette excise tax and in November 2016, California passed a ballot measure to increase its cigarette excise tax by $2.00 per pack and its smokeless tobacco ad valorem excise tax from 27.30% to 65.08%, which went into effect on April 1, 2017 and July 1, 2017, respectively. Between the end of 1998 and February 23, 2018,22, 2022, the weighted-average state and certain local cigarette excise taxestax increased from $0.36 to $1.75$1.89 per pack. During


27


2017, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut and Puerto Rico enacted legislation to increase their cigarette excise taxes. As of February 23, 2018,22, 2022, no state has increased itsenacted new legislation increasing cigarette excise taxtaxes in 2018,2022, but various increases are under consideration or have been proposed.
Tax increases are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of the tobacco products of our tobacco subsidiaries through lower consumption levels and the potential shift in adult consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments or to other low-priced or low-taxed tobacco products or to counterfeit and contraband products. Such shifts may have an adverse impact on the sales volume and reported share performance of tobacco products of Altria Group, Inc.’s tobacco subsidiaries.
A majority of states currently tax smokeless tobacco productsMST using an ad valorem method, which is calculated as a percentage of the price of the product, typically the wholesale price. This ad valorem method results in more tax being paid on premium products than is paid on lower-priced products of equal weight. Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries supportsupports legislation to convert ad valorem taxes on smokeless tobaccoMST to a weight-based methodology because, unlike the ad valorem tax, a weight-based tax subjects cans of equal weight to the same tax. As of February 23, 2018,22, 2022, the federal government, 23 states, Puerto Rico, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Cook County, Illinois have adopted a weight-based tax methodology for smokeless tobacco.MST.
An increasing number of states and localities also are imposing excise taxes on e-vapor and oral nicotine pouches. As of February 22, 2022, 30 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and a number of cities and counties have enacted legislation to tax e-vapor products. These taxes are calculated in varying ways and may differ based on the e-vapor product form. Similarly, 11 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to tax oral nicotine pouches.
Tax increases are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on product sales of Altria’s tobacco operating companies and JUUL through lower consumption levels and the potential shift in adult consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments, to lower taxed tobacco products, or to counterfeit and contraband products. Lower sales volume and reported share performance of Altria’s tobacco operating companies’ and investees’ products could have a material adverse effect on Altria’s consolidated financial position or earnings. In addition, substantial excise tax increases on e-vapor and oral nicotine products, may negatively impact adult smokers’ transition to these products, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve our Vision.
International Treaty on Tobacco Control
The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (the “FCTC”) entered into force in February 2005. As of February 23, 2018, 18022, 2022, 181 countries, as well as the European Community,Union, have become parties to the FCTC. While the United States is a signatory of the FCTC, it is not currently a party to the agreement, as the agreement has not been submitted to, or ratified by, the United StatesU.S. Senate. The FCTC is the first international public health treaty and its objective is to establish a global agenda for tobacco regulation with the purpose of reducing initiation of tobacco use and encouraging cessation. The treaty recommends (and in certain instances, requires) signatory nations to enact legislation that would among other things: establish specific actions to prevent youth tobacco product use; restrict or eliminate all tobacco product advertising, marketing, promotion and sponsorship; initiate public education campaigns to inform the public about the health consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke and the benefits of quitting; implement regulations imposing product testing, disclosure and performance standards; impose health warning requirements on packaging; adopt measures intended to combat tobacco product smuggling and counterfeit tobacco products, including tracking and tracing of tobacco products through the distribution chain; and restrict smoking in public places.address various tobacco-related issues.
There are a number of proposals currently under consideration by the governing body of the FCTC, some of which call for substantial restrictions on the manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of tobacco products. In addition, the
Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (the “Protocol”) was approved by the Conference of Parties to the FCTC in November 2012. It includes provisions related to the tracking and tracing of tobacco products through the distribution chain and numerous other provisions regarding the regulation of the manufacture, distribution and sale of tobacco products. The Protocol has not yet entered into force, but in any event will not apply to the United States until the Senate ratifies the FCTC and until the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, the Protocol. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these

35

proposals or the impact of any FCTC actions on legislation or regulation in the United States,U.S., either indirectly or as a result of the United StatesU.S. becoming a party to the FCTC, or whether or how these actions might indirectly influence FDA regulation and enforcement.
State Settlement Agreements
As discussed in Note 18, during 1997 and 1998, PM USA and other major domestic tobacco productcigarette manufacturers entered into the State Settlement Agreements. These settlements require participating manufacturers to make substantial annual payments, which are adjusted for several factors, including inflation, operating income, market share and industry volume. Increases in inflation can increase our financial liability under the State Settlement Agreements. The State Settlement Agreements’ inflation calculations require us to apply the higher of 3% or the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) percentage rate as published in January of each year. As of December 2021, the inflation calculation was approximately 7% based on the latest CPI-U data; however, the increase in the annual payments did not have a material impact on Altria’s financial position. Altria believes that inflation will continue at increased levels in 2022, but does not expect the corresponding increase in annual payments to result in a material financial impact. However, we will continue to monitor conditions related to the impact of increased inflation on the macro-economic environment.
For a discussion of the impact of the State Settlement Agreements on Altria, Group, Inc., seeFinancial Review - Debt Liquidity and LiquidityCapital Resources - Payments Under State Settlement Agreements and FDA Regulation below and Note 18. The State Settlement Agreements also place numerous requirements and restrictions on participating manufacturers’ business operations, including prohibitions and restrictions on the advertising and marketing of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. Among these are prohibitions of outdoor and transit brand advertising, payments for product placement and free sampling (except in adult-only facilities). Restrictions areThe State Settlement Agreements also placedplace restrictions on the use of brand name sponsorships and brand name non-tobacco products. The State Settlement Agreements also placeproducts and prohibitions on targeting youth and the use of cartoon characters. In addition, the State Settlement Agreements require companies to affirm corporate principles directed at reducing underage use of cigarettes; impose requirements regarding lobbying activities; mandate public disclosure of certain industry documents; limit the industry’s ability to challenge certain tobacco control and underage use laws; and provide for the dissolution of certain tobacco-related organizations and place restrictions on the establishment of any replacement organizations.
In November 1998, USSTC entered into the Smokeless Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (the “STMSA”) with the attorneys general of various states and United States territories to resolve the remaining health care cost reimbursement cases initiated against USSTC. The STMSA required USSTC to adopt various marketing and advertising restrictions. USSTC is the only smokeless tobacco manufacturer to sign the STMSA.


28


Other International, Federal, State and Local Regulation and Governmental and Private Activity
International, Federal, State and Local Regulation: A number ofRegulation:Various states and localities have enacted or proposed legislation that imposes restrictions on tobacco products (including innovativecigarettes, smokeless tobacco, cigars, e-vapor products such as e-vapor products)and oral nicotine pouches), such as legislation that (1)(i) prohibits the sale of all tobacco products or certain tobacco categories, such as e-vapor, (ii) prohibits the sale of tobacco products with certain characterizing flavors, includingsuch as menthol cigarettes (2)and flavored e-vapor products, (iii) requires the disclosure of health information separate from or in addition to federally-mandatedfederally mandated health warnings and (3)(iv) restricts commercial speech or imposes additional restrictions on the marketing or sale of tobacco products (including proposals to ban all tobacco product sales).products. The legislation varies in terms of the type of tobacco products, the conditions under which such products are or would be restricted or prohibited, and exceptions to the restrictions or prohibitions. For example, a number of proposals involving characterizing flavors would prohibit smokeless tobacco products with characterizing flavors without providing an exception for mint- or wintergreen-flavored products. As of February 22, 2022, multiple states and localities are considering legislation to ban flavors in one or more tobacco products, and six states (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Utah, New York and Illinois) and the District of Columbia have passed such legislation. Some of these states, such as New York, Utah and Illinois, exempt certain products that have received FDA market authorization through the PMTA pathway.
Whether other states or localities will enactThe legislation in these areas,California bans the sale of most tobacco products with characterizing flavors, including menthol, mint and wintergreen. Following enactment of the precise natureflavor ban in August 2020, several registered California voters filed a referendum against the legislation. In January 2021 the requisite number of suchregistered California voters signed a petition to place the question of whether the legislation if enacted, cannotshould be predicted. Altria Group, Inc.’saffirmed or overturned on the next statewide general election ballot, which will likely take place in November 2022, unless a special statewide election is called earlier. As a result, the implementation of the legislation is delayed until after a vote on the referendum occurs.
Massachusetts passed legislation capping the amount of nicotine in e-vapor products. Similar legislation is pending in one other state.
Restrictions on e-vapor and oral nicotine pouch products also have been instituted or proposed internationally.
Altria’s tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies have challenged and will continue to challenge certain federal, state and local legislation and other governmental action, including through litigation. It is possible, however, that legislation, regulation or other governmental action could be enacted or implemented that could have a material adverse impact on the business and volume of Altria’s tobacco operating companies and investees, and the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria and its tobacco operating companies, including adversely affecting the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL. Such action also could negatively impact adult smokers’ transition to these products, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve our Vision.

36

Federal, State and Local Legislation to Increase the Legal Age to Purchase Tobacco Products: An increasingAfter a number of states and localities have proposed and enacted legislation to increase the minimum age to purchase all tobacco products, aboveincluding e-vapor products, in December 2019, the current Federalfederal government passed legislation increasing the minimum age to purchase all tobacco products, including e-vapor products, to 21 nationwide. As of 18. The followingFebruary 22, 2022, 39 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have enacted such legislation: California (21), Hawaii (21), Alabama (19), Alaska (19), New Jersey (21), Utah (19), Oregon (21)laws increasing the legal age to purchase tobacco products to 21. Although an increase in the minimum age to purchase tobacco products may have a negative impact on sales volume of our tobacco businesses, as discussed above under Underage Access and Maine (21).  Various localities (such as New York City (21)Use of Certain Tobacco Products, Altria supports raising the minimum legal age to purchase all tobacco products to 21 at the federal and Chicago (21)) have taken similar actions.state levels, reflecting its longstanding commitment to combat underage tobacco use.
Health Effects of Tobacco Product Consumption and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (“ETS”): Products, Including E-vapor Products: Reports with respect to the health effects of smoking have been publicized for many years, including various reports by the U.S. Surgeon General. In 2019, there were public health advisories concerning vaping-related lung injuries and deaths and there have been health concerns raised about potential increased risks associated with COVID-19 among smokers and vapers. Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries believebelieves that the public should be guided by the messages of the United StatesU.S. Surgeon General and public health authorities worldwide in making decisions concerning the use of tobacco products, including e-vapor products.
Most jurisdictions within the United States have restricted smoking in public places and some have restricted vaping in public places. Some public health groups have called for, and various jurisdictions have adopted or proposed, bans on smoking and vaping in outdoor places, in private apartments and in cars transporting minors.children. It is not possible to predict the results of ongoing scientific research or the types of future scientific research into the health risks of tobacco exposure and the impact of such research on legislation and regulation.
Other Legislation or Governmental Initiatives: In addition to the actions discussed above, other regulatory initiatives affecting the tobacco industry have been adopted or are being considered at the federal level and in a number of state and local jurisdictions. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, state and local governments required additional health and safety requirements of all businesses, including tobacco manufacturing and other facilities. State and local governments also mandated the temporary closure of some businesses. While many restrictions have eased, it is possible that tobacco manufacturing and other facilities and the facilities of our suppliers, our suppliers’ suppliers and our trade partners could be subject to additional government-mandated temporary closures and restrictions.
Additionally, in recent years, legislation has been introduced or enacted at the state or local level to subject tobacco products to various reporting requirements and performance standards (such as reduced cigarette ignition propensity standards);standards; establish educational campaigns relating to tobacco consumption or tobacco control programs or provide additional funding for governmental tobacco control activities; restrict the sale of tobacco products in certain retail establishments and the sale of tobacco products in certain package sizes; prohibit the sale of tobacco products based on environmental concerns; require tax stamping of moist smokeless tobacco (“MST”) products; require the use of state tax stamps using data encryption technology; and further restrict the sale, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products.other tobacco products. Such legislation may be subject to constitutional or other challenges on various grounds, which may or may not be successful.
It is not possible to predict what, if any, additional legislation, regulation or other governmental action will be enacted or implemented (and, if challenged, upheld) relating to the manufacturing, design, packaging, marketing, advertising, sale or use of tobacco products, or the tobacco industry generally. It is possible, however, that legislation, regulation or other governmental action could be enacted or implemented that could have a material adverse impact on the business and volume of ourAltria’s tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies and investees, and the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies, including adversely affecting the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL.
Governmental Investigations: From time to time, Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries and investees are subject to governmental investigations on a range of matters.  For example: (i) the FTC issued a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) to Altria Group, Inc.while conducting its antitrust review of Altria’s investment in JUUL seeking information regarding, among other things, Altria’s role in the resignation of JUUL’s former chief executive officer and its subsidiaries cannot predict whether newthe hiring by JUUL of any current or former Altria director, executive or employee (see Note 18 and Item 3 for a description of the FTC’s administrative complaint against Altria and JUUL); (ii) the SEC commenced an investigation relating to Altria’s acquisition, disclosures and accountingcontrols in connection with the JUUL investment; and (iii) the New York State Office of the Attorney General and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, separately, issued independent subpoenas to Altria seeking documents relating to Altria’s investment in and provision of services to JUUL. Additionally, JUUL is currently under investigation by various federal and state agencies, including the SEC, the FDA and the FTC, and state attorneys general.  Such investigations vary in scope but at least some appear to include JUUL’s marketing practices, particularly as such practices relate to youth, and Altria may be commenced.asked in the context of those investigations to provide information concerning its investment in JUUL or relating to its marketing of Nu Mark LLC e-vapor products.
Private Sector Activity on E-Vapor
A number of retailers, including national chains, have discontinued the sale of e-vapor products. Reasons for the discontinuation include reported illnesses related to e-vapor product use and the uncertain regulatory environment. It is possible that this private sector activity

37

could adversely affect the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL and have a material adverse effect on Altria’s consolidated financial position or earnings.
Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products
Illicit trade in tobacco products can have an adverse impact on the businesses of Altria, Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries.operating companies and investees. Illicit trade can take many forms, including the sale of counterfeit tobacco products; the sale of tobacco products in the United States that are intended for sale outside the country; the sale of untaxed tobacco products over the Internet and by other means designed to avoid the collection of applicable taxes; and diversion into one taxing jurisdiction of tobacco products intended for sale in another. Counterfeit tobacco products, for example, are manufactured by unknown third parties in unregulated environments. Counterfeit versions of our tobacco subsidiaries’operating companies’ and investees’ products can negatively affect adult tobacco consumer experiences with and opinions of those brands. Illicit trade in tobacco products also harms law-abiding wholesalers and retailers by depriving them of lawful sales and undermines the significant investment Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies and investees have made in legitimate distribution channels. Moreover, illicit trade in tobacco products results in federal, state and local governments losing tax


29


revenues. Losses in tax revenues can cause such governments to take various actions, including increasing excise taxes; imposing legislative or regulatory requirements that may adversely impact Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated results of operations and cash flows, including adversely affecting the value of Altria’s investment in JUUL, and the businesses of its tobacco subsidiaries;operating companies and investees; or asserting claims against manufacturers of tobacco products or members of the trade channels through which such tobacco products are distributed and sold.
Altria Group, Inc. and itsAltria’s tobacco subsidiaries devote significant resources to help prevent illicit trade in tobacco products and to protect legitimate trade channels. For example, Altria Group, Inc.’s tobacco subsidiaries are engaged in a number of initiatives to help prevent illicit trade in tobacco products, including communicationoperating companies communicate with wholesale and retail trade members regarding illicit trade in tobacco products and how they can help prevent such activities; enforcement ofactivities, enforce wholesale and retail trade programs and policies that address illicit trade in tobacco products; engagement withproducts and, support of law enforcement and regulatory agencies; litigationwhen necessary, litigate to protect their trademarks; and support for a variety of federal and state legislative initiatives. Legislative initiatives to address illicit trade in tobacco products are designed to protect the legitimate channels of distribution, impose more stringent penalties for the violation of illegal trade laws and provide additional tools for law enforcement. Regulatory measures and related governmental actions to prevent the illicit manufacture and trade of tobacco products continue to evolve as the nature of illicit tobacco products evolves.trademarks.
Price, Availability and Quality of Agricultural ProductsTobacco, Other Raw Materials, Ingredients and Component Parts
Shifts in crops (such as those driven by economic conditions and adverse weather patterns), government restrictions and mandated prices, production control programs, economic trade sanctions, import duties and tariffs, international trade disruptions, inflation, geopolitical instability, climate and production control programsenvironmental changes and disruptions due to man-made or natural disasters may increase or decrease the cost or reduce the supply or quality of tobacco andor other agricultural productsraw materials or ingredients or component parts used to manufacture our companies’ and our investees’ products. AsAny significant change in the price, availability or quality of tobacco, other raw materials, ingredients or component parts used to manufacture our products and those of our investees could restrict our tobacco operating companies’ and investees’ ability to continue manufacturing and marketing existing products or impact adult consumer product acceptability and adversely affect our tobacco operating companies’ and investees’ profitability and businesses.
With respect to tobacco, as with other agricultureagricultural commodities, the price of tobacco leaf can be influenced by economic conditions and imbalances in supply and demand and crop quality and availability can be influenced by variations in weather patterns, including those caused by climate change. Tobacco productionAdditionally, the price and availability of tobacco leaf can be influenced by economic conditions and imbalances in certain countries is subject to a varietysupply and demand. Economic conditions, including inflation and the economic effects of controls, including government mandated prices and production control programs.  Changesthe COVID-19 pandemic, are unpredictable, which, among other factors, may result in changes in the patterns of demand for agricultural products and the cost of tobacco production which could negatively impact tobacco leaf prices and tobacco supply. CertainIn addition, as consumer demand increases for smoke-free products and decreases for combustible products, the volume of tobacco leaf required for production may decrease. The reduced demand for tobacco leaf may result in the reduced supply and availability of domestic tobacco as growers divert resources to other crops, which could result in increased costs to our tobacco operating companies.
Tobacco production in certain countries also is subject to a variety of controls, including government-mandated prices and production control programs.  Moreover, certain types of tobacco are only available in limited geographies, including geographies experiencing political instability or government prohibitions on the import or export of tobacco, and loss of their availability could impact adult tobacco consumer product acceptability. Any significant change in the price, quality or availability of tobacco leaf or other agricultural products used to manufacture our products could restrictimpair our subsidiaries’ ability to continue marketing existing products or impact adult tobacco consumer product acceptability,acceptability.
The COVID-19 pandemic also may limit access to and increase the cost of raw materials, component parts and personal protective equipment as United States and global suppliers may temporarily shut down facilities or use different production schedules with lower productivity in order to address exposure to the virus or as a result of a government mandate. In addition, (i) current labor market dynamics indicate labor shortages, with employers in a number of industries having difficulty employing workers and (ii) supply chain dynamics reflect failures and delays resulting from various issues including labor shortages, logistical problems and weather-related incidents. These labor shortages and supply failures and delays have led to certain increases in raw material (for example, resins used in our packaging), ingredient and component part prices and may lead to supply chain disruptions; however, to date, the impact on our operating companies and investees has been immaterial. However, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, labor market dynamics and supply chain disruptions outlined above may continue, which could adversely affectingaffect our subsidiaries’ and investees’ profitability and businesses. Recent economic conditions reflect an increased rate of inflation. To date, higher inflation has not had a material impact on our or our investees’ businesses, revenues or profitability. Although Altria anticipates inflation will continue at elevated levels in 2022, it is not expected to have a material impact on our or our investees’ businesses, revenues or profitability.
In addition, government taxes, restrictions and prohibitions on the sale and use of certain products may limit access to, and increase the costs of, raw materials and component parts and, potentially, impede our ability to sell certain of our products. For example, additional

38

taxes on the use of certain single-use plastics have been proposed by the U.S. Congress, which, if passed, could increase the costs of, and impair our ability to, source certain materials used in the packaging for our tobacco operating companies’ products.
Timing of Sales
In the ordinary course of business, our tobacco subsidiariesoperating companies are subject to many influences that can impact the timing of sales to customers, including the timing of holidays and other annual or special events, the timing of promotions, customer incentive programs and customer inventory programs, as well as the actual or speculated timing of pricing actions and tax-driven price increases.

Operating Results
Smokeable Products Segment
Financial Results
The following table summarizes operating results, includes reported and adjusted OCI margins and provides a reconciliation of reported OCI to adjusted OCI for the smokeable products segment:
Operating Results
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Net revenues$22,866 $23,089 
Excise taxes(4,754)(5,162)
Revenues net of excise taxes$18,112 $17,927 
Reported OCI$10,394 $9,985 
NPM Adjustment Items(53)
Asset impairment, exit, implementation, acquisition and disposition-related costs 
Tobacco and health and certain other litigation items83 79 
COVID-19 special items 41 
Adjusted OCI$10,424 $10,111 
Reported OCI margins (1)
57.4 %55.7 %
Adjusted OCI margins (1)
57.6 %56.4 %
(1) Reported and smokeless products segments:
adjusted OCI margins are calculated as reported and adjusted OCI, respectively, divided by revenues net of excise taxes.
 For the Years Ended December 31,
 Net Revenues Operating Companies Income
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
 2017
 2016
 2015
Smokeable products$22,636
 $22,851
 $22,792
 $8,408
 $7,768
 $7,569
Smokeless products2,155
 2,051
 1,879
 1,300
 1,177
 1,108
Total smokeable and smokeless products$24,791
 $24,902
 $24,671
 $9,708
 $8,945
 $8,677
2021 Compared with 2020
Smokeable Products SegmentNet revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, decreased $223 million (1.0%), due primarily to lower shipment volume ($1,931 million), partially offset by higher pricing ($1,703 million).
The smokeable products segment’s operating companies incomeReported OCI increased during 2017$409 million (4.1%), due primarily to higher pricing ($1,688 million), NPM Adjustment Items in 2021 ($53 million) and lower costs,COVID-19 special items in 2020 ($41 million), partially offset by lower shipment volume. Shipment volume ($1,158 million), higher per unit settlement charges and retail share were negatively impacted in 2017higher costs ($38 million).
Adjusted OCI increased $313 million (3.1%), due primarily to higher pricing, partially offset by lower shipment volume, higher per unit settlement charges and higher costs.
Marketing, administration and research costs for the smokeable products segment include PM USA’s cost of administering and litigating product liability claims. Litigation defense costs are influenced by a large cigarette excise tax increase in California.number of factors, including the number and types of cases filed, the number of cases tried annually, the results of trials and appeals, the development of the law controlling relevant legal issues, and litigation strategy and tactics. For further discussion on these matters, see Note 18 and Item 3. For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, product liability defense costs for PM USA were $111 million and $110 million, respectively. Product liability defense costs have decreased since 2019 driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and fewer trials as a result of court closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which may continue into 2022. Once regular trial activity resumes, PM USA expects product liability defense costs to return to amounts similar to 2019, which were $151 million.

39

Shipment Volume and Retail Share Results
The following table summarizes the smokeable products segment shipment volume performance:
Shipment Volume
For the Years Ended December 31,
(sticks in millions)20212020
Cigarettes:
     Marlboro82,970 88,858 
     Other premium4,216 4,566 
     Discount6,607 8,001 
Total cigarettes93,793 101,425 
Cigars:
     Black & Mild1,796 1,790 
     Other7 10 
Total cigars1,803 1,800 
Total smokeable products95,596 103,225 
 Shipment Volume
 For the Years Ended December 31,
(sticks in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Cigarettes:     
     Marlboro99,974
 105,297
 108,113
     Other premium5,967
 6,382
 6,753
     Discount10,665
 11,251
 11,152
Total cigarettes116,606
 122,930
 126,018
Cigars:     
     Black & Mild1,527
 1,379
 1,295
     Other15
 24
 30
Total cigars1,542
 1,403
 1,325
Total smokeable products118,148
 124,333
 127,343
Note: Cigarettes shipment volume includes Marlboro; Other premium brands, such as Virginia Slims, Parliament, and Benson & Hedges and Nat’s; and Discount brands, which include L&M, Basicand Basic. Chesterfield. Cigarettes volume includes units sold as well as promotional units, but excludes units sold for distribution to


30


Puerto Rico, and units sold in U.S.United States Territories, to overseas military and by Philip Morris Duty Free Inc., none of which, individually or in the aggregate, is material to the smokeable products segment.
The following table summarizes cigarettes retail share performance:
Retail ShareRetail Share
For the Years Ended December 31,For the Years Ended December 31,
2017
 2016
 2015
20212020
Cigarettes:     Cigarettes:
Marlboro43.3% 43.7% 43.8% Marlboro43.1 %42.9 %
Other premium2.7
 2.8
 2.8
Other premium2.3 2.3 
Discount4.7
 4.6
 4.5
Discount3.4 3.9 
Total cigarettes50.7% 51.1% 51.1%Total cigarettes48.8 %49.1 %
Note: Retail share results for cigarettes are based on data from IRI/Management Science AssociateAssociates, Inc., a tracking service that uses a sample of stores and certain wholesale shipments to project market share and depict share trends. This service tracks sales in the food, drug, mass merchandisers, convenience, military, dollar store and club trade classes. For other trade classes selling cigarettes, retail share is based on shipments from wholesalers to retailers through the Store Tracking Analytical Reporting System (“STARS”). This service is not designed to capture sales through other channels, including the internet, direct mail and some illicitly tax-advantaged outlets. It is IRI’s standard practice to periodically refresh its services, which could restate retail share results that were previously released in this service.
For a discussion of volume trends and factors that impact volume and retail share performance, see Tobacco Space - Business Environment above.
2021 Compared with 2020
The smokeable products segment’s reported domestic cigarettes shipment volume decreased 7.5%, driven primarily by the industry’s rate of decline, trade inventory movements, retail share losses, calendar differences and other factors. When adjusted for trade inventory movements, calendar differences and other factors, the smokeable products segment’s reported domestic cigarettes shipment volume decreased by an estimated 6%. When adjusted for trade inventory movements, calendar differences and other factors, total estimated domestic cigarette industry volume decreased by an estimated 5.5%.
Shipments of premium cigarettes accounted for 93.0% and 92.1% of the smokeable products segment’s reported domestic cigarettes shipment volume for 2021 and 2020, respectively.
Total cigarettes industry discount category retail share increased 0.5 share points to 25.4% in 2021 versus 2020. For a discussion regarding discount category dynamics in 2021 and the economic conditions, including a high inflationary environment, that impact adult tobacco consumer purchasing behavior, see Operating Results by Business Segment - Tobacco Space - Business Environment - Summary above.

40

Pricing Actions
PM USA and Middleton executed the following pricing and promotional allowance actions during 2017, 20162021 and 2015:2020:
Effective SeptemberDecember 12, 2021, PM USA increased the list price of Marlboro, L&M and Chesterfield by $0.15 per pack. In addition, PM USA increased the list price of all of its other cigarette brands by $0.20 per pack.
Effective August 15, 2021, PM USA increased the list price of Marlboro, L&M and Chesterfield by $0.14 per pack. In addition, PM USA increased the list price of all of its other cigarette brands by $0.17 per pack.
Effective January 24, 2017,2021, PM USA increased the list price on all of its cigarette brands by $0.10$0.14 per pack.
Effective May 21, 2017,January 10, 2021, Middleton increased various list prices across substantially all of its cigar brands resulting in a weighted-average increase of approximately $0.10$0.07 per five-pack.
Effective March 19, 2017, PM USA increased the list price on Parliament by $0.12 per pack.  In addition, PM USA increased the list price on all of its other cigarette brands by $0.08 per pack.
Effective November 13, 2016, PM USA reduced its wholesale promotional allowance on Marlboro by $0.02 per pack and L&M by $0.08 per pack.  In addition, PM USA increased the list price on Marlboro by $0.06 per pack and on all of its other cigarette brands by $0.08 per pack, except for L&M, which had no list price change.
Effective May 15, 2016,1, 2020, PM USA increased the list price on all of its cigarette brands by $0.07$0.13 per pack.
Effective November 15, 2015,June 21, 2020, PM USA increased the list price on all of its cigarette brands by $0.07$0.11 per pack.
Effective May 17, 2015,February 16, 2020, PM USA increased the list price on all of its cigarette brands by $0.07$0.08 per pack.
Effective January 12, 2020, Middleton increased various list prices across substantially all of its cigar brands resulting in a weighted-average increase of approximately $0.08 per five-pack.
In addition:
Effective January 9, 2022, Middleton increased various list prices across substantially all of its cigar brands resulting in a weighted-average increase of approximately $0.13 per five-pack.
Oral Tobacco Products Segment
Financial Results
The following discussion comparestable summarizes operating results, includes reported and adjusted OCI margins and provides a reconciliation of reported OCI to adjusted OCI for the smokeableoral tobacco products segment for the year ended December 31, 2017segment:
Operating Results
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Net revenues$2,608 $2,533 
Excise taxes(132)(130)
Revenues net of excise taxes$2,476 $2,403 
Reported OCI$1,659 $1,718 
Asset impairment, exit, implementation, acquisition and disposition-related costs37 (3)
COVID-19 special items 
Adjusted OCI$1,696 $1,724 
Reported OCI margins (1)
67.0 %71.5 %
Adjusted OCI margins (1)
68.5 %71.7 %
(1) Reported and adjusted OCI margins are calculated as reported and adjusted OCI, respectively, divided by revenues net of excise taxes.
2021 Compared with the year ended December 31, 2016.2020
Net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, decreased $215increased $75 million (0.9%(3.0%), due primarily to lower higher pricing ($105 million), which includes higher promotional investments in on!, partially offset by volume and mix ($36 million) due primarily to a shift between MST and on! shipment volumes resulting in a higher percentage of 2021 on!volume versus 2020 (“volume/mix”).
Reported OCI decreased $59 million (3.4%) due primarily to higher costs ($1,27398 million), which include higher acquisition-related costs and COVID-19 special items in 2020, and volume/mix ($61 million), partially offset by higher pricing, which includes higher promotional investments.investments in on!.
Operating companies income increased $640Adjusted OCI decreased $28 million (8.2%(1.6%), due primarily to higher pricing ($1,023 million), which includes higher promotional investments, lower marketing, administration and research costs ($251 million), which includes 2016 state excise tax ballot initiative spending and lower product liability defense costs and lower asset impairment and exit costs ($120 million). These factors werevolume/mix, partially offset by lower shipment volume ($691 million) and higher per unit settlement charges.
Marketing, administration and research costs for the smokeable products segment include PM USA’s cost of administering and litigating product liability claims. Litigation defense costs are influenced by a number of factors, including the number and types of cases filed, the number of cases tried annually, the results of trials and appeals, the development of the law controlling relevant legal issues, and litigation strategy and tactics. For further discussion on these matters, see Note 18 and Item 3. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, product liability defense costs for PM USA were $179 million, $234 million and $228 million, respectively. The factors that have influenced past product liability defense costs are expected to continue to influence future costs. PM USA does not expect future product liability defense costs to be significantly different from product liability defense costs incurred in the last few years.
Total smokeable products segment’s reported shipment volume decreased 5.0%. The smokeable products segment’s reported domestic cigarettes shipment volume decreased 5.1%, driven primarily by the industry’s rate of decline, retail share declines and one fewer shipping day. When adjusted for calendar differences, the smokeable products segment’s domestic cigarettes shipment volume decreased an estimated 5%. Total cigarette industry volumes declined by an estimated 4%.
Shipments of premium cigarettes accounted for 90.9% of smokeable products’ reported domestic cigarettes shipment volume for 2017, versus 90.8% for 2016.
The smokeable products segment’s reported cigars shipment volume increased 9.9%.
Marlboro’s retail share declined 0.4 share points, driven primarily by competitive activity and the effect of the cigarette excise tax increase in California. PM USA’s total retail share decreased 0.4 share points.
The following discussion compares operating results for the smokeable products segment for the year ended December 31, 2016 with the year ended December 31, 2015.


31


Net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $59 million (0.3%), due primarily to higher pricing, which includes higher promotional investments partially offset by lower shipment volume ($577 million)in on!.
Operating companies income increased $199 million (2.6%), due primarily to higher pricing, which includes higher promotional investments, lower costs (due primarily to lower pension

41

Shipment Volume and benefit costs) and lower tobacco and health litigation items ($39 million). These factors were partially offset by lower shipment volume ($298 million), higher per unit settlement charges, costs in connection with the productivity initiative and facilities consolidation ($134 million) and NPM Adjustment Items in 2015 ($97 million).    
Total smokeable products segment’s reported shipment volume decreased 2.4%. The smokeable products segment’s reported and adjusted domestic cigarettes shipment volume decreased approximately 2.5% driven primarily by the industry’s rate of decline. Total cigarette industry volumes declined by an estimated 2.5%.
Shipments of premium cigarettes accounted for 90.8% of smokeable products’ reported domestic cigarettes shipment volume for 2016, versus 91.2% for 2015.
Middleton’s reported cigars shipment volume increased 5.9%, driven primarily by Black & Mild in the tipped cigars segment.
Marlboro’s retail share declined 0.1 share point in 2016. PM USA’s total retail share was unchanged in 2016.
Smokeless Products Segment
During 2017, the smokeless products segment grew net revenues and operating companies income, primarily through higher pricing, partially offset by unfavorable mix and lower shipment volume.
During 2017, USSTC voluntarily recalled certain smokeless tobacco products manufactured at its Franklin Park, Illinois facility due to a product tampering incident (the “Recall”). USSTC has concluded the Recall and trade inventories have been replenished. USSTC estimates that the Recall reduced smokeless products segment operating companies income by approximately $60 million in 2017.Retail Share Results
The following table summarizes smokelessoral tobacco products segment shipment volume performance:
Shipment Volume
For the Years Ended December 31,
(cans and packs in millions)20212020
Copenhagen503.6 522.4 
Skoal197.4 208.5 
Other (includes Red Seal and on!)
119.3 88.7 
Total oral tobacco products820.3 819.6 
 
Shipment Volume
For the Years Ended December 31,
(cans and packs in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Copenhagen531.6
 525.1
 474.7
Skoal241.9
 260.9
 267.9
Copenhagen and Skoal
773.5
 786.0
 742.6
Other67.8
 67.5
 70.9
Total smokeless products841.3
 853.5
 813.5
SmokelessNote: Oral tobacco products shipment volume includes cans and packs sold, as well as promotional units, but excludes international volume, which is currently not material to the smokelessoral tobacco products segment. New types of smokelessoral tobacco products, as well as new packaging configurations of existing smokelessoral tobacco products,
may or may not be equivalent to existing MST products on a can-for-can basis. To calculate volumes of cans and packs shipped, one pack of snus or one can of oral nicotine pouches, irrespective of the number of pouches in the pack or can, is assumed to be equivalent to one can of MST.
The following table summarizes smokelessoral tobacco products segment retail share performance (excluding international volume):
 
Retail Share
For the Years Ended December 31,
 2017
 2016
 2015
Copenhagen33.7% 33.2% 31.0%
Skoal16.7
 18.1
 19.4
Copenhagen and Skoal
50.4
 51.3
 50.4
Other3.3
 3.4
 3.7
Total smokeless products53.7% 54.7% 54.1%
Retail Share
For the Years Ended December 31,
20212020
Copenhagen29.4 %31.8 %
Skoal12.6 13.9 
Other (includes Red Seal and on!)
5.8 4.2 
Total oral tobacco products47.8 %49.9 %
Note: The oral tobacco products segment retail share results exclude international volume, which is currently not material. Retail share results for smokelessoral tobacco products are based on data from IRI InfoScan, a tracking service that uses a sample of stores to project market share and depict share trends. This service tracks sales in the food, drug, mass merchandisers, convenience, military, dollar store and club trade classes on the number of cans and packs sold. SmokelessOral tobacco products is defined by IRI as moist smokelessMST, snus and spit-free tobacco products.oral nicotine pouches. New types of smokelessoral tobacco products, as well as new packaging configurations of existing smokelessoral tobacco products, may or may not be equivalent to existing MST products on a can-for-can basis. For example, one pack of snus or one can of oral nicotine pouches, irrespective of the number of pouches in the pack or can, is assumed to be equivalent to one can of MST. Because this service represents retail share performance only in key trade channels, it should not be considered a precise measurement of actual retail share. It is IRI’s standard practice to periodically refresh its InfoScan services, which could restate retail share results that were previously released in this service.
For a discussion of volume trends and factors that impact volume and retail share performance, see Tobacco Space - Business Environment above.
2021 Compared with 2020
The oral tobacco products segment’s reported domestic shipment volume was essentially unchanged as the industry’s growth rate and trade inventory movements were essentially offset by retail share losses and calendar differences. When adjusted for trade inventory movements and calendar differences, the oral tobacco products segment’s reported domestic shipment volume decreased by an estimated 0.5%.
Total oral tobacco products category industry volume increased by an estimated 2% over the six months ended December 31, 2021, driven by growth in oral nicotine pouches.
Retail share losses in the oral tobacco products segment, including Copenhagen, were due to the growth of oral nicotine pouches.
Total U.S. oral tobacco category share for on! nicotine pouches grew to 3.9% in the fourth quarter of 2021, an increase of 2.8 percentage points versus the fourth quarter of 2020.
In 2021, Helix achieved unconstrained on! manufacturing capacity for the current estimated size of the U.S. oral nicotine pouch category.
As of December 31, 2021, on! was available for sale in approximately 117,000 U.S. stores.

42

Pricing Actions
USSTC executed the following pricing actions during 2017, 20162021 and 2015:2020:
Effective SeptemberOctober 26, 2017,2021, USSTC increased the list price on its Copenhagenand Skoal brands by $0.08 per can. USSTC also increased the list price on its Husky brand by $0.12 per can. In addition, USSTC decreased the price on its Red Seal brand by $0.17 per can.
Effective June 29, 2021, USSTC increased the list price on its Skoal Blend products by $0.46 per can. USSTC also increased the list price on its Red Seal and Copenhagen brands and the balance of its Skoal products by $0.05 per can. In addition, USSTC decreased the price on its Husky brand by $1.65 per can.
Effective March 2, 2021, USSTC increased the list price on its Skoal Blend products by $0.16 per can. USSTC also increased the list price on its Husky, Red Seal and Copenhagen brands and the balance of its Skoal products by $0.08 per can.
Effective October 20, 2020, USSTC increased the list price on its Skoal Blend products by $0.15 per can. USSTC also increased the list price on its Husky and Red Seal brands and its Copenhagen and Skoal popular price products by $0.12$0.08 per can. In addition, USSTC increased the list price on allthe balance of its brands, except for Copenhagen and Skoal popular price products by $0.07 per can.
Effective April 25, 2017,July 21, 2020, USSTC increased the list price on all its Skoal Blend products by $0.15 per can.  USSTC also increased the list price on its Husky, Red Seal and Copenhagenbrands and the balance of its Skoal products by $0.07 per can.
Effective December 6, 2016,February 18, 2020, USSTC increased the list price on Copenhagen and its Skoal popular price X-TRA products by $0.12$0.56 per can. USSTC also increased the list price on its Skoal Blend products by $0.16 cents per can and increased the list price on its Husky, Red Seal and Copenhagen brands and the balance of its Skoal products by $0.07 per can.
In addition,addition:
Effective February 22, 2022, USSTC increased the list price on all its Copenhagen, Skoal and Red Sealbrands except for Copenhagen and Skoal popular price products, by $0.07$0.08 per can.
Effective May 10, 2016, USSTC also increased the list price on all its brands by $0.07 per can.
Effective December 8, 2015, USSTC increased the list price on Copenhagen and Skoal popular price productsHusky brand by $0.12 per can. In addition, USSTC increased the list price


32


on all its brands, except for Copenhagen and Skoal popular price products, by $0.07 per can.
Effective May 5, 2015, USSTC increased the list price on all its brands by $0.07 per can.
The following discussion compares operating results for the smokeless products segment for the year ended December 31, 2017 with the year ended December 31, 2016.
Net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $104 million (5.1%), due primarily to higher pricing ($168 million), which includes lower promotional investments, partially offset by unfavorable mix and lower shipment volume ($24 million).
Operating companies income increased $123 million (10.5%), due primarily to higher pricing ($168 million), which includes lower promotional investments, and lower manufacturing costs, partially offset by unfavorable mix, lower shipment volume ($18 million) and a settlement charge for lump sum pension payments ($16 million).
USSTC’s reported domestic shipment volume decreased 1.4%, driven primarily by declines in Skoal. After adjusting for trade inventory movements and other factors, USSTC estimates that its domestic smokeless products shipment volume declined approximately 2%. USSTC estimates that the smokeless products category volume was essentially unchanged over the six months ended December 31, 2017.
Copenhagen’s 0.5 retail share point growth was offset by Skoal’s 1.4 retail share point loss, contributing to a combined retail share decline of 0.9 share points.
The following discussion compares operating results for the smokeless products segment for the year ended December 31, 2016 with the year ended December 31, 2015.
Net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $172 million (9.2%), due primarily to higher shipment volume ($111 million) and higher pricing, which includes higher promotional investments, partially offset by mix due to growth in popular price products.
Operating companies income increased $69 million (6.2%), due primarily to higher shipment volume ($98 million) and higher pricing, which includes higher promotional investments, partially offset by costs in connection with the productivity initiative and facilities consolidation ($57 million), product mix, higher marketing, administration and research costs and higher manufacturing costs.
The smokeless products segment’s reported domestic shipment volume increased 4.9%, driven by Copenhagen, partially offset by declines in Skoal and Other portfolio brands. Copenhagen and Skoal’s combined reported domestic shipment volume increased 5.8%.
After adjusting for trade inventory movements and other factors, USSTC estimates that its domestic smokeless products shipment volume grew approximately 5% for 2016. USSTC estimates that the smokeless products category volume grew approximately 2.5% over the six months ended December 31, 2016.
Copenhagen and Skoal’s combined retail share increased 0.9 share points to 51.3%. Copenhagen’s retail shareincreased 2.2 share points and Skoal’s retail share declined 1.3 share points.
Total smokeless products retail share increased 0.6 share points to 54.7%.

Wine Segment
Business EnvironmentFinancial Results
Full-year 2021 results include wine business financial results for the period January 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021 as a result of the Ste. Michelle is a leading producer of Washington state wines, primarily Chateau Ste. Michelle, Columbia Crest and 14 Hands, and owns wineries in or distributes wines from several other domestic and foreign wine regions. Ste. Michelle holds an 85% ownership interest in Michelle-Antinori, LLC, which owns Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars in Napa Valley. Ste. Michelle also owns Conn Creek in Napa Valley, Patz & Hall in Sonoma and Erath in Oregon. In addition, Ste. Michelle imports and markets Antinori, Torres and Villa Maria Estate wines and Champagne Nicolas Feuillatte in the United States. Key elements of Ste. Michelle’s strategy are expanded domestic distribution of its wines, especially in certain account categories such as restaurants, wholesale clubs, supermarkets, wine shops and mass merchandisers, and a focus on improving product mix to higher-priced, premium products.
Ste. Michelle’s business is subject to significant competition, including competition from many larger, well-established domestic and international companies, as well as from many smaller wine producers. Wine segment competition is primarily based on quality, price, consumer and trade wine tastings, competitive wine judging, third-party acclaim and advertising. Substantially all of Ste. Michelle’s sales occur in the United States through state-licensed distributors. Ste. Michelle also sells to domestic consumers through retail and e-commerce channels and exports wines to international distributors.
Federal, state and local governmental agencies regulate the beverage alcohol industry through various means, including licensing requirements, pricing rules, labeling and advertising restrictions, and distribution and production policies. Further regulatory restrictions or additional excise or other taxes on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages may have an adverse effect on Ste. Michelle’s wine business.

Operating Results
Ste. Michelle’s results for 2017 were negatively impacted by competitive activity, continued trade inventory reductions and slower premium wine category growth.Transaction. For further discussion, see Item 1.
The following table summarizes operating results, includes reported and adjusted OCI margins and provides a reconciliation of reported OCI to adjusted OCI for the wine segment:
 For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Net revenues$698
 $746
 $692
Operating companies income$147
 $164
 $152
Operating Results
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Net revenues$494 $614 
Excise taxes(14)(19)
Revenues net of excise taxes$480 $595 
Reported OCI$21 $(360)
Asset impairment, exit, implementation, acquisition and disposition-related costs52 411 
Adjusted OCI$73 $51 
Reported OCI margins (1)
4.4 %(60.5)%
Adjusted OCI margins (1)
15.2 %8.6 %

(1) Reported and adjusted OCI margins are calculated as reported and adjusted OCI, respectively, divided by revenues net of excise taxes.

33


The following discussion compares operating results for the wine segment for the year ended December 31, 20172021 Compared with the year ended December 31, 2016.2020
Net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, decreased $48$120 million (6.4%(19.5%).
Reported OCI and adjusted OCI increased $381 million (100%+) and $22 million (43.1%), due primarily to lower shipment volume, partially offset by improved premium mix.respectively.
Operating companies income decreased $17 million (10.4%), due primarily to lower shipment volume.
For 2017, Ste. Michelle’s reported wine shipment volume of 8,530 thousand cases decreased 8.6%.
The following discussion compares operating results for the wine segmentReported OCI for the year ended December 31, 20162021 included disposition-related charges associated with the Ste. Michelle Transaction (as discussed in Note 15).
Reported OCI for the year ended December 31, 2015.2020 included inventory-related charges related to the strategic reset of the wine business (as discussed in Note 5).
Net revenues, which

43

Liquidity and Capital Resources
Altria is a holding company that is primarily dependent on the capital resources of its subsidiaries to satisfy its liquidity requirements. Altria’s access to the operating cash flows of its wholly owned subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and distributions, and the payment of interest on intercompany loans by its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2021, Altria’s significant wholly owned subsidiaries were not limited by contractual obligations in their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their equity interests. In addition, Altria receives cash dividends on its interest in ABI and will continue to do so as long as ABI pays dividends.
At December 31, 2021, Altria had $4.5 billion of cash and cash equivalents. In addition to having access to the operating cash flows of its wholly owned subsidiaries, Altria’s capital resources include excise taxes billedaccess to customers, increased $54 million (7.8%), duecredit markets in the form of commercial paper, borrowings available under its $3.0 billion Credit Agreement (as defined below) and its access to credit markets through the issuance of long-term senior unsecured notes. For additional information, see Capital Markets and Other Matters below.
In addition to funding current operations, Altria primarily to higher shipment volume. Operating companies income increased $12 million (7.9%), due primarily to higher shipment volume and improved premium mix, partially offset by higher costs.
For 2016, Ste. Michelle’s reported wine shipment volume of 9,333 thousand cases grew 5.3%, driven primarily by growth amonguses its core premium brands.
Financial Review
Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities
During 2017, net cash provided byfrom operating activities was $4.9 billion comparedfor payment of dividends, share repurchases under its share repurchase programs, repayment of debt, acquisition of or investments in businesses and assets, and capital expenditures.
Altria believes its cash and cash equivalents balance, along with $3.8 billion during 2016. This increase was due primarilyits future cash flows from operations and capacity for borrowings through its access to the following:
income taxes paid on both the cash proceeds from the Transaction and gains from exercising derivative financial instruments associated with the Transaction in 2016;
higher operating companies income in the smokeable and smokeless products segments;
lower contributions to Altria Group, Inc.’s pension and postretirement plans in 2017; and
lower payments for tobacco and health litigation items in 2017;
partially offset by:
higher payments of settlement charges in 2017.

During 2016, netcredit and capital markets, provide sufficient liquidity to meet its business operations and satisfy its projected cash provided by operating activities was $3.8 billion compared with $5.8 billion during 2015. This decrease was due primarily torequirements for the following:
income taxes paid on both the cash proceeds from the Transaction and gains from exercising derivative financial instruments associated with the Transaction in 2016; and
voluntary contributions totaling $500 million to Altria Group, Inc.’s pension plans during 2016;
partially offset by:
higher cumulative dividends received from AB InBev and SABMiller in 2016.
Altria Group, Inc. had a working capital deficit at December 31, 2017next 12 months and 2016. Altria Group, Inc.’s management believes that it has the ability to fund these working capital deficits with cash provided by operating activities and/or short-term borrowings under its commercial paper program as discussed in the Debt and Liquidity section below.foreseeable future.
Net Cash Provided by/Used in Investing Activities
During 2017, net cash used in investing activities was $0.5 billion compared with net cash provided by investing activities of $3.7 billion during 2016. This change was due primarily to the following:
proceeds of $4.8 billion from the Transaction during 2016;
proceeds of $0.5 billion from exercising derivative financial instruments associated with the Transaction during 2016; and
higher acquisitions of businesses and assets in 2017;
partially offset by:
payment of approximately $1.6 billion for the purchase of ordinary shares of AB InBev during 2016.
During 2016, net cash provided by investing activities was $3.7 billion compared with net cash used in investing activities of $15 million during 2015. This change was due primarily to the following:
proceeds of $4.8 billion from the Transaction during 2016; and
proceeds of $0.5 billion from exercising derivative financial instruments associated with the Transaction during 2016;
partially offset by:
payment of approximately $1.6 billion for the purchase of ordinary shares of AB InBev during 2016.
Capital expenditures for 2017 increased 5.3% to $199 million, due primarily to the acquisition of the previously leased headquarters in Richmond, Virginia in 2017, partially offset by lower spending related to manufacturing. Capital expenditures for 2018 are expected to be in the range of $200 million to $250 million,Markets and are expected to be funded from operating cash flows. The increase in expected capital expenditures in 2018 compared with 2017 is due primarily to spending related to manufacturing.
Other Matters


34


Net Cash Used in Financing Activities
During 2017, net cash used in financing activities was $7.8 billion compared with $5.3 billion during 2016. This increase was due to the following:
debt issuance of $2.0 billion of senior unsecured notes during 2016 used in part to repurchase senior unsecured notes in connection with the 2016 debt tender offer;
higher repurchases of common stock during 2017; and
higher dividends paid during 2017;
partially offset by:
debt repayments of $0.9 billion and premiums and fees of $0.8 billion in connection with the debt tender offer during 2016.
During 2016, net cash used in financing activities was $5.3 billion compared with $6.8 billion during 2015. This decrease was due primarily to the following:
debt issuance of $2.0 billion of senior unsecured notes during 2016 used in part to repurchase senior unsecured notes in connection with the 2016 debt tender offer; and
$1.0 billion repayment of Altria Group, Inc. senior unsecured notes at scheduled maturity in 2015;
partially offset by:
higher premiums, fees and repayments of debt in connection with debt tender offers during 2016;
higher repurchases of common stock during 2016; and
higher dividends paid during 2016.
Debt and Liquidity
Credit Ratings - Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s cost and terms of financing and its access to commercial paper markets may be impacted by applicable credit ratings. The impact of credit ratings on the cost of borrowings under Altria Group, Inc.’s credit agreementthe Credit Agreement is discussed below. Seein Note 8. Short-Term Borrowings and Borrowing Arrangements to the discussionconsolidated financial statements in Item 1A regarding the potential adverse impact of certain events on Altria Group, Inc.’s credit ratings.8 (“Note 8”).
At December 31, 2017,2021, the credit ratings and outlook for Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s indebtedness by major credit rating agencies were:
Short-term
Debt
Long-term
Debt
Outlook
Moody’s InvestorInvestors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”)P-2A3Stable
Standard & Poor’s RatingsFinancial Services LLC (“Standard & Poor’s”S&P”)A-1A-2A-BBBStable
Fitch Ratings Ltd. (“Fitch”) 1
Inc.
F2A-BBBStable
1 On April 3, 2017, Fitch raised the long-term debt credit rating for Altria Group, Inc. to A- from BBB+.
Credit Lines- From time to time, Altria Group, Inc. has short-term borrowing needs to meet its working capital requirements arising from the timing of annual MSA payments, quarterly income tax payments and quarterly dividend payments, and generally uses its commercial paper program to meet those needs.
At December 31, 2017, 2016In August 2021, Altria entered into an extension and 2015, Altria Group, Inc. had no short-term borrowings.
At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc. had in place aamendment to its $3.0 billion senior unsecured 5-year revolving credit agreement (the(as amended, the “Credit Agreement”). The Credit Agreement provides for borrowings up to an aggregate principal amount of $3.0 billion and expires August 19, 2020.
Pricing for interest and fees under the Credit Agreement may be modified in the event of a change in the rating of Altria Group, Inc.’s long-term senior unsecured debt. Interest rates on borrowings under the Credit Agreement are expected to be based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus a percentage based on the higher of the ratings of Altria Group, Inc.’s long-term senior unsecured debt from Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. The applicable percentage based on Altria Group, Inc.’s long-term senior unsecured debt ratings at December 31, 2017 for borrowings under the Credit Agreement was 1.125%. The Credit Agreement does not include any other rating triggers, nor does it contain any provisions that could require the posting of collateral. At December 31, 2017, credit available to Altria Group, Inc. under the Credit Agreement was $3.0 billion.
The Credit Agreement is used for general corporate purposes and to support Altria Group, Inc.’s commercial paper issuances. The Credit Agreement requires that Altria Group, Inc. maintain (i) a ratio of debt to consolidated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) of not more than 3.0 to 1.0 and (ii) a ratio of consolidated EBITDA to consolidated interest expense of not less than 4.0 to 1.0, each calculated as of the end of the applicable quarter on a rolling four quarters basis. At December 31, 2017, the ratios of debt to consolidated EBITDA and consolidated EBITDA to consolidated interest expense, calculated in accordance with the Credit Agreement, were 1.3 to 1.0 and 14.8 to 1.0, respectively. Altria Group, Inc. expects to continue to meet its covenants associated with the Credit Agreement. The terms “consolidated EBITDA,” “debt” and “consolidated interest expense,” as defined in the Credit Agreement, include certain adjustments. Exhibit 99.3 to Altria Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013 sets forth the definitions of these terms as they appear in the Credit Agreement and is incorporated herein by reference.
Any commercial paper issued by Altria Group, Inc. and borrowings under the Credit Agreement are guaranteed by PM USA as further discussed in Note 19. Condensed Consolidating Financial Information to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 19”).
Financial Market Environment - Altria Group, Inc. believes it has adequate liquidity and access to financial resources to meet its anticipated obligations and ongoing business needs in the foreseeable future. Altria Group, Inc. continues to monitormonitors the credit quality of its bank group and is not aware of any potential non-performing credit provider in that group. For further discussion on short-term borrowings, see Note 8.
Any commercial paper issued by Altria Group, Inc. believesand borrowings under the lendersCredit Agreement are guaranteed by PM USA. For further discussion, see Supplemental Guarantor Financial Information below and Note 9.
Debt - At December 31, 2021 and 2020, Altria’s total debt was $28.0 billion and $29.5 billion, respectively.
In May 2021, Altria repaid in full its bank group will be willing4.75% senior unsecured notes in the aggregate principal amount of $1.5 billion at maturity.
In February 2021, Altria issued long-term senior unsecured notes in the aggregate principal amount of $5.5 billion (the “Notes”). The net proceeds from the Notes were used (i) to fund the purchase and ableredemption of certain unsecured notes and payment of related fees and expenses (as described below) and (ii) for other general corporate purposes.
During the first quarter of 2021, Altria (i) completed debt tender offers to advance fundspurchase for cash certain of its long-term senior unsecured notes in accordance with their legal obligations. See Item


35


1A$4,042 million and (ii) redeemed all of its outstanding 3.490% Notes due 2022 in an aggregate principal amount of $1.0 billion. As a result, for certain risk factors associated with the foregoing discussion.
Tax Reform Act -year ended December 31, 2021, Altria recorded pre-tax losses on early extinguishment of debt of $649 million, which included premiums and fees of $623 million and the write-off of related unamortized debt discounts and debt issuance costs of $26 million. As a result of the Tax Reform Act’s reduction indebt transactions, Altria reduced its near-term maturity towers, extended the U.S. federal statutory corporate income taxweighted-average maturity of its debt and lowered its weighted-average coupon interest rate from 35% to 21% effective January 1, 2018, Altria Group, Inc. expects increased liquidity. Altria Group, Inc. plans to make strategicon total long-term investments with the increased liquidity, reinvesting approximately one-third of the total tax reform benefit in 2018, with a moderating level of investment in subsequent years.debt.
Debt - At December 31, 2017 and 2016, Altria Group, Inc.’s total debt was $13.9 billion for each period.
All of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s long-term debt was fixed-rate debtoutstanding at December 31, 20172021 and 2016.2020 was fixed-rate debt. The weighted-average coupon interest rate on total long-term debt was approximately 4.9%4.0% and 4.1% at December 31, 20172021 and 2016. 2020, respectively.
For further details on long-term debt, see Note 9.

44

Ste. Michelle Transaction - On October 1, 2021, UST received net cash proceeds of approximately $1.2 billion from the Ste. Michelle Transaction, which was used to partially fund the expansion of the January 2021 share repurchase program as discussed in Note 10. Capital Stock to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 (“Note 10”).
In October 2017,2020, Altria Group, Inc. filed a registration statement on Form S-3 with the SEC, under which Altria Group, Inc. may offer debt securities or warrants to purchase debt securities from time to time over a three-year period from the date of filing.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and AggregateOther Future Contractual Obligations
Altria Group, Inc. has no off-balance sheet arrangements, including special purpose entities, other than guarantees and contractual obligations that are discussed below.
Guarantees and Other Similar Matters - As discussed in Note 18, Altria Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries had unused letters of credit obtained in the ordinary course of business and guarantees (including third-party guarantees) and a redeemable noncontrolling interest outstanding at December 31, 2017.2021. From time to time, subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. also issue lines of credit to affiliated entities. In addition, as discussed below in Supplemental Guarantor Financial Information and in Note 19,9, PM USA has issued guarantees relating to Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s obligations under its outstanding debt securities, borrowings under the Credit Agreement and amounts outstanding under itsthe commercial paper program. These items have not had, and are not expected to have, a significant impact on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s liquidity.
Aggregate Contractual Obligations - The following table summarizes Altria Group, Inc.’s contractual obligations at December 31, 2017:
 Payments Due
(in millions)Total
 2018
 2019 - 2020
 2021 - 2022
 2023 and Thereafter
Long-term debt (1)
$14,017
 $864
 $2,144
 $3,400
 $7,609
Interest on borrowings (2)
8,403
 693
 1,100
 849
 5,761
Operating leases (3)
192
 38
 61
 49
 44
Purchase obligations: (4)

 
 
 
 
Inventory and production costs3,452
 1,023
 1,250
 600
 579
Other634
 456
 159
 19
 
 4,086
 1,479
 1,409
 619
 579
Other long-term liabilities (5)
2,084
 78
 166
 194
 1,646
 $28,782
 $3,152
 $4,880
 $5,111
 $15,639
(1) Amounts represent the expected cash payments of Altria Group, Inc.’s long-term debt.
(2) Amounts represent the expected cash payments of Altria Group, Inc.’s interest expense on its long-term debt.Long-Term Debt and Interest on Borrowings - In addition to maturities of long-term debt, Altria Group, Inc.’s debt, which was all fixed-rate debt at December 31, 2017, is presented using themakes interest payments based on stated coupon interest rate. Amounts exclude the amortization ofrates. For information on annual debt discountsmaturities and debt issuance costs, the amortization of loan fees and fees for lines of credit that would be included in interest and other debt expense, net in the consolidated statements of earnings.payments, see Note 9.
(3) Amounts represent the minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases.
(4)Purchase Obligations - Altria has entered into purchase obligations for inventory and production costs (such as raw materials, indirect materials and services, contract manufacturing, packaging, storage and distribution) areand other commitments for projected needs to be used in the normal course of business. Other purchase obligations include commitments for marketing, capital expenditures, information technology and professional services. Arrangements are considered purchase obligations if a contract specifies all significant terms, including fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased, a pricing structure and approximate timing of the transaction. Most arrangements are cancelable without a significant penalty and with short notice (usually 30 days). Any amounts reflected onAt December 31, 2021, purchase obligations for inventory and production costs for the consolidated balance sheet as accountsnext 12 months were $827 million and $1,274 million thereafter (a decrease from $1,095 million and $2,902 million at December 31, 2020, respectively, driven primarily by the Ste. Michelle Transaction).
At December 31, 2021, Altria had $609 million of other purchase obligation commitments for marketing, capital expenditures, information technology and professional services, which occur through the ordinary course of business. Substantially all of these commitments are expected to be satisfied within 12 months. Accounts payable and accrued liabilities are excluded from the table above.
(5) Other long-term liabilities consist of accrued postretirement health care costs and certain accrued pension costs. The amounts included in the table above for accrued pension costs consist of the actuarially determined anticipated minimum funding requirements for each year from 2018 through 2022. Contributions beyond 2022 cannot be reasonably estimated and, therefore, are not included in the table above. In addition, the following long-term liabilities includedreflected on theAltria’s consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2021 and are excluded from the table above: accrued postemployment costs, income taxes and tax contingencies, and other accruals. Altria Group, Inc. is unable to estimate the timing of payments for these items.amounts above.


36


The State Settlement Agreements and related legal fee payments, and payments for FDA user fees, as discussed below and in Note 18, are excluded from the table above, as the payments are subject to adjustment for several factors, including inflation, operating income, market share and industry volume. Litigation escrow deposits, as discussed below and in Note 18, are also excluded from the table above since these deposits will be returned to PM USA should it prevail on appeal.
Payments Under State Settlement Agreements and FDA Regulation - As discussed previously and in Note 18, PM USA and Nat Sherman havehas entered into State Settlement Agreements with the states and territories of the United States that call for certain payments. In addition, PM USA, Middleton Nat Sherman and USSTC are subject to quarterly user fees imposed by the FDA as a result of the FSPTCA. Payments under the State Settlement Agreements and the FDA user fees are based on variable factors, such as volume, operating income, market share and inflation, depending on the subject payment. Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries account for the cost of the State Settlement Agreements and FDA user fees as a component of cost of sales. Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries recorded approximately $4.7 billion, $4.9 billion and $4.8 billion of charges to cost of sales for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively, in connection with the State Settlement Agreements and FDA user fees. For further discussion of the resolutions of certain disputes with states and territories related to the NPM Adjustmentadjustment provision under the MSA, see Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation - NPM Adjustment Disputes in Note 18.
Based on current agreements, 2017estimated market share, and historicalestimated annual industry volume decline rates and inflation rates, the estimated amounts that Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s subsidiaries may charge to cost of sales for payments related to State Settlement Agreements and FDA user fees approximate $4.8are $4.4 billion in 2018 and each year thereafter.on average for the next three years. These amounts exclude the potential impact of theany NPM Adjustment provision applicable under the MSA and the revised NPM Adjustment provisions applicable under the resolutions of the NPM Adjustment disputes.Items.
The estimated amounts due under the State Settlement Agreements charged to cost of sales in each year wouldare generally be paid in the following year. The amounts charged to cost of sales for FDA user fees are generally paid in the quarter in which the fees are incurred. Altria’s subsidiaries paid approximately $4.7 billion and $4.5 billion for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, in connection with the State Settlement Agreements and FDA user fees. As previously stated, the payments due under the terms of the State Settlement Agreements and FDA user fees are subject to adjustment for several factors, including volume, operating income, inflation and certain contingent events and, in general, are allocated based on each manufacturer’s market share. The future payment amounts discussed above are estimates, and actual payment amounts will differ to the extent underlying assumptions differ from actual future results.
Litigation-Related Deposits and Payments - With respect to certain adverse verdicts currently on appeal, to obtain stays of judgments pending appeals, as of December 31, 2017,2021, PM USA had posted various forms of securityappeal bonds totaling approximately $61$50 million, the majority of which have been collateralized with restricted cash deposits. These cash deposits arethat is included in assets on the consolidated balance sheet.
Although litigation is subject to uncertainty and an adverse outcome or settlement of litigation could have a material adverse effect on the financial position, cash flows or results of operations of PM USA, UST or Altria Group, Inc. in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year, as more fully disclosed in Note 18, Item 3 and Item 1A, management expects cash flow from operations, together with Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s access to capital markets, to provide sufficient liquidity to meet ongoing business needs.
Other Long-Term Liabilities - Altria had $1.5 billion of accrued postretirement health care costs on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2021 and estimates approximately $100 million of annual payments. In addition, Altria has accrued pension obligations, substantially all of which are funded from plan assets. For further information on Altria’s postretirement health care and pension

45

obligations, see Note 16. Altria is unable to estimate the timing of payments of other long-term liabilities (accrued postemployment costs, income taxes and tax contingencies, and other accruals) included on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2021.
Equity and Dividends
As discussed in Note 11. Stock Plans to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8, during 20172021 Altria Group, Inc. granted an aggregate of 0.61.1 million restricted stock units and 0.2 million performance stock units to eligible employees.
At December 31, 2017,2021, the number of shares to be issued upon vesting of restricted stock units and performance stock units was not significant.
Dividends paid in 20172021 and 20162020 were approximately $4.8$6.4 billion and $4.5$6.3 billion, respectively, an increase of 6.5%2.5%, reflecting a higher dividend rate, partially offset by fewer shares outstanding as a result of shares repurchased by Altria Group, Inc.in 2021 under its share repurchase program.
DuringIn the third quarter of 2017,2021, the Board of Directors approved an 8.2%a 4.7% increase in the quarterly dividend rate to $0.66$0.90 per share of Altria Group, Inc. common stock versus the previous rate of $0.61$0.86 per share. The current annualized dividend rate is $3.60 per share. Altria Group, Inc. expects to continue to maintainmaintains its long-term objective of a dividend payout ratio target of approximately 80% of its adjusted diluted EPS. The current annualized dividend rate is $2.64 per share. Future dividend payments remain subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors.Board.
At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc. had approximately $18 million remaining in the July 2015 share repurchase program, which it subsequently completed in January 2018. In January 2018, the Board of Directors authorizedFor a new $1.0 billion share repurchase program, which Altria Group, Inc. expects to complete by the end of 2018. For further discussion of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s share repurchase programs, see Note 10. Capital Stock to the consolidated financial statements in Item 810 and Part II, Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities ofin this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
RecentFinancial Review
Cash Provided by/Used in Operating Activities
During 2021, net cash provided by operating activities was $8.4 billion, essentially unchanged from 2020 as higher net revenues, net of excise taxes, in the smokeable products and oral tobacco products segments were mostly offset by higher settlement and income tax payments.
Altria had a working capital deficit at December 31, 2021 and 2020. Altria’s management believes that Altria has the ability to fund working capital deficits with cash provided by operating activities and borrowings through its access to the credit markets.
Cash Provided by/Used in Investing Activities
During 2021, net cash provided by investing activities was $1.2 billion compared with net cash used in investing activities of $0.1 billion during 2020. This change was due primarily to proceeds from the Ste. Michelle Transaction, higher proceeds from finance asset sales and lower capital expenditures.
Capital expenditures for 2021 decreased 26.8% to $169 million. Capital expenditures were lower due primarily to the timing of projects and the sale of the wine business. Capital expenditures for 2022 are expected to be in the range of $200 million to $250 million, and are expected to be funded from operating cash flows.
Cash Provided by/Used in Financing Activities
During 2021, net cash used in financing activities was $10.0 billion compared with $5.4 billion during 2020. This increase was due primarily to the following:
repayment of $5.0 billion of Altria senior unsecured notes in connection with the 2021 debt tender offers and redemption and payments of $0.6 billion for the premiums and fees in connection with the debt tender offers described above and in Note 9;
proceeds of $2.0 billion from the issuance of long-term senior unsecured notes in 2020;
repayment of $1.5 billion in full of Altria senior unsecured notes at scheduled maturity in May 2021;
repurchases of common stock in 2021; and
higher dividends paid in 2021;
partially offset by:
proceeds of $5.5 billion from the issuance of long-term senior unsecured notes used to repurchase and redeem senior unsecured notes in connection with the 2021 debt tender offers and redemption; and
repayment of $1.0 billion in full of Altria senior unsecured notes at scheduled maturity in January 2020.
New Accounting Guidance Not Yet Adopted
See Note 2for a discussion of recently issued accounting guidance applicable to, but not yet adopted by, Altria Group, Inc.
In addition, in February 2018, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-02, Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“ASU No. 2018-02”). Under ASU No. 2018-02, an entity may elect to reclassify the income tax effects of the Tax Reform Act on items within accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings. ASU No. 2018-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted in any interim period for which


37


financial statements have not yet been issued. The guidance in ASU No. 2018-02 should be applied either in the period of adoption or retrospectively to each period (or periods) in which the effect of the change in the U.S. federal corporate tax rate in the Tax Reform Act is recognized. Altria Group, Inc. is in the process of evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.Altria.
Contingencies
See Note 18 and Item 3 for a discussion of contingencies.


46

Supplemental Guarantor Financial Information
PM USA (the “Guarantor”), which is a 100% owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. (the “Parent”), has guaranteed the Parent’s obligations under its outstanding debt securities, borrowings under its Credit Agreement and amounts outstanding under its commercial paper program (the “Guarantees”). Pursuant to the Guarantees, the Guarantor fully and unconditionally guarantees, as primary obligor, the payment and performance of the Parent’s obligations under the guaranteed debt instruments (the “Obligations”), subject to release under certain customary circumstances as noted below.
The Guarantees provide that the Guarantor guarantees the punctual payment when due, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, of the Obligations. The liability of the Guarantor under the Guarantees is absolute and unconditional irrespective of: any lack of validity, enforceability or genuineness of any provision of any agreement or instrument relating thereto; any change in the time, manner or place of payment of, or in any other term of, all or any of the Obligations, or any other amendment or waiver of or any consent to departure from any agreement or instrument relating thereto; any exchange, release or non-perfection of any collateral, or any release or amendment or waiver of or consent to departure from any other guarantee, for all or any of the Obligations; or any other circumstance that might otherwise constitute a defense available to, or a discharge of, the Parent or the Guarantor.
Under applicable provisions of federal bankruptcy law or comparable provisions of state fraudulent transfer law, the Guarantees could be voided, or claims in respect of the Guarantees could be subordinated to the debts of the Guarantor, if, among other things, the Guarantor, at the time it incurred the Obligations evidenced by the Guarantees:
received less than reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration therefor; and
either:
was insolvent or rendered insolvent by reason of such occurrence;
was engaged in a business or transaction for which the assets of the Guarantor constituted unreasonably small capital; or
intended to incur, or believed that it would incur, debts beyond its ability to pay such debts as they mature.
In addition, under such circumstances, the payment of amounts by the Guarantor pursuant to the Guarantees could be voided and required to be returned to the Guarantor, or to a fund for the benefit of the Guarantor, as the case may be.
The measures of insolvency for purposes of the foregoing considerations will vary depending upon the law applied in any proceeding with respect to the foregoing. Generally, however, the Guarantor would be considered insolvent if:
the sum of its debts, including contingent liabilities, was greater than the saleable value of its assets, all at a fair valuation;
the present fair saleable value of its assets was less than the amount that would be required to pay its probable liability on its existing debts, including contingent liabilities, as they become absolute and mature; or
it could not pay its debts as they become due.
To the extent the Guarantees are voided as a fraudulent conveyance or held unenforceable for any other reason, the holders of the guaranteed debt obligations would not have any claim against the Guarantor and would be creditors solely of the Parent.
The obligations of the Guarantor under the Guarantees are limited to the maximum amount as will not result in the Guarantor’s obligations under the Guarantees constituting a fraudulent transfer or conveyance, after giving effect to such maximum amount and all other contingent and fixed liabilities of the Guarantor that are relevant under Bankruptcy Law, the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act or any similar federal or state law to the extent applicable to the Guarantees. For this purpose, “Bankruptcy Law” means Title 11, U.S. Code, or any similar federal or state law for the relief of debtors.
The Guarantor will be unconditionally released and discharged from the Obligations upon the earliest to occur of:
the date, if any, on which the Guarantor consolidates with or merges into the Parent or any successor;
the date, if any, on which the Parent or any successor consolidates with or merges into the Guarantor;
the payment in full of the Obligations pertaining to such Guarantees; and
the rating of the Parent’s long-term senior unsecured debt by S&P of A or higher.
The Parent is a holding company; therefore, its access to the operating cash flows of its wholly owned subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and distributions, and the payment of interest on intercompany loans by its subsidiaries. Neither the Guarantor nor other 100% owned subsidiaries of the Parent that are not guarantors of the debt (“Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries”) are limited by contractual obligations on their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their equity interests.

47

The following tables include summarized financial information for the Parent and the Guarantor. Transactions between the Parent and the Guarantor (including investment and intercompany balances as well as equity earnings) have been eliminated. The Parent’s and the Guarantor’s intercompany balances with Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries have been presented separately. This summarized financial information is not intended to present the financial position or results of operations of the Parent or the Guarantor in accordance with GAAP.
Summarized Balance Sheets
(in millions of dollars)
December 31, 2021
ParentGuarantor
Assets
Due from Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries$25 $240 
Other current assets4,635 874 
Total current assets$4,660 $1,114 
Due from Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries$4,790 $ 
Other assets11,195 1,764 
Total non-current assets$15,985 $1,764 
Liabilities
Due to Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries$1,179 $778 
Other current liabilities3,339 4,452 
Total current liabilities$4,518 $5,230 
Total non-current liabilities$28,865 $979 

Summarized Statements of Earnings (Losses)
(in millions of dollars)
For the Year Ended December 31, 2021
Parent (1)
Guarantor
Net revenues$ $21,848 
Gross profit 11,064 
Net earnings (losses)(5,812)7,256 
(1) For the year ended December 31, 2021, net earnings (losses) includes $231 million of intercompany interest income from non-guarantor subsidiaries.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.Risk.
At December 31, 2017 and 2016, the fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’s total debt was $15.3 billion and $15.1 billion, respectively. Interest Rate Risk
The fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s long-term debt, all of which is fixed-rate debt, is subject to fluctuations resulting from changes in market interest rates. A 1% increase in market interest rates at December 31, 2017 and 2016 would decreaseThe following table provides the fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’s totalAltria’s long-term debt by approximately $1.2 billion for each period. Aand the change in fair value based on a 1% increase or decrease in market interest rates at December 31, 2017 and 2016 would increase the fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’s total debt by approximately $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively.31:
(in billions)20212020
Fair value$30.5 $34.7 
Decrease in fair value from a 1% increase in market interest rates2.7 2.7 
Increase in fair value from a 1% decrease in market interest rates3.2 3.1 
Interest rates on borrowings under the Credit Agreement are expected to be based on LIBORthe London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), or a fallback benchmark rate determined based on prevailing market convention, plus a percentage based on the higher of the ratings of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s long-term senior unsecured debt from Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s.S&P. The applicable percentage based on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s long-term senior unsecured debt ratings at December 31, 20172021 for borrowings under the Credit Agreement was 1.125%1.0%. At December 31, 2017,2021 and 2020, Altria Group, Inc. had no borrowings under the Credit Agreement.


48

38

Equity Price Risk
The estimated fair values of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and the Cronos warrant are subject to equity price risk. The Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and warrant are recorded at fair value, which is estimated using Black-Scholes option-pricing models. The fair values of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and Cronos warrant are subject to fluctuations resulting from changes in the quoted market price of Cronos shares, the underlying equity security.
The following table provides (i) fair values of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and Cronos warrants and (ii) the change in fair value based on a 10% increase or decrease in the quoted market price of Cronos shares at December 31:
2021202020212020
(in millions)Fixed-price Preemptive RightsCronos Warrant
Fair values$1 $24 $14 $139 
Change in fair value based on a 10% increase/decrease in the quoted market price of Cronos shares 5 28 

49






Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.


Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheets
(in millions of dollars)
________________________
 
at December 31,20212020
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents$4,544 $4,945 
Receivables47 137 
Inventories:
Leaf tobacco744 844 
Other raw materials166 200 
Work in process23 502 
Finished product261 420 
1,194 1,966 
Other current assets298 69 
Total current assets6,083 7,117 
Property, plant and equipment, at cost:
Land and land improvements123 348 
Buildings and building equipment1,422 1,480 
Machinery and equipment2,652 3,010 
Construction in progress235 312 
4,432 5,150 
Less accumulated depreciation2,879 3,138 
1,553 2,012 
Goodwill5,177 5,177 
Other intangible assets, net12,306 12,615 
Investments in equity securities ($1,720 million and $1,868 million at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, measured at fair value)13,481 19,529 
Other assets923 964 
Total Assets$39,523 $47,414 
at December 31,2017
 2016
Assets   
Cash and cash equivalents$1,253
 $4,569
Receivables142
 151
Inventories:   
Leaf tobacco941
 892
Other raw materials170
 164
Work in process560
 512
Finished product554
 483
 2,225
 2,051
Income taxes461
 269
Other current assets263
 220
Total current assets4,344
 7,260
    
Property, plant and equipment, at cost:   
Land and land improvements302
 316
Buildings and building equipment1,437
 1,481
Machinery and equipment2,975
 2,917
Construction in progress165
 121
 4,879
 4,835
Less accumulated depreciation2,965
 2,877
 1,914
 1,958
    
Goodwill5,307
 5,285
Other intangible assets, net12,400
 12,036
Investment in AB InBev17,952
 17,852
Finance assets, net899
 1,028
Other assets386
 513
Total Assets$43,202
 $45,932


See notes to consolidated financial statements.



50
39


Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheets (Continued)
(in millions of dollars, except share and per share data)


at December 31,2017
 2016
at December 31,20212020
Liabilities   Liabilities
Current portion of long-term debt$864
 $
Current portion of long-term debt$1,105 $1,500 
Accounts payable374
 425
Accounts payable449 380 
Accrued liabilities:   Accrued liabilities:
Marketing695
 747
Marketing664 523 
Employment costs188
 289
Settlement charges2,442
 3,701
Settlement charges3,349 3,564 
Other971
 1,025
Other1,365 1,494 
Dividends payable1,258
 1,188
Dividends payable1,647 1,602 
Total current liabilities6,792
 7,375
Total current liabilities8,579 9,063 
   
Long-term debt13,030
 13,881
Long-term debt26,939 27,971 
Deferred income taxes5,247
 8,416
Deferred income taxes3,692 4,532 
Accrued pension costs445
 805
Accrued pension costs200 551 
Accrued postretirement health care costs1,987
 2,217
Accrued postretirement health care costs1,436 1,951 
Other liabilities283
 427
Other liabilities283 381 
Total liabilities27,784
 33,121
Total liabilities41,129 44,449 
Contingencies (Note 18)
 
Contingencies (Note 18)00
Redeemable noncontrolling interest38
 38
Redeemable noncontrolling interest 40 
Stockholders’ Equity   
Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
Common stock, par value $0.33 1/3 per share
(2,805,961,317 shares issued)
935
 935
Common stock, par value $0.33 1/3 per share
(2,805,961,317 shares issued)
935 935 
Additional paid-in capital5,952
 5,893
Additional paid-in capital5,857 5,910 
Earnings reinvested in the business42,251
 36,906
Earnings reinvested in the business30,664 34,679 
Accumulated other comprehensive losses(1,897) (2,052)Accumulated other comprehensive losses(3,056)(4,341)
Cost of repurchased stock
(904,702,125 shares at December 31, 2017 and
862,689,093 shares at December 31, 2016)
(31,864) (28,912)
Total stockholders’ equity attributable to Altria Group, Inc.15,377
 12,770
Cost of repurchased stock
(982,785,699 shares at December 31, 2021 and
947,542,152 shares at December 31, 2020)
Cost of repurchased stock
(982,785,699 shares at December 31, 2021 and
947,542,152 shares at December 31, 2020)
(36,006)(34,344)
Total stockholders’ equity (deficit) attributable to AltriaTotal stockholders’ equity (deficit) attributable to Altria(1,606)2,839 
Noncontrolling interests3
 3
Noncontrolling interests 86 
Total stockholders’ equity15,380
 12,773
Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity$43,202
 $45,932
Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)(1,606)2,925 
Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)$39,523 $47,414 
 
See notes to consolidated financial statements.






4051


Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Losses)
(in millions of dollars, except per share data)

 
for the years ended December 31,202120202019
Net revenues$26,013 $26,153 $25,110 
Cost of sales7,119 7,818 7,085 
Excise taxes on products4,902 5,312 5,314 
Gross profit13,992 13,023 12,711 
Marketing, administration and research costs2,432 2,154 2,226 
Asset impairment and exit costs (4)159 
Operating income11,560 10,873 10,326 
Interest and other debt expense, net1,162 1,209 1,280 
Net periodic benefit income, excluding service cost(202)(77)(37)
Loss on early extinguishment of debt649 — — 
(Income) losses from equity investments5,979 111 (1,725)
Impairment of JUUL equity securities 2,600 8,600 
Loss on Cronos-related financial instruments148 140 1,442 
Earnings before income taxes3,824 6,890 766 
Provision for income taxes1,349 2,436 2,064 
Net earnings (losses)2,475 4,454 (1,298)
Net losses attributable to noncontrolling interests 13 
Net earnings (losses) attributable to Altria$2,475 $4,467 $(1,293)
Per share data:
Basic and diluted earnings (losses) per share attributable to Altria$1.34 $2.40 $(0.70)
for the years ended December 31,2017
 2016
 2015
Net revenues$25,576
 $25,744
 $25,434
Cost of sales7,543
 7,746
 7,740
Excise taxes on products6,082
 6,407
 6,580
Gross profit11,951
 11,591
 11,114
Marketing, administration and research costs2,362
 2,650
 2,708
Reduction of PMI tax-related receivable
 
 41
Asset impairment and exit costs33
 179
 4
Operating income9,556
 8,762
 8,361
Interest and other debt expense, net705
 747
 817
Loss on early extinguishment of debt
 823
 228
Earnings from equity investment in AB InBev/SABMiller(532) (795) (757)
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination(445) (13,865) (5)
Earnings before income taxes9,828
 21,852
 8,078
(Benefit) provision for income taxes(399) 7,608
 2,835
Net earnings10,227
 14,244
 5,243
Net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests(5) (5) (2)
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$10,222
 $14,239
 $5,241
Per share data:     
Basic and diluted earnings per share attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$5.31
 $7.28
 $2.67


See notes to consolidated financial statements.






4152


Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Earnings (Losses)
(in millions of dollars)
_______________________

for the years ended December 31,202120202019
Net earnings (losses)$2,475 $4,454 $(1,298)
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes:
Benefit plans808 (228)(24)
ABI426 (1,245)(319)
Currency translation adjustments and other51 (4)26 
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes1,285 (1,477)(317)
Comprehensive earnings (losses)3,760 2,977 (1,615)
Comprehensive losses attributable to noncontrolling interests 13 
Comprehensive earnings (losses) attributable to Altria$3,760 $2,990 $(1,610)
for the years ended December 31, 2017
 2016
 2015
Net earnings $10,227
 $14,244
 $5,243
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes:      
Currency translation adjustments 
 1
 (3)
Benefit plans 209
 (38) 30
AB InBev/SABMiller (54) 1,265
 (625)
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes 155
 1,228
 (598)
       
Comprehensive earnings 10,382
 15,472
 4,645
Comprehensive earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests (5) (5) (2)
Comprehensive earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc. $10,377
 $15,467
 $4,643


See notes to consolidated financial statements.






4253


Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(in millions of dollars)
__________________
 
for the years ended December 31,202120202019
Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities
Net earnings (losses)$2,475 $4,454 $(1,298)
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings (losses) to operating cash flows:
Depreciation and amortization244 257 226 
Deferred income tax benefit(1,160)(164)(95)
(Income) losses from equity investments5,979 111 (1,725)
Dividends from ABI119 108 396 
Loss on Cronos-related financial instruments148 140 1,442 
Impairment of JUUL equity securities 2,600 8,600 
Loss on early extinguishment of debt649 — — 
Cash effects of changes: (1)
Receivables(18)20 (8)
Inventories57 42 
Accounts payable163 53 (79)
Income taxes(149)(29)89 
Accrued liabilities and other current assets165 (15)11 
Accrued settlement charges(215)218 (108)
Pension plan contributions(26)(33)(56)
Pension provisions and postretirement, net(175)(49)(52)
Other, net (2)
149 712 452 
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities8,405 8,385 7,837 
Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities
Capital expenditures(169)(231)(246)
Acquisitions of businesses and assets — (421)
Investment in Cronos — (1,899)
Proceeds from the Ste. Michelle Transaction, net of cash transferred1,176 — — 
Other, net205 88 168 
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities1,212 (143)(2,398)
for the years ended December 31,2017
 2016
 2015
Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities     
Net earnings$10,227
 $14,244
 $5,243
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to operating cash flows:     
Depreciation and amortization209
 204
 225
Deferred income tax (benefit) provision(3,126) 3,119
 (132)
Earnings from equity investment in AB InBev/SABMiller(532) (795) (757)
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination(445) (13,865) (5)
Dividends from AB InBev/SABMiller806
 739
 495
Asset impairment and exit costs, net of cash paid(38) 106
 1
Loss on early extinguishment of debt
 823
 228
Cash effects of changes:     
Receivables10
 (27) 3
Inventories(171) (34) (33)
Accounts payable(55) 24
 26
Income taxes(294) (231) (12)
Accrued liabilities and other current assets(85) (113) 184
Accrued settlement charges(1,259) 111
 90
Pension and postretirement plans contributions(294) (531) (28)
Pension provisions and postretirement, net(11) (73) 114
Other(20) 120
 201
Net cash provided by operating activities4,922
 3,821
 5,843
Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities     
Capital expenditures(199) (189) (229)
Acquisitions of businesses and assets(415) (45) 
Proceeds from finance assets133
 231
 354
Proceeds from AB InBev/SABMiller business combination
 4,773
 
Purchase of AB InBev ordinary shares
 (1,578) 
Payment for derivative financial instruments(5) (3) (132)
Proceeds from derivative financial instruments
 510
 
Other19
 9
 (8)
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities(467) 3,708
 (15)
Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities     
Long-term debt issued
 1,976
 
Long-term debt repaid
 (933) (1,793)
Repurchases of common stock(2,917) (1,030) (554)
Dividends paid on common stock(4,807) (4,512) (4,179)
Premiums and fees related to early extinguishment of debt
 (809) (226)
Other(47) (21) (28)
Net cash used in financing activities(7,771) (5,329) (6,780)
Cash and cash equivalents:     
(Decrease) increase(3,316) 2,200
 (952)
Balance at beginning of year4,569
 2,369
 3,321
Balance at end of year$1,253
 $4,569
 $2,369
Cash paid:    Interest                                                   $696
 $775
 $776
  Income taxes                                                     $3,036
 $4,664
 $3,029
(1) 2021 amounts reflect changes from operations for Ste. Michelle prior to the Ste. Michelle Transaction.
(2) 2020 primarily reflects inventory-related amounts associated with the wine business strategic reset. For further discussion, see Note 5. Asset Impairment, Exit and Implementation Costs.
See notes to consolidated financial statements.




4354

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Continued)
(in millions of dollars)
__________________
for the years ended December 31,202120202019
Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities
Proceeds from short-term borrowings$ $3,000 $— 
Repayment of short-term borrowings (3,000)(12,800)
Long-term debt issued5,472 1,993 16,265 
Long-term debt repaid(6,542)(1,000)(1,144)
Repurchases of common stock(1,675)— (845)
Dividends paid on common stock(6,446)(6,290)(6,069)
Premiums and fees related to early extinguishment of debt(623)— — 
Other, net(215)(99)(119)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities(10,029)(5,396)(4,712)
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash:
Increase (decrease)(412)2,846 727 
Balance at beginning of year5,006 2,160 1,433 
Balance at end of year$4,594 $5,006 $2,160 
Cash paid:Interest$1,189 $1,246 $991 
Income taxes$2,673 $2,616 $1,977 
The following table provides a reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash to the amounts reported on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets:
at December 31,202120202019
Cash and cash equivalents$4,544 $4,945 $2,117 
Restricted cash included in other current assets (1)
 — 
Restricted cash included in other assets (1)
50 60 43 
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash$4,594 $5,006 $2,160 
(1) Restricted cash consisted of cash deposits collateralizing appeal bonds posted by PM USA to obtain stays of judgments pending appeals. See Note 18. Contingencies.

See notes to consolidated financial statements.


55


Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
(in millions of dollars, except per share data)

 
 Attributable to Altria  
  Common
Stock
Additional
Paid-in
Capital
Earnings
Reinvested in
the Business
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Losses
Cost of
Repurchased
Stock
Non-
controlling
Interests
Total
Stockholders’
Equity (Deficit)
Balances, December 31, 2018$935 $5,961 $43,962 $(2,547)$(33,524)$$14,789 
Net earnings (losses) (1)
— — (1,293)— — (7)(1,300)
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net
of deferred income taxes
— — — (317)— — (317)
Stock award activity— — — 11 — 20 
Cash dividends declared ($3.28 per share)— — (6,130)— — — (6,130)
Repurchases of common stock— — — — (845)— (845)
Other (2)
— — — — — 102 102 
Balances, December 31, 2019935 5,970 36,539 (2,864)(34,358)97 6,319 
Net earnings (losses) (1)
— — 4,467 — — (16)4,451 
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net
of deferred income taxes
— — — (1,477)— — (1,477)
Stock award activity— 13 — — 14 — 27 
Cash dividends declared ($3.40 per share)— — (6,327)— — — (6,327)
Other (2)
— (73)— — — (68)
Balances, December 31, 2020935 5,910 34,679 (4,341)(34,344)86 2,925 
Net earnings (losses) (1)
  2,475   (4)2,471 
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes   1,285   1,285 
Stock award activity 24   13  37 
Cash dividends declared ($3.52 per share)  (6,490)   (6,490)
Repurchases of common stock    (1,675) (1,675)
Other (2)
 (77)   (82)(159)
Balances, December 31, 2021$935 $5,857 $30,664 $(3,056)$(36,006)$ $(1,606)
 Attributable to Altria Group, Inc.   
  
Common
Stock

 
Additional
Paid-in
Capital

 
Earnings
Reinvested in
the Business

 
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Losses

 
Cost of
Repurchased
Stock

 
Non-
controlling
Interests

 
Total
Stockholders’
Equity

Balances, December 31, 2014$935
 $5,735
 $26,277
 $(2,682) $(27,251) $(4) $3,010
Net earnings (losses) (1)

 
 5,241
 
 
 (3) 5,238
Other comprehensive losses, net
of deferred income taxes

 
 
 (598) 
 
 (598)
Stock award activity
 78
 
 
 (40) 
 38
Cash dividends declared ($2.17 per share)
 
 (4,261) 
 
 
 (4,261)
Repurchases of common stock
 
 
 
 (554) 
 (554)
Balances, December 31, 2015935
 5,813
 27,257
 (3,280) (27,845) (7) 2,873
Net earnings (1)

 
 14,239
 
 
 
 14,239
Other comprehensive earnings, net
of deferred income taxes

 
 
 1,228
 
 
 1,228
Stock award activity
 90
 
 
 (37) 
 53
Cash dividends declared ($2.35 per share)
 
 (4,590) 
 
 
 (4,590)
Repurchases of common stock
 
 
 
 (1,030) 
 (1,030)
Other
 (10) 
 
 
 10
 
Balances, December 31, 2016935
 5,893
 36,906
 (2,052) (28,912) 3
 12,773
Net earnings (1)

 
 10,222
 
 
 
 10,222
Other comprehensive earnings, net
of deferred income taxes

 
 
 155
 
 
 155
Stock award activity
 59
 
 
 (35) 
 24
Cash dividends declared ($2.54 per share)
 
 (4,877) 
 
 
 (4,877)
Repurchases of common stock
 
 
 
 (2,917) 
 (2,917)
Balances, December 31, 2017$935
 $5,952
 $42,251
 $(1,897) $(31,864) $3
 $15,380
(1) Amounts attributable to noncontrolling interests for each of the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 20152019 exclude net earnings of $5$4 million, $3 million and $2 million, respectively, due to the redeemable noncontrolling interest related to Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars, which is reported in the mezzanine equity section on the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2017, 2016sheets.
(2) Includes the purchase of an 80% noncontrolling interest in Helix in 2019 and 2015. Seethe remaining noncontrolling interest in Helix ROW and Helix in 2020 and 2021, respectively. For additional information, see Note 18.1. Background and Basis of Presentation.


See notes to consolidated financial statements.




4456

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

_________________________



Note 1. Background and Basis of Presentation
When used in these notes, the term “Altria” refers to Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, unless the context requires otherwise.
Background: At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc.’s wholly-owned2021, Altria’s wholly owned subsidiaries included Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States; John Middleton Co. (“Middleton”), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-ownedwholly owned subsidiary of PM USA; Sherman Group Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries (“Nat Sherman”), which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium cigars; and UST LLC (“UST”), which through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, includingwholly owned subsidiary U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC (“USSTC”) and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. (“Ste. Michelle”), is engaged in the manufacture and sale of moist smokeless tobacco products (“MST”) and wine. Altria Group, Inc.’s other operating companies included Nu Marksnus products; Helix Innovations LLC (“Nu Mark”Helix”), a wholly-owned subsidiary that iswhich operates in the United States and Canada, and Helix Innovations GmbH and its subsidiaries (“Helix ROW”), which operate internationally in the rest-of-world, are engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco products,on! oral nicotine pouches; and Philip Morris Capital Corporation (“PMCC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary thatwhich maintains a portfolio of finance assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases. Other Altria Group, Inc. wholly-ownedwholly owned subsidiaries included Altria Group Distribution Company, which provides sales and distribution services to certain Altria Group, Inc. operating subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services LLC, which provides various support services in areas such as legal, regulatory, consumer engagement, finance, human resources and external affairs to Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria. Altria’s access to the operating cash flows of its wholly-ownedwholly owned subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and distributions, and the payment of interest on intercompany loans by its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc.’s principal wholly-owned2021, Altria’s significant wholly owned subsidiaries were not limited by long-term debt or other agreementscontractual obligations in their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their equity interests.
At September 30, 2016, Altria Group, Inc. had an approximate 27% ownership of SABMiller plcIn October 2021, UST sold its subsidiary, International Wine & Spirits Ltd. (“SABMiller”IWS”), which included Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. (“Ste. Michelle”), to an entity controlled by investment funds managed by Sycamore Partners Management, L.P. in an all-cash transaction with a net purchase price of approximately $1.2 billion and the assumption of certain liabilities of IWS and its subsidiaries (the “Ste. Michelle Transaction”).
In 2019, Helix acquired Burger Söhne Holding and its subsidiaries as well as certain affiliated companies that are engaged in the manufacture and sale of on! oral nicotine pouches. At closing, Altria Group, Inc. accountedowned an 80% interest in Helix, for underwhich Altria paid $353 million. At December 31, 2021, Altria owned 100% of the global on! business as a result of transactions in December 2020 and April 2021 to purchase the remaining 20% interest in (i) Helix ROW and (ii) Helix, respectively. The total purchase price of the December 2020 and April 2021 transactions was approximately $250 million.
At December 31, 2021, Altria’s investments in equity methodsecurities consisted of accounting. In October 2016, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (“Legacy AB InBev”ABI”) completed its business combination with SABMiller, and Altria, Cronos Group Inc. received cash(“Cronos”) and shares representing a 9.6% ownershipJUUL Labs, Inc. (“JUUL”). Altria accounts for its investments in the combined company (the “Transaction”). The newly formed Belgian company, which retained the name Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (“AB InBev”), became the holding company for the combined businesses. Subsequently, Altria Group, Inc. purchased approximately 12 million ordinary shares of AB InBev, increasing Altria Group, Inc.’s ownership to approximately 10.2% at December 31, 2016. At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc. had an approximate 10.2% ownership of AB InBev, which Altria Group, Inc. accounts forABI and Cronos under the equity method of accounting using a one-quarter lag. As a result of the one-quarter lag and the timing of the completion of the Transaction, no earnings from Altria Group, Inc.’saccounts for its equity investment in AB InBev were recorded forJUUL under the year
fair value option.
ended December 31, 2016. Altria Group, Inc. receives cash dividends on its interest in AB InBev if and when AB InBev pays such dividends. For further discussion of Altria’s investments in equity securities, see Note 6. InvestmentInvestments in AB InBev/SABMillerEquity Securities.
In January 2017, Altria Group, Inc. acquired Nat Sherman, which joined PM USA and Middleton as part of Altria Group, Inc.’s smokeable products segment.
Basis of Presentation: The consolidated financial statements include Altria, Group, Inc., as well as its wholly-ownedwholly owned and majority-owned subsidiaries. Investments in equity securities in which Altria Group, Inc. has the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating and financial policies of the investee are accounted for under the equity method of accounting.accounting or the fair value option. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of net revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Significant estimates and assumptions include, among other things, pension and benefit plan assumptions, lives and valuation assumptions for goodwill and other intangible assets, impairment and fair value evaluations for equity investments, marketing programs and income taxes, and the allowance for losses and estimated residual values of finance leases.taxes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Certain immaterial prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year’s presentation due primarily topresentation.
On January 1, 2021, Altria Group, Inc.’s 2017 adoption ofadopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2019-12, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Simplifying the Accounting for Income Taxes (“ASU No. 2016-09, Compensation2019-12”). This guidance removes certain exceptions for investments, intraperiod allocations and interim calculations, and adds guidance to reduce complexity in accounting for income taxes. The adoption of ASU No. 2019-12 did not have a material impact on Altria’s consolidated financial statements.
Additionally, on January 1, 2021, Altria adopted ASU No. 2020-01, Investments - Stock CompensationEquity Securities (Topic 718)321), Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323), and Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment AccountingClarifying the Interactions between Topic 321, Topic 323, and Topic 815 (“ASU No. 2016-09”2020-01”). For further discussion, see Note 11. Stock Plans.This guidance provides clarification of the interaction of rules for equity securities, the equity method of accounting, and forward contracts and purchase options on certain types of securities. The adoption of ASU No. 2020-01 did not have a material impact on Altria’s consolidated financial statements.

57


Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Cash and Cash Equivalents: Cash equivalents include demand deposits with banks and all highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less. Cash equivalents are stated at cost plus accrued interest, which approximates fair value.
Depreciation, Amortization and Impairment Testing and Asset Valuation:Testing: Property, plant and equipment are stated at historical costs and depreciated by the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. Machinery and equipment are depreciated over periods up to 25 years, and buildings and building improvements over periods up to 50 years. Definite-lived intangible assets are amortized over their estimated useful lives up to 25 years.
Altria Group, Inc. reviews long-lived assets, including definite-lived intangible assets, for impairment whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be fully recoverable. Altria Group, Inc. performs undiscounted operating cash flow analyses to determine if an impairment exists. For purposes of recognition and measurement of an impairment for assets held for use, Altria


45

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Group, Inc. groups assets and liabilities at the lowest level for which cash flows are separately identifiable. If Altria determines that an impairment is determined to exist,exists, any related impairment loss is calculated based on fair value. Impairment losses on assets to be disposed of, if any, are based on the estimated proceeds to be received, less costs of disposal. Altria Group, Inc. also reviews the estimated remaining useful lives of long-lived assets whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate the lives may have changed.
Altria Group, Inc. conducts a required annual review of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for potential impairment, and more frequently if an event occurs or circumstances change that would require Altria Group, Inc. to perform an interim review. Altria has the option of first performing a qualitative assessment to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit or indefinite-lived intangible asset is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform a quantitative impairment test. If necessary, Altria will perform a single step quantitative impairment test. Additionally, Altria has the option to unconditionally bypass the qualitative assessment and perform a single step quantitative assessment. If the carrying value of a reporting unit that includes goodwill exceeds its fair value, which is determined using discounted cash flows, goodwill is considered impaired. The amount of impairment loss is measured as the difference between the carrying value and the implied fair value.value of a reporting unit, but is limited to the total amount of goodwill allocated to a reporting unit. If the carrying value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset exceeds its fair value, which is determined using discounted cash flows, the intangible asset is considered impaired and is reduced to fair value.value in the period identified.
Derivative Financial Instruments: In November 2017, Altria Group, Inc. adopted ASU No. 2017-12, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities, which expands hedge accounting for both financial and nonfinancial risk components to better portray the economic results of an entity’s risk management activities in its financial statements. In addition, the guidance includes certain targeted improvements to simplify the application of hedge accounting. At adoption, Altria Group, Inc. had no derivative or nonderivative financial instruments designated in hedging relationships. Adoption of the guidance had no impact on prior years.
Altria Group, Inc. enters into derivatives to mitigate the potential impact of certain market risks, including foreign currency exchange rate risk. Altria Group, Inc. uses various types of derivative financial instruments, including forward contracts, options and swaps.
Derivative financial instruments are recorded at fair value on the consolidated balance sheets as either assets or liabilities. Derivative financial instruments that qualify for hedge accounting are designated as either fair value hedges, cash flow hedges or net investment hedges at the inception of the contracts. For fair value hedges, changes in the fair value of the derivative, as well as the offsetting changes in the fair value of the hedged item, are recorded in the consolidated statements of earnings (losses) each period. For cash flow hedges, changes in the fair value of the derivative are recorded each period in accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) and are reclassified to the consolidated statements of earnings (losses) in the same periods in which operating results are affected by the respective hedged item. For net investment hedges, changes in the fair value of the derivative or foreign currency transaction gains or losses on a nonderivative hedging instrument are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) to offset the change in the value
of the net investment being hedged. Such amounts remain in accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) until the complete or substantially complete liquidation of the underlying foreign operations occurs or, for investments in foreign entities accounted for under the equity method of accounting, Altria Group, Inc.’s economic interest in the underlying foreign entity decreases.accounting. Cash flows from hedging instruments are classified in the same manner as the respective hedged item in the consolidated statements of cash flows.
To qualify for hedge accounting, the hedging relationship, both at inception of the hedge and on an ongoing basis, is expected to be highly effective at achieving the offsetting changes in the fair value of the hedged risk during the period that the hedge is designated. Altria Group, Inc. formally designates and documents, at inception, the financial instrument as a hedge of a specific underlying exposure, the risk management objective, the strategy for undertaking the hedge transaction and method for assessing hedge effectiveness. Additionally, for qualified hedges of forecasted transactions, if it becomes probable that a forecasted transaction will not occur, the hedge willwould no longer be considered effective and all of the derivative gains and losses would be recorded in the consolidated statement of earnings (losses) in the current period.
For financial instruments that are not designated as hedging instruments or do not qualify for hedge accounting, changes in fair value are recorded in the consolidated statementsstatement of earnings (losses) each period. Altria Group, Inc. does not enter into or hold derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.
Employee Benefit Plans: Altria Group, Inc. provides a range of benefits to itscertain employees and retired employees, including pension, postretirement health care and postemployment benefits. Altria Group, Inc. records annual amounts relating to these plans based on calculations

58

specified by U.S. GAAP, which include various actuarial assumptions as to discount rates, assumed rates of return on plan assets, mortality, compensation increases, turnover rates and health care cost trend rates.
Altria Group, Inc. recognizes the funded status of its defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans on the consolidated balance sheetsheets and records as a component of other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes, the gains or losses and prior service costs or credits that have not been recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost. The gains or losses and prior service costs or credits recorded as components of other comprehensive earnings (losses) are subsequently amortized into net periodic benefit cost in future years.
Environmental Costs: Altria Group, Inc. is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Altria Group, Inc. provides for expenses associated with environmental remediation obligations on an undiscounted basis when such amounts are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Such accruals are adjusted as new information develops or circumstances change.
Compliance with environmental laws and regulations, including the payment of any remediation and compliance costs or damages and the making of related expenditures, has not had,


46

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


and is not expected to have, a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, financial position or cash flows (seeflows. See Note 18. Contingencies - Environmental Regulation).
Fair Value Measurements: Altria Group, Inc. measures certain assets and liabilities at fair value. Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Altria Group, Inc. uses a fair value hierarchy, which gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are:
Level 1Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
Level 2Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.
Level 3
Level 1Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
Level 2Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.
Level 3Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities.
Finance Leases: Income attributable to leveraged leases is initially recorded as unearned income and subsequently recognized as revenue over the terms of the respective leases at constant after-tax rates of return on the positive net investment balances. Investments in leveraged leases are stated net of related nonrecourse debt obligations.
Finance leases include unguaranteed residual values that represent PMCC’s estimates at lease inception as to the fair values of assets under lease at the endvalue of the non-cancelable lease terms. The estimated residual values are reviewed at least annually by PMCC’s management. This review includes analysis of a number of factors, including activity in the relevant industry. If necessary, revisions are recorded to reduce the residual values.assets or liabilities.
PMCC considers rents receivable past due when they are beyond the grace period of their contractual due date. PMCC stops recording income (“non-accrual status”) on rents receivable when contractual payments become 90 days past due or earlier if management believes there is significant uncertainty of collectability of rent payments, and resumes recording income when collectability of rent payments is reasonably certain. Payments received on rents receivable that are on non-accrual status are used to reduce the rents receivable balance. Write-offs to the allowance for losses are recorded when amounts are deemed to be uncollectible.
Guarantees: Altria Group, Inc. recognizes a liability for the fair value of the obligation of qualifying guarantee activities. See Note 18. Contingencies for a further discussion of guarantees.
Income Taxes: Significant judgment is required in
determining income tax provisions and in evaluating tax positions.
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities, using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. Altria Group, Inc. records a valuation allowance when it is more-likely-than-notmore likely than not that some portion or all of a deferred tax asset will not be realized. Altria determines the realizability of deferred tax assets based on the weight of all available positive and negative evidence. In reaching this determination, Altria considers the character of the assets and the possible sources of taxable income of the appropriate character within the available carryback and carryforward periods available under the tax law.
Altria Group, Inc. recognizes athe financial statement benefit for uncertain income tax positions when a taxit is more likely than not, based on the technical merits, that the position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return is more-likely-than-not towill be sustained upon examination by taxing authorities. The amount recognized is measured as the largest amount of benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement. Altria Group, Inc. recognizes accrued interest and penalties associated with uncertain tax positions as part of the provision for income taxes in its consolidated statements of earnings.earnings (losses).
Inventories: The last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) method is used to determine the cost of substantially all tobacco inventories. The cost of the remaining inventories is determined using the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) and average cost methods. Inventories that are measured using the LIFO method are stated at the lower of cost or market. Inventories that are measured using the FIFO and average cost methods are stated at the lower of cost and net realizable value. It is a generally recognized industry practice to classify leaf tobacco and wine inventories as current assets although part of such inventory, because of the duration of the curing and aging process, ordinarily would not be used within one year. The cost of approximately 81% and 59% of inventories at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, was determined using the LIFO method. The increase in LIFO percentage was due to the Ste. Michelle Transaction (as Ste. Michelle accounted for its inventory using FIFO). The stated LIFO amounts of inventories were approximately $0.6 billion lower than the current cost of inventories at December 31, 2021 and 2020.
Investments in Equity Securities: Investments in equity securities in which Altria has the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating and financial policies of the investee are accounted for under the equity method of accounting or the fair value option. The election of the fair value option is irrevocable and is made on an investment by investment basis.
Altria elected to account for its investments in ABI and Cronos under the equity method of accounting. Altria’s share of equity (income) losses and other adjustments associated with these equity investments are included in (income) losses from equity investments in the consolidated statements of earnings (losses). The carrying value for each of Altria’s equity investments in ABI and Cronos is reported in

59

investments in equity securities on the consolidated balance sheets. Equity method investments accounted for under the equity method of accounting are reported at cost and adjusted each period for Altria’s share of (income) losses and dividends paid, if any. Altria reports its share of ABI’s and Cronos’s results using a one-quarter lag because results are not available in time for Altria to record them in the concurrent period. Altria reviews its equity investments accounted for under the equity method of accounting for impairment by comparing the fair value of each of its investments to their carrying value. If the carrying value of an investment exceeds its fair value and the loss in value is other than temporary, the investment is considered impaired and reduced to fair value, and the impairment is recognized in the period identified. The factors used to make this determination include the duration and magnitude of the fair value decline, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee, and Altria’s intent and ability to hold its investment until recovery.
Following Share Conversion (as defined in Note 6. Investments in Equity Securities) in the fourth quarter of 2020, Altria elected to account for its equity investment in JUUL under the fair value option. Under this option, any cash dividends received and any changes in the fair value of the equity investment in JUUL, which is calculated quarterly using level 3 fair value measurements, are included in (income) losses from equity investments in the consolidated statements of earnings (losses). The fair value of the equity investment in JUUL is included in investments in equity securities on the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2021 and 2020. Prior to Altria exercising its right to convert its non-voting shares to voting shares, Altria accounted for its investment in JUUL as an investment in an equity security. Since the JUUL shares did not have a readily determinable fair value, Altria elected to measure its investment in JUUL at its cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer.
Litigation Contingencies and Costs: Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when it is determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Litigation defense costs are expensed as incurred and included in marketing, administration and research costs in the consolidated statements of earnings.earnings (losses). See Note 18. Contingencies.
Marketing Costs: Altria Group, Inc.’s Altria’s businesses promote their products with consumer incentives, trade promotions and consumer engagement programs,programs. These consumer incentivesincentive and trade promotions. Such programspromotion activities, which include discounts, coupons, rebates, in-store display incentives event marketing and volume-based incentives. Consumer engagement programsincentives, do not create a distinct deliverable and are, expensed as incurred. Consumer incentive and trade promotion activities aretherefore, recorded as a reduction of revenues. Consumer engagement program payments are made to third parties. Altria’s businesses expense these consumer engagement programs, which include event marketing, as incurred and such expenses are included in marketing, administration and research costs in Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses). For interim reporting purposes, Altria’s businesses charge consumer engagement programs and certain consumer incentive expenses to operations as a percentage of sales, based on estimated sales and related expenses for the full year.
Revenue Recognition: Altria’s businesses generate substantially all of their revenue from sales contracts with customers. While Altria’s businesses enter into separate sales contracts with each customer for each product type, all sales contracts are similarly structured. These contracts create an obligation to transfer product to the customer. All performance obligations are satisfied within one year; therefore, costs to obtain contracts are expensed as incurred and unsatisfied performance obligations are not disclosed. There is no financing component because Altria’s businesses expect, at contract inception, that the period between when Altria’s businesses transfer product to the customer and when the customer pays for that product will be one year or less.
Altria’s businesses define net revenues as revenues, which include excise taxes and shipping and handling charges billed to customers, net of cash discounts for prompt payment, sales returns (also referred to as returned goods) and sales incentives. Altria’s businesses exclude from the transaction price sales taxes and value-added taxes imposed at the time of sale.
Altria’s businesses recognize revenues from sales contracts with customers upon shipment of goods when control of such products is obtained by the customer. Altria’s businesses determine that a customer obtains control of the product upon shipment when title of such product and risk of loss transfers to the customer. Altria’s businesses account for shipping and handling costs as fulfillment costs and such amounts are classified as part of cost of sales in Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses). Altria’s businesses record an allowance for returned goods, based principally on historical volume and return rates, which is included in other accrued liabilities on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets. Altria’s businesses record sales incentives, which consist of consumer incentives and trade promotion activities, as a reduction to revenues (a portion of which is based on amounts estimated as being due to wholesalers, retailers and consumers at the end of a period,period) based principally on historical volume, utilization and redemption rates. For interim reporting purposes, consumer engagement programs and certain consumer incentive expenses are charged to operations as a percentage of sales, based on estimated sales and related expensesExpected payments for the full year.
Revenue Recognition: Altria Group, Inc.’s businesses recognize revenues, net of sales incentives and sales returns, and including shipping and handling charges billed to customers, upon shipment of goods when title and risk of loss pass to
are included in accrued marketing liabilities on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets.


47

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


customers. PaymentsPayment terms vary depending on product type. Altria’s businesses consider payments received in advance of product shipment as deferred revenue, recognition are deferred and recordedwhich is included in other accrued liabilities on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets until revenue is recognized. Altria Group, Inc.’s businesses also include excise taxes billed toPM USA receives payment in advance of a customer obtaining control of the product. USSTC and Helix receive substantially all payments within one business day of the customer obtaining control of the product. Amounts due from customers are included in net revenues. Shipping and handling costs are classified as partreceivables on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets.

60

Stock-Based Compensation: Altria Group, Inc. measures compensation cost for all stock-based awards at fair value on date of grant, net of estimated forfeitures, and recognizes compensation expense over the service periods for awards expected to vest.
New Accounting Standards: Guidance Not Yet Adopted: The following table provides a description of the recently issued accounting guidance applicable to, but not yet adopted by, Altria Group, Inc.:
Altria:
StandardsDescriptionEffective Date for Public EntityEffect on Financial Statements
StandardsDescriptionEffective Date
ASU 2020-06 Accounting for PublicConvertible Instruments and Contracts in an Entity
Effect on Financial Statements
ASU Nos. 2014-09; 2015-14; 2016-08; 2016-10; 2016-12; 2016-20
Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)s Own Equity
The guidance establishes principlessimplifies the accounting for reporting information about the nature, amount, timingcertain financial instruments with characteristics of liabilities and uncertainty of revenueequity, including convertible instruments and cash flows arising fromcontracts in an entity’s contracts with customers.own equity.  Key provisions of the guidance include reducing the number of accounting models, simplifying the earnings per share calculations and expanding the disclosures related to convertible instruments.The guidance is effective for annual reportingfiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period.2021.TheAltria’s adoption of this guidance willis not expected to have a material impact on the amount or timing of revenue recognized on Altria Group, Inc.’sits consolidated financial statements based on current contracts with customers. The guidance will result in expanded footnoteand related disclosures. Altria Group, Inc. will adopt this guidance in the first quarter of 2018, using the modified retrospective transition method.
ASU No. 2016-01
Recognition and Measurement of Financial2021-08 Business Combinations (Topic 805): Accounting for Contract Assets and FinancialContract Liabilities (Subtopic 825-10)from Contracts with Customers
The guidance addresses certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentationupdates how an entity recognizes and disclosure of financial instruments.measures contract assets and contract liabilities acquired in a business combination. Acquirers will now account for related revenue contracts in accordance with Topic 606 as if it had originated the contract.The guidance is effective for annual reportingfiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period.2022.The adoption of this guidance will not have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements. Altria Group, Inc. will adopt this guidance in the first quarter of 2018.
ASU Nos. 2016-02; 2018-01
Leases (Topic 842)
The guidance increases transparency and comparability among organizations by requiring entities to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclose key information about leasing arrangements.The guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early adoption is permitted.Altria Group, Inc. is in the process of evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, including identifying and analyzing all contracts that contain a lease. As a lessor, PMCC maintains a portfolio of finance assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases, the accounting of which will be unchanged under the new guidance and is not expected to change unless there is a contract modification to an existing lease. As a lessee, Altria Group, Inc.’s various leases under existing guidance are classified as operating leases that are not recorded on its consolidated balance sheets but are recorded in its consolidated statements of earnings as expense is incurred. Upon adoption of the new guidance, Altria Group, Inc. will record substantially all leases on its balance sheets as a right-of-use asset and a lease liability. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements. The guidance will result in expanded footnote disclosures.
ASU No. 2016-13 Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments(Topic 326)

The guidance replaces the current incurred loss impairment methodology for recognizing credit losses for financial assets with a methodology that reflects the entity’s current estimate of all expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information for estimating credit losses.The guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early adoption is permitted only as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within that reporting period.Altria Group, Inc. is in the process of evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. Altria Group, Inc.’s financial assets that are within the scope of the new guidance were approximately 2% of Altria Group, Inc.’s total assets at December 31, 2017.
ASU No. 2016-15 Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments (Topic 230)

The guidance addresses how eight specific cash flow issues are to be presented and classified in the statement of cash flows.

The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those fiscal years.

The adoption of this guidance will not have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statements of cash flows. Altria Group, Inc. will adopt this guidance in the first quarter of 2018.




48

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


StandardsDescriptionEffective Date for Public EntityEffect on Financial Statements
ASU No. 2016-18 Restricted Cash (Topic 230)

The guidance requires that a statement of cash flows explain the change during the period in the total of cash, cash equivalents and amounts generally described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents.The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those fiscal years.
At December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, Altria Group, Inc. had restricted cash of $61 million and $82 million, respectively. Altria Group, Inc. will retrospectively adopt this guidance in the first quarter of 2018 and will comply with the required presentation of restricted cash in its consolidated statements of cash flows upon adoption.


ASU No. 2017-07 Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost (Topic 715)

The guidance requires an employer to report the service cost component of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost in the same line item or items as other compensation costs arising from services rendered by employees during the period. The other components of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost are required to be presented in the statement of earnings separately from the service cost component and outside the subtotal of operating income. Additionally, only the service cost component is eligible for capitalization.
The guidance is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within that reporting period. The guidance is required to be applied retrospectively for the presentation of the service cost component and the other components of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost in the statement of earnings, and prospectively for the capitalization of the service cost component.

Under the new guidance, the amount of non-service cost components of net periodic benefit cost (income) presented within operating income that would have been presented separately from operating income was $37 million, $(1) million and $151 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The prospective adoption of this guidance related to the capitalization of the service cost component will not have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements. Altria Group, Inc. will adopt this guidance in the first quarter of 2018.


Note 3. Revenues from Contracts with Customers
Altria disaggregates net revenues based on product type. For further discussion, see Note 15. Segment Reporting.
In 2020, a majority of Altria’s businesses offered cash discounts to customers for prompt payment and calculated cash discounts as a percentage of the list price based on historical experience and agreed-upon payment terms. Beginning in the first quarter of 2021 for USSTC and in the third quarter of 2021 for PM USA, cash discounts were calculated as a flat rate per unit, based on agreed-upon payment terms. Altria’s businesses record receivables net of the cash discounts on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets.
Altria’s businesses that receive payments in advance of product shipment record such payments as deferred revenue. These payments are included in other accrued liabilities on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets until control of such products is obtained by the customer. Deferred revenue was $287 million and $301 million at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. When cash is received in advance of product shipment, Altria’s businesses satisfy their performance obligations within three days of receiving payment. At December 31, 2021 and 2020, there were no differences between amounts recorded as deferred revenue and amounts subsequently recognized as revenue.
Receivables were $47 million and $137 million at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively; the decrease was due primarily to the Ste. Michelle Transaction. At December 31, 2021 and 2020, there were no expected differences between amounts recorded and subsequently received, and Altria’s businesses did not record an allowance for doubtful accounts against these receivables.
Altria’s businesses record an allowance for returned goods, which is included in other accrued liabilities on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets. While all of Altria’s tobacco operating companies sell tobacco products with dates relative to freshness as printed on product packaging, it is USSTC’s policy to accept authorized sales returns from its customers for products that have passed such dates due to the limited shelf life of USSTC’s MST and snus products. Altria’s businesses record estimated sales returns, which are based principally on historical volume and return rates, as a reduction to revenues. Actual sales returns will differ from estimated sales returns to the extent actual results differ from estimated assumptions. Altria’s businesses reflect differences between actual and estimated sales returns in the period in which the actual amounts become known. These differences, if any, have not had a material impact on Altria’s consolidated financial statements. All returned goods are destroyed upon return and not included in inventory. Consequently, Altria’s businesses do not record an asset for their right to recover goods from customers upon return.
Sales incentives include variable payments related to goods sold by Altria’s businesses. Altria’s businesses include estimates of variable consideration as a reduction to revenues upon shipment of goods to customers. The sales incentives that require significant estimates and judgments are as follows:
Price promotion payments- Altria’s businesses make price promotion payments, substantially all of which are made to their retail partners to incent the promotion of certain product offerings in select geographic areas.
Wholesale and retail participation payments- Altria’s businesses make payments to their wholesale and retail partners to incent merchandising and sharing of sales data in accordance with each business’s trade agreements.
These estimates primarily include estimated wholesale to retail sales volume and historical acceptance rates. Actual payments will differ from estimated payments to the extent actual results differ from estimated assumptions. Differences between actual and estimated payments are reflected in the period such information becomes available. These differences, if any, have not had a material impact on Altria’s consolidated financial statements.


61

Note 4. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, net
Goodwill and other intangible assets, net, by segment were as follows:
follows at December 31:
Goodwill Other Intangible Assets, net GoodwillOther Intangible Assets, net
(in millions)December 31, 2017
 December 31, 2016
 December 31, 2017
 December 31, 2016
(in millions)2021202020212020
Smokeable products$99
 $77
 $3,054
 $2,901
Smokeable products$99 $99 $3,017 $3,044 
Smokeless products5,023
 5,023
 8,827
 8,829
Oral tobacco productsOral tobacco products5,078 5,078 9,129 9,164 
Wine74
 74
 294
 295
Wine —  237 
Other111
 111
 225
 11
Other — 160 170 
Total$5,307
 $5,285
 $12,400
 $12,036
Total$5,177 $5,177 $12,306 $12,615 
Goodwill relates toOther intangible assets consisted of the 2017 acquisitionfollowing at December 31:
20212020
(in millions)Gross Carrying
Amount
Accumulated
Amortization
Gross Carrying
Amount
Accumulated
Amortization
Indefinite-lived intangible assets$11,443 $ $11,676 $— 
Definite-lived intangible assets1,260 397 1,275 336 
Total other intangible assets$12,703 $397 $12,951 $336 
At December 31, 2021, substantially all of Nat Sherman, 2014 acquisitionAltria’s indefinite-lived intangible assets consist of Green Smoke,MST and snus trademarks ($8.8 billion) and cigar trademarks ($2.6 billion) from Altria’s 2009 acquisition of UST and 2007 acquisition of Middleton.
Other intangible assets consisted of the following: 
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
(in millions)Gross Carrying Amount
 Accumulated Amortization
 Gross Carrying Amount
 Accumulated Amortization
Indefinite-lived intangible assets$12,125
 $
 $11,740
 $
Definite-lived intangible assets465
 190
 465
 169
Total other intangible assets$12,590
 $190
 $12,205
 $169
Indefinite-lived intangible assets consist substantially of trademarks from Altria Group, Inc.’s 2009 acquisition of UST ($9.1 billion) and 2007 acquisition of Middleton, ($2.6 billion).respectively. Definite-lived intangible assets, which consist primarily of customer relationships andintellectual property, certain cigarette trademarks and customer relationships, are amortized over periods up to 25a weighted-average period of 20 years. Pre-tax amortization expense for definite-lived intangible assets during each of the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015,2019, was $21 million.$72 million, $72 million and $44 million, respectively. Annual amortization expense for each of the next five years is estimated to be approximately $20$70 million, assuming no
additional transactions occur that require the amortization of intangible assets.
The changes in goodwill and net carrying amount of intangible assets were as follows:
20212020
(in millions)
Goodwill
Other Intangible Assets, netGoodwillOther Intangible Assets, net
Balance at January 1$5,177 $12,615 $5,177 $12,687 
Changes due to:
   Dispositions (1)
 (237)— — 
   Amortization (72)— (72)
Balance at December 31$5,177 $12,306 $5,177 $12,615 
(1) Dispositions related to the Ste. Michelle Transaction. See Note 1. Background and Basis of Presentation.
During 2017, 20162021 and 2015, Altria Group, Inc. completed its quantitative2020, Altria’s annual impairment test of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets andresulted in no impairment charges resulted.charges.
ForDuring 2019, upon completion of Altria’s annual impairment testing of goodwill and other indefinite-lived intangible assets, Altria concluded that goodwill of $74 million in the years endedwine segment was fully impaired as the wine reporting unit was impacted by a slowing growth rate in the premium wine category and higher inventories.
At December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, there have been no changes in goodwill and the gross carrying amount of other intangible assets except for the purchase of certain intellectual property in 2017 primarily related to innovative tobacco products, the 2017 acquisition of Nat Sherman and Ste. Michelle’s 2016 purchase of substantially all of the assets


49

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


of Patz & Hall Wine Company, Inc. In addition,2021, there were no accumulated impairment losses related to goodwill and other intangible assets, net atas a result of the disposition of Ste. Michelle. At December 31, 2017 and 2016.2020, the accumulated impairment losses related to goodwill were $74 million.

62

Note 4.5. Asset Impairment, Exit and Implementation Costs
Pre-tax asset impairment, exit and implementation costs (income) consisted of the following:
(in millions)(in millions)Asset Impairment
and Exit Costs
Implementation CostsTotal
For the year ended December 31,For the year ended December 31,2020201920212020
2019 (1)
202120202019
Smokeable productsSmokeable products$$59 $ $— $33 $ $$92 
Oral tobacco productsOral tobacco products(5) —  (5)14 
WineWine— 76 1 411 — 1 411 76 
All otherAll other— 14  — (10) — 
General corporateGeneral corporate(1) — —  (1)
For the Year Ended December 31, 2017
(in millions)
Asset Impairment
and Exit Costs 

 
Implementation
Costs (1)

 Total
Smokeable products$5
 $17
 $22
Smokeless products28
 28
 56
Total$33
 $45
 $78
Total(4)159 1 411 28 1 407 187 
Plus amounts included in net periodic benefit (income) cost, excluding service cost (2)
Plus amounts included in net periodic benefit (income) cost, excluding service cost (2)
— 29 — — —  — 29 
TotalTotal$(4)$188 $1 $411 $28 $1 $407 $216 
(1) The pre-tax Included in cost of sales ($2 million) and marketing, administration and research costs ($26 million) in Altria’s consolidated statement of earnings (losses).
(2) Represents settlement and curtailment costs. See Note 16. Benefit Plans.
Pre-tax implementation costs for 2021 and 2020, which were included in cost of sales in Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated statementstatements of earnings.earnings (losses), were related to Ste. Michelle’s strategic reset, as discussed below.
For the Year Ended December 31, 2016
(in millions)
Asset Impairment
and Exit Costs (1)

 
Implementation
Costs

 Total
Smokeable products$125
 $9
 $134
Smokeless products42
 15
 57
All other7
 
 7
General corporate5
 
 5
Total$179
 $24
 $203
(1) Includes termination, settlement and curtailment costs of $27 million. See Note 16. Benefit Plans.
The pre-taxPre-tax asset impairment, exit and implementation costs for 2017 are2019 were primarily related to the facilities consolidationcost reduction program discussed below, and the pre-tax asset impairment exitof goodwill for the wine reporting unit. See Note 4. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, net.
Wine Business Strategic Reset: During the year ended December 31, 2020, Ste. Michelle recorded pre-tax implementation costs for 2016 are related to both the facilities consolidation and the productivity initiative discussed below.
The movementof $411 million associated with a strategic reset initiated in the restructuring liabilities (excluding termination, settlementfirst quarter of 2020 intended to maximize Ste. Michelle’s profitability and curtailment costs), substantiallyachieve improved long-term cash flow generation. Substantially all of the charges consisted of the following: (i) write-off of inventory ($292 million) as Ste. Michelle no longer believed that the benefit of the blending and production plans for its inventory outweighed inventory carrying cost given the reduced product volume demand; and (ii) estimated losses on future non-cancelable grape purchase commitments that Ste. Michelle believed no longer had a future economic benefit ($100 million).
Cost Reduction Program: In December 2018, Altria announced a cost reduction program that included workforce reductions and third-party spending reductions across the businesses. As a result of the cost reduction program, Altria recorded total pre-tax restructuring charges of $250 million, which are severance liabilities, forincluded employee benefit-related curtailment and settlement costs. Of this amount, Altria recorded net pre-tax cost reversals of $4 million in 2020 and pre-tax charges of $133 million in 2019. The total charges, the majority of which resulted in cash expenditures, related primarily to employee separation costs of $198 million and other costs of $52 million. Cash payments of $11 million, $44 million and $136 million were made during the years ended December 31, 20172021, 2020 and 20162019, respectively, for total program cash payments of $191 million. The cash payments and pre-tax charges related to this cost reduction program are complete.

Note 6. Investments in Equity Securities
The carrying amount of Altria’s investments consisted of the following at December 31:
(in millions)20212020
ABI$11,144 $16,651 
JUUL1,705 1,705 
Cronos (1)
632 1,173 
Total$13,481 $19,529 
(1) Altria’s investment in Cronos at December 31, 2021 consisted of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos ($617 million), the Cronos warrant ($14 million) and the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights ($1 million) (collectively, “Investment in Cronos”). The Investment in Cronos at December 31, 2020 consisted of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos ($1,010 million), the Cronos warrant ($139 million) and the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights ($24 million). See below for further discussion.

63

(Income) losses from equity investments accounted for under the equity method of accounting and fair value option consisted of the following:
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
ABI (1)
$5,564 $223 $(1,229)
Cronos (1)
415 (12)(496)
(Income) losses from investments under equity method of accounting5,979 211 (1,725)
JUUL (100)— 
(Income) losses from equity investments$5,979 $111 $(1,725)
(1) Includes Altria’s share of amounts recorded by its investees and additional adjustments, if required, related to (i) conversion from international financial reporting standards to GAAP and (ii) adjustments to Altria’s investment required under the equity method of accounting.
Investees’ summarized financial data for Altria’s equity investments was as follows:
For Altria’s Year Ended December 31,
2021 (1)
2020 (2)
2019 (3)
(in millions)ABIOther InvestmentsABIOther InvestmentsABIOther Investments
Net revenues$52,864 $1,313 $48,294 $37 $54,187 $21 
Gross profit$30,653 $757 $28,438 $(31)$33,735 $10 
Earnings (losses) from continuing operations$7,434 $(800)$4,265 $99 $10,530 $1,117 
Net earnings (losses)$7,434 $(800)$4,266 $98 $10,530 $1,117 
Net earnings (losses) attributable to equity investments$5,780 $(798)$3,323 $100 $9,189 $1,117 
(in millions) 
Balances at December 31, 2015$
Charges152
Cash spent(73)
Balances at December 31, 201679
Charges25
Cash spent(71)
Balances at December 31, 2017$33

Facilities Consolidation: In October 2016, Altria Group, Inc. announced the consolidation
At September 30,
2021 (1)
2020 (2)
(in millions)ABIOther InvestmentsABIOther Investments
Current assets$21,593 $1,882 $28,672 $1,394 
Long-term assets$190,082 $1,049 $185,106 $525 
Current liabilities$33,540 $451 $34,884 $143 
Long-term liabilities$105,973 $2,277 $117,400 $12 
Convertible Preferred Stock$ $715 $— $— 
Noncontrolling interests$11,356 $(3)$8,459 $(3)
(1) Reflects a one-quarter lag. Other Investments reflect summarized financial data of certain of its operating companies’ manufacturing facilities to streamline operationsCronos’s and achieve greater efficiencies. Middleton is in the process of transferring its Limerick, Pennsylvania operations to the Manufacturing Center site in Richmond, Virginia (“Richmond Manufacturing Center”). USSTC is in the process of transferring its Franklin Park, Illinois operations to its Nashville, Tennessee facility and the Richmond Manufacturing Center. Separation benefits are being paid to non-relocating employees. The consolidation is expected to be substantially completed by the end of the first quarter of 2018.
As a result of the consolidation, Altria Group, Inc. expects to record total pre-tax charges of approximately $150 million, or $0.05 per share. Of this amount, during 2017, Altria Group, Inc. incurred pre-tax charges of $78 million and recorded $71 million in 2016. The total estimated charges relate primarily to accelerated depreciation and asset impairment ($50 million), employee separation costs ($45 million) and other exit and implementation costs ($55 million). Approximately $95 million of the total pre-tax charges are expected to result in cash expenditures.
For theJUUL’s results for Altria’s year ended December 31, 2016, total pre-tax asset impairment and exit costs2021, which includes JUUL’s results for the consolidationperiod November 11, 2020 (the date of $54 million were recorded in the smokeable products segment ($25 million) and smokeless products segment ($29 million). In addition,Share Conversion, defined below) through September 30, 2021.
(2) Reflects a one-quarter lag. Other Investments reflect summarized financial data of Cronos.
(3) Reflects a one-quarter lag. Other Investments reflect summarized financial data of Cronos’s results for theAltria’s year ended December 31, 2016, pre-tax implementation costs of $17 million were recorded in the smokeable products segment ($3 million) and smokeless products segment ($14 million). The pre-tax implementation costs were included in cost of sales in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statement of earnings.
Cash payments related to the consolidation of $58 million were made during the year ended December 31, 2017, for total cash payments of $63 million since inception.
Productivity Initiative: In January 2016,Altria Group, Inc. announced a productivity initiative designed to maintain its operating companies’ leadership and cost competitiveness through reduced spending on certain selling, general and administrative infrastructure and a leaner organizational structure. As a result of the initiative, during 2016, Altria Group, Inc. incurred total pre-


50

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


tax restructuring charges of $132 million, or $0.04 per share, substantially all of2019, which result in cash expenditures. The charges consisted of employee separation costs of $117 million and other associated costs of $15 million. Total pre-tax charges related to the initiative have been completed.
For the year ended December 31, 2016, total pre-tax asset impairment and exit costsincludes Cronos’s results for the initiative of $125 million were recorded in the smokeable products segment ($100 million), smokeless products segment ($13 million), all other ($7 million) and general corporate ($5 million). In addition, for the year ended December 31, 2016, pre-tax implementation costs of $7 million were recorded in the smokeable products segment ($6 million) and smokeless products segment ($1 million). The pre-tax implementation costs were included in marketing, administration and research costs in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statement of earnings.period March 8, 2019 through September 30, 2019.
Cash payments related to the initiative of $32 million were made during the year ended December 31, 2017, for total cash payments of $106 million since inception.
Note 5. Inventories
On January 1, 2017, Altria Group, Inc. adopted ASU No. 2015-11, Inventory(Topic 330): Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory, which requires inventory that is measured using the FIFO or average cost methods to be measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Previous guidance required inventory that was measured using the FIFO or average cost methods to be measured at the lower of cost or market. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements.
The cost of approximately 59% and 62% of inventories at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, was determined using the LIFO method. The stated LIFO amounts of inventories were approximately $0.7 billion lower than the current cost of inventories at December 31, 2017 and 2016.
Note 6. Investment in AB InBev/SABMillerABI
At December 31, 2017,2021, Altria Group, Inc. had an approximate 10.2%10.0% ownership of AB InBev,interest in ABI, consisting of approximately 185 million restricted shares of AB InBevABI (the “Restricted Shares”) and approximately 12 million ordinary shares of AB InBev.ABI. The Restricted Shares:
are unlisted and not admitted to trading on any stock exchange;
are convertible by Altria Group, Inc.into ordinary shares of ABI on a one-for-one basis;
rank equally with ordinary shares of ABI with regards to dividends and voting rights; and
have director nomination rights with respect to ABI.
The Restricted Shares were subject to a five-year lock-up period that ended October 10, 2021. As of this filing, Altria has not elected to convert its Restricted Shares into ordinary shares of ABI.

64

Altria accounts for its investment in AB InBevABI under the equity method of accounting because Altria Group, Inc. has the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating and financial policies of AB InBev,ABI, including having active representation on AB InBev’s BoardABI’s board of Directors (“AB InBev Board”)directors and certain AB InBev Board Committees.ABI board committees. Through this representation, Altria Group, Inc. participates in AB InBevABI policy making processes.
Altria Group, Inc. reports its share of AB InBev’sABI’s results using a one-quarter lag because AB InBev’sABI’s results are not available in time for Altria Group, Inc. to record them in the concurrent period.
Pre-tax earnings from Altria Group, Inc.’s equity investment in AB InBev were $532 million for the year ended December 31, 2017. As a result of the one-quarter lag and the timing of the
completion of the Transaction, no earnings from Altria Group, Inc.’s equity investment in AB InBev were recorded for the year ended December 31, 2016.
On December 22, 2017, the U.S. Government enacted comprehensive tax legislation commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Reform Act”). Consistent with the one-quarter lag for recording AB InBev’s results, in the first quarter of 2018 Altria Group, Inc. will record its share of AB InBev’s recorded fourth quarter 2017 estimated effect of the Tax Reform Act.
Summary financial data of AB InBev is as follows:
(in millions)
For Altria Group, Inc.’s Year Ended
December 31, 2017 (1)
Net revenues$56,004
Gross profit$34,376
Earnings from continuing operations$6,769
Net earnings$6,845
Net earnings attributable to AB InBev$5,473
(in millions)
At September 30, 2017 (1)
 
At October 10, 2016 (1)
Current assets$30,920
 $40,086
Long-term assets$213,696
 $223,701
Current liabilities$37,765
 $44,272
Long-term liabilities$134,236
 $139,112
Noncontrolling interests$10,639
 $9,177
(1) Reflecting the one-quarter lag: (i) summary financial data of AB InBev’s results for Altria Group, Inc.’s year ended December 31, 2017 include AB InBev’s results for the last three months of 2016 and the first nine months of 2017, and (ii) summary financial data of AB InBev’s financial position is disclosed at September 30, 2017 and October 10, 2016.
At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc.’s carrying amount of its equity investment in AB InBev exceeded its share of AB InBev’s net assets attributable to equity holders of AB InBev by approximately $11.7 billion. Substantially all of this difference is comprised of goodwill and other indefinite-lived intangible assets (consisting primarily of trademarks).
The fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s equity investment in AB InBevABI is based on:on (i) unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for AB InBev’sABI’s ordinary shares and was classified in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy and (ii) observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets for the Restricted Shares, and was classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Altria Group, Inc. may, in certain instances, pledge or otherwise grant a security interest in all or part ofcan convert its Restricted Shares. In the event the pledgee or security interest holder forecloses on the Restricted Shares the relevant Restricted Shares will be automatically converted, one-for-one, intoto ordinary shares.shares at its discretion. Therefore, the fair value of each Restricted Share is based on the value of an ordinary share. The
In October 2019, the fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s equity investment in AB InBevABI declined below its carrying value. At December 31, 2020, the fair value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI was $13.8 billion (carrying value of $16.7 billion), which was less than its carrying value by approximately 17%. In preparing its financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2020, Altria evaluated the factors related to the fair value decline, including the impact on the fair value of ABI’s shares during the COVID-19 pandemic, which negatively impacted ABI’s business. Altria evaluated the duration and magnitude of the fair value decline, ABI’s financial condition and near-term prospects and Altria’s intent and ability to hold its investment in ABI until recovery. Altria concluded that the decline in fair value of its equity investment in ABI below its carrying value at December 31, 20172020 was temporary and, 2016therefore, no impairment was $22.1 billion and $20.9 billion, respectively, compared
recorded at that time.


51

the same factors, Altria, Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


within preparing its financial statements for the period ended September 30, 2021, concluded that the decline in fair value of its equity investment in ABI below its carrying value at September 30, 2021 was other than temporary. As a result, Altria recorded a non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge of $18.0$6.2 billion during the third quarter of 2021, which was recorded to (income) losses from equity investments in its consolidated statements of earnings (losses). This impairment charge reflects the difference between the fair value of Altria’s investment in ABI using ABI’s share price at September 30, 2021 and the carrying value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI at September 30, 2021. While Altria considers the impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic that have negatively impacted ABI’s global business to be transitory, Altria determined, as of the third quarter of 2021, that the full recovery to carrying value would take longer than previously expected. This was evidenced by the resumption of declines in fair value during the third quarter of 2021, following positive share price momentum during the first half of 2021. At September 30, 2021, prior to recording the impairment charge, the fair value of Altria’s investment in ABI was below the carrying value by approximately 35%, which represented an additional 18% reduction in ABI’s share price since December 31, 2020. After recording the impairment charge, the fair value and carrying value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI at September 30, 2021 were $11.2 billion.
At December 31, 2021, the fair value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI was $11.9 billion (carrying value of $11.1 billion), which exceeded its carrying value by approximately 7%.
At December 31, 2021, the carrying value of Altria’s equity investment in ABI exceeded its share of ABI’s net assets attributable to equity holders of ABI by approximately $5.1 billion. Substantially all of this difference is comprised of goodwill and other indefinite-lived intangible assets (consisting primarily of trademarks).

Investment in JUUL
In December 2018, Altria made an investment in JUUL for $12.8 billion and $17.9received a 35% economic interest in JUUL through non-voting shares, which were convertible at Altria’s election into voting shares (“Share Conversion”), and a security convertible into additional non-voting or voting shares, as applicable, upon settlement or exercise of certain JUUL convertible securities (the “JUUL Transaction”). At December 31, 2021, Altria had a 35% ownership interest in JUUL, consisting of 42 million voting shares.
Altria received a broad preemptive right to purchase JUUL shares, exercisable each quarter upon dilution, to maintain its ownership percentage and is subject to a standstill restriction under which it may not acquire additional JUUL shares above its 35% interest. Furthermore, Altria agreed not to sell or transfer any of its JUUL shares until December 20, 2024.
As part of the JUUL Transaction, Altria and JUUL entered into a services agreement pursuant to which Altria agreed to provide JUUL with certain commercial services, as requested by JUUL, for an initial term of six years. In January 2020, Altria and JUUL amended certain JUUL Transaction agreements and entered into a new cooperation agreement. In conjunction with these amendments, the parties agreed that Altria would discontinue all services as of March 31, 2020 except regulatory affairs support for JUUL’s pursuit of its pre-market tobacco applications and/or its modified risk tobacco products applications.
Altria also agreed to non-competition obligations generally requiring that it participate in the e-vapor business only through JUUL. However, Altria has the option to be released from its non-compete obligation (i) in the event JUUL is prohibited by federal law from selling e-vapor products in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least 12 months (subject to tolling of this period in certain circumstances), (ii) if the carrying value of Altria’s investment in JUUL is not more than 10% of its initial carrying value of $12.8 billion respectively.or (iii) if Altria is no longer providing JUUL services as of December 20, 2024.

65

Additionally, with respect to certain litigation in which Altria and JUUL are both defendants against third-party plaintiffs, Altria will not pursue any claims against JUUL for indemnification or reimbursement except for any non-contractual claims for contribution or indemnity where a judgment has been entered against Altria and JUUL.
On April 1, 2020, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued an administrative complaint challenging Altria’s investment in JUUL. For further discussion, see Note 18. Contingencies - Antitrust Litigation.
In November 2020, Altria exercised its rights to convert its non-voting JUUL shares into voting shares. Altria does not currently intend to exercise its additional governance rights obtained upon Share Conversion, including the right to elect directors to JUUL’s board, as described below, or to vote its JUUL shares other than as a passive investor, pending the outcome of the FTC administrative complaint.
If Altria chooses to exercise its governance rights, JUUL will:
restructure JUUL’s current 7-member board of directors to a 9-member board that will include independent board members. The new structure will include: (i) 3 independent directors (1 of whom will be designated by Altria and 2 of whom will be designated by JUUL stockholders other than Altria) unanimously certified as independent by a nominating committee, which will include at least 1 Altria designee, (ii) 2 directors designated by Altria, (iii) 3 directors designated by JUUL stockholders other than Altria and (iv) the JUUL Chief Executive Officer; and
create a Litigation Oversight Committee, which will include 2 Altria designated directors (1 of whom will chair the Litigation Oversight Committee); that will have oversight authority and review of litigation management for matters in which JUUL and Altria are co-defendants and have, or reasonably could have, a written joint defense agreement in effect between them. Subject to certain limitations, the Litigation Oversight Committee will recommend to JUUL changes to outside counsel and litigation strategy by majority vote, with disagreements by JUUL’s management being resolved by majority vote of JUUL’s board of directors.
Following Share Conversion in the fourth quarter of 2020, Altria elected to account for its equity method investment in JUUL under the fair value option. Under this option, Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses) include any cash dividends received from its investment in JUUL and any changes in the estimated fair value of its investment, which is calculated quarterly. Altria believes the fair value option provides quarterly transparency to investors as to the fair market value of Altria’s investment in JUUL, given the changes and volatility in the e-vapor category since Altria’s initial investment, as well as the lack of publicly available information regarding JUUL’s business or a market-derived valuation.
The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balance of Altria’s investment in JUUL, which is classified in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy:
(in millions)Investment Balance
Balance at December 31, 2019$
Transfers into Level 3 fair value1,605
Unrealized gains (losses) included in (income) losses from equity investments100
Balance at December 31, 20201,705
Unrealized gains (losses) included in (income) losses from equity investments
Balance at December 31, 2021$1,705
Prior to Share Conversion, Altria accounted for its investment in JUUL as an investment in an equity security. Since the completionJUUL shares do not have a readily determinable fair value, Altria elected to measure its investment in JUUL at its cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer. There were no upward or downward adjustments to the carrying value of Altria’s investment in JUUL resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions since the JUUL Transaction through the date of Share Conversion. In addition, prior to Share Conversion, Altria reviewed its investment in JUUL for impairment by performing a qualitative assessment of impairment indicators on October 10, 2016,a quarterly basis in connection with the preparation of its financial statements. If this qualitative assessment indicated that Altria’s investment in JUUL may be impaired, a quantitative assessment was performed. If the quantitative assessment indicated the estimated fair value of the investment was less than its carrying value, the investment was written down to its estimated fair value.
2021 Financial Activity
For the year ended December 31, 2021, Altria Group, Inc. heldrecorded no change in the estimated fair value of its investment in JUUL. During the year ended December 31, 2021, the estimated fair value was primarily impacted by Altria’s projections of lower JUUL revenues in the U.S. over time due to lower JUUL volume assumptions offset by (i) the effect of passage of time on the projected cash flows and (ii) a decrease in the discount rate due to change in market factors. The estimated fair value of Altria’s investment in JUUL was $1.7 billion at December 31, 2021 and 2020.

66

2020 Financial Activity
Altria recorded a non-cash pre-tax unrealized gain of $100 million for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2020 as a result of an approximate 27%increase in the estimated fair value of its investment in JUUL. The increase in fair value was primarily driven by the effect of passage of time on the projected cash flows, as there were no material changes in the significant assumptions.
In September 2020, JUUL announced a strategic update, which included its plans for a significant global workforce reduction, its evaluation of its resource allocation and the possibility of exiting various international markets. As part of the preparation of Altria’s financial statements for the period ended September 30, 2020, Altria performed a qualitative assessment of impairment indicators for its investment in JUUL and determined that JUUL’s strategic update was an indicator of impairment at September 30, 2020, given the significant deterioration in JUUL’s business prospects.
Given the existence of this impairment indicator, Altria performed a quantitative valuation of its investment in JUUL during the third quarter of 2020 and recorded a non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge of $2.6 billion for the year ended December 31, 2020, reported as impairment of JUUL equity securities in its consolidated statements of earnings (losses). The impairment charge was driven by Altria’s projections of lower JUUL revenues over time due to lower pricing assumptions and delays in JUUL achieving previously forecasted operating margin performance. These drivers were the result of (i) JUUL’s revised international expansion plans and (ii) the evolving U.S. e-vapor category and associated competitive dynamics.
2019 Financial Activity
In 2019, Altria recorded total non-cash pre-tax impairment charges of $8.6 billion ($4.5 billion in the third quarter of 2019 and $4.1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2019) related to its investment in JUUL resulting in a $4.2 billion carrying value of its investment in JUUL at December 31, 2019.
In the third quarter of 2019, Altria performed a qualitative assessment for impairment indicators and concluded that impairment indicators existed. These indicators included significant adverse changes in both the e-vapor regulatory environment and the industry in which JUUL operates. While there was no single determinative event or factor, Altria considered in totality the following indicators of impairment: the increased likelihood of a United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) compliance policy prohibiting the sale of certain flavored e-vapor products in the U.S. market without a pre-market authorization; various e-vapor bans put in place by certain states and cities in the U.S. and in certain international markets, coupled with the increased potential for additional bans in the future; and the impact of heightened adverse publicity, including news reports and public health advisories concerning vaping-related lung injuries and deaths. Altria determined that the third-quarter 2019 impairment charge was due primarily to lower e-vapor sales volume assumptions in the U.S. and international markets and a delay in achieving operating margin performance as compared to the assumptions at the time of the JUUL Transaction, which resulted in a non-cash pre-tax impairment charge of $4.5 billion.
In the fourth quarter of 2019, Altria determined that a significant increase in the number of legal cases pending against JUUL in the fourth quarter of 2019, which included a variety of class action lawsuits and personal injury claims, as well as cases brought by state attorneys general and local governments, resulted in an additional indicator of impairment. Altria determined that the fourth-quarter 2019 impairment charge resulted substantially from increased discount rates applied to future cash flow projections, due to the significant risk created by the increase in the number of legal cases pending against JUUL and the expectation that the number of legal cases against JUUL will continue to increase, which resulted in an additional non-cash pre-tax impairment charge of $4.1 billion.
Altria uses an income approach to estimate the fair value of its investment in JUUL. The income approach reflects the discounting of future cash flows for the U.S. and international markets at a rate of return that incorporates the risk-free rate for the use of those funds, the expected rate of inflation and the risks associated with realizing future cash flows. Future cash flows were based on a range of scenarios that consider various potential regulatory and market outcomes.
In determining the estimated fair value of its investment in JUUL, in 2021, 2020 and 2019, Altria made various judgments, estimates and assumptions, the most significant of which were sales volume, operating margins, discount rates and perpetual growth rates. All significant inputs used in the valuation are classified in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Additionally, in determining these significant assumptions, Altria made judgments regarding the (i) likelihood and extent of various potential regulatory actions and the continued adverse public perception impacting the e-vapor category and specifically JUUL, (ii) risk created by the number and types of legal cases pending against JUUL, (iii) expectations for the future state of the e-vapor category including competitive dynamics and (iv) timing of international expansion plans.

67

Investment in Cronos
At December 31, 2021, Altria had a 41.8% ownership interest in Cronos, consisting of SABMiller that was accounted156.6 million shares, which Altria accounts for under the equity method of accounting. Altria’s ownership percentage decreased from 43.5% at December 31, 2020 due to the issuance of additional shares by Cronos. Altria reports its share of Cronos’s results using a one-quarter lag because Cronos’s results are not available in time for Altria to record them in the concurrent period.
Pre-tax earningsIn March 2019, Altria completed its acquisition of 149.8 million newly issued common shares of Cronos (“Acquired Common Shares”), which represented a 45% economic and voting interest. As part of its Investment in Cronos, at December 31, 2021, Altria also owned:
anti-dilution protections to purchase Cronos common shares, exercisable each quarter upon dilution, to maintain its ownership percentage. Certain of the anti-dilution protections provide Altria the ability to purchase additional Cronos common shares at a per share exercise price of Canadian dollar (“CAD”) $16.25 upon the occurrence of specified events (“Fixed-price Preemptive Rights”). Based on Altria’s assumptions as of December 31, 2021, Altria estimates the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights allows Altria to purchase up to an additional approximately 12 million common shares of Cronos; and
a warrant providing Altria the ability to purchase an additional approximate 10% of common shares of Cronos (approximately 83 million common shares at December 31, 2021) at a per share exercise price of CAD $19.00, which expires on March 8, 2023.
The total purchase price for the Acquired Common Shares, Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and warrant was CAD $2.4 billion (U.S. dollar (“USD”) $1.8 billion).
If exercised in full, the exercise prices for the warrant and Fixed-price Preemptive Rights are approximately CAD $1.6 billion and CAD $0.2 billion, respectively (approximately USD $1.3 billion and $0.2 billion, respectively, based on the CAD to USD exchange rate on January 24, 2022). At December 31, 2021, upon full exercise of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights, to the extent such rights become available, and the warrant, Altria would own approximately 52% of the outstanding common shares of Cronos.
For a discussion of derivatives related to the Investment in Cronos, including Altria’s accounting for changes in the fair value of these derivatives, see Note 7. Financial Instruments.
Altria nominated 4 directors, including 1 director who is independent from Altria, Group, Inc.’swho serve on Cronos’s 7-member board of directors.
The fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in SABMiller were $795Cronos is based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for Cronos’s common shares and was classified in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.
The fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos exceeded its carrying value by $77 million and $757 million for the years endedor approximately 8% at December 31, 20162020.
In September 2021, the fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos declined below its carrying value and 2015, respectively. Altria Group, Inc.’s earnings fromhas not recovered. Accounting guidance requires the evaluation of the following factors when determining if the decline in fair value is other than temporary: (i) the duration and magnitude of the fair value decline, (ii) the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee and (iii) the investor’s intent and ability to hold its equity method investment until full recovery to its carrying value in SABMillerthe near-term. In preparing its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016 included a pre-tax non-cash gain of $309 million, reflecting2021, Altria Group, Inc.’s share of SABMiller’s increaseevaluated these factors and determined that there is not sufficient evidence to shareholders’ equity, resulting fromconclude that the completion of the SABMiller, The Coca-Cola Company and Gutsche Family Investments transaction, combining bottling operations in Africa.impairment is temporary. As a result, Altria recorded a non-cash, pre-tax impairment charge of the timing of the completion of the Transaction, Altria Group, Inc.’s pre-tax earnings from its equity investment in SABMiller$205 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 included2021, which was recorded to (income) losses from equity investments in its consolidated statement of earnings (losses). The impairment charge reflects the difference between the fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos using Cronos’s share price at December 31, 2021 and the carrying value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos at December 31, 2021. At December 31, 2021, prior to recording the impairment charge, the fair value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos was less than its carrying value by approximately 25%. After recording the impairment charge, the fair value and carrying value of Altria’s equity method investment in Cronos at December 31, 2021 were $617 million.
At December 31, 2021, Altria’s carrying value of its equity method investment in Cronos approximated its share of approximately nine monthsCronos’s net assets attributable to equity holders of SABMiller’s earnings.Cronos.
    Summary financial data of SABMiller is as follows:
Note 7. Financial Instruments
 For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)
2016 (1)

 2015
Net revenues$14,543
 $20,188
Operating profit$2,099
 $3,690
Net earnings attributable to SABMiller$1,803
 $2,838
(1) As a result of the timing of the completion of the Transaction, summary financial data of SABMiller for the year ended December 31, 2016 included approximately nine months of SABMiller’s results.
AB InBev and SABMiller Business Combination: On October 10, 2016, Legacy AB InBev completed the Transaction, and AB InBev became the holding company for the combined SABMiller and Legacy AB InBev businesses. Under the terms of the Transaction, SABMiller shareholders received 45 British pounds (“GBP”) in cash for each SABMiller share held, with a partial share alternative (“PSA”), which was subject to proration, available for approximately 41% of the SABMiller shares. Altria Group, Inc. elected the PSA.
Upon completion of the Transaction and takingenters into account proration, Altria Group, Inc. received, in respect of its 430,000,000 SABMiller shares, (i) an interest that was converted into the Restricted Shares, representing a 9.6% ownership of AB InBev based on AB InBev’s shares outstanding at October 10, 2016, and (ii) approximately $4.8 billion in pre-tax cash as the cash component of the PSA. Additionally, Altria Group, Inc. received pre-tax cash proceeds of approximately $0.5 billion from exercising the derivative financial instruments discussed below, which, together withto mitigate the pre-tax cash from the Transaction, totaled approximately $5.3 billion in pre-tax cash. Subsequently,potential impact of certain market risks, including foreign currency exchange rate risk. Altria Group, Inc. purchased approximately 12 million ordinary sharesuses various types of AB InBev for a total cost of approximately $1.6 billion, thereby increasing Altria Group, Inc.’s ownership of AB InBev to approximately 10.2% at December 31, 2016.
The Restricted Shares:
are unlisted and not admitted to trading on any stock exchange;
are subject to a five-year lock-up (subject to limited exceptions) ending October 10, 2021;
are convertible into ordinary shares of AB InBev on a one-for-one basis after the end of this five-year lock-up period;
rank equally with ordinary shares of AB InBev with regards to dividends and voting rights; and
have director nomination rights with respect to AB InBev.
As a result of the Transaction, for the year ended December 31, 2016, Altria Group, Inc. recorded a pre-tax gain of approximately $13.9 billion, or $9.0 billion after-tax, which was based on the following:
the Legacy AB InBev share price as of October 10, 2016;
the book value of Altria Group, Inc.’s investment in SABMiller, including Altria Group, Inc.’s accumulated other comprehensive losses directly attributable to SABMiller, at October 10, 2016;
the gains on the derivative financial instruments discussed below; and
the impact of AB InBev’s divestitures of certain SABMiller assets and businesses in connection with Legacy AB InBev obtaining necessary regulatory clearances for the Transaction (“AB InBev divestitures”) that occurred by December 31, 2016.
For the year ended December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax gains of $445 million related to the planned completion of the remaining AB InBev divestitures in gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statement of earnings.
Altria Group, Inc.’s gain on the Transaction was deferred for United States corporate income tax purposes, except to the extent of the cash consideration received.
Derivative Financial Instruments: In November 2015 and August 2016, Altria Group, Inc. entered into a derivative financial instrument, eachinstruments, including forward contracts, options and swaps. Altria does not enter into or hold derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.
Altria’s investment in ABI, whose functional currency is the form of a put option (together the “options”) to hedgeEuro, exposes Altria Group, Inc.’s exposure to foreign currency exchange rate movementsrisk on the carrying value of its investment. To manage this risk, Altria may designate certain foreign exchange contracts, including cross-currency swap contracts and forward contracts (collectively, “foreign currency contracts”), and Euro denominated unsecured long-term notes (“foreign currency denominated debt”) as net investment hedges of Altria’s investment in ABI.

68

In May 2021, all outstanding foreign currency contracts matured and, at December 31, 2021, Altria had no outstanding foreign currency contracts. When Altria has foreign currency contracts in effect, counterparties are domestic and international financial institutions. Under these contracts, Altria is exposed to potential losses due to non-performance by these counterparties. Altria manages its credit risk by entering into transactions with counterparties with investment grade credit ratings, limiting the GBPamount of exposure Altria has with each counterparty and monitoring the financial condition of each counterparty. The counterparty agreements contain provisions that require Altria to maintain an investment grade credit rating. In the United States dollar, in relationevent Altria’s credit rating falls below investment grade, counterparties to Altria’s foreign currency contracts can require Altria to post collateral.
The following table provides (i) the pre-tax cash consideration that Altria Group, Inc. expected to receive under the PSA pursuant to the revised and final offer announced by Legacy AB InBev on July 26, 2016. Theaggregate notional amounts of foreign currency contracts and (ii) the November 2015aggregate carrying value and August 2016 options were $2,467 million (1,625 million GBP)fair value of foreign currency denominated debt at December 31:
(in millions)20212020
Foreign currency contracts (notional amounts)$ $1,066 
Foreign currency denominated debt
Carrying value4,817 5,171 
Fair value5,114 5,687 
Altria’s estimates of the fair values of its foreign currency contracts are determined using valuation models with significant inputs that are readily available in public markets, or can be derived from observable market transactions, and $480 million (378 million GBP), respectively. The options did not qualifytherefore are classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. An adjustment for hedge accounting; therefore, changescredit risk and non-performance risk is included in the fair values of foreign currency contracts.
The following table provides the options were recorded as gains or losses in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statementsaggregate carrying value and fair value of earnings in the periods in which the changes occurred. For the year endedAltria’s total long-term debt at December 31, 2016, Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax gains associated with the November 2015 and August
31:

(in millions)20212020
Carrying value$28,044 $29,471 
Fair value30,459 34,682 

52

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


2016 options of $330 million and $19 million, respectively, for the changes in the fair values of the options in gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statement of earnings. For the year ended December 31, 2015, Altria Group, Inc. recorded a pre-tax gain of $20 million for the change in the fair value of the November 2015 option. Exercising the options in October 2016 resulted in approximately $0.5 billion in pre-tax cash proceeds.
The fair values of the options were determined using binomial optionits total long-term debt is based on observable market information derived from a third-party pricing models, which reflect the contractual terms of the optionssource and other observable market-based inputs, and wereis classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.
The Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and Cronos warrant, which are further discussed in Note 7. Finance Assets, net
In 2003, PMCC ceased making new investments and began focusing exclusively on managing its portfolio of finance assets6. Investments in orderEquity Securities, are derivative financial instruments, which are required to maximize its operating results and cash flows from its existing lease portfolio activities and asset sales. Accordingly, PMCC’s operating companies income will fluctuate over time as investments mature or are sold.
     At December 31, 2017, finance assets, net, of $899 million were comprised of investments in finance leases of $922 million, reduced by the allowance for losses of $23 million. At December 31, 2016, finance assets, net, of $1,028 million were comprised of investments in finance leases of $1,060 million, reduced by the allowance for losses of $32 million.
A summarybe recorded at fair value. The fair values of the net investmentsFixed-price Preemptive Rights and Cronos warrant are estimated using Black-Scholes option-pricing models, adjusted for observable inputs (which are classified in finance leases, substantially allLevel 1 of which were leveraged leases,the fair value hierarchy), including share price, and unobservable inputs, including probability factors and weighting of expected life, volatility levels and risk-free interest rates (which are classified in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy) based on the following assumptions at December 31:
2021202020212020
Fixed-price Preemptive RightsCronos Warrant
Share price (1)
C$4.98C$8.84C$4.98C$8.84
Expected life (2)
0.59 year1.05 years1.18 years2.18 years
Expected volatility (3)
79.64%80.68%79.64%80.68%
Risk-free interest rate (4)(5)
0.43%0.13%0.80%0.21%
Expected dividend yield (6)
—%—%—%—%
(1) Based on the closing market price for Cronos common stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange on the date indicated.
(2) Based on the weighted-average expected life of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights (with a range from approximately 0.25 year to 4 years at December 31, 20172021 and 2016, before allowance for losses was as follows:
(in millions) 2017
 2016
Rents receivable, net $696
 $805
Unguaranteed residual values 427
 495
Unearned income (201) (240)
Investments in finance leases 922
 1,060
Deferred income taxes (407) (717)
Net investments in finance leases $515
 $343
Rents receivable, net, represent unpaid rents, net of principal and interest payments on third-party nonrecourse debt. PMCC’s rights0.25 year to rents receivable are subordinate to the third-party nonrecourse debtholders and the leased equipment is pledged as collateral to the debtholders. The repayment of the nonrecourse debt is collateralized by lease payments receivable and the leased property, and is nonrecourse to the general assets of PMCC. As required by U.S. GAAP, the third-party nonrecourse debt of $0.6 billion and $0.8 billion5 years at December 31, 20172020) and 2016, respectively, has been offset against the related rents receivable. There were no leases with contingent rentals in 2017 and 2016.
In 2017, 2016 and 2015 PMCC’s review of estimated residual values resulted in a decrease of $8 million, $28 million and $65 million, respectively, to unguaranteed residual values. These decreases in unguaranteed residual values resulted in a
reduction to PMCC’s net revenues of $5 million, $18 million and $41 million in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
At December 31, 2017, PMCC’s investments in finance leases were principally comprisedMarch 8, 2023 expiration date of the following investment categories: aircraft (40%), electric power (27%), railcar (13%), real estate (10%)Cronos warrant.
(3) Based on a blend of historical volatility of the underlying equity security and manufacturing (10%). There were no investments located outsideimplied volatility from traded options on the United Statesunderlying equity security at December 31, 20172021. Based on a blend of historical volatility levels of the underlying equity security and 2016.
Rents receivable in excess of debt service requirements on third-party nonrecourse debtpeer companies at December 31, 20172020.
(4) Based on the implied yield currently available on Canadian Treasury zero coupon issues (with a range from approximately 0.16% to 1.14% at December 31, 2021 and 0.06% to 0.39% at December 31, 2020) weighted for the remaining expected life of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights.
(5) Based on the implied yield currently available on Canadian Treasury zero coupon issues and the expected life of the Cronos warrant.
(6) Based on Cronos’s expected dividend payments.

69

The following table provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balance of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and Cronos warrant (which are classified in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy):
(in millions)
Balance at December 31, 2019$303 
Pre-tax losses recognized in net earnings (losses)(140)
Balance at December 31, 2020163 
Pre-tax losses recognized in net earnings (losses)(148)
Balance at December 31, 2021$15
Altria elects to record the gross assets and liabilities of derivative financial instruments executed with the same counterparty on its consolidated balance sheets. The fair values of Altria’s derivative financial instruments on a gross basis included on the consolidated balance sheets were as follows at December 31:
Fair Value of AssetsFair Value of Liabilities
(in millions)Balance Sheet Classification20212020Balance Sheet Classification20212020
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
Foreign currency contractsOther current assets$ $— Other accrued liabilities$ $87 
Foreign currency contractsOther assets — Other liabilities — 
Total$ $— $ $87 
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
Cronos warrantInvestments in equity securities$14 $139 
Fixed-price Preemptive RightsInvestments in equity securities1 24 
Total$15 $163 
Total derivatives$15 $163 $ $87 
Altria records in its consolidated statements of earnings (losses) any changes in the fair values of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and Cronos warrant as gains or losses on Cronos-related financial instruments in the periods in which the changes occur. Altria recorded non-cash, pre-tax unrealized losses, representing the changes in the fair values of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and Cronos warrant, as follows:
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Fixed-price Preemptive Rights$23 $45 $434 
Cronos warrant125 95 977 
Total$148 $140 $1,411 
Additionally, in January and February 2019, Altria entered into derivative financial instruments in the form of forward contracts, which were settled in March 2019, to hedge Altria’s exposure to CAD to USD foreign currency exchange rate movements, in relation to the CAD $2.4 billion purchase price for the Investment in Cronos. The aggregate notional amounts of the forward contracts were USD $1.8 billion (CAD $2.4 billion). The forward contracts did not qualify for hedge accounting; therefore, in the first quarter of 2019, pre-tax losses of USD $31 million representing changes in the fair values of the forward contracts were recorded in loss on Cronos-related financial instruments in Altria’s consolidated statement of earnings (losses).

70

Net Investment Hedging
The pre-tax effects of Altria’s net investment hedges on accumulated other comprehensive losses and the consolidated statements of earnings (losses) were as follows:
(Gain) Loss Recognized in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Losses(Gain) Loss Recognized
in Net Earnings (Losses)
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019202120202019
Foreign currency contracts$(16)$79 $(23)$(7)$(40)$(36)
Foreign currency denominated debt(359)424 (35) — — 
Total$(375)$503 $(58)$(7)$(40)$(36)
(in millions) 
2018$96
2019173
2020116
202196
2022142
Thereafter73
Total$696
PMCC maintains an allowance for losses that provides for estimated credit losses on its investmentsThe changes in finance leases. PMCC’s portfolio consists substantially of leveraged leases to a diverse base of lessees participating in a variety of industries. Losses on such leases are recorded when probable and estimable. PMCC regularly performs a systematic assessment of each individual lease in its portfolio to determine potential credit or collection issues that might indicate impairment. Impairment takes into consideration both the probability of default and the likelihood of recovery if default were to occur. PMCC considers both quantitative and qualitative factors of each investment when performing its assessmentfair value of the allowance for losses.
Quantitative factors that indicate potential default are tied most directly to public debt ratings. PMCC monitors publicly available information on its obligors, including financial statementsforeign currency contracts and credit rating agency reports. Qualitative factors that indicatein the likelihood of recovery if default were to occur include underlying collateralcarrying value other forms of credit support, and legal/structural considerations impacting each lease. Using available information, PMCC calculates potential losses for each lease in its portfolio based on its default and recovery rating assumptions for each lease. The aggregate of these potential losses forms a range of potential losses which is used as a guideline to determine the adequacy of PMCC’s allowance for losses.
PMCC assesses the adequacy of its allowance for losses relative to the credit risk of its leasing portfolio on an ongoing basis. During 2017 and 2016, PMCC determined that its allowance for losses exceeded the amount required based on management’s assessment of the credit qualityforeign currency denominated debt due to changes in the Euro to USD exchange rate were recognized in accumulated other comprehensive losses related to ABI. Gains on the foreign currency contracts arising from components excluded from effectiveness testing were recognized in interest and size of PMCC’s leasing portfolio. As a result, PMCC reduced its allowance for losses by $9 million and $10 million forother debt expense, net in the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. There was no such adjustment for the year ended December 31, 2015. These


53

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


decreases to the allowance for losses were recorded as a reduction to marketing, administration and research costs in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statements of earnings. PMCC believes that, as of December 31, 2017, the allowance for losses of $23 million was adequate. PMCC continues to monitor economic and credit conditions, and the individual situations of its lessees and their respective industries, and may increase or decrease its allowance for losses if such conditions change in the future.earnings (losses) based on an amortization approach.
The activity in the allowance for losses on finance assets for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was as follows:
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Balance at beginning of year$32
 $42
 $42
Decrease to allowance(9) (10) 
Balance at end of year$23
 $32
 $42
All PMCC lessees were current on their lease payment obligations as of December 31, 2017.
The credit quality of PMCC’s investments in finance leases as assigned by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“Standard & Poor’s”) and Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) at December 31, 2017 and 2016 was as follows:
(in millions)2017
 2016
Credit Rating by Standard & Poor’s/Moody’s:   
“AAA/Aaa” to “A-/A3”$220
 $218
“BBB+/Baa1” to “BBB-/Baa3”550
 559
“BB+/Ba1” and Lower152
 283
Total$922
 $1,060
Note 8. Short-Term Borrowings and Borrowing Arrangements
At December 31, 20172021 and December 31, 2016,2020, Altria Group, Inc. had no short-term borrowings. The credit line available to
Altria Group, Inc. at December 31, 2017 under the Credit Agreement (as defined below) was $3.0 billion.
At December 31, 2017, Altria Group, Inc. had in placehas a senior unsecured 5-year revolving credit agreement (the(as amended, the “Credit Agreement”). The Credit Agreement that provides for borrowings up to an aggregate principal amount of $3.0 billionbillion. In August 2021, Altria entered into an extension and expires onamendment to the Credit Agreement that extended the maturity date of the Credit Agreement from August 19, 2020. 1, 2023 to August 1, 2024 and amended the Credit Agreement to update certain provisions regarding a successor interest rate to the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) and made certain other market updates. All other terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement remain in full force and effect. The Credit Agreement, which is used for general corporate purposes, includes an additional option, subject to certain conditions, for Altria to extend the expiration date for an additional one-year period.
At December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Credit Agreement had available borrowings up to an aggregate principal amount of $3.0 billion.
Pricing for interest and fees under the Credit Agreement may be modified in the event of a change in the rating of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s long-term senior unsecured debt. Interest rates on borrowings under the Credit Agreement are expected to be based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”)LIBOR, or a fallback benchmark rate determined based on prevailing market convention, plus a percentage based on the higher of the ratings of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s long-term senior unsecured debt from Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) and Standard & Poor’s.Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“S&P”). The applicable percentage based on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s long-term senior unsecured debt ratings at December 31, 20172021 for borrowings under the Credit Agreement was 1.125%1.0%. The Credit Agreement does not include any other rating triggers nor does it containor any provisions that could require the posting of collateral.
The Credit Agreement is used for general corporate purposes andincludes various covenants, one of which requires Altria to support Altria Group, Inc.’s commercial paper issuances.
The Credit Agreement requires that Altria Group, Inc. maintain (i) a ratio of debt to consolidated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) of not more than 3.0 to 1.0 and (ii) a ratio of consolidated EBITDA to consolidated interest expenseConsolidated Interest Expense of not less than 4.0 to 1.0, each calculated as of the end of the applicable quarter on a rolling four quarters basis. At December 31, 2017,2021, the ratiosratio of debt to consolidated EBITDA and consolidated EBITDA to consolidated interest expense,Consolidated Interest Expense, calculated in accordance with the Credit Agreement, were 1.3was 10.3 to 1.0 and 14.8 to 1.0, respectively.1.0. At December 31, 2021, Altria Group, Inc. expects to continue to meetwas in compliance with its covenants associated within the Credit Agreement. The terms “consolidated EBITDA,“Consolidated EBITDA” and “Consolidated Interest Expense,“debt” and “consolidated interest expense,”each as defined in the Credit Agreement, include certain adjustments.
In March 2020, due to the uncertainty at that time in the global capital markets, including the commercial paper markets, resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, Altria elected to borrow the full $3.0 billion available under the Credit Agreement as a precautionary measure to increase its cash position and preserve financial flexibility. In June 2020, Altria repaid the full amount outstanding under the Credit Agreement using the net proceeds from the issuance of long-term senior unsecured notes issued in May 2020 and available cash.
In February 2019, Altria repaid short-term borrowings of $12.8 billion outstanding under a term loan agreement. The term loan agreement, which was entered into in connection with Altria’s investments in JUUL and Cronos, was set to mature in December 2019, and was repaid using the net proceeds from the issuance of long-term senior unsecured notes. Upon repayment, the term loan agreement terminated, and Altria recorded approximately $95 million of pre-tax acquisition-related costs for the write-off of the debt issuance costs related to the term loan agreement, which were recorded in interest and other debt expense, net in Altria’s consolidated statement of earnings (losses).
Any commercial paper issued by Altria Group, Inc. and borrowings under the Credit Agreement are guaranteed by PM USA as further discussed in Note 19. Condensed Consolidating Financial Information.9. Long-Term Debt.


71

Note 9. Long-Term Debt
Altria’s long-term debt consisted of the following at December 31:
(in millions)20212020
USD notes, 2.350% to 10.20%, interest payable semi-annually, due through 2061 (1)
$23,185 $24,258 
USD debenture, 7.75%, interest payable semi-annually, due 202742 42 
Euro notes, 1.000% to 3.125%, interest payable annually, due through 2031 (2)
4,817 5,171 
28,044 29,471 
Less current portion of long-term debt1,105 1,500 
$26,939 $27,971 
(1) Weighted-average coupon interest rate of 4.4% and 4.6% at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
(2) Weighted-average coupon interest rate of 2.0% at December 31, 2021 and 2020.
At December 31, 2017 and 2016, Altria Group, Inc.’s2021, Altria’s outstanding long-term debt consisted of the following:
(in millions)
TypeFace ValueInterest RateIssuanceMaturity
USD notes$1,1052.850%August 2012August 2022
Euro notes€1,2501.000%February 2019February 2023
USD notes$2182.950%May 2013May 2023
USD notes$7764.000%October 2013January 2024
USD notes$3453.800%February 2019February 2024
USD notes$7502.350%May 2020May 2025
Euro notes€7501.700%February 2019June 2025
USD notes$1,0694.400%February 2019February 2026
USD notes$5002.625%September 2016September 2026
USD debenture$427.750%January 1997January 2027
Euro notes€1,0002.200%February 2019June 2027
USD notes$1,9064.800%February 2019February 2029
USD notes$7503.400%May 2020May 2030
Euro notes€1,2503.125%February 2019June 2031
USD notes$1,7502.450%February 2021February 2032
USD notes$1779.950%November 2008November 2038
USD notes$20810.200%February 2009February 2039
USD notes$2,0005.800%February 2019February 2039
USD notes$1,5003.400%February 2021February 2041
USD notes$9004.250%August 2012August 2042
USD notes$6504.500%May 2013May 2043
USD notes$1,8005.375%October 2013January 2044
USD notes$1,5003.875%September 2016September 2046
USD notes$2,5005.950%February 2019February 2049
USD notes$5004.450%May 2020May 2050
USD notes$1,2503.700%February 2021February 2051
USD notes$2716.200%February 2019February 2059
USD notes$1,0004.000%February 2021February 2061

72

(in millions)2017
 2016
Notes, 2.625% to 10.20%, interest payable semi-annually, due through 2046 (1)
$13,852
 $13,839
Debenture, 7.75%, interest payable semi-annually, due 202742
 42
 13,894
 13,881
Less current portion of long-term debt864
 
 $13,030
 $13,881
(1) Weighted-average coupon interest rateTable of 4.9% at December 31, 2017 and 2016.Contents
At December 31, 2017,2021, aggregate maturities of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s long-term debt were as follows:
(in millions)Aggregate Maturities
2022$1,105 
20231,639 
20241,121 
20251,603 
20261,569 
Thereafter21,262 
28,299 
Less:debt issuance costs163 
debt discounts92 
$28,044 
(in millions)  
2018$864
 
20191,144
 
20201,000
 
20211,500
 
20221,900
 
Thereafter7,609
 
 14,017
 
Less: debt issuance costs68
 
debt discounts55
 
 $13,894
 
Altria Group, Inc.’s estimate of the fair value of its debt is basedAt December 31, 2021 and 2020, accrued interest on observable market information derived from a third party pricing source and is classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. The aggregate fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’s total long-term debt at December 31, 2017of $429 million and 2016,$458 million, respectively, was $15.3 billion and $15.1 billion, respectively, as compared with its carrying value of $13.9 billion for each period.
included in other accrued liabilities on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets.


54

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Altria Group, Inc. Senior Notes: In February 2021, Altria issued long-term senior unsecured notes in the aggregate principal amount of $5.5 billion (the “Notes”). The net proceeds from the Notes were used (i) to fund the purchase and redemption of certain unsecured notes and payment of Altria Group, Inc.related fees and expenses, as described below, and (ii) for other general corporate purposes. The Notes contain the following terms:
$1.75 billion at 2.450%, due 2032, interest payable semiannually beginning August 4, 2021;
$1.50 billion at 3.400%, due 2041, interest payable semiannually beginning August 4, 2021;
$1.25 billion at 3.700%, due 2051, interest payable semiannually beginning August 4, 2021; and
$1.00 billion at 4.000%, due 2061, interest payable semiannually beginning August 4, 2021.
The Notes are Altria’s senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with all of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s existing and future senior unsecured indebtedness. Upon the occurrence of both (i) a change of control of Altria Group, Inc. and (ii) the notesNotes ceasing to be rated investment grade by each of Moody’s, Standard & Poor’sS&P and Fitch Ratings Ltd.Inc. within a specified time period, Altria Group, Inc. will be required to make an offer to purchase the notesNotes at a price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount of such notes,Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of repurchase as and to the extent set forth in the terms of the notes.Notes.
The obligationsIn May 2021, Altria repaid in full its 4.75% senior unsecured notes in the aggregate principal amount of Altria Group, Inc. under the notes are guaranteed by PM USA as further discussed in Note 19. Condensed Consolidating Financial Information.$1.5 billion at maturity.
Debt Tender Offers: Offers and Redemption: During 2016 and 2015,the first quarter of 2021, Altria Group, Inc. completed debt tender offers to purchase for cash certain of its long-term senior unsecured notes in an aggregate principal amountsamount of $0.9 billion and $0.8 billion, respectively.
$4,042 million. Details of thesethe debt tender offers are as follows:
(in millions)Principal Amount of Notes Purchased
2.850% Notes due 2022$795
2.950% Notes due 2023132
4.000% Notes due 2024624
3.800% Notes due 2024655
4.400% Notes due 2026430
4.800% Notes due 20291,094
9.950% Notes due 203865
10.200% Notes due 203918
6.200% Notes due 2059229
$4,042
During the first quarter of 2021, Altria also redeemed all of its outstanding 3.490% Notes due 2022 in an aggregate principal amount of $1.0 billion.

73

As a result of the debt tender offers and the associatedredemption, Altria recorded pre-tax losses on early extinguishment of debt recorded byas follows:
(in millions)For the Year Ended December 31, 2021
Premiums and fees$623
Write-off of unamortized debt discounts and debt issuance costs26
Total$649
PM USA (the “Guarantor”), which is a 100% owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. were(the “Parent”), has guaranteed the Parent’s obligations under its outstanding debt securities, borrowings under its Credit Agreement and amounts outstanding under its commercial paper program (the “Guarantees”). Pursuant to the Guarantees, the Guarantor fully and unconditionally guarantees, as follows:primary obligor, the payment and performance of the Parent’s obligations under the guaranteed debt instruments (the “Obligations”), subject to release under certain customary circumstances as noted below.
(in millions)2016
 2015
Notes Purchased   
9.95% Notes due 2038$441
 $
10.20% Notes due 2039492
 
9.70% Notes due 2018
 793
Total$933
 $793
The Guarantees provide that the Guarantor guarantees the punctual payment when due, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, of the Obligations. The liability of the Guarantor under the Guarantees is absolute and unconditional irrespective of: any lack of validity, enforceability or genuineness of any provision of any agreement or instrument relating thereto; any change in the time, manner or place of payment of, or in any other term of, all or any of the Obligations, or any other amendment or waiver of or any consent to departure from any agreement or instrument relating thereto; any exchange, release or non-perfection of any collateral, or any release or amendment or waiver of or consent to departure from any other guarantee, for all or any of the Obligations; or any other circumstance that might otherwise constitute a defense available to, or a discharge of, the Parent or the Guarantor.
Pre-tax Loss on Early Extinguishment of Debt
Premiums and fees$809
 $226
Write-off of unamortized debt discounts and debt issuance costs14
 2
Total$823
 $228
The Parent is a holding company; therefore, its access to the operating cash flows of its wholly owned subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and distributions, and the payment of interest on intercompany loans by its subsidiaries. Neither the Guarantor nor other 100% owned subsidiaries of the Parent that are not guarantors of the Obligations are limited by contractual obligations on their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their equity interests.
For a discussion of the fair value of Altria’s long-term debt and the designation of its Euro denominated senior unsecured notes as a net investment hedge of its investment in ABI, see Note 7. Financial Instruments.

Note 10. Capital Stock
At December 31, 2017,2021, Altria Group, Inc. had 12 billion shares of authorized common stock; issued, repurchased and outstanding shares of common stock were as follows:
 Shares Issued
 
Shares
Repurchased

 
Shares
Outstanding

Balances, December 31, 20142,805,961,317
 (834,486,794) 1,971,474,523
Stock award activity
 (732,623) (732,623)
Repurchases of
common stock

 (10,682,419) (10,682,419)
Balances, December 31, 20152,805,961,317
 (845,901,836) 1,960,059,481
Stock award activity
 (566,256) (566,256)
Repurchases of
common stock

 (16,221,001) (16,221,001)
Balances, December 31, 20162,805,961,317
 (862,689,093) 1,943,272,224
Stock award activity
 (408,891) (408,891)
Repurchases of
common stock

 (41,604,141) (41,604,141)
Balances, December 31, 20172,805,961,317
 (904,702,125) 1,901,259,192
Shares IssuedShares RepurchasedShares Outstanding
Balances, December 31, 20182,805,961,317 (931,903,722)1,874,057,595 
Stock award activity— 427,276 427,276 
Repurchases of common stock— (16,503,317)(16,503,317)
Balances, December 31, 20192,805,961,317 (947,979,763)1,857,981,554 
Stock award activity 437,611 437,611 
Balances, December 31, 20202,805,961,317 (947,542,152)1,858,419,165 
Stock award activity 412,569 412,569 
Repurchases of common stock (35,656,116)(35,656,116)
Balances, December 31, 20212,805,961,317 (982,785,699)1,823,175,618 
At December 31, 2017, 41,688,6662021, Altria had 27,585,919 shares of common stock were reserved for stock-based awards under Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s stock plans, andplans.
At December 31, 2021, 10 million shares of serial preferred stock, $1.00 par value, were authorized. Noauthorized; no shares of serial preferred stock have been issued.
Dividends: DuringIn the third quarter of 2017, Altria Group, Inc.’s2021, Altria’s Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors” or “Board”) approved an 8.2%a 4.7% increase in the quarterly dividend rate to $0.66$0.90 per share of Altria Group, Inc. common stock versus the previous rate of $0.61$0.86 per share. The current annualized dividend rate is $2.64$3.60 per share. Future dividend payments remain subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors.Board.
Share Repurchases:In July 2014,2019, the Board of Directors authorized a $1.0 billion share repurchase program (the “July 20142019 share repurchase program”). DuringIn April 2020, the third quarterBoard rescinded the $500 million remaining in this program as part of 2015, Altria Group, Inc. completedAltria’s efforts to enhance its liquidity position in response to the July 2014 share repurchase program, under which Altria Group, Inc. repurchased a total of 20.4 million shares of its common stock at an average price of $48.90 per share.COVID-19 pandemic.
In July 2015,January 2021, the Board of Directors authorized a $1.0new $2.0 billion share repurchase program that it expanded to $3.0$3.5 billion in October 2016 and to $4.0 billion in July 20172021 (as expanded, the “July 2015“January 2021 share repurchase program”). During 2017, 2016 and 2015, Altria Group, Inc. repurchased 41.6 million shares, 16.2 million shares, and 0.6 million shares, respectively, of its common stock (at an aggregate cost


55

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


of approximately $2,917 million, $1,030 million and $35 million, respectively, and at an average price of $70.10 per share, $63.48 per share and $57.66 per share, respectively) under the July 2015 share repurchase program. At December 31, 2017,2021, Altria Group, Inc. had approximately $18$1,825 million remaining in the July 2015 share repurchase program. In January 2018, Altria Group, Inc. completed the July 2015 share repurchase program, under which it purchased a total

74

In January 2018, the Board of Directors authorized a new $1.0 billion2021 share repurchase program. The timing of share repurchases under this program depends upon marketplace conditions and other factors, and the program remains subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors.Board.
Altria did not repurchase any shares in 2020. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021 and 2015, Altria Group, Inc.’s2019, Altria’s total share repurchase activity was as follows:
20212019
(in millions, except per share data)January 2021 Share Repurchase ProgramJuly 2019 Share Repurchase Program
January 2018 Share Repurchase Program (1)
Total
Total number of shares repurchased35.7 10.1 6.4 16.5 
Aggregate cost of shares repurchased$1,675 $500 $345 $845 
Average price per share of shares repurchased$46.97 $49.29 $54.36 $51.24 
  2017
2016
2015
  (in millions, except per share data)
Total number of shares
repurchased
41.6
16.2
10.7
Aggregate cost of shares
repurchased
$2,917
$1,030
$554
Average price per share of shares repurchased$70.10
$63.48
$51.83
(1)In January 2018, the Board of Directors authorized a $1.0 billion share repurchase program that it expanded to $2.0 billion in May 2018. The program was completed in June 2019.

Note 11. Stock Plans
UnderIn 2020, the Board of Directors adopted, and shareholders approved, the Altria Group, Inc. 2020 Performance Incentive Plan (the “2020 Plan”). The 2020 Plan succeeded the 2015 Performance Incentive Plan, (the “2015 Plan”),under which no new awards were permitted to be made after May 31, 2020. Under the 2020 Plan, Altria Group, Inc. may grant stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted and deferred stock units (“RSUs”), performance stock units (“PSUs”) and other stock-based awards, as well as cash-based annual and long-term incentive awards to employees of Altria Group, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. Any awards granted pursuant to the 20152020 Plan may be in the form of performance-based awards, including PSUs subject to the achievement or satisfaction of performance goals and performance cycles. Up to 4025 million shares of common stock may be issued under the 20152020 Plan. In addition, under the 2015 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Directors Plan”), Altria Group, Inc. may grant up to one million1000000 shares of common stock to members of the Board of Directors who are not employees of Altria Group, Inc.Altria.
Shares available to be granted under the 20152020 Plan and the Directors Plan at December 31, 2017,2021, were 38,161,24223,459,288 and 920,942,703,256, respectively.
On January 1, 2017, Altria Group, Inc. adopted ASU No. 2016-09, which simplifies several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. The adoption of ASU No. 2016-09 did not have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements. The portions of the guidance that have an impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements have been adopted prospectively, with the exception of the classification of employee
taxes paid by Altria Group, Inc. on the consolidated statements of cash flows related to shares withheld by Altria Group, Inc. for tax withholding purposes, which has been applied retrospectively. Altria Group, Inc. has made an accounting policy election to continue to estimate the number of share-based awards that are expected to vest, which includes estimating forfeitures.
Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units: Altria Group, Inc. may grant shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units to employees of Altria Group, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. RSUs: During the vesting period, these sharesRSUs include nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents and may not be sold, assigned, pledged or otherwise encumbered. Such sharesRSUs are subject to forfeiture if certain employment conditions are not met. Altria Group, Inc. estimates the number of awards expected to be forfeited and adjusts this estimate when subsequent information indicates that the actual number of forfeitures is likely to differ from previous estimates. Shares of restricted stock and restricted stock unitsRSUs generally vest three years after the grant date.
The fair value of the shares of restricted stock and restricted stock unitsRSUs at the date of grant, net of estimated forfeitures, is amortized to expense ratably over the restriction period, which is generally three years. Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax compensation expense related to restricted stock and restricted stock units granted to employeesRSUs for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 20152019 of $49$34 million, $44$31 million and $51$28 million, respectively. The deferred tax benefit recorded related to this compensation expense was $18$9 million, $17$8 million and $20$7 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015,2019, respectively. The unamortized compensation expense related to Altria Group, Inc. restricted stock and restricted stock unitsRSUs was $54$59 million at December 31, 20172021 and is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of approximately two years.
Altria Group, Inc.’s restricted stock and restricted stock unitsRSU activity was as follows for the year ended December 31, 2017:
follows:
Number of SharesWeighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value Per Share
Number of
Shares

 
Weighted-Average
Grant Date Fair 
Value Per Share

Balance at December 31, 20163,245,534
 $48.45
Balance at December 31, 2020Balance at December 31, 20202,239,379 $51.76 
Granted641,263
 $71.05
Granted1,069,531 $45.22 
Vested(1,321,620) $36.40
Vested(424,217)$69.04 
Forfeited(180,676) $59.11
Forfeited(182,231)$46.09 
Balance at December 31, 20172,384,501
 $60.40
Balance at December 31, 2021Balance at December 31, 20212,702,462 $46.84 
The weighted-average grant date fair value of Altria Group, Inc. restricted stock and restricted stock unitsRSUs granted during the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 20152019 was $46$48 million, $56$49 million and $65$37 million, respectively, or $71.05, $59.38$45.22, $42.59 and $54.54$52.03 per restricted stock or restricted stock unit,RSU, respectively. The total vesting date fair value of Altria Group, Inc. restricted stock and restricted stock unitsRSUs that vested during the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 20152019 was $95$19 million, $78$25 million and $85$30 million, respectively.


56

PSUs: Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Performance Stock Units: In January 2017, Altria Group, Inc. granted an aggregate of 187,886 performance stock units to eligible employees.229,494, 275,288 and 181,409 of PSUs during 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. The payout of the performance stock units requiresPSUs is based on the achievement of certain performance measures which were predetermined atover the time of grant, over a three-year performance cycle. Theseperiod. For the 2021 and 2020 grants, these performance measures consist of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s adjusted diluted earnings per share compounded annual growth rate and

75

a cash conversion measure for Altria. Additionally, the payout resulting from the performance measures is then adjusted up or down by a total shareholder return (“EPS”TSR”) performance multiplier, which depends on Altria’s relative TSR to a predetermined peer group. For the 2019 grant, the performance measures consist of Altria’s adjusted diluted earnings per share compounded annual growth rate and Altria Group, Inc.’s total shareholder returnAltria’s TSR relative to a predetermined peer group. The performance stock unitsPSUs are also subject to forfeiture if certain employment conditions are not met. At December 31, 2017,2021, Altria Group, Inc. had 170,755 performance stock units remaining,554,551 PSUs outstanding, with a weighted-average grant date fair value of $70.39$46.58 per performance stock unit.PSU. The fair value of the performance stock unitsPSUs at the date of grant, net of estimated forfeitures, is amortized to expense over the performance period. Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax compensation expense related to performance stock unitsPSUs for the yearyears ended December 31, 20172021, 2020 and 2019 of $6 million.million, $4 million and $4 million, respectively. The unamortized compensation expense related to Altria Group, Inc.’s performance stock unitsPSUs was $7$12 million at December 31, 2017. Altria Group, Inc. did not grant any performance stock units during 2016 and 2015.
2021.

Note 12. Earnings (Losses) per Share
Basic and diluted EPSearnings (losses) per share (“EPS”) were calculated using the following:
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Net earnings (losses) attributable to Altria$2,475 $4,467 $(1,293)
Less: Distributed and undistributed earnings attributable to share-based awards(11)(8)(7)
Earnings (losses) for basic and diluted EPS$2,464 $4,459 $(1,300)
Weighted-average shares for basic EPS1,845 1,858 1,869 
Plus: contingently issuable PSUs — 
Weighted-average shares for diluted EPS1,845 1,859 1,869 
 For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$10,222
 $14,239
 $5,241
Less: Distributed and undistributed earnings attributable to share-based awards(14) (24) (10)
Earnings for basic and diluted EPS$10,208
 $14,215
 $5,231
Weighted-average shares for basic and diluted EPS1,921
 1,952
 1,961



76



57

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Note 13. Other Comprehensive Earnings/Losses
The following tables set forth the changes in each component of accumulated other comprehensive losses, net of deferred income taxes, attributable to Altria Group, Inc.:Altria:
(in millions)Benefit PlansABICurrency
Translation
Adjustments
and Other
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Losses
Balances, December 31, 2018$(2,168)$(374)$(5)$(2,547)
Other comprehensive earnings (losses) before reclassifications(204)(367)26 (545)
Deferred income taxes51 75 — 126 
Other comprehensive earnings (losses) before reclassifications, net of deferred income taxes(153)(292)26 (419)
Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses)173 (34)— 139 
Deferred income taxes(44)— (37)
Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses), net of
deferred income taxes
129 (27)— 102 
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes(24)(319)(1)26 (317)
Balances, December 31, 2019(2,192)(693)21 (2,864)
Other comprehensive earnings (losses) before reclassifications(454)(1,613)(4)(2,071)
Deferred income taxes115 352 — 467 
Other comprehensive earnings (losses) before reclassifications, net of deferred income taxes(339)(1,261)(4)(1,604)
Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses)148 21 — 169 
Deferred income taxes(37)(5)— (42)
Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses), net of
deferred income taxes
111 16 — 127 
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes(228)(1,245)(1)(4)(1,477)
Balances, December 31, 2020(2,420)(1,938)17 (4,341)
Other comprehensive earnings (losses) before reclassifications961 627 25 1,613 
Deferred income taxes(245)(141) (386)
Other comprehensive earnings (losses) before reclassifications, net of deferred income taxes716 486 25 1,227 
Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses)122 (76)35 81 
Deferred income taxes(30)16 (9)(23)
Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses), net of
deferred income taxes
92 (60)26 58 
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes808 426 (1)51 1,285 
Balances, December 31, 2021$(1,612)$(1,512)$68 $(3,056)
(in millions) Benefit Plans
 AB InBev/SABMiller
 
Currency
Translation
Adjustments and Other

 
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Losses

Balances, December 31, 2014 $(2,040) $(640) $(2) $(2,682)
Other comprehensive losses before reclassifications (223) (983) (4) (1,210)
Deferred income taxes 86
 344
 1
 431
Other comprehensive losses before reclassifications, net of deferred income taxes (137) (639) (3) (779)
         
Amounts reclassified to net earnings 272
 21
 
 293
Deferred income taxes (105) (7) 
 (112)
Amounts reclassified to net earnings, net of
deferred income taxes
 167
 14
 
 181
         
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes 30
 (625)
(1) 
(3) (598)
Balances, December 31, 2015 (2,010) (1,265) (5) (3,280)
Other comprehensive (losses) earnings before reclassifications (247) 787
 1
 541
Deferred income taxes 96
 (276) 
 (180)
Other comprehensive (losses) earnings before reclassifications, net of deferred income taxes (151) 511
(2) 
1
 361
         
Amounts reclassified to net earnings 178
 1,160
 
 1,338
Deferred income taxes (65) (406) 
 (471)
Amounts reclassified to net earnings, net of
deferred income taxes
 113
 754
(3) 

 867
         
Other comprehensive (losses) earnings, net of deferred income taxes (38) 1,265
 1
 1,228
Balances, December 31, 2016 (2,048) 
 (4) (2,052)
Other comprehensive earnings (losses) before reclassifications 52
 (91) 
 (39)
Deferred income taxes (21) 32
 
 11
Other comprehensive earnings (losses) before reclassifications, net of deferred income taxes 31
 (59) 
 (28)
         
Amounts reclassified to net earnings 291
 8
 
 299
Deferred income taxes (113) (3) 
 (116)
Amounts reclassified to net earnings, net of
deferred income taxes
 178
 5
 
 183
         
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred income taxes 209
 (54)
(1) 

 155
Balances, December 31, 2017 $(1,839) $(54) $(4) $(1,897)
(1) Altria Group, Inc.’s proportionatePrimarily reflects Altria’s share of AB InBev’s and SABMiller’s other comprehensive earnings/losses consisted primarily ofABI’s currency translation adjustments forand the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2015, respectively.impact of Altria’s designated net investment hedges. For further discussion of designated net investment hedges, see Note 7. Financial Instruments.
(2) As a result of the Transaction, Altria Group, Inc. reversed to investment in SABMiller $414 million of its accumulated other comprehensive losses directly attributable to SABMiller; the remaining $97 million consisted primarily of currency translation adjustments.
(3) As a result of the Transaction, Altria Group, Inc. recognized $737 million of its accumulated other comprehensive losses directly attributable to SABMiller.









5877

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


The following table sets forth pre-tax amounts by component, reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive losses to net earnings:earnings (losses):
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Benefit Plans: (1)
Net loss$163 $173 $200 
Prior service cost/credit(41)(25)(27)
122 148 173 
ABI (2)
(76)21 (34)
Other (3)
35 — — 
Pre-tax amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive losses to net earnings (losses)$81 $169 $139 
  For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions) 2017
 2016
 2015
Benefit Plans: (1)
      
Net loss $325
 $223
 $304
Prior service cost/credit (34) (45) (32)
  291
 178
 272
AB InBev/SABMiller (2)
 8
 1,160
 21
Pre-tax amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive losses to net earnings $299
 $1,338
 $293
(1) (1) Amounts are included in net defined benefit plan costs. For further details, see Note 16. Benefit Plans.
(2) For the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2015, amounts Amounts are included in earnings(income) losses from equity investment in AB InBev/SABMiller. Substantially all of the amount for the year ended December 31, 2016 is included in gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination.investments. For further information, see Note 6. InvestmentInvestments in AB InBev/SABMiller.Equity Securities.
(3) Amounts are included in marketing, administration and research costs and are related to the Ste. Michelle Transaction. For further details, see Note 16. Benefit Plans.

Note 14. Income Taxes
As a result of the Tax Reform Act, Altria Group, Inc. recorded net tax benefits of approximately $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2017 as discussed below. The main provisions of the Tax Reform Act that impact Altria Group, Inc. include: (i) a reduction in the U.S. federal statutory corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective January 1, 2018, and (ii) changes in the treatment of foreign-source income, commonly referred to as a modified territorial tax system.
The transition to a modified territorial tax system requires Altria Group, Inc. to record a deemed repatriation tax and an associated tax basis benefit in 2017. Substantially all of the deemed repatriation tax is related to Altria Group, Inc.’s share of AB InBev’s accumulated earnings. As a result of the deemed repatriation tax, no tax was due on the dividends Altria Group, Inc. received from AB InBev in 2017.
Earnings (losses) before income taxes and (benefit) provision for income taxes consisted of the following for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015:following:
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Earnings (losses) before income taxes:
United States$4,239 $6,842 $266 
Outside United States(415)48 500 
Total$3,824 $6,890 $766 
Provision (benefit) for income taxes:
Current:
Federal$1,965 $2,025 $1,686 
State and local542 553 470 
Outside United States2 22 
2,509 2,600 2,159 
Deferred:
Federal(1,190)(130)(78)
State and local30 (34)(19)
Outside United States — 
(1,160)(164)(95)
Total provision (benefit) for income taxes$1,349 $2,436 $2,064 
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Earnings before income taxes:     
United States$9,809
 $21,867
 $8,078
Outside United States19
 (15) 
Total$9,828
 $21,852
 $8,078
Provision (benefit) for
income taxes:
     
Current:     
Federal$2,346
 $4,093
 $2,516
State and local366
 390
 451
Outside United States15
 6
 
 2,727
 4,489
 2,967
Deferred:     
Federal(3,213) 3,102
 (140)
State and local86
 20
 8
Outside United States1
 (3) 
 (3,126) 3,119
 (132)
Total (benefit) provision for
income taxes
$(399) $7,608
 $2,835
Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s U.S. subsidiaries join in the filing of a U.S. federal consolidated income tax return. The U.S. federal income tax statute of limitations remains open for the year 20102016 and forward, with years 2014 and 20152017 through 2018 currently under examination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as part of an audit conducted in the ordinary course of business. With the exception of corresponding federal audit adjustments, stateState statutes of limitations generally remain open for the year 20132016 and forward. Certain of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s state tax returns are currently under examination by various states as part of routine audits conducted in the ordinary course of business.


78

59

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was as follows:
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Balance at beginning of year$74 $64 $85 
Additions for tax positions of prior years40 12 32 
Reductions for tax positions due to lapse of statutes of limitations(5)— — 
Reductions for tax positions of prior years(23)(2)(16)
Tax settlements(33)— (37)
Balance at end of year$53 $74 $64 
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Balance at beginning of year$169
 $158
 $258
Additions based on tax positions
related to the current year

 15
 15
Additions for tax positions of
prior years
129
 29
 57
Reductions for tax positions due to
lapse of statutes of limitations
(4) (4) (4)
Reductions for tax positions of
prior years
(208) (28) (86)
Settlements(20) (1) (82)
Balance at end of year$66
 $169
 $158
Unrecognized tax benefits and Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated liability for tax contingencies were as follows at December 31, 2017 and 2016 were as follows:
31:
(in millions)2017
 2016
(in millions)20212020
Unrecognized tax benefits$66
 $169
Unrecognized tax benefits$53 $74 
Accrued interest and penalties9
 23
Accrued interest and penalties11 15 
Tax credits and other indirect benefits(1) (6)Tax credits and other indirect benefits (1)
Liability for tax contingencies$74
 $186
Liability for tax contingencies$64 $88 
The amount of unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would impact the effective tax rate at December 31, 20172021 was $43$31 million, along with $23$22 million affecting deferred taxes. The amount of unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would impact the effective tax rate at December 31, 20162020 was $67$47 million, along with $102$27 million affecting deferred taxes.
Altria Group, Inc. recognizes accrued interest and penalties associated with uncertain tax positions as part of the tax provision.
For the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015,2019, Altria Group, Inc. recognized in its consolidated statements of earnings $(13)(losses) $(4) million, $9$4 million and $(36)$6 million, respectively, of gross interest (income) expense associated with uncertain tax positions.
Altria Group, Inc. is subject to income taxation in many jurisdictions. UncertainUnrecognized tax positionsbenefits reflect the difference between tax positions taken or expected to be taken on income tax returns and the amounts recognized in the financial statements. Resolution of the related tax positions with the relevant tax authorities may take many years to complete, and such timing is not entirely within the control of Altria Group, Inc.Altria. It is reasonably possible that within the next 12 months certain examinations will be resolved, which could result in a decrease in unrecognized tax benefits of approximately $5$17 million.
The effectiveA reconciliation between actual income tax rate on pre-tax earnings differed fromtaxes and amounts computed by applying the U.S. federal statutory rate for the following reasons for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016to earnings (losses) before income taxes is as follows:
For the Years Ended December 31,
202120202019
(dollars in millions)$%$%$%
U.S. federal statutory rate$803 21.0 %$1,447 21.0 %$161 21.0 %
Increase (decrease) resulting from:
State and local income taxes, net of federal tax benefit451 11.8 410 6.0 356 46.5 
Tax basis in foreign investments25 0.7 23 0.3 84 11.0 
Uncertain tax positions(25)(0.7)0.1 (40)(5.2)
Investment in ABI(31)(0.8)(16)(0.2)(210)(27.4)
Investment in JUUL7 0.2 537 7.8 1,808 236.0 
Investment in Cronos128 3.3 20 0.3 (66)(8.6)
Other (1)
(9)(0.2)0.1 (29)(3.8)
Effective tax rate$1,349 35.3 %$2,436 35.4 %$2,064 269.5 %
(1) Other in 2019 is primarily deferred profit sharing dividends tax benefit of $21 million and 2015:
 2017
 2016
 2015
U.S. federal statutory rate35.0 % 35.0 % 35.0 %
Increase (decrease) resulting from:     
State and local income taxes, net
of federal tax benefit
3.5
 1.2
 3.7
Re-measurement of net deferred tax liabilities(31.2) 
 
Tax basis in foreign investments(7.8) 
 
Deemed repatriation tax4.2
 
 
Uncertain tax positions(0.9) 
 (0.8)
AB InBev/SABMiller dividend
benefit
(5.9) (0.6) (0.5)
Domestic manufacturing deduction(1.8) (0.8) (2.0)
Other0.8
 
 (0.3)
Effective tax rate(4.1)% 34.8 % 35.1 %
immaterial miscellaneous items.
The tax benefitprovision (benefit) in 20172021 was impacted by the state tax treatment of the impairment charge on Altria’s equity investment in ABI. The tax provision (benefit) in 2021 also included net tax benefitsexpense of $3,367$128 million related to Altria’s Investment in Cronos, including an addition to a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset.
The tax provision (benefit) in 2020 included tax expense of $612 million for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to Altria’s impairment of its investment in JUUL in the Tax Reform Act recordedthird quarter of 2020, partially offset by a $24 million tax benefit reflecting the

79

release of a portion of the valuation allowance related to a reduction of a deferred tax asset associated with an increase in the estimated fair value of JUUL in the fourth quarter of 2017 as follows: (i) a2020.
The tax benefitprovision (benefit) in 2019 included tax expense of $3,017 million to re-measure Altria Group, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries’ net deferred tax liabilities based on the new U.S. federal statutory rate; and (ii) a net tax benefit of $763$2,024 million for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to Altria’s impairment of its investment in JUUL, tax expense of $84 million resulting from a partial reversal of the tax basis adjustmentbenefit associated with the deemed repatriation tax partially offset by tax expense of $413 million for the deemed repatriation tax.
The amounts above related to the tax basis adjustment and the deemed repatriation tax were based on provisional estimates as of January 18, 2018, substantially all of which are related to Altria Group, Inc.’s share of AB InBev’s accumulated earnings and associated taxes. Altria Group, Inc. may be required to adjust these provisional estimates based on (i) additional guidance related to, or interpretation of, the Tax Reform Act and associated tax laws and (ii) additional information to be received from AB InBev, including information regarding AB InBev’s accumulated earnings and associated taxes for the 2016 and 2017 tax years. This additional guidance and information could result in increases or decreases to the provisional estimates, which may be significant in relation to these estimates. Altria Group, Inc. will record any such adjustments in 2018.
The tax benefitrecorded in 2017 also included tax benefits of $232 million for the release of a valuation allowance in the third quarter of 2017 related to deferred income tax assets for foreign tax credit carryforwards, which is included in AB InBev/SABMiller dividend benefit in the table above; and tax benefits of $152 million related primarily to the effective settlement in the second quarter of 2017 of the IRS audit of Altria Group, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries’ 2010-2013 tax years, partially offset by tax expense of $114 million in the third quarter of 2017 for tax reserves related to the calculation of certain foreign tax credits.
The tax provision in 2016 included increased tax benefits associated with the cumulative SABMiller and AB InBev dividends and tax expense of $4.9 billion (approximately 35%) for the gain on the Transaction.


60

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


The tax provision in 2015 included net tax benefits of (i) $59 million from the reversal of tax reserves and associated interest due primarily to the closure in the third quarter of 2015 of the IRS audit of Altria Group, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries’ 2007-2009 tax years (“IRS 2007-2009 Audit”); and (ii) $41$38 million for Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”)a valuation allowance against foreign tax matters discussed below,credits not realizable. These amounts were partially offset by the reversala tax benefit of foreign tax credits primarily associated with SABMiller dividends that were recorded during the third quarter of 2015 ($41 million) and the fourth quarter of 2015 ($24 million). The tax provision in 2015 also included decreased recognition of foreign tax credits associated with SABMiller dividends.
Under tax sharing agreements between Altria Group, Inc. and its former subsidiary PMI, entered into in connection with the 2008 spin-off, PMI is responsible$105 million for its pre-spin-off tax obligations. Altria Group, Inc., however, remained severally liable for PMI’s pre-spin-off federal tax obligations pursuant to regulations governing federal consolidated incomeamended tax returns and continuedaudit adjustments relating to include the pre-spin-off federal incomeprior years, a tax reservesbenefit of PMI in its liability for uncertain tax positions. As of December 31, 2015, there were no remaining pre-spin-off tax reserves for PMI.
During 2015, Altria Group, Inc. recorded tax benefits of $41$100 million for PMI tax matters, primarily relating to the IRS 2007-2009 Audit. Theseaccruals no longer required and a net tax benefits were offset bybenefit of $79 million related to Altria’s Investment in Cronos, including a reduction ofvaluation allowance release on a PMI tax-related receivable, which was recorded as a decrease to operating income in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statement of earnings. Due to the offset, the PMIdeferred tax matters had no impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s net earnings for the year ended December 31, 2015.asset.
The tax effects of temporary differences that gave rise to deferred income tax assets and liabilities consisted of the following at December 31, 2017 and 2016:31:
(in millions)2017
 2016
(in millions)20212020
Deferred income tax assets:   Deferred income tax assets:
Accrued postretirement and postemployment benefits$539
 $952
Accrued postretirement and postemployment benefits$387 $524 
Settlement charges614
 1,446
Settlement charges835 888 
Accrued pension costs136
 330
Accrued pension costs 148 
Investment in JUULInvestment in JUUL2,652 2,642 
Investment in CronosInvestment in Cronos403 128 
Net operating losses and tax credit carryforwards18
 288
Net operating losses and tax credit carryforwards46 81 
Total deferred income tax assets1,307
 3,016
Total deferred income tax assets4,323 4,411 
Deferred income tax liabilities:   Deferred income tax liabilities:
Property, plant and equipment(261) (429)Property, plant and equipment(216)(273)
Intangible assets(2,674) (4,032)Intangible assets(2,802)(2,806)
Investment in AB InBev(2,859) (5,546)
Investment in ABIInvestment in ABI(1,695)(2,819)
Finance assets, net(404) (708)Finance assets, net(29)(117)
Accrued pension costsAccrued pension costs(55)— 
Other(121) (125)Other(94)(12)
Total deferred income tax liabilities(6,319) (10,840)Total deferred income tax liabilities(4,891)(6,027)
Valuation allowances
 (240)Valuation allowances(3,097)(2,817)
Net deferred income tax liabilities$(5,012) $(8,064)Net deferred income tax liabilities$(3,665)$(4,433)
At December 31, 2017,2021, Altria Group, Inc. had estimated gross state tax net operating losses of $569$272 million that, if unused, will expire in 20182022 through 2037.2038.
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending valuation allowances was as follows:
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Balance at beginning of year$2,817 $2,324 $71 
Additions to valuation allowance related to Altria’s initial Investment in Cronos — 352 
Additions to valuation allowance charged to income tax expense401 692 2,063 
Reductions to valuation allowance credited to income tax benefit(118)(200)(159)
Foreign currency translation(3)(3)
Balance at end of year$3,097 $2,817 $2,324 
Altria determines 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, Altria considers 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.

80

The changes in valuation allowances during 2021 were primarily due to deferred tax assets recorded in connection with Altria’s Investment in Cronos. The cumulative valuation allowance at December 31, 2021 was primarily attributable to deferred tax assets recorded in connection with Altria’s investment in JUUL ($2,652 million) and its Investment in Cronos ($407 million).
The 2020 valuation allowance was primarily attributable to deferred tax assets recorded in connection with the impairments of Altria’s investment in JUUL ($2,610 million), and its Investment in Cronos ($121 million).
The 2019 valuation allowance was primarily attributable to the deferred tax asset recorded in connection with the impairment of Altria’s investment in JUUL. Altria recorded a full valuation allowance of $2,024 million against this deferred tax asset. For a discussion regarding the impairment of Altria’s investment in JUUL, see Note 6. Investments in Equity Securities.

Note 15. Segment Reporting
The products of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s subsidiaries include smokeable tobacco products, consisting of combustible cigarettes manufactured and sold by PM USA, and Nat Sherman, machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco manufactured and sold by MiddletonMiddleton; oral tobacco products, consisting of MST and premium cigars sold by Nat Sherman; smokeless tobaccosnus products manufactured and sold by USSTC;USSTC, and wine produced and/or distributedoral nicotine pouches manufactured and sold by Ste. Michelle.Helix. The products and services of these subsidiaries constitute Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s reportable segments of smokeable products smokelessand oral tobacco products and wine.at December 31, 2021. The financial services and the innovative tobacco products businesses, which include the heated tobacco business and Helix ROW, are included in all other.
Altria Group, Inc.’sOn October 1, 2021, UST sold IWS, which included Ste. Michelle, for a net purchase price of approximately $1.2 billion. Prior to October 1, 2021, wine produced and/or sold by Ste. Michelle was a reportable segment. For further discussion, see Note 1. Background and Basis of Presentation and Asset Impairment, Exit, Implementation, Acquisition and Disposition-Related Costs - Ste. Michelle Transaction below.
Altria’s chief operating decision maker (the “CODM”) reviews operating companies income (loss) (“OCI”) to evaluate the performance of, and allocate resources to, the segments. Operating companies incomeOCI for the segments is defined as operating income before general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles. Interest and other debt expense, net, along with net periodic benefit income/cost, excluding service cost, and provision (benefit) for income taxes are centrally managed at the corporate level and, accordingly, such items are not presented by segment since they are excluded from the measure of segment profitability reviewed by the CODM. Information about total assets by segment is not disclosed because such information is not reported to or used by the CODM. Substantially all of Altria’s long-lived assets are located in the United States. Segment goodwill and other intangible assets, net, are disclosed in Note 3. 4. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, net. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.



6181

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Segment data were as follows:
For the Years Ended December 31, For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
(in millions)202120202019
Net revenues:     Net revenues:
Smokeable products$22,636
 $22,851
 $22,792
Smokeable products$22,866 $23,089 $21,996 
Smokeless products2,155
 2,051
 1,879
Oral tobacco productsOral tobacco products2,608 2,533 2,367 
Wine698
 746
 692
Wine494 614 689 
All other87
 96
 71
All other45 (83)58 
Net revenues$25,576
 $25,744
 $25,434
Net revenues$26,013 $26,153 $25,110 
Earnings before income taxes:     Earnings before income taxes:
Operating companies
income (loss):
     
OCI:OCI:
Smokeable products$8,408
 $7,768
 $7,569
Smokeable products$10,394 $9,985 $9,009 
Smokeless products1,300
 1,177
 1,108
Oral tobacco productsOral tobacco products1,659 1,718 1,580 
Wine147
 164
 152
Wine21 (360)(3)
All other(51) (99) (169)All other(97)(172)(16)
Amortization of intangibles(21) (21) (21)Amortization of intangibles(72)(72)(44)
General corporate expenses(227) (222) (237)General corporate expenses(345)(227)(199)
Reduction of PMI tax-related receivable
 
 (41)
Corporate asset impairment and exit costs
 (5) 
Corporate asset impairment and exit costs (1)
Operating income9,556
 8,762
 8,361
Operating income11,560 10,873 10,326 
Interest and other debt expense, net(705) (747) (817)Interest and other debt expense, net1,162 1,209 1,280 
Loss on early extinguishment of debt
 (823) (228)Loss on early extinguishment of debt649 — — 
Earnings from equity investment in AB InBev/SABMiller532
 795
 757
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination445
 13,865
 5
Net periodic benefit income, excluding service costNet periodic benefit income, excluding service cost(202)(77)(37)
(Income) losses from equity investments(Income) losses from equity investments5,979 111 (1,725)
Impairment of JUUL equity securitiesImpairment of JUUL equity securities 2,600 8,600 
Loss on Cronos-related financial instrumentsLoss on Cronos-related financial instruments148 140 1,442 
Earnings before income taxes$9,828
 $21,852
 $8,078
Earnings before income taxes$3,824 $6,890 $766 
The smokeable products segment included net revenues of $21,900$21,877 million, $22,199$22,135 million and $22,193$21,158 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015,2019, respectively, related to cigarettes and net revenues of $736$989 million, $652$954 million and $599$838 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015,2019, respectively, related to cigars.
Substantially all of Altria’s net revenues are from sales generated in the United States for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019. PM USA, USSTC, MiddletonHelix and Nat Sherman’s largestMiddleton’s customer, McLane Company, Inc., accounted for approximately 26%23%, 26% and 25% and 26% of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated net revenues for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015,2019, respectively. In addition, Performance Food Group Company, which acquired Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. in 2021, also accounted for approximately 23% of Altria’s consolidated net revenues for the year ended December 31, 2021. Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. accounted for approximately 14%, 14%17% and 10%15% of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated net revenues for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162020 and 2015,2019, respectively. Substantially all of these net revenues were reported in the smokeable products and smokelessoral tobacco products segments. Sales to three distributorsNo other customer accounted for approximately 67%, 69% and 66%more than 10% of Altria’s consolidated net revenues for the wine segment for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015, respectively.2019.


82

Details of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s depreciation expense and capital expenditures were as follows:
For the Years Ended December 31, For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
(in millions)202120202019
Depreciation expense:     Depreciation expense:
Smokeable products$93
 $93
 $117
Smokeable products$80 $81 $88 
Smokeless products29
 26
 27
Oral tobacco productsOral tobacco products34 32 27 
Wine40
 36
 32
Wine27 40 41 
General corporate and other26
 28
 28
General corporate and other31 32 26 
Total depreciation expense$188
 $183
 $204
Total depreciation expense$172 $185 $182 
Capital expenditures:     Capital expenditures:
Smokeable products$39
 $55
 $56
Smokeable products$48 $49 $61 
Smokeless products61
 52
 113
Oral tobacco productsOral tobacco products43 67 44 
Wine53
 59
 42
Wine12 31 63 
General corporate and other46
 23
 18
General corporate and other66 84 78 
Total capital expenditures$199
 $189
 $229
Total capital expenditures$169 $231 $246 
The comparability of operating companies incomeOCI for the reportable segments and the all other category was affected by the following:
Non-Participating Manufacturer (“NPM”) Adjustment Items: For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, pre-taxPre-tax (income) expense (income) for NPM adjustment items was recorded in Altria Group, Inc.’sto Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses) as follows:
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Smokeable products segment$(53)$
Interest and other debt expense, net(23)— 
Total$(76)$
(in millions) 2017
 2016
 2015
Smokeable products segment $(5)
$12

$(97)
Interest and other debt expense, net 9

6

13
Total $4
 $18
 $(84)
NPM adjustment items result from the resolutions of certain disputes with states and territories related to the NPM adjustment provision under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (such dispute resolutions are referred to collectively as “NPM Adjustment Items”). For the year ended December 31, 2015, the NPM Adjustment Items primarily relate to the resolution of the dispute with New York. For further discussion, see and are more fully described inHealth Care Cost Recovery Litigation - NPM Adjustment Disputesin Note 18. Contingencies. Contingencies). The amounts shown in the table above for the smokeable products segment were recorded by PM USA as (reductions) increases (reductions) to cost of sales, which (increased) decreased (increased) operating companies incomeOCI in the smokeable products segment.
No NPM adjustment items were recorded for 2019.


62

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Tobacco and Health and Certain Other Litigation Items: For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, pre-taxPre-tax charges related to certain tobacco and health and certain other litigation items were recorded in Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses) as follows:
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Smokeable products segment$83 $79 $72 
General corporate90 — — 
Interest and other debt expense, net9 
Total$182 $83 $77 
(in millions) 2017
 2016
 2015
Smokeable products segment $72
 $88
 $127
Interest and other debt expense, net 8
 17
 23
Total $80
 $105
 $150
During 2017, PM USA recorded pre-tax charges of$72 million in marketing, administration and research costs and $8 million in interest costs, substantially all of which related to 11 Engle progeny cases. For further discussion, see Note 18. Contingencies.
During 2016, PM USA recorded pre-tax charges of $88 million in marketing, administration and research costs, primarily related to settlementsThe amounts shown in the Minertable above for the smokeable products segment and Aspinall cases totaling approximately $67 million, and $16 million related to a judgment in the Merino case. In addition, during 2016, PM USAgeneral corporate were recorded $17 million in interest costs primarily related to Aspinall. For further discussion, see Note 18. Contingencies.
During 2015, PM USA recorded pre-tax charges in marketing, administration and research costs in seven state Engle progeny cases and Schwarz of $59 million and $25 million, respectively, as well as $14 million and $9 million, respectively, in interest costs related to these cases. Additionally in 2015, PM USA and certain other cigarette manufacturers reached an agreement to resolve approximately 415 pending federal Engle progeny cases. As a result of the agreement, PM USA recorded a pre-tax provision of approximately $43 million in marketing, administration and research costs. For further discussion, see Note 18. Contingencies.
Settlement for Lump Sum Pension Payments: In the third quarterCOVID-19 Special Items: Net pre-tax charges of 2017, Altria Group, Inc. made a voluntary, limited-time offer to former employees with vested benefits$50 million ($41 million in the Altria Retirement Plan who had not commenced receiving benefit paymentssmokeable products segment and who met certain other conditions. Eligible participants$9 million in the oral tobacco products segment) related to the COVID-19 pandemic were offered the opportunity to make a one-time election to receive their pension benefit as a single lump sum payment or as a monthly annuity. As a result of the 2017 lump sum distributions, a one-time pre-tax settlement charge of $81 million was recorded in 2017 in Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated statement of earnings as follows:(losses) for the year ended December 31, 2020. The net pre-tax charges, which were directly related to disruptions caused by or efforts to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, were all recorded in costs of sales and included premium pay, personal protective equipment and health screenings, which were partially offset by certain employment tax credits. The COVID-19 special items do not include the inventory-related implementation costs associated with the wine business strategic reset which are included in asset impairment, exit, implementation, acquisition and disposition-related costs. These implementation costs were due to increased inventory levels, which were further negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including economic uncertainty and government restrictions.

83

For the Year Ended December 31, 2017
(in millions)Cost of Sales
 Marketing, Administration and Research Costs
 Total
Smokeable products$39
 $18
 $57
Smokeless products
 16
 16
General corporate and other
 8
 8
Total$39
 $42
 $81
Asset Impairment, Exit, Implementation, Acquisition and Disposition-Related Costs: For further discussion,the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, Altria recorded pre-tax asset impairment, exit and implementation costs of $1 million, $407 million and $216 million, respectively. For a breakdown of asset impairment, exit and implementation costs by segment, see Note 16. Benefit Plans.
Smokeless Products Recall: During 2017, USSTC voluntarily recalled certain smokeless tobacco products manufactured at its Franklin Park, Illinois facility due to a product tampering incident (the “Recall”). USSTC estimates that the Recall reduced smokeless products segment operating companies income by approximately $60 million in 2017.
5. Asset Impairment, Exit and Implementation Costs: See Note 4. Asset Impairment, ExitCosts.
In addition, in 2021 the comparability of OCI was further impacted by the following disposition and Implementationacquisition-related costs:
Ste. Michelle Transaction: For the year ended December 31, 2021, net pre-tax disposition-related costs of $51 million were recorded in the wine segment, which consisted of a net pre-tax charge of $41 million to record the assets and liabilities associated with the Ste. Michelle Transaction at their fair value less costs to sell and $10 million of other disposition-related costs. The total net pre-tax charges of $51 million were recorded in marketing, administration and research costs in Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses).
Acquisition-Related Costs: For the year ended December 31, 2021, Altria recorded pre-tax acquisition-related costs of $37 million in the oral tobacco products segment primarily for the settlement of an arbitration related to the 2019 on! transaction. These costs were included in marketing, administration and research costs in Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses).
PMCC Residual Value Adjustments: For the year ended December 31, 2020, PMCC recorded pre-tax charges of $125 million (as a breakdownreduction to net revenues in the all other category) related to the decrease in unguaranteed residual values of these costs by segment.certain leased assets. There were no such adjustments in 2021 or 2019.

Note 16. Benefit Plans
Subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. sponsor noncontributory defined benefit pension plans covering the majority of allcertain employees of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries. However, employeesEmployees hired on or after a date specific to their employee group, except for certain employees of UST’s subsidiaries and Middleton, are not eligible to participate in these noncontributory defined benefit pension plans but are instead eligible to participate in a defined contribution plan with enhanced benefits. This transition for new hires occurred from October 1, 2006 to January 1, 2008. In addition, effective January 1, 2010, certain employees of UST’s subsidiaries and Middleton who were participants in noncontributory defined benefit pension plans ceased to earn additional benefit service under those plans and became eligible to participate in a defined contribution plan with enhanced benefits. Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries also provide postretirement health care and other benefits to the majority ofcertain retired employees.
The plan assets and benefit obligations of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s pension plans and postretirement plans are measured at December 31 of each year. In December 2017, Altria Group, Inc. made a contribution of $270 million to a trust to fund certain


63

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


postretirement benefits. Prior to this contribution, Altria Group, Inc.’s postretirement plans were not funded.
The discount rates for Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s plans were based on a yield curve developed from a model portfolio of high-quality
corporate bonds with durations that match the expected future cash flows of the pension and postretirement benefit obligations.


84
Obligations and Funded Status: The benefit obligations, plan assets and funded status of Altria Group, Inc.’s pension and postretirement plans at December 31, 2017 and 2016 were as follows:

               Pension              Postretirement
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2017
 2016
Change in benefit obligation:       
    Benefit obligation at beginning of year$8,312
 $8,011
 $2,364
 $2,392
   Service cost75
 76
 16
 17
   Interest cost288
 281
 76
 77
   Benefits paid(703) (440) (139) (135)
   Actuarial losses589
 367
 56
 24
       Termination, settlement and curtailment(51) 13
 
 5
       Other
 4
 (38) (16)
    Benefit obligation at end of year8,510
 8,312
 2,335
 2,364
Change in plan assets:       
    Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year7,475
 6,706
 
 
   Actual return on plan assets1,219
 678
 
 
   Employer contributions24
 531
 270
 
   Benefits paid(703) (440) 
 
    Fair value of plan assets at end of year8,015
 7,475
 270
 
    Funded status at December 31$(495) $(837) $(2,065) $(2,364)
Amounts recognized on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets were as follows:       
    Other accrued liabilities$(51) $(32) $(78) $(147)
    Accrued pension costs(445) (805) 
 
    Other assets1
 
 
 
    Accrued postretirement health care costs
 
 (1,987) (2,217)
 $(495) $(837) $(2,065) $(2,364)
Obligations and Funded Status: The benefit obligations, plan assets and funded status of Altria’s pension and postretirement plans were as follows at December 31:
PensionPostretirement
(in millions)2021202020212020
Change in benefit obligation:
    Benefit obligation at beginning of year$9,465 $8,659 $2,229 $2,091 
   Service cost68 74 20 16 
   Interest cost184 251 38 59 
   Benefits paid(465)(477)(104)(107)
   Actuarial (gains) losses(523)970 (150)169 
   Plan amendments8 (12)(345)
   Divestiture(193)(1)—  — 
Benefit obligation at end of year8,544 9,465 1,688 2,229 
Change in plan assets:
    Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year8,911 8,167 201 213 
   Actual return on plan assets466 1,188 21 21 
   Employer contributions26 33  — 
   Benefits paid(465)(477)(37)(33)
   Divestiture(145)(1)—  — 
Fair value of plan assets at end of year8,793 8,911 185 201 
    Funded status at December 31$249 $(554)$(1,503)$(2,028)
Amounts recognized on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets were as follows:
    Other accrued liabilities$(27)$(23)$(67)$(77)
    Accrued pension costs(200)(551) — 
    Other assets476 20  — 
    Accrued postretirement health care costs — (1,436)(1,951)
$249 $(554)$(1,503)$(2,028)
(1)Divestiture of benefit obligations and plan assets related to the Ste. Michelle Transaction. For further discussion, see Note 1. Background and Basis of Presentation.
The table above presents the projected benefit obligation for Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s pension plans. The accumulated benefit obligation, which represents benefits earned to date, for the pension plans was $8.2 billion and $8.0$9.1 billion at December 31, 20172021 and 2016,2020, respectively.
Actuarial (gains) losses for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 for the pension and postretirement plans were due primarily to changes in the discount rate. Actuarial (gains) losses for the pension plans for the year ended December 31, 2021 were further impacted by changes to mortality rate assumptions.
Plan amendments for the postretirement plans for the year ended December 31, 2021 included several plan changes announced in June 2021 to Altria’s salaried retiree healthcare plans, primarily changing its post-age 65 coverage to a private medicare marketplace. These amendments triggered a plan remeasurement in June 2021, resulting in a reduction of $432 million (including discount rate impact and other changes) to the postretirement obligation in the second quarter of 2021 and a corresponding reduction to its accumulated other comprehensive losses.
For pension plans with accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets at December 31, 2017,2021, the projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit obligation and fair value of plan assets were $413 million, $364$176 million and $124$0 million, respectively. For pension plans with accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets at December 31, 2020, the accumulated benefit obligation and fair value of plan assets were $393 million and $149 million, respectively.
For pension plans with projected benefit obligations in excess of plan assets at December 31, 2021, the projected benefit obligation and fair value of plan assets were $227 million and $0 million, respectively. For pension plans with projected benefit obligations in excess of plan assets at December 31, 2020, the projected benefit obligation and fair value of plan assets were $9,324 million and $8,750 million, respectively.
At December 31, 2016,2021 and 2020, the accumulated postretirement benefit obligations were in excess of plan assets for all pensionpostretirement plans.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act

85

additional accumulated postretirement liability resulting from the PPACA, which is not material to Altria Group, Inc., has been included in Altria Group, Inc.’s accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at December 31, 2017 and 2016. Given the complexity of the PPACA and the extended time period during which implementation is expected to occur, future adjustments to Altria Group, Inc.’s accumulated postretirement benefit obligation may be necessary.
The following assumptions were used to determine Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s pension and postretirement benefit obligations at December 31:
 2017
 2016
Discount rate3.7% 4.1%
Rate of compensation increase4.0
 4.0
PensionPostretirement
2021202020212020
Discount rate3.0 %2.7 %2.9 %2.6 %
Rate of compensation increase - long-term4.0 4.0  — 
Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year— — 6.5 6.5 
    Ultimate trend rate— — 5.0 5.0 
 Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend rate — 20272027



64

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


TheNet Periodic Benefit Cost (Income): Net periodic benefit cost (income) consisted of the following assumptions were used to determine Altria Group, Inc.’s postretirement benefit obligations atfor the years ended December 31:
 2017
 2016
Discount rate3.7% 4.1%
Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year7.0

7.0
    Ultimate trend rate5.0

5.0
 Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend rate2022

2022
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost: Net periodic benefit cost consisted of the following for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015:
PensionPostretirement
(in millions)202120202019202120202019
Service cost$68 $74 $70 $20 $16 $16 
Interest cost184 251 306 38 59 76 
Expected return on plan assets(522)(502)(576)(14)(14)(15)
Amortization:
Net loss131 134 159 22 10 
Prior service cost (credit)5 (46)(30)(30)
Settlement and curtailment 10 27  — 
Net periodic benefit cost (income)$(134)$(28)$(8)$20 $41 $57 
              Pension                Postretirement
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
 2017
 2016
 2015
Service cost$75
 $76
 $86
 $16
 $17
 $18
Interest cost288
 281
 337
 76
 77
 100
Expected return on plan assets(601) (553) (539) 
 
 
Amortization:           
Net loss197
 171
 234
 25
 25
 43
Prior service cost (credit)4
 5
 7
 (38) (39) (39)
Termination, settlement and curtailment86
 34
 8
 
 (2) 
Net periodic benefit cost$49
 $14
 $133
 $79
 $78
 $122
Termination, settlementSettlement and curtailment shown in the table above for 2019 primarily relaterelates to the settlement charge discussed below, and the productivity initiative and facilities consolidationcost reduction program discussed in Note 4. 5. Asset Impairment, Exit and Implementation Costs.
In the third quarter of 2017, Altria Group, Inc. made a voluntary, limited-time offer to former employees with vested benefits in the Altria Retirement Plan who had not commenced receiving benefit payments and who met certain other conditions. Eligible participants were offered the opportunity to make a one-time election to receive their pension benefit as a single lump sum payment or as a monthly annuity. Distributions to former employees who elected to receive lump sum payments totaled approximately $277 million, substantially all of which were made in December 2017 from the Altria Retirement Plan’s assets. Payments began on January 1, 2018 to former employees who elected a monthly annuity. As a result of the lump sum distributions, Altria Group, Inc. recorded a one-time settlement charge of $81 million in 2017.
The amounts included in termination, settlement and curtailment in the table above were comprised of the following changes:
       Pension 
Post-
retirement

(in millions)2017
2016
2015
 2016
Benefit obligation$
$23
$
 $11
Other comprehensive earnings/losses:  
  
Net loss86
9
8
 
Prior service cost (credit)
2

 (13)
 $86
$34
$8
 $(2)
PensionPostretirement
(in millions)202020192019
Benefit obligation$— $$10 
Other comprehensive earnings/losses:
Net loss10 20 — 
Prior service cost (credit)— (5)
$10 $27 $
Beginning in 2016, Altria Group, Inc. began using a spot rate approach to estimate the service and interest cost components of net periodic benefit costs by applying the specific spot rates along the yield curve to the relevant projected cash flows, as Altria Group, Inc. believes that this approach is a more precise estimate of service and interest cost. This change resulted in a decrease of approximately $70 million and $20 million to its 2016 pre-tax pension and postretirement net periodic benefit cost, respectively. Prior to 2016, Altria Group, Inc. estimated the service and interest cost components of net periodic benefit cost using a single weighted-average discount rate derived from the yield curve used to measure the pension and postretirement plans benefit obligations.
The estimated net loss and prior service cost (credit) that are expected to be amortized from accumulated other comprehensive losses into net periodic benefit cost during 2018 is as follows:
(in millions)Pension
 Postretirement
Net loss$228
 $35
Prior service cost (credit)4
 (42)



65

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


The following assumptions were used to determine Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s net periodic benefit cost for the years ended December 31:
             Pension               PostretirementPensionPostretirement
2017
 2016
 2015
 2017
 2016
 2015
202120202019202120202019
Discount rates:

 

 

 

 

 

Discount rates:
Service cost4.3% 4.7% 4.1% 4.3% 4.5% 4.0% Service cost3.1 %3.7 %4.6 %3.1 %3.6 %4.5 %
Interest cost3.5
 3.6
 4.1
 3.5
 3.4
 4.0
Interest cost2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 
Expected rate of return on plan assets8.0
 8.0
 8.0
 
 
 
Expected rate of return on plan assets6.6 6.6 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.8 
Rate of compensation increase4.0
 4.0
 4.0
 
 
 
Rate of compensation increase - long-termRate of compensation increase - long-term4.0 4.0 4.0  — — 
Health care cost trend rate
 
 
 7.0
 6.5
 7.0
Health care cost trend rate — — 6.5 6.5 6.5 
Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect on the amounts reported for the postretirement health care plans. A one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend rates would have had the following effects as of December 31, 2017:
 One-Percentage-Point Increase
 One-Percentage-Point Decrease
Effect on total of postretirement service and interest cost7.8% (6.9)%
Effect on postretirement benefit obligation6.6% (5.5)%
Defined Contribution Plans: Altria Group, Inc. sponsors deferred profit-sharing plans covering certain salaried, non-union and union employees. Contributions and costs are determined generally as a percentage of earnings, as defined by the plans. Amounts charged to expense for these defined contribution plans totaled $83$90 million, $93$88 million and $85$78 million in 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015,2019, respectively.
Pension and Postretirement Plan Assets: In managing its pension assets, Altria Group, Inc.’simplements a liability-driven investment framework that aligns plan assets with liabilities. In the fourth quarter of 2021, Altria adjusted its target asset allocation for the majority

86

of its pension plan assets from an equity/fixed income allocation of 30%/70% to a target allocation of 20%/80%. The objective of this change is to further reduce the overall exposure to equity volatility and more closely align the values of plan assets with the liabilities. The target allocation between fixed income and growth assets balances pension liability hedging and asset growth in order to maintain the plan’s funded status and cover incremental service accruals and interest cost. Liability hedging is achieved through investing in rate-sensitive fixed income securities, primarily corporate bonds and U.S. Treasuries, while growth assets are comprised of publicly traded equity securities.
Altria’s investment strategy for its pensionpostretirement plan assets is aimed at maximizing the total asset return based on an expectation that equity securities will outperform debt securities over the long term. term and reflects the maturity structure of the benefit obligation. The equity/fixed income target allocation for postretirement plan assets remains unchanged at 55%/45%.
Altria Group, Inc. believes that it implements thethese investment strategystrategies in a prudent and risk-controlled manner, consistent with the fiduciary requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, by investing retirement plan assets in a well-diversified mix of equities, fixed income and other securities that reflects the impact of the demographic mix of plan participants on the benefit obligation using a target asset allocation between equity securities and fixed income investments of 55%/45%. securities.
The actual composition of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s plan assets at December 31, 20172021 was broadly characterized with the following allocation:
PensionPostretirement
Equity securities31 %56 %
Corporate bonds53 %35 %
U.S. Treasury and foreign government securities16 %9 %
Altria’s pension and postretirement plan asset performance is monitored on an ongoing basis to adjust the mix as an allocation between equity securities (59%), corporate bonds (30%) and U.S. Treasury and foreign government securities (11%). Virtuallynecessary to achieve the target allocation.
Substantially all pension and all postretirement assets can be used to make monthly benefit payments.
Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s investment objective for its pension and postretirement plan assets is accomplished by investing in long-duration fixed income securities that primarily include U.S. corporate bonds of companies from diversified industries and U.S. Treasury securities that mirror Altria’s pension obligation benchmark, as well as U.S. and international equity index strategies that are intended to mirror broad market indices, such asincluding, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, Russell Small Cap Completeness Index, Research Affiliates Fundamental Index (“RAFI”) Low Volatility U.S. Index and Morgan Stanley Capital International (“MSCI”) Europe, Australasia, and the Far East (“EAFE”) Index. Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s pension and postretirement plans also invest in actively managed international equity securities of large, mid and small cap companies located in developed and emerging markets, as well as long duration fixed income securities that primarily include corporate bonds of companies from diversified industries. Themarkets. For pension plan assets, the allocation to below investment grade securities represented approximately 16% of the fixed income holdings or 7%approximately 11% of the total plan assets at December 31, 2021. The allocation to emerging markets represented less than 1% of total plan assets at December 31, 2017. The2021. For postretirement plan assets, the allocation to emerging marketsbelow investment grade securities represented 4%approximately 8% of the equityfixed income holdings or approximately 3% of the total plan assets at December 31, 2017.2021. There were no postretirement plan assets invested in emerging markets at December 31, 2021.
Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s risk management practices for its pension and postretirement plans include (i) ongoing monitoring of asset allocation, investment performance and investment managers’ compliance with their investment guidelines, (ii) periodic rebalancing between equity and debt asset classes and (iii) annual actuarial re-measurement of plan liabilities.
Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s expected rate of return on pension and postretirement plan assets is determined by the plan assets’ historical long-term investment performance, current asset allocation and estimates of future long-term returns by asset class. The forward-looking estimates are consistent with the overall long-term historical averages exhibited by returns on equity and fixed income securities. As a result of the target asset allocation change described above, Altria Group, Inc. has reduced thisits expected rate of return assumption from 8.0% to 7.8% for determining its pension net periodic benefit cost for 2018.





(income) from 6.6% in 2021 to 6.1% in 2022. For determining its postretirement net periodic benefit cost (income), Altria’s 2022 expected rate of return assumption remains unchanged from prior year at 7.7%.


6687

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


The fair values of Altria Group, Inc.’sthe pension plan assets by asset category were as follows at December 31, 2017 and 2016 were as follows:31:
2017 201620212020
(in millions)Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
 Total
 Level 1
 Level 2
 Level 3
 Total
(in millions)Level 1Level 2TotalLevel 1Level 2Total
U.S. and foreign government securities or
their agencies:
               U.S. and foreign government securities or their agencies:
U.S. government and agencies$
 $588
 $
 $588
 $
 $444
 $
 $444
U.S. government and agencies$ $1,147 $1,147 $— $950 $950 
U.S. municipal bonds
 81
 
 81
 
 102
 
 102
U.S. municipal bonds 60 60 — 64 64 
Foreign government and agencies
 150
 
 150
 
 185
 
 185
Foreign government and agencies 88 88 — 90 90 
Corporate debt instruments:               Corporate debt instruments:
Above investment grade
 1,789
 
 1,789
 
 1,735
 
 1,735
Above investment grade 3,442 3,442 — 3,760 3,760 
Below investment grade and no rating
 511
 
 511
 
 602
 
 602
Below investment grade and no rating 1,032 1,032 — 868 868 
Common stock:               Common stock:
International equities1,396
 
 
 1,396
 1,076
 
 
 1,076
International equities373  373 316 — 316 
U.S. equities831
 
 
 831
 760
 
 
 760
U.S. equities856  856 970 — 970 
Other, net120
 74
 
 194
 142
 33
 13
 188
Other, net52 237 289 21 356 377 
$2,347
 $3,193
 $
 $5,540
 $1,978
 $3,101
 $13
 $5,092
$1,281 $6,006 $7,287 $1,307 $6,088 $7,395 
Investments measured at NAV as a practical expedient for fair value:               Investments measured at NAV as a practical expedient for fair value:
Common/collective trusts:               
Collective investment fundsCollective investment funds
U.S. large cap      2,014
       1,940
U.S. large cap
$873 $924 
U.S. small cap      361
       363
U.S. small cap462 455 
International developed markets      100
       80
International developed markets125 114 
Total investments measured at NAVTotal investments measured at NAV$1,460 $1,493 
OtherOther46 23 
Fair value of plan assets, net      $8,015
       $7,475
Fair value of plan assets, net$8,793 $8,911 
Level 3 holdings and transactions were immaterial to total plan assets at December 31, 20172021 and 2016.2020.

The fair value of the postretirement plan assets were as follows at December 31:
20212020
(in millions)Level 1Level 2TotalLevel 1Level 2Total
U.S. and foreign government securities or their agencies:
U.S. government and agencies$ $5 $5 $— $$
Foreign government and agencies 3 3 — 
Corporate debt instruments:
Above investment grade 55 55 — 55 55 
Below investment grade and no rating 10 10 — 11 11 
Other, net   — 
$ $73 $73 $— $83 $83 
Investments measured at NAV as a practical expedient for fair value:
Collective investment funds:
U.S. large cap
$84 $97 
International developed markets25 25 
Total investments measured at NAV$109 $122 
Other3 (4)
Fair value of plan assets, net$185 $201 
There were no Level 3 postretirement plan holdings or transactions during 2021 and 2020.

88

For a description of the fair value hierarchy and the three levels of inputs used to measure fair value, see Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.
Following is a description of the valuation methodologies used for investments measured at fair value.
U.S. and Foreign Government Securities
U.S. and Foreign Government Securities: U.S. and foreign government securities consist of investments in Treasury Nominal Bonds and Inflation Protected Securities and municipal securities. Government securities are valued at a price that is based on a compilation of primarily observable market information, such as broker quotes. Matrix pricing, yield curves and indices are used when broker quotes are not available.
Corporate Debt Instruments: Corporate debt instruments are valued at a price that is based on a compilation of primarily observable market information, such as broker quotes. Matrix pricing, yield curves and indices are used when broker quotes are not available.
Common Stock: Common stocks are valued based on the price of the security as listed on an open active exchange on last trade date.
Collective Investment Funds: Collective investment funds consist of funds that are intended to mirror indices such as Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and MSCI EAFE Index. They are valued at a price that is based on a compilation of primarily observable market information, such as broker quotes. Matrix pricing, yield curves and indices are used when broker quotes are not available.
Corporate Debt Instruments: Corporate debt instruments are valued at a price that is based on a compilation of primarily observable market information, such as broker quotes. Matrix pricing, yield curves and indices are used when broker quotes are not available.
Common Stock: Common stocks are valued based on the price of the security as listed on an open active exchange on last trade date.
Common/Collective Trusts: Common/collective trusts consist of funds that are intended to mirror indices such as Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, Russell Small Cap Completeness Index and MSCI EAFE Index. They are
valued on the basis of the relative interest of each participating investor in the fair value of the underlying assets of each of the respective common/collective trusts.investment funds. The underlying assets are valued based on the net asset value (“NAV”), which is provided by the investment account manager as a practical expedient to estimate fair value. These investments are not classified by level but are disclosed to permit reconciliation to the fair value of plan assets.
Postretirement Plan Assets: Altria Group, Inc. has established a long-term investment strategy for its postretirement plan assets using a target asset allocation between equity securities and fixed income investments of 55%/45%. The expected rate of return on plan assets is 7.8% for determining Altria Group, Inc.’s postretirement net periodic benefit cost for 2018. At December 31, 2017, postretirement plan assets totaled $270 million. Approximately $150 million was invested in domestic and international common/collective trusts. The underlying assets of each of the respective common/collective trusts are valued based on the NAV, which is provided by the investment account manager as a practical expedient to estimate fair value. Additionally, approximately $120 million was held in an interest bearing cash account, which is classified in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy, pending full implementation of the investment strategy in early January 2018.
Cash Flows: Altria Group, Inc. makes contributions to the pension plans to the extent that the contributions are tax


67

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


deductible and pays benefits that relate to plans for salaried employees that cannot be funded under IRS regulations. Currently, Altria Group, Inc. anticipates making employer contributions to its pension and postretirement plans of up to approximately $60$30 million in 2018 based on current tax law. for each in 2022. However, this estimate isthe foregoing estimates of 2022 contributions to the pension and postretirement plans are subject to change as a result of changes in tax and other benefit laws, changes in interest rates, as well as asset performance significantly above or below the assumed long-term rate of return on pension plan assets, or
for each respective plan.
changes in interest rates. In December 2017, Altria Group, Inc. made a contribution of $270 million to its postretirement plans. Currently, Altria Group, Inc. anticipates making employer contributions to its postretirement plans of up to approximately $70 million in 2018. However, this estimate is subject to change as a result of changes in tax and other benefit laws, as well as asset performance significantly above or below the assumed long-term rate of return on postretirement plan assets.

Estimated future benefit payments at December 31, 20172021 were as follows:
(in millions)Pension
 Postretirement
2018$480
 $142
2019451
 140
2020456
 138
2021459
 136
2022463
 133
2023-20272,372
 620
(in millions)PensionPostretirement
2022$499 $107 
2023477 103 
2024476 99 
2025479 96 
2026478 95 
2027-20312,387 472 
Comprehensive Earnings/Losses
The amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive losses at December 31, 2017 consisted of the following:
(in millions)Pension
 
Post-
retirement

 
Post-
employment

 Total
Net loss$(2,493) $(612) $(93) $(3,198)
Prior service (cost) credit(15) 195
 
 180
Deferred income taxes979
 166
 34
 1,179
Amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive losses$(1,529) $(251) $(59) $(1,839)
The amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive losses at December 31, 20162021 consisted of the following:
(in millions)PensionPost-
retirement
Post-
employment
Total
Net loss$(2,093)$(362)$(32)$(2,487)
Prior service (cost) credit(30)340 (5)305 
Deferred income taxes549 12 9 570 
Amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive losses$(1,574)$(10)$(28)$(1,612)
The amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive losses at December 31, 2020 consisted of the following:
(in millions)PensionPost-
retirement
Post-
employment
Total
Net loss$(2,689)$(541)$(44)$(3,274)
Prior service (cost) credit(27)41 (5)
Deferred income taxes702 132 11 845 
Amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive losses$(2,014)$(368)$(38)$(2,420)

89

(in millions)Pension
 
Post-
retirement

 
Post-
employment

 Total
Net loss$(2,857) $(581) $(99) $(3,537)
Prior service (cost) credit(19) 195
 
 176
Deferred income taxes1,124
 153
 36
 1,313
Amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive losses$(1,752) $(233) $(63) $(2,048)
The movements in other comprehensive earnings/losses during the year ended December 31, 20172021 were as follows:
(in millions)Pension
 
Post-
retirement

 
Post-
employment

 Total
(in millions)PensionPost-
retirement
Post-
employment
Total
Amounts reclassified to net earnings as components of net periodic benefit cost:       
Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses) as components of net periodic benefit cost:Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses) as components of net periodic benefit cost:
Amortization:       Amortization:
Net loss$197
 $25
 $17
 $239
Net loss$131 $22 $10 $163 
Prior service cost/credit4
 (38) 
 (34)Prior service cost/credit5 (46) (41)
Other expense:       
Other expense (income):Other expense (income):
Net loss86
 
 
 86
Net loss    
Prior service cost/creditPrior service cost/credit  —  
Deferred income taxes(113) 6
 (6) (113)Deferred income taxes(35)7 (2)(30)
174
 (7) 11
 178
$101 $(17)$8 $92 
Other movements during the year:       Other movements during the year:
Net loss81
 (56) (11) 14
Net loss$465 $157 $2 $624 
Prior service cost/credit
 38
 
 38
Prior service cost/credit(8)345  337 
Deferred income taxes(32) 7
 4
 (21)Deferred income taxes(118)(127) (245)
49
 (11) (7) 31
$339 $375 $2 $716 
Total movements in other comprehensive earnings/losses$223
 $(18) $4
 $209
Total movements in other comprehensive earnings/losses$440 $358 $10 $808 


68

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


The movements in other comprehensive earnings/losses during the year ended December 31, 20162020 were as follows:
(in millions)PensionPost-retirementPost-employmentTotal
Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses) as components of net periodic benefit cost:
Amortization:
Net loss$134 $10 $19 $163 
Prior service cost/credit(30)— (25)
Other expense (income):
Net loss10 — — 10 
Prior service cost/credit— — — — 
Deferred income taxes(37)(5)(37)
$112 $(15)$14 $111 
Other movements during the year:
Net loss$(268)$(162)$(18)$(448)
Prior service cost/credit(5)(1)— (6)
Deferred income taxes69 41 115 
$(204)$(122)$(13)$(339)
Total movements in other comprehensive earnings/losses$(92)$(137)$$(228)

90

(in millions)Pension
 
Post-
retirement

 
Post-
employment

 Total
Amounts reclassified to net earnings as components of net periodic benefit cost:       
Amortization:       
Net loss$171
 $25
 $18
 $214
Prior service cost/credit5
 (39) 
 (34)
Other expense (income):       
Net loss9
 
 
 9
Prior service cost/credit2
 (13) 
 (11)
Deferred income taxes(69) 11
 (7) (65)
 118
 (16) 11
 113
Other movements during the year:       
Net loss(232) (18) (9) (259)
Prior service cost/credit(4) 16
 
 12
Deferred income taxes92
 1
 3
 96
 (144) (1) (6) (151)
Total movements in other comprehensive earnings/losses$(26) $(17) $5
 $(38)
The movements in other comprehensive earnings/losses during the year ended December 31, 20152019 were as follows:
(in millions)Pension
 
Post-
retirement

 
Post-
employment

 Total
(in millions)PensionPost-
retirement
Post-
employment
Total
Amounts reclassified to net earnings as components of net periodic benefit cost:       
Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses) as components of net periodic benefit cost:Amounts reclassified to net earnings (losses) as components of net periodic benefit cost:
Amortization:       Amortization:
Net loss$234
 $43
 $19
 $296
Net loss$159 $$20 $184 
Prior service cost/credit7
 (39) 
 (32)Prior service cost/credit(30)(23)
Other expense:       
Other expense (income):Other expense (income):
Net loss8
 
 
 8
Net loss20 — (4)16 
Prior service cost/creditPrior service cost/credit(5)— (4)
Deferred income taxes(96) (2) (7) (105)Deferred income taxes(47)(4)(44)
153
 2
 12
 167
$139 $(23)$13 $129 
Other movements during the year:       Other movements during the year:
Net loss(410) 192
 (5) (223)Net loss(153)(67)17 (203)
Prior service cost/credit(6) 6
 
 
Prior service cost/credit— (1)— (1)
Deferred income taxes160
 (75) 1
 86
Deferred income taxes38 18 (5)51 
(256) 123
 (4) (137)$(115)$(50)$12 $(153)
Total movements in other comprehensive earnings/losses$(103) $125
 $8
 $30
Total movements in other comprehensive earnings/losses$24 $(73)$25 $(24)



69

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Note 17. Additional Information
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Research and development expense$145 $131 $168 
Interest and other debt expense, net:
Interest expense$1,188 $1,223 $1,322 
Interest income(26)(14)(42)
$1,162 $1,209 $1,280 
 For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2017
 2016
 2015
Research and development expense$241
 $203
 $186
Advertising expense$29
 $27
 $25
Interest and other debt expense, net:     
Interest expense$727
 $754
 $808
Interest income(31) (13) (4)
   Interest related to NPM Adjustment Items9
 6
 13
 $705
 $747
 $817
Rent expense$43
 $53
 $48
Minimum rental commitments and sublease income under non-cancelable operating leases in effect at December 31, 2017 were as follows:
(in millions)Rental Commitments
 Sublease Income
2018$38
 $5
201933
 5
202028
 5
202126
 5
202223
 5
Thereafter44
 5
 $192
 $30
The activity in the allowance for discounts and allowance for returned goods for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was as follows:
For the Years Ended December 31,
(in millions) 2017 2016 2015(in millions)202120202019
 Discounts
 Returned Goods
 Discounts
 Returned Goods
 Discounts
 Returned Goods
DiscountsReturned GoodsDiscountsReturned GoodsDiscountsReturned Goods
Balance at beginning of year $
 $49
 $
 $68
 $
 $46
Balance at beginning of year$ $40 $— $32 $— $32 
Charged to costs and expenses 626
 130
 628
 133
 618
 217
Charged to costs and expenses647 124 633 98 604 127 
Deductions (1)
 (626) (139) (628) (152) (618) (195)
Deductions (1)
(647)(114)(633)(90)(604)(127)
Balance at end of year $
 $40
 $
 $49
 $
 $68
Balance at end of year$ $50 $— $40 $— $32 
(1) Represents the recording of discounts and returns for which allowances were created.created.



91

Note 18. Contingencies
Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United StatesU.S. and foreign jurisdictions against Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including PM USA and UST and its subsidiaries,USSTC, as well as their respective indemnitees.indemnitees and Altria’s investees. Various types of claims may be raised in these proceedings, including product liability, consumer protection,unfair trade practices, antitrust, tax, 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, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries 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, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries under certain circumstances may have to pay more than their proportionate share of any bonding- or judgment-related amounts. Furthermore, in those cases where plaintiffs are successful, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries also may also 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


70

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


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 also seek to repeal or alter bond cap statutes through legislation. Although Altria Group, Inc. cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, it is possible that the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria, Group, Inc., or one or more of its subsidiaries, could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome of one or more such challenges.
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they 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 18. Contingencies: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related 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 tobacco-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. Litigation defense costs are expensed as incurred.
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries have achieved substantial success in managing litigation. Nevertheless, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant challenges remain. It is possible that the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria, Group, Inc., or one or more of its subsidiaries, could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. Altria Group, Inc. and each of its subsidiaries named as a defendant believe, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that it has valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. Each of the companies has defended, and will continue to defend, vigorously against litigation challenges. However, Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if they believe it is in the best interests of Altria Group, Inc. to do so.


92

Judgments Paid and Provisions for Tobacco and Health (Including Engle Progeny Litigation) and Certain Other Litigation Items: The changes in Altria’s accrued liability for tobacco and health and certain other litigation items, including related interest costs, for the periods specified below are as follows:
(in millions)202120202019
Accrued liability for tobacco and health and certain other litigation items at beginning of period$9 $14 $112 
Pre-tax charges for:
Tobacco and health litigation83 

79 72 
Agreement to resolve shareholder class action (1)
90 — — 
Related interest costs9 
Payments(100)

(88)(175)
Accrued liability for tobacco and health and certain other litigation items at end of period$91 $$14 
(1) See Shareholder Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits below for a discussion of the shareholder class action case and related settlement.
The accrued liability for tobacco and health and certain other litigation items, including related interest costs, was included in accrued liabilities on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets. Pre-tax charges for tobacco and health and certain other litigation were included in marketing, administration and research costs on Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses). Pre-tax charges for related interest costs were included in interest and other debt expense, net on Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings (losses).
After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since October 2004, PM USA has paid judgments and settlements (including related costs and fees) totaling approximately $896 million and interest totaling approximately $227 million as of December 31, 2021. These amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately $410 million and related interest totaling approximately $56 million.
Security for Judgments: To obtain stays of judgments pending appeal, PM USA has posted various forms of security. As of December 31, 2021, PM USA has posted appeal bonds totaling approximately $50 million, which have been collateralized with restricted cash that are included in assets on the consolidated balance sheets.
Overview of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA Tobacco-Related Litigation

Types and Number of U.S. Cases: Claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs; (ii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court-supervised
programs for ongoing medical monitoring and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated claims of a number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a single proceeding; (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits; (iv) class action suits(iii) e-vapor cases alleging that the usesviolation of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptiveRICO, fraud, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, antitrust and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty or violations of the Racketeer Influencedpractices; and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); and (v)(iv) other tobacco-related litigation described below. Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery and the defenses raised in pending smoking and health, health care cost recovery and “Lights/Ultra Lights” casestobacco-related litigation are discussed below.

93

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United StatesU.S. against PM USA and, in some instances,and/or Altria Group, Inc.at December 31:
202120202019
Individual Smoking and Health Cases (1)
176148104
Health Care Cost Recovery Actions (2)
111
E-vapor Cases (3)
3,2961,563101
Other Tobacco-Related Cases (4)
334
(1) Includes as of December 31, 2017, 20162021, 18 cases filed in Illinois, 17 cases filed in New Mexico, 42 cases filed in Massachusetts and 2015:
 2017 2016 2015
Individual Smoking and Health Cases (1)
92 70 65
Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation (2)
4 5 5
Health Care Cost Recovery Actions (3)
1 1 1
“Lights/Ultra Lights” Class Actions3 8 11
(1)67 non-Engle cases filed in Florida. Does not include 2,414individual smoking and health cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in Florida state and federal courts following the decertification of the Engle case (these Engle progeny cases are discussed below in Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Class Action). Also does not include 1,471 cases brought by flight attendants seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”). The flight attendants allege that they are members of an ETS smoking and health class action in Florida, which was settled in 1997 (Broin). The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case allowed class members to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibited them from seeking punitive damages. Also, does not includeClass members were prohibited from filing individual smoking and health cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in Florida state and federal courts followinglawsuits after 2000 under the decertification of the Engle case (discussed below in Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Class Action).court-approved settlement.
(2) Includes as one case the 30 civil actions that were to be tried in six consolidated trials in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). PM USA is a defendant in nine of the 30 cases. The parties have agreed to resolve the cases for an immaterial amount and have so notified the court.
(3)See Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation - Federal Government’s Lawsuit below.

(3) Includes as of December 31, 2021, 53 class action lawsuits, 2,795 individual lawsuits and 448 “third party” lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor products, which include school districts, state and local government, tribal and healthcare organization lawsuits. JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits. The 53 class action lawsuits include 28 cases in the Northern District of California (“Multidistrict Litigation” or “MDL”) involving plaintiffs whose claims were previously included in other class action complaints but were refiled as separate stand-alone class actions for procedural and other reasons.
(4) Includes as of December 31, 2021, 1 inactive smoking and health case alleging personal injury and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs and 2 inactive class action lawsuits alleging that use of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty or violations of RICO.
International Tobacco-Related Cases: As of January 29, 2018,24, 2022, (i) Altria is named as a defendant in 3 e-vapor class action lawsuits in Canada; (ii) PM USA is a named defendant in 10 health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight8 of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant.defendant; and (iii) PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are also named as defendants in seven7 smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement (defined below) between Altria Group,and Philip Morris International Inc. and PMI(“PMI”) that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.



71

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Tobacco-Related Cases Set for Trial: As of January 29, 2018, three 24, 2022, 3 Engle progeny cases are set for trial through March 31, 2018. There2022. In addition, there are no other individual smoking and health cases against PM USA set for trial during this period. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry may be scheduled for trial during this period. Trial dates are subject to change.change and many of the trials were postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the courts are reopening and additional trials may be scheduled for the remainder of 2022.

Trial Results:Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases (separately discussed below), verdicts have been returned in 63 smoking and health, “Lights/Ultra Lights” and health care cost recovery70 tobacco-related cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 4245 of the 6370 cases. These 4245 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (7), Connecticut (1), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (2)(5), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in the case in Alaska.In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA’s motion for reconsideration. In December 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to reassess whether to grant a new trial. In March 2016, the trial court granted a new trial and PM USA filed a petition for review of that order with the Alaska Supreme Court, which the court denied in July 2016. The retrial began in October 2016. In November 2016, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. The plaintiff subsequently moved for a new trial, which is scheduled to begin April 9, 2018. See Types and Number of Cases above for a discussion of the trial results in In re: Tobacco Litigation (West Virginia consolidated cases).
Of the 2125 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, 1820 have reached final resolution.
As of January 29, 2018, 116 state resolution, and federal Engle progeny2 cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court’s Engle decision as follows: 61 verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs; 45 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA. Eight verdicts(Gentile and Principe) that were initially returned in favor of plaintiffplaintiffs were reversed post-trial or on appeal and remain pending and two verdicts in favor of PM USA were reversed for a new trial. pending.
See Smoking and Health LitigationLitigation - Engle Progeny Trial Court Results below for a discussion of these verdicts.
Judgments Paidverdicts in state and Provisions for Tobacco and Health Litigation Items (Including federal Engle Progeny Litigation): After exhausting all appeals in those progeny cases resulting in adverse verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since October 2004,involving PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments and settlements (including related costs and fees) totaling approximately $490 million and interest totaling approximately $184 million as of December 31, 2017. These amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately $99 million, interest totaling approximately $22 million and payment of approximately $43 million in connection with the Federal Engle Agreement, discussed below.January 24, 2022.
The changes in Altria Group, Inc.’s accrued liability for tobacco and health litigation items, including related interest costs, for the periods specified below are as follows:
(in millions)2017 2016 2015
Accrued liability for tobacco and health litigation items at beginning of year$47
 $132
 $39
Pre-tax charges for:     
Tobacco and health judgments72
 21
 84
Related interest costs8
 7
 23
Agreement to resolve federal Engle progeny cases

 
 43
Agreement to resolve Aspinall including related
interest costs

 32
 
        Agreement to resolve Miner 

 45
 
Payments(21) (190) (57)
Accrued liability for tobacco and health litigation items at
      end of year
$106
 $47
 $132

The accrued liability for tobacco and health litigation items, including related interest costs, was included in liabilities on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets. Pre-tax charges for tobacco and health judgments, the agreement to resolve federal Engle progeny cases and the agreements to resolve the Aspinall and Miner “lights” class action cases (excluding related interest costs of approximately $10 million in Aspinall) were included in marketing, administration and research costs on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statements of earnings. Pre-tax charges for related interest costs were included in interest and other debt expense, net on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statements of earnings.

Security for Judgments: To obtain stays of judgments pending current appeals, as of December 31, 2017, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling approximately $61 million, the majority of which has been collateralized with cash deposits that are included in assets on the consolidated balance sheet.



72

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Smoking and Health Litigation

Overview: Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in smoking and health cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violations of deceptiveunfair trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes, and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the smoking and health cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statutes of limitations and preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

Non-Engle Progeny Litigation: Summarized below are the non-Engle progeny smoking and health cases pending during 20172021 in which a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA. Charts listing certain verdicts for plaintiffs in the Engle progeny cases can be found in Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Progeny Trial Results below.


94

Principe: In February 2020, a jury in a Florida state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, awarding approximately $11 million in compensatory damages. There was no claim for punitive damages. PM USA appealed the trial court verdict to the Third District Court of Appeal and, in September 2021, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and found in favor of PM USA. In November 2021, plaintiff moved for a rehearing before the Third District Court of Appeal.
Greene: In September 2019, a jury in a Massachusetts state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and against PM USA, awarding approximately $10 million in compensatory damages. In May 2020, the court ruled on plaintiffs’ remaining claim and trebled the compensatory damages award to approximately $30 million. In February 2021, the trial court awarded plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of approximately $2.3 million. In July 2021, following denial of PM USA’s post-trial motions, PM USA appealed the judgment to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Laramie: In August 2019, a jury in a Massachusetts state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, awarding $11 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. PM USA appealed and, in February 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asserted jurisdiction over the appeal. In September 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court award of $21 million in compensatory and punitive damages. PM USA recorded a pre-tax provision of approximately $27.1 million in the third quarter of 2021 and paid $30.3 million (including the judgment and interest) in December 2021.
Gentile: In October 2017, a jury in a Florida state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, awarding approximately $7.1 million in compensatory damages and allocating 75% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $5.3 million). Subsequently, in October 2017,USA. PM USA filed various post-trial motions.

Bullock:appealed. In December 2015, a jury inSeptember 2019, the U.S.Florida Fourth District Court forof Appeal reversed the Central District of California returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding $900,000 in compensatory damages. In January 2016,judgment entered by the plaintiff movedtrial court, granted PM USA judgment on certain claims and remanded for a new trial on the remaining claims. Plaintiff petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review, which the district court denied in February 2016. In March 2016, PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and plaintiff cross-appealed. In December 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. In the fourth quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its consolidated balance sheet of approximately $1 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs.January 2021.

Federal Government’s Lawsuit:See Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation - Federal Government’s Lawsuit below for a discussion of the verdict and post-trial developments in the United States of America health care cost recovery case.

Engle Class Action: In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA. Following entry of judgment, PM USA appealed.
In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into an interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of the judicial review, was to be paid to the court and the court was to determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial court to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review.
In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial court be decertified and that members of the decertified class could file individual actions against defendants within one year of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants’ cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise known or available knowing that the material was false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent. The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found that a third plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid approximately $3 million, representing its share of compensatory damages and interest, to the two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme Court’s order.
In August 2006, PM USA and plaintiffs sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling (described above) that certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Florida Third District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August 2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of limitations to non-members of the decertified class.opinion. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006 ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) listed above (relating to agreement to misrepresent


73

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


information), and added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the representations of fact made by defendants. In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from its revised opinion. Defendants then filed a motion with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal requesting that the court address legal errors that were previously raised by defendants but have not yet been addressed either by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal or by the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal denied defendants’ motion. In May 2007, defendants’ motion for a partial stay of the mandate pending the completion of appellate review was denied by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. In May 2007, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which the United States Supreme Court denied later in 2007.
In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class, except for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond stipulation and would receive no credit at that time from the $500 million paid by PM USA against any future punitive damages awards in cases brought by former Engle class members.class.
In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs’ claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice.

Engle Pending Engle Progeny Cases: The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases as required by the Florida Supreme Court’s Engle decision, expired in January 2008.2008, at which point a total of approximately 9,300 federal and state claims were pending. As of January 29, 2018,24, 2022, approximately 2,400969 state court cases were pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 3,1001,172 state court plaintiffs. Because of a number of factors, including but not limited to, docketing delays, duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are estimates. While the Federal 2015 federal Engle Agreement (discussed below)agreement resolved nearly all Engle progeny cases pending in federal court, as of January 29, 2018, approximately 1224, 2022, 2 cases were pending against PM USA in federal court representing the cases excluded from that agreement.

Agreement to Resolve Federal Engle Progeny Cases: In 2015, PM USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“R.J. Reynolds”) and Lorillard Tobacco Company (“Lorillard”) resolved approximately 415 pending federal Engle progeny cases (the “Federal Engle Agreement”). Under the terms of the Federal Engle Agreement, PM USA paid approximately $43 million. Federal cases that were in trial and those that previously reached final verdict were not included in the Federal Engle Agreement.
Engle Progeny Trial Results: As of January 29, 2018, 11624, 2022, 137 federal and state Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court Engle decision. Sixty-oneNaN verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs and eight7 verdicts (Skolnick, Calloway, Pollari, Oshinsky-Blacker,McCoy,, Duignan, McCall,Caprio Mahfuz, Neffand Oshinsky-BlackerFrogel) that were initially returned in favor of plaintiffs were reversed post-trial or on appeal and remain pending.Skolnick was remanded for a new trial; Calloway was reversed and remanded for a new trial on an appellate finding that improper arguments by plaintiff’s counsel deprived defendants of a fair trial; Pollari and McCoy were reversed and remanded for a new trial on an appellate finding that the trial court erred in admitting certain materials into evidence that deprived defendants of a fair trial; Duignan was reversed and remanded for a new trial on an appellate finding that the trial judge erred in responding to a question from the jury during deliberations; Caprio was reversed post-trial after defendants agreed to voluntarily dismiss their appeal in exchange for a full retrial; Oshinsky-Blacker was reversed post-trial based on plaintiff’s counsel’s improper arguments at trial; and McCall was reversed based on an appellate finding that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the warning labels on cigarette packs.
Forty-fiveNaN verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA, of which 3644 were state cases. In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of January 29, 2018. Two24, 2022. The jury in one case, Garcia, awarded plaintiff compensatory

95

damages and found plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages; however, the court declared a mistrial in the second phase of the trial regarding punitive damages because the jury was unable to determine the amount of the punitive damages. NaN verdicts (Pearson, D. Cohen, Collar andCollar Chacon) that were returned in favor of PM USA were subsequently reversed for new trials. The juriesJuries in the 2 cases (Reider and Bankscases )returned zero damages verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juriesJuries in the 2 other cases (Weingart and Hancock cases) returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no damages, but the trial court in each case granteddecided to award plaintiffs damages. NaN case, Pollari, resulted in a verdict in favor of PM USA following a retrial of an additur.initial verdict returned in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendants appealed the verdict and the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants. NaN cases, Gloger,Rintoul (Caprio) and Duignan, resulted in verdicts in favor of plaintiffs following retrial of initial verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs. Post-trial appeals are pending in those 3 cases. NaN cases, Freeman and Harris, resulted in an appellate reversal of a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, and a judgment in favor of PM USA.
The charts below list the verdicts and post-trial developments in certain Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs (including Hancock, where the verdict originally was returned in favor of PM USA).plaintiffs. The first chart lists such cases that are pending as of January 29, 2018;24, 2022 but where PM USA has determined an unfavorable outcome is not probable and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. The second chart lists such cases that were pendinghave concluded within the previous 12 months, but thatmonths. Unless otherwise noted for a particular case, the jury’s award for compensatory damages will not be reduced by any finding of plaintiff’s comparative fault. Further, the damages noted reflect adjustments based on post-trial or appellate rulings. As of January 24, 2022, there are now concluded.



74

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________




Currently-Pending no Engle Cases

Plaintiff: Bryant
Date:    December 2017

Verdict:
An Escambia County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against progeny cases where PM USA awarding compensatory damages of $581,000 and allocating 25% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded $225,000has recorded a provision in punitive damages against PM USA. 

Post-Trial Developments:
In December 2017,its consolidated financial statements because PM USA filed various post-trial motions, including motions to enter judgment in its favorhas not determined for any currently pending case that an unfavorable outcome is probable and for a new trial. Plaintiff also filed a motion for a new trial on the amount of punitive damages.

Plaintiff: R. Douglasthe loss can be reasonably estimated.
Date:    November 2017References below to “R.J. Reynolds,” “Lorillard” and “Liggett Group” are to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Lorillard Tobacco Company and Liggett Group, LLC, respectively.

Verdict:
A Duval County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and againstCurrently Pending Engle Cases with Verdicts Against PM USA awarding
(rounded to nearest $ million)
PlaintiffVerdict DateDefendant(s)Court
Compensatory Damages (1)
Punitive Damages
(PM USA)
Appeal Status
LippSeptember 2021PM USAMiami-Dade$15 million$28 millionAppeal by defendant to Third District Court of Appeal pending.
GarciaMay 2021PM USAMiami-Dade$6 millionMistrialAppeals by plaintiff and defendant to Third District Court of Appeal pending.
Duignan
February 2020 (2)
PM USA and R.J. ReynoldsPinellas$3 million$12 millionAppeal by defendants to Second District Court of Appeal pending.
CuddiheeJanuary 2020PM USADuval$3 million$0Appeal by defendant to First District Court of Appeal pending.
Rintoul (Caprio)
November 2019 (2)
PM USA and R.J. ReynoldsBroward$9 million$74 millionAppeals by plaintiff and defendants to Fourth District Court of Appeal pending.
Gloger
November 2019 (2)
PM USA and R.J. ReynoldsMiami-Dade$15 million$11 millionAppeal by defendants to Third District Court of Appeal pending.
McCallMarch 2019PM USABroward<$1 million (<$1 million PM USA)$0New trial ordered on punitive damages.
NeffMarch 2019PM USA and R.J. ReynoldsBroward$4 million$2 millionFourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against defendants and remanded for a new trial. Plaintiff’s petition for review to the Florida Supreme Court pending.
MahfuzFebruary 2019PM USA and R.J. ReynoldsBroward$12 million$10 millionFourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against defendants and remanded for a new trial. Plaintiff’s petition for review to the Florida Supreme Court pending.
HollimanFebruary 2019PM USAMiami-Dade$3 million$0Appeal by defendant to Third District Court of Appeal pending.
ChadwellSeptember 2018PM USAMiami-Dade$2 million$0
Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the compensatory damages award. PM USA petitioned Florida Supreme Court for review. Case stayed pending Florida Supreme Court decision in Prentice.(3)
(1) PM USA’s portion of the compensatory damages award is noted parenthetically where the court has ruled that comparative fault applies.
(2) Plaintiff’s verdict following a retrial of an initial verdict in favor of plaintiff.
(3) PM USA is not a defendant in Prentice. Prentice is discussed below in Engle Progeny Appellate Issues.

96

Currently Pending Engle Cases with Verdicts Against PM USA
(rounded to nearest $ million)
PlaintiffVerdict DateDefendant(s)Court
Compensatory Damages (1)
Punitive Damages
(PM USA)
Appeal Status
KaplanJuly 2018PM USA and R.J. ReynoldsBroward$2 million$2 millionFourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict and reaffirmed the verdict on rehearing. Defendants’ petition for review to the Florida Supreme Court pending.
R. DouglasNovember 2017PM USADuval<$1 million$0Awaiting entry of final judgment by the trial court.
SommersApril 2017PM USAMiami-Dade$1 million$0
Third District Court of Appeal affirmed compensatory damages award and granted new trial on punitive damages. Florida Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for review of the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision. PM USA paid approximately $1 million for the compensatory damages award and awaits the new trial on punitive damages. (2)
Cooper (Blackwood)September 2015PM USA and R.J. ReynoldsBroward
$5 million
(<$1 million PM USA)
$0Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed judgment and granted a new trial on punitive damages.
D. BrownJanuary 2015PM USAFederal Court - Middle District of Florida$8 million$9 million
Appeal by defendant to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stayed pending Florida Supreme Court decision in Prentice. (3)
(1) PM USA’s portion of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $5,255). 

Post-Trial Developments:
In November 2017, PM USA filed a motion to set aside the verdict, and plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, for an additur of the damages award.

Plaintiff: Wallace
Date:    October 2017

Verdict:
A Brevard County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding compensatory damages of $12 million and allocating 66% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $7.9 million).  The jury also awarded plaintiff $16 million in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In November 2017, defendants filed post-trial motions, including for a new trial or remittitur of the damages awards. In December 2017, the court denied certain post-trial motions. In January 2018, the court amended the final judgment to withdraw the comparative fault reduction for the compensatory damages award is noted parenthetically where the court has ruled that comparative fault applies.
(2) Plaintiff was granted an award of approximately $3 million in fees, costs and denied the remaining post-trial motions.

Plaintiff: L. Martin
Date:    May 2017

Verdict:
A Miami-Dade County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and againstinterest that PM USA awarding compensatory damages of $1.1 million and allocating 55% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $605,000).appealed. The jury also awarded plaintiff $1.3 million in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In May 2017, PM USA filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. In June 2017, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In August 2017, the court denied PM USA’s post-trial motions and PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Third District Court of AppealAppeals affirmed the award and posted a bond in the amount of approximately $1.9 million. In September 2017, plaintiff cross-appealed.



75

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Plaintiff: Sommers
Date:    April 2017

Verdict:
A Miami-Dade County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding compensatory damagespaid the award amount in March 2021.
(3) PM USA is not a defendant in Prentice. Prentice is discussed below in Engle Progeny Appellate Issues.
Engle Cases Concluded Within Past 12 Months (1)
(rounded to nearest $ million)
PlaintiffVerdict DateDefendant(s)CourtAccrual DatePayment Amount
(if any)
Payment Date
Berger (Cote)September 2014PM USAFederal Court - Middle District of FloridaFourth quarter of 2018 and first quarter of 2021$29 millionFebruary 2021
SantoroMarch 2017PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Liggett GroupBrowardSecond quarter of 2020 and first quarter of 2021$1 millionJanuary 2021
(1) In 6 cases in which PM USA paid the judgments more than a year ago, Naugle,Gore, M. Brown,Jordan,Theis and Landi, plaintiffs were awarded approximately $8 million, $2 million, $8 million, $4 million, $1 million and allocating 40% of the fault to PM USA. The court dismissed the punitive damages claim prior to trial.

Post-Trial Developments:
In April 2017,$3 million in fees and costs, respectively. PM USA filed motions for a new trial has appealed in all of these cases, except Theis and for a directed verdict, and plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on punitive damages.Landi. In January 2018, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on punitive damages and denied PM USA’s post-trial motions.

Plaintiff: Santoro
Date:     M. Brown, in March 2017

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Liggett Group LLC (“Liggett Group”) awarding compensatory damages of $1.6 million and allocating 28% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $450,000). The jury also awarded plaintiff $100,000 in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In April 2017, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault and defendants filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. In December 2017, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict as to all claims except plaintiff’s conspiracy claim. In January 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the final judgment to award the full compensatory damages without reduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault.

Plaintiff: J. Brown
Date:    February 2017


Verdict:
A Pinellas County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding compensatory damages of $5.4 million and allocating 35% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $200,000 in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In March 2017, defendants filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. The court ruled that it will not apply the comparative fault reduction to the compensatory damages. In August 2017, the trial court denied defendants’ post-trial motions and entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff. In September 2017, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal and posted a bond in the amount of $2.5 million.

Plaintiff: Pardue
Date:    December 2016

Verdict:
An Alachua County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding compensatory damages of approximately $5.9 million and allocating 25% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $6.75 million in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In December 2016, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff without a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In January 2017, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur of the jury’s damages awards. In February 2017, the court granted defendants’ alternative motion for remittitur, reducing the compensatory damages award against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds to approximately $5.2 million. Also in February 2017, defendants filed a renewed motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the court denied in April 2017. In March 2017, defendants filed a notice of appeal to2021 the Florida First District Court of AppealAppeals affirmed the fee award and plaintiff cross-appealed. Inreversed the pre-judgment interest award and, in April 2017,2021, PM USA posted a bondpaid $8.2 million in the amount of $2.5 million.


76

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Plaintiff: S. Martin
Date:    November 2016

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding compensatory damages of approximately $5.4 million and allocating 46%satisfaction of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $2.48 million). The jury also awarded plaintiff $450,000 in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
fee award and post-judgment interest. In December 2016, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault and PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. In January 2017, the trial court denied all post-trial motions. In February 2017, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and plaintiff cross-appealed. Also in February 2017, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $2.9 million.

Plaintiff: Howles
Date:    November 2016

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding compensatory damages of $4 million and allocating 50% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $2 million). The jury also awarded plaintiff $3 million in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In November 2016, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which the court denied in December 2016. Also in December 2016, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Plaintiff: Oshinsky-Blacker
Date:    September 2016

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding compensatory damages of $6.155 million and allocating 60% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $3.7 million). The jury also awarded plaintiff $1 million in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In October 2016, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed motions to set aside the verdict and for a directed verdict. In March 2017, the trial court vacated the verdict, ordered a new trial based on plaintiff’s counsel’s improper arguments at trial and denied defendants’ remaining post-trial motions. Also in March 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and defendants cross-appealed.

Plaintiff: Sermons
Date:    July 2016

Verdict:
A Duval County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding compensatory damages of $65,000 and allocating 15% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $9,750). The jury also awarded plaintiff $51,225 in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In July 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, for an additur of the damages awards.



77

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Plaintiff: Purdo
Date:    April 2016

Verdict:
A Palm Beach County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding compensatory damages of $21 million and allocating 12% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $2.52 million). The jury also awarded plaintiff $6.25 million in punitive damages against each defendant.

Post-Trial Developments:
In May 2016, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, all of which the court denied and entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In June 2016, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and PM USA posted a bond in the amount of approximately $1.5 million. In August 2017, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment in favor of plaintiff. In September 2017, defendants petitioned the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal for panel rehearing or for rehearing en bancJordan, which the court denied in October 2017. In November 2017, defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court.

Plaintiff: McCall
Date:    March 2016

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding compensatory damages of $350,000 and allocating 25% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $87,500).

Post-Trial Developments:
In March 2016, PM USA filed a motion to set aside the verdict and to enter judgment in its favor, which the court denied in May 2016. Also in March 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on punitive damages, citing the Soffer decision (allowing Engle progeny plaintiffs to seek punitive damages on their negligence and strict liability claims) discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues, which the court granted in May 2016. In June 2016, PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and plaintiff cross-appealed. In December 2017, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on an appellate finding that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the warning labels on cigarette packs.

Plaintiff: Ahrens
Date:    February 2016

Verdict:
A Pinellas County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding $9 million in compensatory damages and allocating 24% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $2.5 million in punitive damages against each defendant.

Post-Trial Developments:
In February 2016, the trial court entered final judgment against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault and defendants filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. In March 2016, the trial court denied defendants’ post-trial motions. In April 2016, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal and PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $2.5 million. In May 2017, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmance of the final judgment against defendants and defendants filed a motion for rehearing. In July 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal withdrew its prior decision and replaced it with a written opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment, but certifying to the Florida Supreme Court a conflict with Schoeff, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In August 2017, defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court stayed the case pending Schoeff. In December 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held in Schoeff that comparative fault does not reduce compensatory damages awards for intentional torts. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its consolidated balance sheet of approximately $7 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs.



78

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Plaintiff: Ledoux
Date:    December 2015

Verdict:
A Miami-Dade County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding $10 million in compensatory damages and allocating 47% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $12.5 million in punitive damages against each defendant.

Post-Trial Developments:
In January 2016, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and the trial court entered final judgment against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In February 2016, the trial court denied defendants’ post-trial motions. In March 2016, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal and PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $2.5 million. In October 2017, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment in favor of plaintiff. In November 2017, defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court, contending that the final judgment conflicts with Schoeff, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In December 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held in Schoeff that comparative fault does not reduce compensatory damages awards for intentional torts. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its consolidated balance sheet of approximately $20 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs.

Plaintiff: Barbose
Date:    November 2015

Verdict:
A Pasco County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding $10 million in compensatory damages and allocating 42.5% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $500,000 in punitive damages against each defendant.

Post-Trial Developments:
In November 2015, the court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault and in December 2015, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which the court denied in January 2016. In February 2016, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $2.5 million and filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. In August 2017, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmance of the final judgment against defendants and defendants filed a motion seeking a written opinion with a citation to Schoeff, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In October 2017, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a written opinion with a citation to Schoeff and granted defendants’ March 2017 motion for rehearing en banc or certification to the Florida Supreme Court. In November 2017, defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court, contending that the final judgment conflicts with Schoeff. In December 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held in Schoeff that comparative fault does not reduce compensatory damages awards for intentional torts. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its consolidated balance sheet of approximately $12 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs.

Plaintiff: Tognoli
Date:    November 2015

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding $1.05 million in compensatory damages and allocating 15% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $157,500).

Post-Trial Developments:
In December 2015, PM USA filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict. In January 2016, the trial court entered final judgment against PM USA with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault and plaintiff filed an appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Additionally, the trial court denied PM USA’s post-trial motions and PM USA cross-appealed. In June 2017, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmance of the final judgment against PM USA. In July 2017, plaintiff filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court and, in August 2017, the Florida Supreme Court stayed the case pending Schoeff, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In December 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held in Schoeff that comparative fault does not reduce compensatory damages awards for


79

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


intentional torts. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its consolidated balance sheet of approximately $1 million for the judgment plus interest.

Plaintiff: Danielson
Date:    November 2015

Verdict:
An Escambia County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding $325,000 in compensatory damages and allocating 49% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $325,000 in punitive damages.

Post-Trial Developments:
In November 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the parties’ pretrial stipulation of $2.3 million in economic damages, which the trial court granted. The plaintiff also filed a motion for an additur or, in the alternative, for a new trial and PM USA filed post-trial motions, including a motion concerning the proper form of judgment and for a new trial. In December 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on damages and denied PM USA’s post-trial motions. In January 2016, PM USA filed a notice of appeal to2022, the Florida First District Court of Appeal. In July 2017, the Florida First District Court of AppealAppeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting a new trial on non-economic compensatory damages, but reinstated the jury’s punitive damagesfee award.

Plaintiff: Duignan
Date:    September 2015

Verdict:
A Pinellas County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against In Theis, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding $6paid $1 million in compensatory damagessatisfaction of fees and allocating 37% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $3.5 millioncosts in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In September 2015, the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault,May 2021 and, in Landi, PM USA filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which the court denied in October 2015. In November 2015, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal and PM USA posted a bond in the amount ofpaid approximately $2.7 million. In November 2017, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds and ordered a new trial on an appellate finding that the trial judge erred in responding to a question from the jury during deliberations. Also in November 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing with the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, which the court denied in January 2018.

Plaintiff: Cooper
Date:    September 2015

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding $4.5 million in compensatory damages and allocating 10% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $450,000).

Post-Trial Developments:
In September 2015, defendants filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a directed verdict. In January 2016, the trial court denied PM USA’s post-trial motions. In February 2016, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff, reducing the compensatory damages award against PM USA to approximately $300,000. In March 2016, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed a notice of appeal in the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and plaintiff cross-appealed. Also in March 2016, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of approximately $300,000. In January 2018, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of plaintiff and granted plaintiff a new trial on punitive damages.

Plaintiff: Jordan
Date:    August 2015

Verdict:
A Duval County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding approximately $7.8 million in compensatory damages and allocating 60% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded approximately $3.2 million in punitive damages.


80

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________



Post-Trial Developments:
In August 2015, the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault, but reduced the compensatory damages to approximately $6.4 million. PM USA filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which the court denied in December 2015. PM USA subsequently filed a notice of appeal to the Florida First District Court of Appeal and plaintiff cross-appealed.

Plaintiff: McCoy
Date:    July 2015

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard awarding $1.5 million in compensatory damagessatisfaction of fees, costs and allocating 20%interest in July 2021 (R.J. Reynolds paid approximately $1.5 million of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $300,000). The jury also awardedapproximately $3 million in punitive damages against each defendant.award).

Post-Trial Developments:
In July 2015, defendants filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. In August 2015, the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In January 2016, the trial court denied defendants’ post-trial motions and amended the final judgment to apply the comparative fault deduction. Subsequently, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, PM USA posted a bondEngle Progeny Appellate Issues: Appellate decisions in the amount of approximately $1.65 million and plaintiff filed a notice of cross-appeal. following Engle progeny cases may have wide application to other Engle progeny cases:
In November 2017, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against PM USA andMary Sheffield v. R.J. Reynolds and ordered a new trial onTobacco Company, an appellate finding that the trial court erred in admitting certain materials into evidence that deprived defendants of a fair trial. In December 2017, plaintiff filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court.

Plaintiff: M. Brown
Date:    May 2015

Verdict:
In May 2015, a Duval County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff andEngle progeny case against PM USA in a partial retrial. In 2013, a jury returned a partial verdict against PM USA, but was deadlocked as to (i) the amount of compensatory damages, (ii) whether punitive damages should be awarded and, if so, (iii) the amount of punitive damages. In the partial retrial, the jury was asked to address these issues. In May 2015, the jury awarded $6.375 million in compensatory damages, but did not award any punitive damages.

Post-Trial Developments:
In May 2015, the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault, and PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $5 million. Additionally, PM USA filed post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, as well as filed a notice of appeal to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. In August 2015, the trial court denied the last of PM USA’s post-trial motions and plaintiff cross-appealed.

Plaintiff: Gore
Date:    March 2015

Verdict:
An Indian River County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding $2 million in compensatory damages and allocating 23% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $460,000).

Post-Trial Developments:
In April 2015, defendants filed post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. In September 2015, the trial court entered final judgment with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In October 2015, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and plaintiff cross-appealed. PM USA subsequently posted a bond in the amount of $460,000.



81

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Plaintiff: Pollari
Date:    March 2015

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding $10 million in compensatory damages and allocating 42.5% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $4.25 million). The jury also awarded $1.5 million in punitive damages against each defendant.

Post-Trial Developments:
In April 2015, defendants filed post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In January 2016, the trial court denied defendants’ post-trial motions and amended the final judgment to apply the comparative fault deduction. Also in January 2016, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $2.5 million. In February 2016, plaintiff cross-appealed. In August 2017, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the original judgment against PM USA and ordered a new trial on an appellate finding that the trial court erred in admitting certain materials into evidence that deprived defendants of a fair trial. In September 2017, plaintiff moved for rehearing, rehearing en banc, or certification of a question toonly, the Florida Supreme Court which the Florida Fourthresolved a conflict among Florida’s District CourtCourts of Appeal denied in November 2017. In December 2017, plaintiff filed a noticefinding that the 1999 amendments to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court.

Plaintiff: Zamboni
Date:    February 2015

Verdict:
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding $340,000 in compensatory damages and allocating 10% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $34,000).

Post-Trial Developments:
In April 2015, PM USA and R.J. Reynolds filed a motion for judgment in defendants’ favor in accordance with the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Graham, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In June 2015, the trial court stayed the case pending the Eleventh Circuit’s final disposition in the Graham case. In January 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for writ of certiorari in Graham.

Plaintiff: Caprio
Date:    February 2015

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a partial verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard and Liggett Group. The jury found against defendants on class membership, allocating 25% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also found $559,172 in economic damages. The jury deadlocked with respect to the intentional torts, certain elements of compensatory damages and punitive damages.

Post-Trial Developments:
In March 2015, PM USA filed post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the partial verdict and for a new trial. In May 2015, the court denied all of PM USA’s post-trial motions and defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. In January 2017, the defendants agreed to voluntarily dismiss their appeal in exchange for a full retrial and the court dismissed the appeal.

Plaintiff: McKeever
Date:    February 2015

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding approximately $5.8 million in compensatory damages and allocating 60% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff approximately $11.63 million in punitive damages. However, the jury found in favor of PM USA on the statute of repose defense to plaintiff’s intentional tort andFlorida’s punitive damages claims.



82

Altria Group, Inc.statute (including its caps and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Post-Trial Developments:
In March 2015, PM USA filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and motions for a new trial. In April 2015, the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In June 2015, the trial court denied PM USA’s post-trial motions, and PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $5 million. PM USA also filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal in June 2015. In January 2017, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s judgment against PM USA, but remanded the case to the trial court to amend the final judgment to apply the comparative fault deduction to the compensatory damages award. In February 2017, PM USA filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In March 2017, the Florida Supreme Court stayed the appeal pending its decisions in Marotta and Schoeff, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In April 2017, the Florida Supreme Court rejected R.J. Reynolds’s federal preemption defense in Marotta. In December 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held in Schoeff that comparative fault does not reduce compensatorybar on multiple punitive damages awards for intentional torts. As a result,the same course of conduct) apply in wrongful death cases where the fourth quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its consolidated balance sheet of approximately $20 million fordecedent was injured prior to the judgment plus interest.

Plaintiff: D. Brown
Date:    January 2015

Verdict:
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict against PM USA awarding plaintiff approximately $8.3 million in compensatory damages and allocating 55%October 1, 1999 effective date of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $9 million in punitive damages.amendments but died from his or her injuries after such effective date.

Post-Trial Developments:
In February 2015, the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In March 2015, PM USA filed various post-trial motions, including motions to alter or amend the judgment and for a new trial or, in the alternative, remittitur of the damages awards, all of which the court denied. In July 2015, PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In August 2015, the Court of Appeals granted PM USA’s motion to stay the appeal pending final disposition in the Graham case, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In January 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for writ of certiorari in Graham.

Plaintiff: Allen
Date:    November 2014

Verdict:
A Duval County jury returned a verdict against PM USA andLinda Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds awarding plaintiff approximately $3.1 million in compensatory damages and allocating 6% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded approximately $7.76 million in punitive damagesTobacco Company, an Engle progeny case against each defendant. This was a retrial of a 2011 trial that awarded plaintiff $6 million in compensatory damages and $17 million in punitive damages against each defendant.

Post-Trial Developments:
In December 2014, defendants filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and motions for a new trial, which the court denied in July 2015. In August 2015, the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. Defendants filed a notice of appeal toR.J. Reynolds only, the Florida First District Court of Appeal in September 2015 and PM USA postedJanuary 2020 reversed a bondjudgment in the amount of approximately $2.5 million. In February 2017, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment. In March 2017, defendants filed a motion for rehearing en banc with the Florida First District Court of Appeal or for certification to the Florida Supreme Court. In June 2017, the Florida First District Court of Appeal granted defendants’ motion for rehearing en banc. In October 2017, the Florida First District Court of Appeal dissolved the en banc proceeding. In November 2017, defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdictionfavor of the Florida Supreme Court.

Plaintiff: Perrotto
Date:    November 2014

Verdict:
A Palm Beach County jury returned a verdict against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillardplaintiff and Liggett Group awarding plaintiff approximately $4.1 million in compensatory damages and allocating 25% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $1.02 million).



83

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Post-Trial Developments:
In December 2014, plaintiff filed a motionremanded for a new trial. In May 2016, theThe court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on punitive damages, citing the Soffer decision, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In September 2016, the court denied defendants’ post-trial motions.

Plaintiff: Boatright
Date:    November 2014

Verdict:
A Polk County jury returned a verdict against PM USA and Liggett Group awarding plaintiff $15 million in compensatory damages and allocating 85% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $12.75 million). In addition, in November 2014, the jury awarded plaintiff approximately $19.7 million in punitive damages against PM USA and $300,000 in punitive damages against Liggett Group.

Post-Trial Developments:
In November 2014, PM USA filed various post-trial motions and, in January 2015, the trial court denied PM USA’s motions for a new trial and for remittitur, but entered final judgment with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In February 2015, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal and plaintiff cross-appealed. PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $3.98 million. In April 2017, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal rejected PM USA’s grounds for appeal and affirmed the judgment, but ruledheld that the trial court shouldhad erred by failing to instruct the jury that in order to prevail on her claim for conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff was required to prove that her decedent relied to his detriment on a statement that concealed or omitted material information about the health risks of smoking. That holding conflicts with decisions from the Second, Third, and Fourth District Courts of Appeal,

97

which have each held that Engle plaintiffs do not have applied the comparative fault deduction. The court remanded the caseneed to the trial court to amend the judgment to award plaintiff the full amount of the jury’s compensatory damages awardprove reliance on a statement, and also separately ruled that plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees. In May 2017, defendants filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Courtinstead can prevail by proving reliance on the merits and on the attorneys’ fees issue. The Florida Supreme Court stayed considerationEngle defendants’ concealment of its jurisdiction on the merits appeal pending its ruling in Schoeff, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In December 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held in Schoeff that comparative fault does not reduce compensatory damages awards for intentional torts. PM USA intends to request that the Florida Supreme Court remand the case to the Second District Court of Appeal for further consideration.

Plaintiff: Kerrivan
Date:    October 2014

Verdict:
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding plaintiff $15.8 million in compensatory damages and allocating 50% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $25.3 million in punitive damages and allocated $15.7 million to PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
The trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In December 2014, defendants filed various post-trial motions, including a renewed motion for judgment or for a new trial. Plaintiff agreed to waive the bond for the appeal. In May 2015, the trial court deferred further briefing on the post-trial motions pending the Eleventh Circuit’s final disposition in the Graham and Searcy cases, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In June 2017, the trial court lifted the stay on the post-trial motions.

Plaintiff: Berger
Date:    September 2014

Verdict:
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict against PM USA awarding plaintiff $6.25 million in compensatory damages and allocating 60% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded $20.76 million in punitive damages.

Post-Trial Developments:
The trial court entered final judgment in September 2014 without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In October 2014, plaintiff agreed to waive the bond for the appeal. Also in October 2014, PM USA filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, remittitur of the jury’s damages awards. In April 2015, the trial court granted PM USA’s post-verdict motion in part and vacated the punitive damages award. In November 2015, the court entered final judgment with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In April 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate the jury’s punitive damages award or, alternatively, for a new trial on punitive damages, citing the Soffer decision, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. Also in April 2016, PM USA filed a motion to stay post-trial proceedings pending the Eleventh Circuit’s final disposition in the Graham case, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues.


84

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


In May 2016, (i) the trial court denied PM USA’s remaining post-trial motions and (ii) PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a motion to stay the appeal pending Graham, which the court granted in June 2016.information. In August 2016, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the jury’s punitive damages or to order a new trial and, in September 2016, plaintiff cross-appealed. In June 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit lifted the stay on the post-trial motions.

Plaintiff: Harris
Date:    July 2014

Verdict:
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard awarding approximately $1.73 million in compensatory damages and allocating 15% of the fault to PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
Defendants filed motions for a defense verdict because the jury’s findings indicated that plaintiff was not a member of the Engle class. In December 2014, the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault and, in January 2015, defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial. Defendants also filed a motion to alter or amend the final judgment. In April 2015, the trial court stayed the post-trial proceedings pending the Eleventh Circuit’s final disposition in the Graham case, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In January 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for writ of certiorari in Graham.

Plaintiff: Griffin
Date:    June 2014

Verdict:
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding approximately $1.27 million in compensatory damages and allocating 50% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $630,000).

Post-Trial Developments:
The trial court entered final judgment against PM USA in July 2014 with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In August 2014, PM USA filed a motion to amend the judgment to reduce plaintiff’s damages by the amount paid by collateral sources, which the court denied in September 2014. In October 2014, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $640,543 and filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In May 2015, the Eleventh Circuit stayed the appeal pending final disposition in the Graham case, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In the second quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $1.1 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs. In January 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for writ of certiorari in Graham.

Plaintiff: Burkhart
Date:    May 2014

Verdict:
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard awarding $5 million in compensatory damages and allocating 15% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded plaintiff $2.5 million in punitive damages, allocating $750,000 to PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In July 2014, defendants filed post-trial motions, including a renewed motion for judgment or, alternatively, for a new trial or remittitur of the damages awards, which the court denied in September 2014. The trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In October 2014, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In April 2017, the Eleventh Circuit stayed the appeal pending final disposition in the Graham case, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In November 2017, the Eleventh Circuit further stayed the appeal pending Schoeff, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In December 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held in Schoeff that comparative fault does not reduce compensatory damages awards for intentional torts. In January 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for writ of certiorari in Graham.



85

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Plaintiff: Skolnick
Date:    June 2013

Verdict:
A Palm Beach County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded plaintiff $2.555 million in compensatory damages and allocated 30% of the fault to each defendant (an amount of $766,500).

Post-Trial Developments:
In June 2013, defendants and plaintiff filed post-trial motions. The trial court entered final judgment with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In November 2013, the trial court denied plaintiff’s post-trial motion and, in December 2013, denied defendants’ post-trial motions. Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, and plaintiff cross-appealed in December 2013. Also in December 2013, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $766,500. In July 2015, the District Court of Appeal reversed the compensatory damages award and ordered judgment in favor of defendants on the strict liability and negligence claims, but remanded plaintiff’s conspiracy and concealment claims for a new trial. In August 2015, defendants filed a motion for rehearing, and plaintiff filed a motion for clarification, which the District Court of Appeal denied in September 2015.

Plaintiff: Starr-Blundell
Date:    June 2013

Verdict:
A Duval County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded plaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damages and allocated 10% of the fault to each defendant (an amount of $50,000).

Post-Trial Developments:
In June 2013, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the verdict and to enter judgment in accordance with their motion for directed verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which was denied in October 2013. In November 2013, the trial court entered final judgment with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In December 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff agreed to waive the bond for the appeal. In May 2015, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment. In June 2015, plaintiff filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In July 2015, the Florida Supreme Court stayed the case pending the outcome of Soffer, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In April 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ordered defendants to show cause as to why the case should not be remanded in light of the Soffer decision. In the first quarter of 2016, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $55,000 for the judgment plus interest and associated costs. In May 2016,2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of plaintiff’s petition for review and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Soffer decision. In September 2016, the Florida First District Court of Appeal further remanded the case in light of Soffer.

Plaintiff: Searcy
Date:    April 2013

Verdict:
A jury in the U.S. District Court forcase. As an alternative ground to approve the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded $6 million in compensatory damages (allocating 30% of the fault to each defendant) and $10 million in punitive damages against each defendant.

Post-Trial Developments:
In June 2013, the trial court entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In July 2013, defendants filed various post-trial motions, including motions requesting reductions in damages. In September 2013, the district court reduced the compensatory damages award to $1 million and the punitive damages award to $1.67 million against each defendant. The district court denied all other post-trial motions. Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the district court’s remittitur and, in the alternative, to certify the issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, both of which the court denied in October 2013. In November 2013, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing that application of the Engle findings to the Engle progeny plaintiffs’ concealment and conspiracy claims violated defendants’ due process rights. In December 2013, defendants filed an amended notice of appeal after the district court corrected a clerical error in the final judgment, and PM USA posted a bond in the amount of approximately $2.2 million. In January 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered supplemental briefing on the due process issue.



86

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Plaintiff: Calloway
Date:    May 2012

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard and Liggett Group. The jury awarded approximately $21 million in compensatory damages and allocated 25% of the fault against PM USA. The jury also awarded approximately $17 million in punitive damages against PM USA, approximately $17 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds, approximately $13 million in punitive damages against Lorillard and approximately $8 million in punitive damages against Liggett Group.

Post-Trial Developments:
In May and June 2012, defendants filed motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. In August 2012, the trial court denied the remaining post-trial motions, reduced the compensatory damages to $16.1 million and entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In September 2012, PM USA posted a bond in an amount of $1.5 million and defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. In August 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to determine the sufficiency of the bond in the trial court on the ground that the bond cap statute is unconstitutional, which the court denied. In January 2016, a panel of the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal vacated the punitive damages award and remanded the case for retrial on plaintiff’s claims of concealment and conspiracy, and punitive damages. The court also found that the trial court should have applied the comparative fault deduction, reducing the compensatory damages against PM USA to $4.025 million. In February 2016, defendants and plaintiff filed respective motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. In March 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority citing the Soffer decision, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In September 2016, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, ruling en banc, reversed the judgment against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds in its entirety on the grounds that improper arguments by plaintiff’s counsel deprived defendants of a fair trial, and ordered a new trial. In October 2016, plaintiff filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court, which the court denied in March 2017. In June 2017, plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the 2016 en banc ruling by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, which the court denied in October 2017.

Plaintiff: Putney
Date:     April 2010

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Liggett Group. The jury awarded approximately $15.1 million in compensatory damages and allocated 15% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $2.3 million). The jury also awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages against PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In August 2010, the trial court entered final judgment with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. PM USA filed its notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and, in November 2010, posted a $1.6 million bond. In June 2013, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the trial court erred in (1) not reducing the compensatory damages award as excessive and (2) not instructing the jury on the statute of repose in connection with plaintiff’s conspiracy claim that resulted in the $2.5 million punitive damages award. In July 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing, which the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied in August 2013. In September 2013, both parties filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In December 2013, the Florida Supreme Court stayed the appeal pending the outcome of the Hess case. In April 2015, the Florida Supreme Court rejected the statute of repose defense in Hess, and PM USA moved for a rehearing. In September 2015, the Florida Supreme Court denied PM USA’s rehearing petition in Hess. In February 2016, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision in favor of plaintiff and, in March 2016, clarified that its February 2016 order reinstated the trial court’s decision on the statute of repose only. In August 2016, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reinstated the jury’s punitive damages verdict and reaffirmed that the compensatory damages award was excessive, remanding the case to the trial court to reduce the compensatory damages. In May 2017, the trial court ruled that the 2010 jury award of $15.1 million in compensatory damages was excessive and reduced the award to $225,000. In June 2017, plaintiff requested a new trial on compensatory damages.



87

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________



Engle Cases Concluded Within Past 12 Months

Plaintiff: Graham
Date:    May 2013

Verdict:
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded $2.75 million in compensatory damages and allocated 10% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $275,000).

Post-Trial Developments:
In June 2013, defendants filed several post-trial motions, including motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, which the trial court denied in September 2013. The trial court entered final judgment with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In October 2013, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing that Engle progeny plaintiffs’ product liability claims are impliedly preempted by federal law, and PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $277,750. In April 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found in favor of defendants on the basis of federal preemption, reversed the trial court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law, and plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc or panel rehearing. In January 2016, the Eleventh Circuit granted a rehearing en banc on both the preemption and due process issues. In May 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the final judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor, rejecting defendants’ preemption and due process arguments. In the second quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $500,000 for the judgment plus interest and associated costs. In September 2017, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on due process and federal preemption grounds, which the court denied in January 2018. PM USA paid the judgment plus interest and associated costs in the amount of approximately $1 million in January 2018.

Plaintiff: Naugle
Date:    November 2009

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded approximately $56.6 million in compensatory damages and $244 million in punitive damages. The jury allocated 90% of the fault to PM USA.

Post-Trial Developments:
In March 2010, the trial court entered final judgment reflecting a reduced award of approximately $13 million in compensatory damages and $26 million in punitive damages, but without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In April 2010, PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $5 million bond. In June 2012, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment (as amended to correct a clerical error) in the amount of approximately $12.3 million in compensatory damages and approximately $24.5 million in punitive damages. In December 2012, the Fourth District withdrew its prior decision, reversed the verdict as to compensatory and punitive damages and returned the case to the trial court for a new trial on the question of damages. Upon retrial, in October 2013, the new jury awarded approximately $3.7 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in punitive damages. PM USA filed post-trial motions, which the trial court denied in April 2014. In May 2014, PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and plaintiff cross-appealed. Also in May 2014, PM USA filed a rider with the Florida Supreme Court to make the previously-posted Naugle bond applicable to the retrial judgment. In January 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a juror interview. In April 2016, PM USA moved for a new trial following the juror interview, which the court denied. In May 2016, PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. In April 2017, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision affirming the trial court’s judgment against PM USA. In the second quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $13.2 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs, and increased its bond by $6.2 million. In September 2017, PM USA filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on due process and federal preemption grounds, which PM USA dismissed after the court denied PM USA’s petition in Graham. PM USA paid the judgment plus interest and associated costs in the amount of approximately $13.5 million in January 2018.



88

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Plaintiff: Lourie
Date:    October 2014

Verdict:
A Hillsborough County jury returned a verdict against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard awarding plaintiff approximately $1.37 million in compensatory damages and allocating 27% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $370,000).

Post-Trial Developments:
In October 2014, defendants filed a motion for judgment and a motion for a new trial. In November 2014, the trial court denied defendants’ post-trial motions and entered final judgment with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. Later in November 2014, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, and PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $370,318. In August 2016, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. In September 2016, defendants filed a petition to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court stayed the proceedings pending final disposition in the Marotta case, discussed below under Engle Progeny Appellate Issues. In June 2017, the Florida Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition to invoke the court’s discretionary jurisdiction. In the second quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $2.3 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs. In September 2017, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on due process and federal preemption grounds, which PM USA dismissed after the court denied PM USA’s petition in Graham. PM USA paid the judgment plus interest and associated costs in the amount of approximately $2.5 million in January 2018.

Plaintiff: Marchese
Date:    October 2015

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds awarding $1 million in compensatory damages and allocating 22.5% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $225,000). The jury also awarded plaintiff $250,000 in punitive damages against each defendant.

Post-Trial Developments:
In October 2015, defendants filed various post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. In November 2015, the court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff. In May 2016, the court denied defendants’ post-trial motions and amended the final judgment to apply the comparative fault deduction. In June 2016, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and plaintiff cross-appealed. Also in June 2016, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of approximately $475,000. In November 2017, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected defendants’ appeal, granted plaintiff’s cross-appeal finding that the trial court erred in applying the comparative fault deduction and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to enter an amended final judgment. In the fourth quarter of 2017, PM USA recorded a provision of approximately $1 million on its consolidated balance sheet for the judgment plus interest and paid this amount in January 2018.

Plaintiff: Merino
Date:    July 2015

Verdict:
A Miami-Dade County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding $8 million in compensatory damages and allocating 70% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also awarded $6.5 million in punitive damages.

Post-Trial Developments:
In August 2015, the trial court denied all post-trial motions, including motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and entered final judgment without any deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In September 2015, PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal and posted a bond in the amount of $5 million. In November 2016, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision affirming the trial court’s judgment against PM USA. PM USA subsequently filed a motion seeking a written opinion, which the court denied in December 2016. In the fourth quarter of 2016, PM USA recorded a provision on its consolidated balance sheet of $16.9 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs and increased the bond to $14.5 million. In April 2017, PM USA paid the judgment plus interest and associated costs in the amount of approximately $17.4 million.



89

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Plaintiff: Varner
Date:    July 2016

Verdict:
A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding compensatory damages of $1.5 million and allocating 25% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $375,000).

Post-Trial Developments:
In July 2016, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff with a deduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault. In August 2016, PM USA filed motions to set aside the verdict and for a directed verdict, and plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial. In January 2017, the trial court denied all post-trial motions. In February 2017, PM USA paid the judgment plus interest and associated costs in the amount of approximately $600,000.



Engle Progeny Appellate Issues: In Douglas, an Engle progeny case against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds, in March 2012, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a decision affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff and upholding the use of the Engle jury findings with respect to strict liability claims but certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether granting res judicata effect to the Engle jury findings violates defendants’ federal due process rights. In March 2013, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff upholding the use of the Engle jury findings with respect to strict liability and negligence claims. PM USA’s subsequent petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court was unsuccessful.
In Graham, an Engle progeny case against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds, in April 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found in favor of defendants on the basis of federal preemption, reversing the trial court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the Eleventh Circuit granted in January 2016. In May 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected defendants’ preemption and due process arguments and affirmed the final judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor. In September 2017, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on due process and federal preemption grounds, which the court denied in January 2018. In January 2016, in Marotta, a case against R.J. Reynolds on appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, the court rejected R.J. Reynolds’s federal preemption defense, but noted the conflict with Graham and certified the preemption question to the Florida Supreme Court. In March 2016, the Florida Supreme Court accepted review of Marotta and in April 2017, affirmed the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s ruling on preemption.
In Searcy, an Engle progeny case against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, defendants argued that application of the Engle findings to the Engle progeny plaintiffs’ concealment and conspiracy claims violated defendants’ due process rights. The appeal is pending. In January 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ordered supplemental briefing on the due process issues.
In Soffer, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds, the Florida First District Court of Appeal held that Engle progeny plaintiffs can recover punitive damages only on their intentional tort claims. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal from the Florida First District Court of Appeal’s decision and, in March 2016, held that Engle progeny plaintiffs can recover punitive damagesits favor in connection with all of their claims. Plaintiffs now generally seek punitive damages in connection with all of their claims in Engle progeny cases.
In SchoeffPrentice, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that comparative fault findings should apply to reduce all compensatory damage awards, including awards based on intentional fraud claims. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal of the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision. In December 2017,has asked the Florida Supreme Court reversedto reconsider its prior decisions giving the Engle Phase I findings preclusive effect in Engle progeny cases, as described more fully in the section Engle Class Action above. Oral argument was held before the Florida Supreme Court of Appeal’sin June 2021; a decision finding that comparative fault doeshas not reduce compensatory damages awards for intentional torts.yet been issued.

Florida Bond Statute: In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by adding a $200 million bond cap that applies to all state Engle progeny lawsuits in the aggregate and establishes individual bond caps for individual Engle progeny cases in amounts that vary depending on the number of judgments in effect at a given time. Plaintiffs have been unsuccessful in three state Engle progeny cases against R.J. Reynolds in Alachua County, Florida (Alexander, Townsend and Hall) and one case in Escambia County (Clay) challenged the constitutionality of the bond cap statute. The Florida Attorney General intervened in these cases in defense of the constitutionality of the statute.
Trial court rulings were rendered in Clay, Alexander, Townsend and Hall rejecting the plaintiffs’ bond cap statutevarious challenges in those cases. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully appealed these rulings. In Alexander, Clay and Hall, the District Court of Appeal for the First District of Florida affirmed the trial court decisions and certified the decision in Hall for appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, but declined to certify the question of the constitutionality of the bond cap statute in Clay and Alexander. The Florida Supreme Court granted review of the Hall decision, but, in September 2012, the court dismissed the appeal as moot. In October 2012, the Florida Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’
state court.


90

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


rehearing petition. In August 2013, in Calloway, discussed further above, plaintiff filed a motion in the trial court to determine the sufficiency of the bond posted by defendants on the ground that the bond cap statute is unconstitutional, which was denied.
In February 2016, in the Sikes case against R.J. Reynolds, the trial court held that Florida’s bond cap statute does not stay the execution of judgment after a case is final in the Florida judicial system and before the defendant files a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The District Court of Appeal for the First District of Florida issued an order staying execution of the judgment and requesting that plaintiff show cause why the stay should not remain in effect through the completion of United States Supreme Court writ of certiorari review or until the time for moving for such review has expired. In April 2016, the District Court of Appeal held that the bond cap applies to the period between a Florida Supreme Court ruling and completion of United States Supreme Court writ of certiorari review. In April 2016, PM USA filed motions in the trial court in the R. Cohen and Kayton cases seeking confirmation that the stay on executing the judgment remains in effect through the completion of United States Supreme Court writ of certiorari review or until the time for moving for such review has expired, which the court granted.
No federal court has yet addressed the constitutionality of the bond cap statute or the applicability of the bond cap to Engleprogeny cases tried in federal court.
TheFrom time to time, legislation has been presented to the Florida legislature is considering legislation that would repeal the 2009 appeal bond cap statute.statute; however to date, no legislation repealing the statute has passed.

Other Smoking and Health Class Actions

Actions: Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well.
Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 61 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (1), Delaware (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). See Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation below for a discussion of “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” class action cases and medical monitoring class action cases pending against PM USA.
As of January 29, 2018,24, 2022, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven7 class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two(2 separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema,
heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants’ cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants’ cigarettes. In March 2019, all of these class actions were stayed as a result of 3 Canadian tobacco manufacturers (none of which is related to Altria or its subsidiaries) seeking protection under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (which is similar to Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S.). The companies entered into these proceedings following a Canadian appellate court upholding 2 smoking and health class action verdicts against those companies totaling approximately CAD $13 billion. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI, thatwhich provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

Overview: In the health care cost recovery litigation, governmental entities seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products and, in some cases, of future expenditures and damages. Relief sought by some but not all plaintiffs includes punitive damages, multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, injunctions prohibiting alleged marketing and sales to minors, disclosure of research, disgorgement of profits, funding of anti-smoking programs, additional disclosure of nicotine yields, and payment of attorney and expert witness fees.
Although there have been some decisions to the contrary, most judicial decisions in the United StatesU.S. have dismissed all or most health care cost recovery claims against cigarette manufacturers. Nine federal circuit courts of appeals and eight state appellate courts, relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were too remote, have ordered or affirmed dismissals of health care cost recovery actions. The United StatesU.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs’ appeals from the cases decided by five federal circuit courts of appeals.appeal.
In addition to the cases brought in the United States,U.S., health care cost recovery actions have also been brought against tobacco industry participants, including PM USA and Altria, Group, Inc., in Israel (dismissed), the Marshall Islands (dismissed) and Canada (10 cases), and other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions.
In September 2005, in the first of several health care cost recovery cases filed in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that legislation passed in British Columbia permitting the lawsuit is constitutional, and, as a result, the case, which had previously been dismissed by the trial court, was permitted to proceed. PM USA’s and other defendants’ challenge to the British Columbia court’s exercise of jurisdiction was rejected by the Court of Appeals of British Columbia and, in April 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied review of that decision.
Since the beginning of 2008, the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have brought health care reimbursement claims against cigarette manufacturers. PM USA is named as a defendant in the British Columbia and Quebec cases, while both Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA are named as defendants in the New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia cases. The Nunavut Territory and Northwest Territory have passed legislation permitting similar legislation.claims, but lawsuits based on this legislation have not been filed. All of these cases have been stayed pending resolution of proceedings in Canada involving 3 tobacco manufacturers (none of which are affiliated with Altria or its subsidiaries) under the Companies’

98

Creditors Arrangement Act discussed above. See Smoking and Health Litigation - Other Smoking and Health Class Actions above for a discussion of these proceedings. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of


91

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: In November 1998, PM USA and certain other tobacco product manufacturers entered into the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) with 46 states, the District of Columbia and certain U.S. territories to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other tobacco product manufacturers had previously entered into agreements to settle similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). The State Settlement Agreements require that the original participating manufacturers or “OPMs” (now PM USA, and R.J. Reynolds and, with respect to certain brands, ITG Brands, LLC (“ITG”)) make annual payments of approximately $9.4 billion, subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume. In addition, the OPMs are required to pay settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million.million; these quarterly payments are expected to end in 2024. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 2015,2019, the aggregate amount recorded in cost of sales with respect to the State Settlement Agreements was approximately $4.5$4.3 billion, $4.6$4.4 billion and $4.5$4.2 billion, respectively. These amounts include PM USA’s estimate of amounts related to NPM Adjustments discussed below.
The State Settlement Agreements also include advertising and marketing restrictions, require public disclosure of certain industry documents, limit challenges to certain tobacco control and underage use laws, and restrict lobbying activities.
NPM Adjustment Disputes: The MSA provides for potential downward adjustments to“NPM Adjustment” is a reduction in MSA payments (the “NPM Adjustment”) made by the OPMs and those manufacturers that are subsequent signatories to the MSA (collectively, the “participating manufacturers” or “PMs”). PM USA is participating in proceedings regarding the NPM Adjustment for 2003-2016. The NPM Adjustment is a reduction in MSA payments that applies if the PMs collectively lose at least a specified level of market share to non-participating manufacturers since 1997, subject to certain conditions and defenses.
The independent auditor (the “IA”(“IA”) appointed under the MSA calculates the maximum amount of the NPM Adjustment, if any, for each year.
2003-2015 NPM Adjustment Disputes - Settlement with 26 States and Territories and Settlement with New York. PM USA has entered into two settlements of NPM Adjustment disputes with a total of 27 states and territories. The first settlement was originally entered into in 2012 with 19 states and territories and has been subsequently expanded to include a total of 26 of the 52 MSA states and territories (the “signatory states”). In the first settlement, PM USA settled the NPM Adjustment disputes for 2003-2015 with these 26 states in exchange for a total of $740 million. In the second settlement, related specifically to New
York, which was entered into in 2015, PM USA received approximately $170 million for 2004-2015. Both settlements also resolved certain disputes regarding the application of the NPM Adjustment going forward.

2003 and Subsequent NPM Adjustment Disputes - Continuing Disputes with States that have not Settled.

2003 NPM Adjustment. In September 2013, an arbitration panel issued rulings regarding the 15 states and territories that remained in the arbitration, ruling that six of them did not establish valid defenses to the NPM Adjustment for 2003. Two of these states later joined the first settlement discussed above. With respect to the remaining four states, following the outcome of challenges in state courts, PM USA ultimately recorded $74 million primarily as a reduction to cost of sales. Two potential disputes remain outstanding regarding the amount of interest and there is no assurance that PM USA will prevail in either of these disputes.

2004 and Subsequent NPM Adjustments. PM USA has continued to pursue the NPM Adjustments for 2004 and subsequent years in multi-state arbitrations against the states that did not join either of the settlements discussed above. New Mexico is currently appealing a trial court ruling that the state must participate in the multi-state arbitration for 2004. The Montana state courts ruled that Montana may litigate its claims in state court, rather than participate in arbitration.
The 2004 multi-state arbitration is currently pending with all of the states that have not settled other than Montana and New Mexico. Decisions are not expected until late 2018 at the earliest.
No assurance can be given as to when proceedings for 2005 and subsequent years will be scheduled or the precise form those proceedings will take.
The IA has calculated that PM USA’s share of the maximum potential NPM Adjustments for 2004-20162004-2020 is (exclusive of interest or earnings): $388 million for 2004; $181 million for 2005; $154 million for 2006; $185 million for 2007; $250 million for 2008; $211 million for 2009; $218 million for 2010; $166 million for 2011; $214 million for 2012; $223$224 million for 2013; $246$258 million for 2014; $313 million for 2015; $292 million for 2015 and $2962016; $302 million for 2016.2017; $325 million for 2018; $444 million for 2019; and $572 million for 2020. These maximum amounts will be reduced, likely substantially, to reflect the NPM Adjustment settlements with the signatory states and New York,discussed below, and potentially for current and future calculation disputes and other developments. Finally,In addition, PM USA’s recovery of these amounts, even as reduced, is dependent upon subsequent determinations regarding state-specific defenses.defenses and disputes with other PMs.

Settlements of NPM Adjustment Disputes.
Multi-State Settlement.By the end of 2018, PM USA entered into a multi-state settlement of NPM Adjustment disputes with a total of 36 MSA states and territories in which PM USA settled the NPM Adjustment disputes through 2022 with 35 of the 36 states, and through 2024 with 1 state. Pursuant to the multi-state settlement, PM USA received $1.03 billion and expects to receive approximately $320 million in credits to offset PM USA’s MSA payments through 2029.
New York Settlement. In 2015, PM USA entered into a separate NPM Adjustment settlement with New York in which PM USA settled the NPM Adjustment disputes with New York in perpetuity. PM USA received $373 million pursuant to the New York settlement and expects to receive annual credits applied against the MSA payments due to New York going forward.
Montana Settlement. In 2020, PM USA entered into a separate NPM Adjustment settlement with Montana in which PM USA settled the NPM Adjustment disputes with Montana through 2030. This settlement resulted in a payment by PM USA of $4 million.
Continuing NPM Adjustment Disputes with States That Have Not Settled.
2004 NPM Adjustment. The PMs and the 10 states that have not settled the NPM Adjustment disputes are currently arbitrating NPM Adjustment disputes for 2004 in a multi-state arbitration. Hearings for 9 of the 10 states have concluded. In September 2021, the arbitration panels issued decisions finding that 2 states, Missouri and Washington, were not diligent in their enforcement of their escrow statutes in 2004 and, therefore, are subject to the NPM adjustment for 2004. The arbitration panels further found that the remaining 7 states were diligent in their enforcement and, therefore, are not subject to the NPM adjustment for 2004. The hearing for one remaining state is currently scheduled for February 2022. The two states determined by the arbitration panel to be non-diligent have filed motions in applicable state courts and with the arbitration panels challenging these determinations and several issues remain to be resolved by the arbitration panels that will affect the final amount of the 2004 NPM adjustment PM USA and other PMs will receive. PM USA recorded $21 million as a reduction to cost of sales in the third quarter of 2021 for its estimate of the minimum amount of the 2004 NPM adjustment it will receive. PM USA estimates it is entitled to interest of approximately $23 million in connection with the 2004 NPM adjustment, which it recorded as interest income in the third quarter of 2021.
2005-2007 NPM Adjustments. The PMs and the 10 states that have not settled the NPM Adjustment disputes are currently arbitrating NPM Adjustment disputes before a single arbitration panel. The arbitration encompasses three years, 2005-2007, for 9 of the 10 states, and one year, 2005, for 1 state. As of January 24, 2022, no decisions have resulted from the arbitration.
Subsequent Years. No assurance can be given as to when proceedings for 2008 and subsequent years will be scheduled or the precise form those proceedings will take.

99

Other Disputes Under the State Settlement Agreements: The payment obligations of the tobacco product manufacturers that are parties to the State Settlement Agreements, as well as the allocations of any NPM Adjustments and related settlements, have been and may continue to be affected by R.J. Reynolds’Reynolds’s acquisition of Lorillard in 2015 and its related sale of certain cigarette brands to ITG (the “ITG transferred brands”). In particular,PM USA filed motions to enforce the State Settlement Agreements in Florida, Minnesota, Texas and Mississippi in connection with various positions that R.J. Reynolds and ITG have asserted that they do not havetook with regard to make payments on


92

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


the ITG brands undertransferred brands. After various court decisions in each of those states that were favorable to PM USA, those motions to enforce have now been resolved either through settlement or exhaustion of appeals. Despite these resolutions, PM USA continues to dispute the Florida, Minnesotaaccuracy of certain submissions made by R.J. Reynolds and Texas State Settlement Agreements or includeITG concerning the calculation of certain payments relating to the ITG transferred brands for purposes of certain calculations under the State Settlement Agreements. PM USA believes that R.J. Reynolds’ and ITG’s position violates the State Settlement Agreements and applicable law. PM USA further believes that these actions: (i) improperly increased PM USA’s payments for 2015 and 2016 by at least $84 million; (ii) may improperly increase PM USA’s payments for subsequent years; (iii) may improperly decrease PM USA’s share of the 2015 and 2016 NPM Adjustments and the settlements of related disputes; and (iv) may improperly decrease PM USA’s share of NPM Adjustments and related settlements for subsequent years.pursue such claims.
PM USA andIn December 2019, the State of Florida eachMississippi filed a motion in FloridaMississippi state court seeking to enforce the Mississippi State Settlement Agreement against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and ITG seekingconcerning the tax rates used in the annual calculation of the net operating profit adjustment payments starting in 2018. The Mississippi state court held a hearing in October 2021 and has not yet issued a decision.
In January 2021, PM USA and other PMs reached an agreement with several MSA states to enforcewaive the Florida State Settlement Agreement. In December 2017, the Florida trial court ruled that R.J. Reynolds (and not ITG) must make settlement paymentsPMs’ claim under the Florida State Settlement Agreement onmost favored nation provision of the ITG brands.MSA in connection with a settlement between those MSA states and a non-participating manufacturer, S&M Brands, Inc. (“S&M Brands”), under which the states released certain claims against S&M Brands in exchange for receiving a portion of the funds S&M Brands deposited into escrow accounts in those states pursuant to the states’ escrow statutes. In consideration for waiving its most favored nation claim, PM USA received approximately $32 million from the escrow funds paid to those MSA states under their settlement with S&M Brands. These funds were received in January 2021 and were recorded in Altria’s consolidated statement of earnings for the first quarter of 2021 as a reduction to cost of sales.
Federal Government’s Lawsuit: In 1999, the United States government filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against various cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA, and others, including Altria, Group, Inc., asserting claims under three federal statutes, namely the Medical Care Recovery Act (“MCRA”), the MSP provisions of the Social Security Act and the civil provisions of RICO.statutes. The case ultimately proceeded only under the civil provisions of RICO, and the trial ended in June 2005.RICO. In August 2006, the district court entered judgment in favor of the government. The court held that certain defendants, including Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA, violated RICO and engaged in seven of the eight “sub-schemes” to defraud that the government had alleged. Specifically, the court found that:

defendants falsely denied, distorted and minimized the significant adverse health consequences of smoking;

defendants hid from the public that cigarette smoking and nicotine are addictive;

defendants falsely denied that they control the level of nicotine delivered to create and sustain addiction;

defendants falsely marketed and promoted “low tar/light” cigarettes as less harmful than full-flavor cigarettes;

defendants falsely denied that they intentionally marketed to youth;

defendants publicly and falsely denied that ETS is hazardous to non-smokers; and

defendants suppressed scientific research.

defendants falsely denied, distorted and minimized the significant adverse health consequences of smoking;
defendants hid from the public that cigarette smoking and nicotine are addictive;
defendants falsely denied that they control the level of nicotine delivered to create and sustain addiction;
defendants falsely marketed and promoted “low tar/light” cigarettes as less harmful than full-flavor cigarettes;
defendants falsely denied that they intentionally marketed to youth;
defendants publicly and falsely denied that ETS is hazardous to non-smokers; and
defendants suppressed scientific research.
The court did not impose monetary penalties on defendants, but ordered the following relief: (i) an injunction against “committing any act of racketeering” relating to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion, health consequences or sale of cigarettes in the United States; (ii) an injunction against participating directly or indirectly in the management or control of the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, or the Center for Indoor Air Research, or any successor or affiliated entities of each; (iii) an injunction against “making, or causing to be made in any way, any material false, misleading, or deceptive statement or representation or engaging in any public relations or marketing endeavor that is disseminated to the United States public and that misrepresents or suppresses information concerning cigarettes”;cigarettes;” (iv) an injunction against conveying any express or implied health message or health descriptors on cigarette packaging or in cigarette advertising or promotional material, including “lights,” “ultra lights” and “low tar,” which the court found could cause consumers to believe one cigarette brand is less hazardous than another brand; (v) the issuance of “corrective statements” in various media regarding the adverse health effects of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine, the lack of any significant health benefit from smoking “low tar” or “light” cigarettes, defendants’ manipulation of cigarette design to ensure optimum nicotine delivery and the adverse health effects of exposure to ETS; (vi) the disclosure on defendants’ public document websites and in the Minnesota document repository of all documents produced to the government in the lawsuit or produced in any future court or administrative action concerning smoking and health until the third quarter of 2021, with certain additional requirements as to documents withheld from production under a claim of privilege or confidentiality; (vii) the disclosure of disaggregated marketing data to the government in the same form and on the same schedule as defendants now follow in disclosing such data to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)FTC for a period of 10 years; (viii) certain restrictions on the sale or transfer by defendants of any cigarette brands, brand names, formulas or cigarette businesses within the United States;U.S.; and (ix) payment of the government’s costs in bringing the action.
Defendants appealed and, in May 2009, a three judge panelFollowing several years of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Court of Appeals”) largely affirmed the trial court’s remedial order, but vacated the following aspects of the order:

its applicationappeals relating to defendants’ subsidiaries;

the prohibition on the use of express or implied health messages or health descriptors, but only to the extent of extraterritorial application;

its point-of-sale display provisions; and

its application to Brown & Williamson Holdings.



93

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


The appellate panel remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider these four aspects of the injunction and to reformulate its remedial order accordingly.
In November 2012, the district court issued its order specifying the content of the corrective communicationsstatements remedy described above, and defendants appealed. In April 2014, the parties submitted a motion for entry of a consent order in the district court, setting forth their agreement on the implementation details of the corrective communications remedy, which the district court approved in June 2014. In May 2015, the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the appeal on the content of the corrective communications, concluding that certain portions of the statements exceeded the district court’s jurisdiction under RICO, but upheld other portions challenged by defendants. The D.C. Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
In February 2016, the district court issued an order adopting modified corrective statements. Defendants appealed and, in AprilOctober 2017, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed in part the district court’s decision on the content of the corrective communications, striking certain content and remanding to the district court the decision on how to revise certain other content. In June 2017, the district court issued an order adopting modified corrective statements. In October 2017, the court approved the parties’ proposed consent order implementing the corrective communications remedy forstatements in newspapers and on television. The corrective statements began appearing in newspapers and on television in the fourth quarter of 2017. In JanuaryApril 2018, the parties submitted a status report and a request for a status conference to address open issues regarding onsert and website implementation details.  The defendants also filed a motion inreached agreement on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to mediate the remaining implementation details of the corrective statements on websites and for an order clarifying that the DOJ may not enforce the previous consent order with respect to onserts andonserts. The corrective statements began appearing on websites prior to resolution of all implementation details.
Inin the second quarter of 2018 and the onserts began appearing in the fourth quarter of 2018.

100

In 2014 and 2019, Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA recorded provisions on each of their respective balance sheets totaling $31approximately $36 million for the estimated costs of implementing the corrective communications remedy.  This estimate is subject to change due to several factors, though Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA do not expect any change in this estimate to be material.
The consent order approved by the district court in June 2014 did not address the requirements related to corrective statements at point-of-sale signage.remain outstanding. In May 2014, the district court ordered further briefing by the parties on the issue, of corrective statements on point-of-sale signage, which was completed in June 2014.
In December 2011,May 2018, the parties submitted a joint status report and additional briefing on point-of-sale signage to the district court. In May 2019, the district court ordered a hearing on the point-of-sale signage issue. The hearing is currently scheduled for June 2022.
In June 2020, the United States government filed a motion with the district court asking for clarification as to whether the court-ordered injunction that applies to cigarettes also applies to HeatSticks, a heated tobacco product used with the IQOS electronic device. In August 2020, Altria and PM USA filed an opposition to the government’s motion and, in the alternative, a motion to modify the injunction to make clear it does not apply to HeatSticks. Regardless of the district court’s decisions on the pending motions, the government has indicated it will not oppose a modification to the injunction that permits PM USA to use the Modified Risk Tobacco Product claim authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration for HeatSticks.
E-vapor Product Litigation
As of January 24, 2022, Altria and/or its subsidiaries, including PM USA, are defendants in 53 class action lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor products. JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits. The theories of recovery include violation of RICO, fraud, failure to warn, design defect, negligence and unfair trade practices. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting product sales. The 53 class action lawsuits include 28 cases involving plaintiffs whose claims were previously included in other class action complaints but were refiled as separate stand-alone class actions for procedural and other reasons. Three of the class action lawsuits are pending in Canada.
Altria and/or its subsidiaries, including PM USA, also have been named as defendants in other lawsuits involving JUUL e-vapor products, including 2,851 individual lawsuits and 483 “third party” lawsuits, which include school districts, state and local governments and tribal and healthcare organization lawsuits. JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits.
The majority of the individual and class action lawsuits mentioned above were filed in federal court. In October 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the coordination or consolidation of these lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for pretrial purposes.
Altria and its subsidiaries filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the class action and school district cases, including the federal RICO claim. In October 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion to dismiss the RICO class action claim without prejudice. Although it otherwise denied the motion, the court found that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged standing or causation with respect to their claim under California law. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claim in the cases filed by various school districts, but denied the motion in all other respects. The court gave plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaints to attempt to cure the deficiencies the court identified and plaintiffs filed their amended complaints in November 2020. In January 2021, Altria and its subsidiaries filed a renewed motion to dismiss the RICO claim, which the court denied in April 2021. In July 2021, the court set dates for the first four cases to be tried in 2022, with the first case commencing in April 2022.
An additional group of cases is pending in California state courts. In January 2020, the Judicial Council of California determined that this group of cases was appropriate for coordination and assigned the group to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, for pretrial purposes.
JUUL also is named in a significant number of additional individual and class action lawsuits to which neither Altria nor any of its subsidiaries is currently named.
NaN of the “third party” lawsuits noted above against Altria and/or its subsidiaries and JUUL, as an additional named defendant, were initiated, individually, by the attorneys general of Alaska, Hawaii and Minnesota alleging violations of state consumer protection and other similar laws. Altria filed motions to dismiss each of these three lawsuits and the motions were denied in the lawsuits from the attorneys general of Hawaii and Minnesota in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively. With respect to the lawsuit entered into an agreementfrom the attorney general of Alaska, as of January 24, 2022, the court has yet to rule on the motion. JUUL is also named in other attorneys general lawsuits to which neither Altria nor any of its subsidiaries is currently named. JUUL settled 2 such lawsuits by agreeing to pay approximately $40 million in one case and $14.5 million in the second. In addition, in both cases, JUUL agreed to certain restrictions on its sales and marketing activities.
IQOS Litigation
In April 2020, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which are affiliates of R.J. Reynolds, filed a lawsuit against Altria, PM USA, Altria Client Services LLC, PMI and its affiliate, Philip Morris Products S.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit asserts claims of patent infringement based on the sale of the IQOS electronic device and HeatSticks in the United States. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys’ fees. Altria and PMI have been dismissed from the lawsuit. In June 2020, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiffs’ claims and also filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs for infringement of various patents owned by the remaining

101

defendants. The case was stayed in December 2020 due to the issues concerningCOVID-19 pandemic; however, the document repository. Pursuantstay was lifted with respect to this agreement,defendants’ counterclaims in February 2021. As of January 24, 2022, the court had not set a trial date.
Also in April 2020, a related patent infringement action was filed against the same defendants by the same plaintiffs, as well as R.J. Reynolds, with the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”), but the remedies sought included a prohibition on the importation of the IQOS electronic device, HeatSticks and component parts into the United States and on the sale of any such products previously imported into the United States. No damages are recoverable in the proceedings before the ITC. In September 2021, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order barring the importation of the IQOS electronic device, HeatSticks and the infringing components into the United States and a cease and desist order barring domestic sales, marketing and distribution of these imported products. The orders became effective on November 29, 2021. Consequently, PM USA agreedremoved the IQOS electronic device and HeatSticks from the marketplace. In December 2021, defendants appealed the orders to deposit an amountthe U.S. Court of approximately $3.1 million intoAppeals for the districtFederal Circuit and, in January 2022, the court in installments over a five-year period.
“Lights/Ultra Lights” Cases

Overview: Plaintiffs have sought certification of their cases as class actions, alleging among other things, thatdenied defendants’ motion to stay the usesorders pending the conclusion of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breachappeal.
An additional unrelated patent infringement case regarding the IQOS electronic device was filed in November 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of warranty, and have sought injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been broughtGeorgia against PM USA and Philip Morris Products S.A. seeking damages and equitable relief. In February 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which the court granted in July 2021. In December 2021, the U.S. District Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Antitrust Litigation
In April 2020, the FTC issued an administrative complaint against Altria and JUUL alleging that Altria’s 35% investment in JUUL and the associated agreements constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (“Sherman Act”) and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, and substantially lessened competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act (“Clayton Act”). If the FTC’s challenge is successful, the FTC may order a broad range of remedies, including divestiture of Altria’s minority investment in JUUL, rescission of the transaction and all associated agreements, a requirement of FTC approval of future agreements related to the development, manufacture, distribution or sale of e-vapor products and prohibition against any officer or director of either Altria or JUUL serving on the other party’s board of directors or attending meetings of the other party’s board of directors. The administrative trial was held before an FTC administrative law judge in June 2021. The post-trial briefing was completed in October 2021. The administrative law judge’s decision is subject to review by the FTC on its own motion or at the request of any party. The FTC then issues its ruling, which may be appealed to any U.S. Court of Appeals.
Also as of January 24, 2022, 17 putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria and JUUL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits initially named, in addition to the two companies, certain instances,senior executives and certain members of the board of directors of both companies as defendants; however, those individuals currently or formerly affiliated with Altria Group, Inc. or its other subsidiaries,were later dismissed. In November 2020 these lawsuits were consolidated into 3 complaints (one on behalf of individualsdirect purchasers, one on behalf of indirect purchasers and one on behalf of indirect resellers). The consolidated lawsuits, as amended, cite the FTC administrative complaint and allege that Altria and JUUL violated Sections 1, 2 and/or 3 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act and various state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws by restraining trade and/or substantially lessening competition in the U.S. closed-system electronic cigarette market. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, a declaration that the agreements between Altria and JUUL are invalid, divestiture of Altria’s minority investment in JUUL and rescission of the transaction. Altria filed a motion to dismiss these lawsuits in January 2021. In August 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Altria’s motion to dismiss except with respect to plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and equitable relief. However, plaintiffs were granted the opportunity to replead such claims by the trial court, which plaintiffs did in September 2021. In January 2022, the trial court ordered that the direct-purchaser plaintiffs’ claims be sent to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in JUUL’s online purchase agreement.
In November 2020, Altria exercised its rights to convert its non-voting JUUL shares to voting shares. However, pending the outcome of the FTC administrative complaint, Altria currently does not intend to exercise its additional governance rights obtained upon the conversion, including the right to elect directors to JUUL’s board or to vote its JUUL shares other than as a passive investor. For further discussion of Altria’s rights in the event of share conversion, see Note 6. Investments in Equity Securities - Investment in JUUL.
Shareholder Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits
Shareholder Class Action: In October and December 2019, 2 purported Altria shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits against Altria, Howard A. Willard III, Altria’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and William F. Gifford, Jr., Altria’s former Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer and current Chief Executive Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In December 2019, the court consolidated the 2 lawsuits into a single proceeding. The consolidated lawsuit was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and under Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. In April 2020, JUUL, its founders and some of its current and former executives were added to the lawsuit. The claims allege false and misleading statements and omissions relating to Altria’s investment in JUUL. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including damages and attorneys’ fees. In July 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims, which the district court denied in March 2021. In the fourth quarter of 2021, plaintiffs and defendants agreed upon a class action settlement

102

under which, among other things, (i) all claims asserted against Altria and the other named defendants are resolved without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally or to Altria and (ii) Altria will pay the class an aggregate amount of $90 million, which amount includes attorneys’ fees. The class is defined to include persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired share of Altria between October 25, 2018 through April 2, 2020, subject to certain exclusions. The trial court preliminarily approved the settlement in December 2021; however, the settlement is subject to final approval by the trial court and consumedother customary conditions. Altria recorded pre-tax provisions totaling $90 million in 2021 and, in January 2022, paid $90 million to plaintiffs’ escrow account.
Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits:In August 2020, 2 purported Altria shareholders filed separate derivative lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of themselves and Altria, against Mr. Willard, Mr. Gifford, JUUL and certain of its executives and officers. These derivative lawsuits relate to Altria’s investment in JUUL, and assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the Altria defendants and aiding and abetting in that alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the remaining defendants. In March 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants’ motion to transfer both lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. NaN additional federal derivative lawsuits were filed in October 2020, January 2021 and March 2021, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Mr. Willard, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Crosthwaite, certain members of Altria’s Board of Directors, JUUL, its founders and some of its current and former executives. These suits assert various brandsclaims, including breach of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lightsfiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raisedviolations of certain federal securities laws. The remedies sought in these caseslawsuits include lackdamages, disgorgement of misrepresentation, lackprofits, reformation of causation, injuryAltria’s corporate governance and damages,internal procedures, and attorneys’ fees. In April 2021, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, andcourt consolidated the First Amendment. As of January 29, 2018, a total of three such5 cases are pending in various U.S.the Eastern District of Virginia into a single case.
State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits: NaN derivative lawsuits have been filed in Virginia state courts noneagainst Mr. Willard, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Crosthwaite (Altria’s former Chief Growth Officer and JUUL’s current Chief Executive Officer), certain members of which is active.

State “Lights” Cases Dismissed, Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified: AsAltria’s Board of January 29, 2018, 21 state courtsDirectors, JUUL, its founders and some of its current and former executives. The lawsuits were filed in 22 “Lights” cases have refusedSeptember 2020, May 2021, June 2021, July 2021, August 2021 and August 2021, respectively. The lawsuits assert various claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, and seek remedies similar to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA.

State Trial Court Class Certifications: State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in several jurisdictions. Over time, all such cases have been dismissedthose sought by the courts at the summary judgment stage, were settled by the parties or were resolved in favor of PM USA, including Larsen discussed below.

Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. Trialplaintiffs in the case begancases pending in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia. In July 2021 and September 2011 and, in October 2011,2021, the court declaredconsolidated the first 4 of these state derivative cases into a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. Upon retrial, in April 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA. In August 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA cross-appealed. In November 2016, the court of appeals dismissed PM USA’s cross-appeal without prejudice upon joint motion of the parties. On appeal, in November 2017, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of PM USA. Plaintiffs did not seek further appellate review, concluding this litigation.single consolidated case.

Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation

Ignition Propensity Cases: “Lights/Ultra Lights” Cases and Other Smoking and Health Class Actions:Plaintiffs have sought certification of their cases as class actions, alleging among other things, that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and have sought injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc.or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. Twenty-one state courts in 23 “Lights” cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA. As of January 24, 2022, 2 “Lights/Ultra Lights” class actions are currently facing litigationpending in U.S. state court. Neither case is active.
As of January 24, 2022, 1 smoking and health case alleging thatpersonal injury or seeking court-supervised programs or ongoing medical monitoring and purporting to be brought on behalf of a fire caused by cigarettes led to individuals’ deaths.  Inclass of individual plaintiffs, is pending in a Kentucky case (Walker), the federal district court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims in February 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal. In October 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the portion of the district court decision that denied remand of the case to Kentucky state court and remanded the case to Kentucky


94

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


state court. The Sixth Circuit did not address the merits of the district court’s dismissal order. Defendants’ petition for rehearing with the Sixth Circuit was denied in December 2011. Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss in state court in March 2013. Based on new evidence, in June 2013, defendants removed the case for a second time to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and re-filed their motion to dismiss in June 2013. In July 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to Kentucky state court, which was granted in March 2014. In November 2016, defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss the case, which the court granted in March 2017.is currently inactive.

Argentine Grower Cases: PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. were sued in six cases (Hupan, Chalanuk, Rodriguez Da Silva, Aranda, Taborda and Biglia) filed in Delaware state court against multiple defendants by the parents of Argentine children born with alleged birth defects. Plaintiffs in these cases allege that they grew tobacco in Argentina under contract with Tabacos Norte S.A., an alleged subsidiary of PMI, and that they and their infant children were exposed directly and in utero to Monsanto Company’s (“Monsanto”) Roundup herbicide during the production and cultivation of tobacco. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants. Altria Group, Inc. and certain other defendants were dismissed from the Hupan, Chalanuk, Rodriguez Da Silva,Aranda, Taborda and Biglia cases. The three remaining defendants in the six cases were PM USA, Philip Morris Global Brands Inc. (a subsidiary of PMI) and Monsanto. Following discussions regarding indemnification for these cases pursuant to the Distribution Agreement between PMI and Altria Group, Inc.,PMI and PM USA agreed to resolve conflicting indemnity demands after final judgments are entered. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement. In April 2014, all three defendants in the Hupan case filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and PM USA and Philip Morris Global Brands filed separate motions to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. All proceedings in the other five cases were stayed pending the court’s resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in Hupan. In November 2015, the trial court granted PM USA’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. Plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification or re-argument in December 2015, which the court denied in August 2016. Later in August 2016, PM USA and Philip Morris Global Brands moved for entry of final judgment in the Hupan case and also moved to lift the stays in the other five cases for the limited purpose of entering final judgment of dismissal in those cases as well based on the forum non conveniens decision in Hupan. The court granted those motions in September 2016, and entered final judgment of dismissal in all six cases. In October 2016, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. Oral argument occurred before a panel of the Delaware Supreme Court in September 2017. In January 2018, the case was re-argued before the Delaware Supreme Court en banc.
UST Litigation

Claims related to smokeless tobacco products generally fall within the following categories:
First, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in certain actions in West Virginia (See In re: Tobacco Litigation above) brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobacco manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and other relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a result of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products. Included among the plaintiffs are six individuals alleging use of USSTC’s smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of injuries claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless tobacco products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed from such proceedings since December 2001.
Second, : UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in a number of other individual tobacco and health suitslawsuits over time. Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in these cases arehave been based on various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs seekhave typically sought various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of limitations. In July 2016, USSTC and Altria Group, Inc. were named as defendants, along with other named defendants, in one suchAs of January 24, 2022, there is no case in California (Gwynn).  In August 2016, defendants removed the case to federal court. In September 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which the court granted in January 2017. In May 2017, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss all defendants except USSTC.

pending against UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries.
Environmental Regulation

Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (and former subsidiaries) are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise related to environmental protection, including, in the United States:U.S.: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (commonly known as “Superfund”), which can impose joint and several liability on each responsible party. Subsidiaries (and former subsidiaries) of Altria Group, Inc. are involved in several matters subjecting them to potential costs of remediation and natural resource damages under Superfund or other laws and regulations. Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s subsidiaries expect to continue to make capital and other expenditures in connection with environmental laws and regulations.

103

Altria Group, Inc. provides for expenses associated with environmental remediation obligations on an undiscounted basis


95

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


when such amounts are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Such accruals are adjusted as new information develops or circumstances change. Other than those amounts, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the cost of any environmental remediation and compliance efforts that subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. may undertake in the future. In the opinion of management, however, compliance with environmental laws and regulations, including the payment of any remediation costs or damages and the making of related expenditures, has not had, and is not expected to have, a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, financial position or cash flows.

Guarantees and Other Similar Matters

In the ordinary course of business, certain subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation. At December 31, 2017,2021, Altria Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries (i) had $57$48 million of unused letters of credit obtained in the ordinary course of business;business and (ii) were contingently liable for $33 million of guarantees consisting primarily of surety bonds, related to their own performance; and (iii) had a redeemable noncontrolling interest of $38performance, including $19 million for surety bonds recorded on its consolidated balance sheet. In addition, from time to time, subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. issue lines of credit to affiliated entities. These items have not had, and are not expected to have, a significant impact on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s liquidity.
Under the terms of a distribution agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI (the “Distribution Agreement”), entered into as a result of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s 2008 spin-off of its former subsidiary PMI, liabilities concerning tobacco products will be allocated based in substantial part on the manufacturer. PMI will indemnify Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PMI or contract manufactured for PMI by PM USA, and PM USA will indemnify PMI for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PM USA, excluding tobacco products contract manufactured for PMI. Altria Group, Inc. does not have a related liability recorded on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 20172021 as the fair value of this indemnification is insignificant. PMI has agreed not to seek indemnification with respect to the IQOS patent litigation discussed above under IQOS Litigation, excluding the patent infringement case filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
As more fully discussed in Note 19. Condensed Consolidating Financial Information, PM USA has issued guarantees relating to Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s obligations under its outstanding debt securities, borrowings under theits $3.0 billion Credit Agreement and amounts outstanding under its commercial paper program.

Redeemable Noncontrolling Interest
In September 2007, Ste. Michelle completed the acquisition of Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars through one of its consolidated subsidiaries, Michelle-Antinori, LLC (“Michelle-Antinori”), in which Ste. Michelle holds an 85% ownership interest with a 15% noncontrolling interest held by Antinori California (“Antinori”). In connection with the acquisition of Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars,
Ste. Michelle entered into a put arrangement with Antinori. The put arrangement, as later amended, provides Antinori with the right to require Ste. Michelle to purchase its 15% ownership interest in Michelle-Antinori at a price equal to Antinori’s initial investment of $27 million. The put arrangement became exercisable in September 2010 and has no expiration date. As of December 31, 2017, the redemption value of the put arrangement did not exceed the noncontrolling interest balance. Therefore, no adjustment to the value of the redeemable noncontrolling interest was recognized on the consolidated balance sheet for the put arrangement.
The noncontrolling interest put arrangement is accounted for as mandatorily redeemable securities because redemption is outside of the control of Ste. Michelle. As such, the redeemable noncontrolling interest is reported in the mezzanine equity section on the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2017 and 2016.
For further discussion, see Note 19. Condensed Consolidating Financial Information
PM USA, which is a 100% owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., has guaranteed Altria Group, Inc.’s obligations under its outstanding debt securities, borrowings under its Credit Agreement and amounts outstanding under its commercial paper program (the “Guarantees”). Pursuant to the Guarantees, PM USA fully and unconditionally guarantees, as primary obligor, the payment and performance of Altria Group, Inc.’s obligations under the guaranteed debt instruments (the “Obligations”), subject to release under certain customary circumstances as noted below.
The Guarantees provide that PM USA guarantees the punctual payment when due, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, of the Obligations. The liability of PM USA under the Guarantees is absolute and unconditional irrespective of: any lack of validity, enforceability or genuineness of any provision of any agreement or instrument relating thereto; any change in the time, manner or place of payment of, or in any other term of, all or any of the Obligations, or any other amendment or waiver of or any consent to departure from any agreement or instrument relating thereto; any exchange, release or non-perfection of any collateral, or any release or amendment or waiver of or consent to departure from any other guarantee, for all or any of the Obligations; or any other circumstance that might otherwise constitute a defense available to, or a discharge of, Altria Group, Inc. or PM USA.
The obligations of PM USA under the Guarantees are limited to the maximum amount as will not result in PM USA’s obligations under the Guarantees constituting a fraudulent transfer or conveyance, after giving effect to such maximum amount and all other contingent and fixed liabilities of PM USA that are relevant under Bankruptcy Law, the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act or any similar federal or state law to the extent applicable to the Guarantees. For this purpose, “Bankruptcy Law” means Title 11, U.S. Code, or any similar federal or state law for the relief of debtors.


96

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


9. Long-Term Debt.
PM USA will be unconditionally released and discharged from the Obligations upon the earliest to occur of:
the date, if any, on which PM USA consolidates with or merges into Altria Group, Inc. or any successor;
the date, if any, on which Altria Group, Inc. or any successor consolidates with or merges into PM USA;
the payment in full of the Obligations pertaining to such Guarantees; and
the rating of Altria Group, Inc.’s long-term senior unsecured debt by Standard & Poor’s of A or higher.
At December 31, 2017, the respective principal 100% owned subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA were not limited by long-term debt or other agreements in their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their equity interests.
The following sets forth the condensed consolidating balance sheets as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, condensed consolidating statements of earnings and comprehensive earnings for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, and condensed consolidating statements of cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 for Altria Group, Inc., PM USA and, collectively, Altria Group, Inc.’s other subsidiaries that are not guarantors of Altria Group, Inc.’s debt instruments (the “Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries”). The financial information is based on Altria Group, Inc.’s understanding of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) interpretation and application of Rule 3-10 of SEC Regulation S-X.
The financial information may not necessarily be indicative of results of operations or financial position had PM USA and the Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries operated as independent entities. Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA account for investments in their subsidiaries under the equity method of accounting.


97

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets
(in millions of dollars)
____________________________
at December 31, 2017
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Assets         
Cash and cash equivalents$1,203
 $1
 $49
 $
 $1,253
Receivables1
 10
 131
 
 142
Inventories:         
Leaf tobacco
 579
 362
 
 941
Other raw materials
 111
 59
 
 170
Work in process
 5
 555
 
 560
Finished product
 128
 426
 
 554
 
 823
 1,402
 
 2,225
Due from Altria Group, Inc. and subsidiaries2
 2,413
 1,022
 (3,437) 
Income taxes
 542
 17
 (98) 461
Other current assets11
 147
 105
 
 263
Total current assets1,217
 3,936
 2,726
 (3,535) 4,344
Property, plant and equipment, at cost
 2,930
 1,949
 
 4,879
Less accumulated depreciation
 2,086
 879
 
 2,965
 
 844
 1,070
 
 1,914
Goodwill
 
 5,307
 
 5,307
Other intangible assets, net
 2
 12,398
 
 12,400
Investment in AB InBev17,952
 
 
 
 17,952
Investment in consolidated subsidiaries13,111
 2,818
 
 (15,929) 
Finance assets, net
 
 899
 
 899
Due from Altria Group, Inc. and subsidiaries4,790
 
 
 (4,790) 
Other assets34
 671
 157
 (476) 386
Total Assets$37,104
 $8,271
 $22,557
 $(24,730) $43,202



98

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets (Continued)
(in millions of dollars)
____________________________
at December 31, 2017
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Liabilities         
Current portion of long-term debt$864
 $
 $
 $
 $864
Accounts payable2
 91
 281
 
 374
Accrued liabilities:         
Marketing
 578
 117
 
 695
Employment costs21
 14
 153
 
 188
Settlement charges
 2,437
 5
 
 2,442
Other389
 433
 247
 (98) 971
Dividends payable1,258
 
 
 
 1,258
Due to Altria Group, Inc. and subsidiaries3,040
 317
 80
 (3,437) 
Total current liabilities5,574
 3,870
 883
 (3,535) 6,792
Long-term debt13,030
 
 
 
 13,030
Deferred income taxes2,809
 
 2,914
 (476) 5,247
Accrued pension costs206
 
 239
 
 445
Accrued postretirement health care costs
 1,214
 773
 
 1,987
Due to Altria Group, Inc. and subsidiaries
 
 4,790
 (4,790) 
Other liabilities108
 49
 126
 
 283
Total liabilities21,727
 5,133
 9,725
 (8,801) 27,784
Contingencies
 
 
 
 
Redeemable noncontrolling interest
 
 38
 
 38
Stockholders’ Equity         
Common stock935
 
 9
 (9) 935
Additional paid-in capital5,952
 3,310
 12,045
 (15,355) 5,952
Earnings reinvested in the business42,251
 96
 2,243
 (2,339) 42,251
Accumulated other comprehensive losses(1,897) (268) (1,506) 1,774
 (1,897)
Cost of repurchased stock(31,864) 
 
 
 (31,864)
Total stockholders’ equity attributable to Altria Group, Inc.15,377
 3,138
 12,791
 (15,929) 15,377
Noncontrolling interests
 
 3
 
 3
Total stockholders’ equity15,377
 3,138
 12,794
 (15,929) 15,380
Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity$37,104
 $8,271
 $22,557
 $(24,730) $43,202


99

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets
(in millions of dollars)
____________________________
at December 31, 2016
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Assets         
Cash and cash equivalents$4,521
 $1
 $47
 $
 $4,569
Receivables
 8
 143
 
 151
Inventories:         
Leaf tobacco
 541
 351
 
 892
Other raw materials
 111
 53
 
 164
Work in process
 3
 509
 
 512
Finished product
 112
 371
 
 483
 

767

1,284



2,051
Due from Altria Group, Inc. and subsidiaries
 3,797
 1,511
 (5,308) 
Income taxes167
 10
 92
 
 269
Other current assets3
 108
 109
 
 220
Total current assets4,691
 4,691
 3,186
 (5,308) 7,260
Property, plant and equipment, at cost
 2,971
 1,864
 
 4,835
Less accumulated depreciation
 2,073
 804
 
 2,877
 
 898
 1,060
 
 1,958
Goodwill
 
 5,285
 
 5,285
Other intangible assets, net
 2
 12,034
 
 12,036
Investment in AB InBev17,852
 
 
 
 17,852
Investment in consolidated subsidiaries11,636
 2,632
 
 (14,268) 
Finance assets, net
 
 1,028
 
 1,028
Due from Altria Group, Inc. and subsidiaries4,790
 
 
 (4,790) 
Other assets18
 1,748
 131
 (1,384) 513
Total Assets$38,987
 $9,971
 $22,724
 $(25,750) $45,932


100

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets (Continued)
(in millions of dollars)
____________________________
at December 31, 2016
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Liabilities         
Accounts payable$1
 $92
 $332
 $
 $425
Accrued liabilities:         
Marketing
 619
 128
 
 747
Employment costs104
 14
 171
 
 289
Settlement charges
 3,696
 5
 
 3,701
Other261
 438
 326
 
 1,025
Dividends payable1,188
 
 
 
 1,188
Due to Altria Group, Inc. and subsidiaries5,030
 237
 41
 (5,308) 
Total current liabilities6,584
 5,096
 1,003
 (5,308) 7,375
Long-term debt13,881
 
 
 
 13,881
Deferred income taxes5,424
 
 4,376
 (1,384) 8,416
Accrued pension costs207
 
 598
 
 805
Accrued postretirement health care costs
 1,453
 764
 
 2,217
Due to Altria Group, Inc. and subsidiaries
 
 4,790
 (4,790) 
Other liabilities121
 146
 160
 
 427
Total liabilities26,217
 6,695
 11,691
 (11,482) 33,121
Contingencies
 
 
 
 
Redeemable noncontrolling interest
 
 38
 
 38
Stockholders’ Equity         
Common stock935
 
 9
 (9) 935
Additional paid-in capital5,893
 3,310
 11,585
 (14,895) 5,893
Earnings reinvested in the business36,906
 237
 1,118
 (1,355) 36,906
Accumulated other comprehensive losses(2,052) (271) (1,720) 1,991
 (2,052)
Cost of repurchased stock(28,912) 
 
 
 (28,912)
Total stockholders’ equity attributable to Altria Group, Inc.12,770
 3,276
 10,992
 (14,268) 12,770
Noncontrolling interests
 
 3
 
 3
Total stockholders’ equity12,770
 3,276
 10,995
 (14,268) 12,773
Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity$38,987
 $9,971
 $22,724
 $(25,750) $45,932




101

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Statements of Earnings and Comprehensive Earnings
(in millions of dollars)
_____________________________
for the year ended December 31, 2017
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Net revenues$
 $21,826
 $3,787
 $(37) $25,576
Cost of sales
 6,414
 1,166
 (37) 7,543
Excise taxes on products
 5,864
 218
 
 6,082
Gross profit
 9,548
 2,403
 
 11,951
Marketing, administration and research costs173
 1,710
 479
 
 2,362
Asset impairment and exit costs
 1
 32
 
 33
Operating (expense) income(173) 7,837
 1,892
 
 9,556
Interest and other debt expense (income), net510
 (20) 215
 
 705
Earnings from equity investment in AB InBev(532) 
 
 
 (532)
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination(445) 
 
 
 (445)
Earnings before income taxes and equity earnings of subsidiaries294
 7,857
 1,677
 
 9,828
(Benefit) provision for income taxes(2,624) 3,127
 (902) 
 (399)
Equity earnings of subsidiaries7,304
 558
 
 (7,862) 
Net earnings10,222
 5,288
 2,579
 (7,862) 10,227
Net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests
 
 (5) 
 (5)
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$10,222
 $5,288
 $2,574
 $(7,862) $10,222
          
          
Net earnings$10,222
 $5,288
 $2,579
 $(7,862) $10,227
Other comprehensive earnings, net of deferred income taxes155
 3
 214
 (217) 155
Comprehensive earnings10,377
 5,291
 2,793
 (8,079) 10,382
Comprehensive earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests
 
 (5) 
 (5)
Comprehensive earnings attributable to
Altria Group, Inc.
$10,377
 $5,291
 $2,788
 $(8,079) $10,377



102

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Statements of Earnings and Comprehensive Earnings
(in millions of dollars)
_____________________________
for the year ended December 31, 2016
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Net revenues$
 $22,146
 $3,633
 $(35) $25,744
Cost of sales
 6,628
 1,153
 (35) 7,746
Excise taxes on products
 6,187
 220
 
 6,407
Gross profit
 9,331
 2,260
 
 11,591
Marketing, administration and research costs165
 1,996
 489
 
 2,650
Asset impairment and exit costs5
 97
 77
 
 179
Operating (expense) income(170) 7,238
 1,694
 
 8,762
Interest and other debt expense, net519
 10
 218
 
 747
Loss on early extinguishment of debt823
 
 
 
 823
Earnings from equity investment in SABMiller(795) 
 
 
 (795)
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination(13,865) 
 
 
 (13,865)
Earnings before income taxes and equity earnings of subsidiaries13,148
 7,228
 1,476
 
 21,852
Provision for income taxes4,453
 2,631
 524
 
 7,608
Equity earnings of subsidiaries5,544
 268
 
 (5,812) 
Net earnings14,239
 4,865
 952
 (5,812) 14,244
Net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests
 
 (5) 
 (5)
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$14,239
 $4,865
 $947
 $(5,812) $14,239
          
          
Net earnings$14,239
 $4,865
 $952
 $(5,812) $14,244
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of deferred
income taxes
1,228
 (16) (28) 44
 1,228
Comprehensive earnings15,467
 4,849
 924
 (5,768) 15,472
Comprehensive earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests
 
 (5) 
 (5)
Comprehensive earnings attributable to
Altria Group, Inc.
$15,467
 $4,849
 $919
 $(5,768) $15,467



103

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Statements of Earnings and Comprehensive Earnings
(in millions of dollars)
_____________________________
for the year ended December 31, 2015
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Net revenues$
 $22,133
 $3,342
 $(41) $25,434
Cost of sales
 6,664
 1,117
 (41) 7,740
Excise taxes on products
 6,369
 211
 
 6,580
Gross profit
 9,100
 2,014
 
 11,114
Marketing, administration and research costs189
 2,094
 425
 
 2,708
Reduction of PMI tax-related receivable41
 
 
 
 41
Asset impairment and exit costs
 
 4
 
 4
Operating (expense) income(230) 7,006
 1,585
 
 8,361
Interest and other debt expense, net560
 33
 224
 
 817
Loss on early extinguishment of debt228
 
 
 
 228
Earnings from equity investment in SABMiller(757) 
 
 
 (757)
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination(5) 
 
 
 (5)
(Loss) earnings before income taxes and equity earnings of subsidiaries(256) 6,973
 1,361
 
 8,078
(Benefit) provision for income taxes(184) 2,536
 483
 
 2,835
Equity earnings of subsidiaries5,313
 268
 
 (5,581) 
Net earnings5,241
 4,705
 878
 (5,581) 5,243
Net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests
 
 (2) 
 (2)
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$5,241
 $4,705
 $876
 $(5,581) $5,241
          
          
Net earnings$5,241
 $4,705
 $878
 $(5,581) $5,243
Other comprehensive (losses) earnings, net of deferred
income taxes
(598) 86
 (69) (17) (598)
Comprehensive earnings4,643
 4,791
 809
 (5,598) 4,645
Comprehensive earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests
 
 (2) 
 (2)
Comprehensive earnings attributable to
Altria Group, Inc.
$4,643
 $4,791
 $807
 $(5,598) $4,643



104

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
(in millions of dollars)
_____________________________


for the year ended December 31, 2017
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Cash Provided by Operating Activities         
Net cash provided by operating activities$6,910
 $4,049
 $841
 $(6,878) $4,922
Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities         
Capital expenditures
 (34) (165) 
 (199)
Acquisitions of businesses and assets
 
 (415) 
 (415)
Proceeds from finance assets
 
 133
 
 133
Payment for derivative financial instruments(5) 
 
 
 (5)
Other
 4
 15
 
 19
Net cash used in investing activities(5) (30) (432) 
 (467)
Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities         
Repurchases of common stock(2,917) 
 
 
 (2,917)
Dividends paid on common stock(4,807) 
 
 
 (4,807)
Changes in amounts due to/from Altria Group, Inc.
and subsidiaries
(2,459) 1,410
 1,049
 
 
Cash dividends paid to parent
 (5,429) (1,449) 6,878
 
Other(40) 
 (7) 
 (47)
Net cash used in financing activities(10,223) (4,019) (407) 6,878
 (7,771)
Cash and cash equivalents:         
(Decrease) increase(3,318) 
 2
 
 (3,316)
Balance at beginning of year4,521
 1
 47
 
 4,569
Balance at end of year$1,203
 $1
 $49
 $
 $1,253




105

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
(in millions of dollars)
_____________________________

for the year ended December 31, 2016
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Cash Provided by Operating Activities         
Net cash provided by operating activities$4,356
 $5,138
 $319
 $(5,992) $3,821
Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities         
Capital expenditures
 (45) (144) 
 (189)
Acquisition of assets
 
 (45) 
 (45)
Proceeds from finance assets
 
 231
 
 231
Proceeds from AB InBev/SABMiller business combination4,773
 
 
 
 4,773
Purchase of AB InBev ordinary shares(1,578) 
 
 
 (1,578)
Payment for derivative financial instrument(3) 
 
 
 (3)
Proceeds from derivative financial instruments510
 
 
 
 510
Other
 
 9
 
 9
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities3,702
 (45) 51
 
 3,708
Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities         
Long-term debt issued1,976
 
 
 
 1,976
Long-term debt repaid(933) 
 
 
 (933)
Repurchases of common stock(1,030) 
 
 
 (1,030)
Dividends paid on common stock(4,512) 
 
 
 (4,512)
Changes in amounts due to/from Altria Group, Inc.
and subsidiaries
(530) (28) 558
 
 
Premiums and fees related to early extinguishment of debt(809) 
 
 
 (809)
Cash dividends paid to parent
 (5,064) (928) 5,992
 
Other(12) 
 (9) 
 (21)
Net cash used in financing activities(5,850) (5,092) (379) 5,992
 (5,329)
Cash and cash equivalents:         
Increase (decrease)2,208
 1
 (9) 
 2,200
Balance at beginning of year2,313
 
 56
 
 2,369
Balance at end of year$4,521
 $1
 $47
 $
 $4,569



106

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
(in millions of dollars)
_____________________________

for the year ended December 31, 2015
Altria
Group, Inc.

 PM USA
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries

 
Total
Consolidating
Adjustments

 Consolidated
Cash Provided by Operating Activities         
Net cash provided by operating activities$5,118
 $5,204
 $961
 $(5,440) $5,843
Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities
 
 
 
  
Capital expenditures
 (51) (178) 
 (229)
Proceeds from finance assets
 
 354
 
 354
Payment for derivative financial instrument(132) 
 
 
 (132)
Other
 10
 (18) 
 (8)
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities(132) (41) 158
 
 (15)
Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities
 
 
 
  
Long-term debt repaid(1,793) 
 
 
 (1,793)
Repurchases of common stock(554) 
 
 
 (554)
Dividends paid on common stock(4,179) 
 
 
 (4,179)
Changes in amounts due to/from Altria Group, Inc.
and subsidiaries
814
 (495) (319) 
 
Premiums and fees related to early extinguishment of debt(226) 
 
 
 (226)
Cash dividends paid to parent
 (4,671) (769) 5,440
 
Other(16) 
 (12) 
 (28)
Net cash used in financing activities(5,954) (5,166) (1,100) 5,440
 (6,780)
Cash and cash equivalents:
 
 
 
  
(Decrease) increase(968) (3) 19
 
 (952)
Balance at beginning of year3,281
 3
 37
 
 3,321
Balance at end of year$2,313
 $
 $56
 $
 $2,369





107

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
_________________________


Note 20. Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
 2017 Quarters
(in millions, except per share data)1st
 2nd
 3rd
 4th
Net revenues$6,083
 $6,663
 $6,729
 $6,101
Gross profit$2,779
 $3,119
 $3,183
 $2,870
Net earnings$1,402
 $1,990
 $1,867
 $4,968
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$1,401
 $1,989
 $1,866
 $4,966
Per share data:
 
 
 
Basic and diluted EPS attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$0.72
 $1.03
 $0.97
 $2.60
        
 2016 Quarters
(in millions, except per share data)1st
 2nd
 3rd
 
4th 

Net revenues$6,066
 $6,521
 $6,905
 $6,252
Gross profit$2,656
 $2,957
 $3,150
 $2,828
Net earnings$1,218
 $1,654
 $1,094
 $10,278
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$1,217
 $1,653
 $1,093
 $10,276
Per share data:
 
 
 
Basic and diluted EPS attributable to Altria Group, Inc.$0.62
 $0.84
 $0.56
 $5.27
During 2017 and 2016, the following pre-tax charges or (gains) were included in net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc.:
 2017 Quarters
(in millions)1st
 2nd
 3rd
 4th
NPM Adjustment Items$(1) $
 $5
 $
Tobacco and health litigation items, including accrued interest1
 17
 
 62
Asset impairment, exit, implementation and acquisition-related costs30
 30
 17
 12
Settlement charge for lump sum pension payments
 
 
 81
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination
 (408) (37) 
AB InBev special items73
 2
 34
 51
 $103
 $(359) $19

$206
        
 2016 Quarters
(in millions)1st
 2nd
 3rd
 
4th 

NPM Adjustment Items$18
 $
 $
 $
Tobacco and health litigation items, including accrued interest38
 5
 45
 17
Patent litigation settlement
 
 
 21
Asset impairment, exit, implementation and acquisition-related costs122
 5
 6
 73
Loss on early extinguishment of debt
 
 823
 
Gain on AB InBev/SABMiller business combination(40) (117) (48) (13,660)
SABMiller special items166
 21
 (40) (236)
 $304
 $(86) $786
 $(13,785)

As discussed in Note 14. Income Taxes, Altria Group, Inc. has recognized income tax benefits and charges in the consolidated statements of earnings during 2017 and 2016 as a result of various tax events, including the impact of the Tax Reform Act in the fourth quarter of 2017.


108


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Altria Group, Inc.:
Opinions on the Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 20172021 and 2016,2020, and the related consolidated statements of earnings (losses), comprehensive earnings (losses), stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017,2021, including the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). We also have audited Altria Group, Inc.’sthe Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017,2021, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)(“COSO”).
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries atthe Company as of December 31, 20172021 and 2016,2020, and the results of theirits operations and theirits cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 20172021 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, Altria Group, Inc.the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017,2021, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the COSO.
Basis for Opinions
Altria Group, Inc.’sThe Company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Report of Management On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on Altria Group, Inc.’sthe Company’s consolidated financial statements and on Altria Group, Inc.’sthe Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (“PCAOB”) and are required to be independent with respect to Altria Group, Inc.the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.
Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Critical Audit Matters
The critical audit matters communicated beloware mattersarising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (i) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to theconsolidated financial statements and (ii) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidatedfinancial statements, taken as a whole,

105

and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matters below, providing separate opinions on the critical audit matters or on the accounts or disclosures to which they relate.
Tobacco and Health Litigation Provisions and Disclosures
As described in Note 18 to the consolidated financial statements, legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions against the Company as well as its respective indemnitees and investees. The Company records provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when management determines that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company’s most significant category of legal proceedings is tobacco and health litigation. The Company’s accrued liability for tobacco and health litigation was $1 million as of December 31, 2021. While it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, except for those cases which have been accrued for: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco and health related 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 tobacco and health related cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any.
The principal considerations for our determination that performing procedures relating to tobacco and health litigation provisions and disclosures is a critical audit matter are (i) the significant judgment by management when determining if a loss for tobacco and health litigation should be recorded in the consolidated financial statements, which in turn led to a high degree of auditor judgment, subjectivity, and effort in performing procedures and evaluating audit evidence related to management’s determination of whether a loss should be recorded; and (ii) the significant judgment by management when disclosing facts and circumstances related to the litigation, which in turn led to a high degree of auditor judgment, subjectivity, and effort in performing procedures related to the disclosures, including evaluating the audit evidence obtained related to management’s disclosures.
Addressing the matter involved performing procedures and evaluating audit evidence in connection with forming our overall opinion on the consolidated financial statements. These procedures included testing the effectiveness of controls relating to management’s loss determination for tobacco and health litigation matters and controls over the related financial statement disclosures. These procedures also included, among others, (i) evaluating the completeness of the Company’s description of tobacco and health litigation matters; (ii) confirming with external and internal legal counsel the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and the extent to which a loss is estimable; (iii) evaluating the reasonableness of management’s determination regarding the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome; and (iv) evaluating the sufficiency of the Company’s tobacco and health litigation disclosures.
JUUL Labs, Inc. (“JUUL”) - Determination of the Fair Value of the Investment
As described in Notes 1, 2, and 6 to the consolidated financial statements, as of December 31, 2021, the Company accounts for its equity method investment in JUUL under the fair value option. The Company’s investment in JUUL was $1.7 billion as of December 31, 2021. Fair value is estimated by management using an income approach, which reflects the discounting of future cash flows for the U.S. and international markets of JUUL’s business. In determining the fair value of the Company’s investment in JUUL, management has made various judgments, estimates and assumptions, the most significant of which were sales volume, operating margins, discount rates and perpetual growth rates. All significant inputs used in the valuation are classified in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Additionally, management has made judgments regarding the: (i) likelihood and extent of various potential regulatory actions and the continued adverse public perception impacting the e-vapor category and specifically JUUL, (ii) risk created by the number and types of legal cases pending against JUUL, (iii) expectations for the future state of the e-vapor category including competitive dynamics and (iv) timing of international expansion plans.
The principal considerations for our determination that performing procedures relating to the determination of the fair value of the investment in JUUL is a critical audit matter are the (i) significant judgment by management when determining the fair value of the investment in JUUL; (ii) a high degree of auditor judgment, subjectivity and effort in performing procedures to evaluate management’s assessment of the risk created by the number and types of legal cases pending against JUUL, the timing of international expansion plans, the reasonableness of the range of scenarios that consider various potential regulatory and market outcomes and evaluating management’s significant assumptions related to sales volume, operating margins, and discount rates; and (iii) the audit effort involved the use of professionals with specialized skill and knowledge.
Addressing the matter involved performing procedures and evaluating audit evidence in connection with forming our overall opinion on the consolidated financial statements. These procedures included testing the effectiveness of controls relating to management’s determination of the fair value of the investment in JUUL, including controls over the significant judgments and assumptions related to sales volume, operating margins, discount rates, the risk created by the number and types of legal cases pending against JUUL and timing of international expansion plans. These procedures also included, among others, (i) testing management’s process for determining the fair value estimate; (ii) evaluating the appropriateness of the income approach; (iii) testing the completeness and accuracy of underlying data used in the income approach; (iv) evaluating management’s assessment of the risk created by the number and types of legal cases pending against JUUL; (v) evaluating the reasonableness of the range of scenarios that consider various potential regulatory and market outcomes; (vi) evaluating the reasonableness of the timing of international expansion plans; and (vii) evaluating the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used by management related to sales volume, operating margins, and discount rates.

106

Evaluating management’s assumptions related to sales volume and operating margins involved evaluating whether the judgments and assumptions used by management were reasonable considering (i) the current and past performance of the investee; (ii) the consistency with external market and industry data; and (iii) evidence obtained in other areas of the audit. Professionals with specialized skill and knowledge were used to assist in the evaluation of (i) the Company’s income approach and (ii) the discount rate assumptions.
Impairment Assessment - Investment in Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (“ABI”)
As described in Notes 1, 2, and 6 to the consolidated financial statements, as of December 31, 2021, the Company had an approximate 10.0% ownership interest in ABI with a carrying value of $11.1 billion. Management reviews the Company’s equity investment in ABI, accounted for under the equity method of accounting, for impairment by comparing the fair value of the investment to its carrying value. If the carrying value of the investment exceeds its fair value and the loss in value is other than temporary, the investment is considered impaired and reduced to fair value, and the impairment is recognized in the period identified. The factors used to make the determination regarding temporary impairment include the duration and magnitude of the fair value decline, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee, and the Company’s intent and ability to hold its investment in ABI until recovery. Management concluded that the decline in fair value of its investment in ABI at September 30, 2021 was other than temporary. As a result, the Company recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of $6.2 billion during the third quarter of 2021.
The principal considerations for our determination that performing procedures relating to the impairment assessment for the investment in ABI is a critical audit matter are the significant judgment by management when determining whether the impairment represented a temporary or other than temporary impairment and the period in which to take the impairment charge; this in turn led to a high degree of auditor judgment, subjectivity, and effort in performing procedures and evaluating management’s assessment of the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee, as well as the Company’s intent and ability to hold the investment in ABI until recovery.
Addressing the matter involved performing procedures and evaluating audit evidence in connection with forming our overall opinion on the consolidated financial statements. These procedures included testing the effectiveness of controls relating to management’s impairment assessment for the investment in ABI. These procedures also included, among others, evaluating management’s assessment that the loss in value was temporary or other than temporary, including the reasonableness of management’s assessment of the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee, as well as the Company’s intent and ability to hold the investment in ABI until recovery. Evaluating the reasonableness of management’s assessment related to the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee and the Company’s intent and ability to the hold the investment until recovery involved consideration of whether the factors in the assessment were consistent with (i) the current and past performance of the investee; (ii) external market and industry data; and (iii) evidence obtained in other areas of the audit.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Richmond, Virginia
February 1, 2018

January 27, 2022
We have served as the Company’s auditor since at least 1934, which is when the Company became subject to SEC reporting requirements. We have not determinedbeen able to determine the specific year we began serving as auditor of the Company.


107


109


Report of Management On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
 
Management of Altria Group, Inc. is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Internal control over financial reporting includes those written policies and procedures that:
npertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of Altria Group, Inc.;
nprovide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America;
nprovide reasonable assurance that receipts and expenditures of Altria Group, Inc. are being made only in accordance with the authorization of management and directors of Altria Group, Inc.; and
nprovide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of assets that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.
Internal control over financial reporting includes the controls themselves, monitoring and internal auditing practices and actions taken to correct deficiencies as identified.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessed the effectiveness of Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017.2021. Management based this assessment on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting described in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)(“COSO”). Management’s assessment included an evaluation of the design of Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting. Management reviewed the results of its assessment with the Audit Committee of ourAltria Group, Inc.’s Board of Directors.
Based on this assessment, management determined that, as of December 31, 2017,2021, Altria Group, Inc. maintained effective internal control over financial reporting.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, who audited and reported on the consolidated financial statements of Altria Group, Inc. included in this report, has audited the effectiveness of Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017,2021, as stated in their report herein.


February 1, 2018January 27, 2022









108


110


Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.Disclosure.
None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.Procedures.
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Altria Group, Inc. carried out an evaluation, with the participation of Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s management, including Altria Group, Inc.’sits Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of Altria Group, Inc.’sits disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Based upon that evaluation, Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded
that Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.
There have been no changes in Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s internal control over financial reporting during the most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, Altria Group, Inc.’sits internal control over financial reporting.
The Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm and the Report of Management on Internal Control over Financial Reporting are included in Item 8.
Item 9B. Other Information.Information.
 None.


Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections.
Not applicable.
Part III
Except for the information relating to the executive officers set forth in Item 10, the information called for by Items 10-14 is hereby incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s definitive proxy statement for use in connection with its Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 17, 201819, 2022 that willis expected to be filed with the SEC on or about April 5, 20187, 2022 (the “proxy statement”), and, except as indicated therein, made a part hereof.

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Refer to “Proposals Requiring Your Vote“Board and Governance Matters - Proposal 1 - Election of Directors,” “Ownership of Equity Securities of Altria - Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance”Directors” and “Board and Governance Matters - Committees of Our Board of Directors”and Committee Governance” sections of the proxy statement.
Information about Our Executive Officers as of February 13, 2018:
15, 2022:
NameOfficeAge
Martin J. BarringtonJody L. BegleyChairman,Executive Vice President and Chief ExecutiveOperating Officer and President6450
Daniel J. BryantVice President and Treasurer4852
Kevin C. Crosthwaite, Jr.Steven D’AmbrosiaPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Philip Morris USA Inc.42
James E. Dillard IIISenior Vice President, Research, Development and Sciences54
Ivan S. FeldmanVice President and Controller5155
Murray R. GarnickExecutive Vice President and General Counsel5862
William F. Gifford, Jr.Chief Executive Officer51
Salvatore MancusoExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer4756
CraigHeather A. JohnsonNewmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Altria Group Distribution Company65
Salvatore MancusoSenior Vice President, Corporate Strategy Planning and Procurement5244
Brian W. QuigleyPresident and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC44
W. Hildebrandt Surgner, Jr.Vice President, Corporate Secretary and Associate General Counsel5256
Charles N. WhitakerSenior Vice President, Chief Human Resources Compliance and Information ServicesOfficer and Chief Compliance Officer51
Howard A. Willard IIIExecutive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer5455
All of the above-mentioned executive officers have been employed by Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries in various capacities during the past five years.
Effective April 25, 2017, Mr. Crosthwaite was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer, Philip Morris USA Inc. Mr. Crosthwaite has been continuously employed by Altria
Group, Inc. subsidiaries in positions across their businesses, including Strategy and Business Development, Brand Management and Sales since 1997.
Effective July 1, 2017, Mr. Garnick was appointed Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Altria Group, Inc. Mr. Garnick previously served as Deputy General Counsel of


111


Altria Client Services LLC and has been continuously employed by Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries since 2008.
Effective August 24, 2017, Mr. Dillard, previously Senior Vice President, Research, Development and Regulatory Affairs of Altria Group, Inc., was appointed Senior Vice President, Research, Development and Sciences of Altria Group, Inc.
Effective January 1, 2018, Mr. Surgner, previously Corporate Secretary and Senior Assistant General Counsel of Altria Group, Inc., was appointed Vice President, Corporate Secretary and Associate General Counsel of Altria Group, Inc.
As previously announced, effective upon the conclusion of the Annual Meeting of Shareholders on May 17, 2018, Mr. Barrington will retire as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President and Mr. Willard will become Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Additionally, Mr. Gifford will become Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, effective upon the conclusion of the Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
Mr. Whitaker’s wife and Mr. Surgner’s wife are first cousins.
Codes of Conduct and Corporate Governance
Altria Group, Inc. has adopted the Altria Code of Conduct for Compliance and Integrity, which complies with requirements set forth in Item 406 of Regulation S-K. This Code of Conduct applies to all of its employees, including its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, and persons performing similar functions. Altria Group, Inc. has also adopted a code of business conduct and ethics that applies to the members of its Board of Directors. These documents are available free of charge on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s website at www.altria.com.

109

Any waiver granted by Altria Group, Inc. to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer or controller under the Code of Conduct, and certain amendments to the Code of Conduct, will be disclosed on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s website at www.altria.com within the time period required by applicable rules.
In addition, Altria Group, Inc. has adopted corporate governance guidelines and charters for its Audit, Compensation and Nominating, Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility Committees and the other committees of the Board of Directors. All of these documents are available free of charge on Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s website at www.altria.com.
The information on the respective websites of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or incorporated into any other filings Altria Group, Inc. makes with the SEC.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.Compensation.
Refer to “Executive Compensation,” “Compensation Committee Matters - Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation,” “Compensation Committee Matters - Compensation Committee Report for the Year Ended December 31, 2017” and “Board and Governance Matters - Directors - Director Compensation” sections of the proxy statement.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.Matters.
The number of shares to be issued upon exercise or vesting and the number of shares remaining available for future issuance under Altria Group, Inc.’sAltria’s equity compensation plans at December 31, 2017,2021, were as follows:
Number of Shares
to be Issued upon
Exercise of 
Outstanding
Options and Vesting of
Deferred Stock
(a) 
Weighted Average
Exercise Price of
Outstanding 
Options
(b) 
Number of Shares
Remaining Available for
Future Issuance Under Equity 
Compensation 
Plans
(c) 
Equity compensation plans approved by shareholders (1)
2,606,482 3,423,375 (2)
$—
39,082,184 24,162,544 (3)
(1)
(1)The following plans have been approved by Altria shareholders and have shares referenced in column (a) or column (c): the 2015 Performance Incentive Plan, the 2020 Performance Incentive Plan and the 2015 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors.
(2)Represents 2,702,462 shares of restricted stock units and 720,913 shares that may be issued upon vesting of performance stock units if maximum performance measures are achieved.
(3)Includes 23,459,288 shares available under the 2020 Performance Incentive Plan and 703,256 shares available under the 2015 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, and excludes shares reflected in column (a).
The following plans have been approved by Altria Group, Inc. shareholders and have shares referenced in column (a) or column (c): the 2010 Performance Incentive Plan, the 2015 Performance Incentive Plan and the 2015 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors.
(2)
Represents 2,384,501shares of restricted stock units and 221,981 shares that may be issued upon vesting of performance stock units if maximum performance measures are achieved.
(3)
Includes 38,161,242 shares available under the 2015 Performance Incentive Plan and 920,942 shares available under the 2015 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, and excludes shares reflected in column (a).
Refer to “Ownership of Equity Securities of Altria - Directors and Executive Officers” and “Ownership of Equity Securities of Altria - Certain Other Beneficial Owners” sections of the proxy statement.



112


Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.Independence.
Refer to “Related Person Transactions and Code of Conduct” and “Board and Governance Matters - Altria Board of Directors - Director Independence Determinations” sections of the proxy statement.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.Services.
Refer to “Audit Committee Matters - Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm’s Fees” and “Audit Committee Matters - Pre-Approval Policy” sections of the proxy statement.

110

Part IV
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.Schedules.
(a) Index to Consolidated Financial Statements
Page
Page
Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 20172021 and 20162020
Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Losses) for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 20152019
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Earnings (Losses) for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 20152019
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 20152019
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit) for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162021, 2020 and 20152019
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (PCAOB ID 238)
Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Schedules have been omitted either because such schedules are not required or are not applicable.

In accordance with Regulation S-X Rule 3-09, the audited financial statements of AB InBevABI for the year ended December 31, 20172021 will be filed by amendment within six months after AB InBev’sABI’s year ended December 31, 2017.2021.

(b) The following exhibits are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:


113



111

4.1
4.2Indenture between Altria Group, Inc. and The Bank of New York (as successor in interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank, formerly known as The Chase Manhattan Bank), as Trustee, dated as of December 2, 1996. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Registration Statement on Form S-3/A filed on January 29, 1998 (No. 333-35143).
4.24.3
4.34.4
4.44.5

4.54.6
4.7
4.64.8
4.7The Registrant agrees to furnish copies of any instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of the Registrant and its consolidated subsidiaries that does not exceed 10 percent of the total assets of the Registrant and its consolidated subsidiaries to the Commission upon request.
10.1Comprehensive Settlement Agreement and Release related to settlement of Mississippi health care cost recovery action, dated as of October 17, 1997. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 (File No. 1-08940).
10.2Settlement Agreement related to settlement of Florida health care cost recovery action, dated August 25, 1997. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 3, 1997 (File No. 1-08940).
10.3Comprehensive Settlement Agreement and Release related to settlement of Texas health care cost recovery action, dated as of January 16, 1998. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 28, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).
10.4Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment regarding the claims of the State of Minnesota, dated as of May 8, 1998. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).
10.5Settlement Agreement and Release regarding the claims of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, dated as of May 8, 1998. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).
10.6Stipulation of Amendment to Settlement Agreement and For Entry of Agreed Order regarding the settlement of the Mississippi health care cost recovery action, dated as of July 2, 1998. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).


114


10.7Stipulation of Amendment to Settlement Agreement and For Entry of Consent Decree regarding the settlement of the Texas health care cost recovery action, dated as of July 24, 1998. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).
10.8Stipulation of Amendment to Settlement Agreement and For Entry of Consent Decree regarding the settlement of the Florida health care cost recovery action, dated as of September 11, 1998. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).
10.9Master Settlement Agreement relating to state health care cost recovery and other claims, dated as of November 23, 1998. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 25, 1998, as amended by Form 8-K/A filed on December 24, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).

112

10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.1510.13
10.16
10.17
10.1810.14
10.1910.15
10.2010.16

10.2110.17
10.18Form of Employee Grantor Trust Enrollment Agreement. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995 (File No. 1-08940).*
10.22


115


10.19
10.23Automobile Policy. Incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 (File No. 1-08940).*
10.24
10.25
10.2610.20
10.2710.21
10.2810.22
10.29
10.3010.23
10.24
10.3110.25
10.32
10.33
10.3410.26
10.35
10.36
10.3710.27
10.3810.28
10.3910.29

113

10.30
10.31
10.32
10.33
10.4010.34
10.35
10.36
12


116


2110.37
21
2322
23
24
31.1
31.2
32.1
32.2
99.1
99.2
99.3101.INSInteractive Data File because its XBRL tags are embedded within the Inline XBRL document.
101.INS101.SCH XBRL Instance Document.
101.SCHInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema.
101.CALInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase.
101.DEFInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase.
101.LABInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase.
101.PREInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase.
104Cover Page Interactive Data File (formatted as inline XBRL and contained in Exhibit 101).

* Denotes management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement in which directors or executive officers are eligible to participate.

Item 16. Form 10-K Summary.Summary.
None.

114


117



SIGNATURES


 
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
 
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.
By:/s/ MARTIN J. BARRINGTONWILLIAM F. GIFFORD, JR.
��
(Martin J. Barrington
Chairman, William F. Gifford, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer and President)
Officer)
 
Date: February 27, 201825, 2022
 
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated:

Signature
 
Title
 
Date
 
/s/ MARTIN J. BARRINGTON
    (Martin J. Barrington)
Director, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentFebruary 27, 2018
/s/ WILLIAM F. GIFFORD, JR.
    (William F. Gifford, Jr.)
Director and Chief Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
February 27, 201825, 2022
/s/ IVAN S. FELDMANSALVATORE MANCUSO
    (Ivan S. Feldman)(Salvatore Mancuso)
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 25, 2022
/s/ STEVEN D’AMBROSIA
    (Steven D’Ambrosia)
Vice President and ControllerFebruary 27, 201825, 2022
 * GERALD L. BALILES,
JOHN T. CASTEEN III,

MARJORIE M. CONNELLY,
R. MATT DAVIS,
DINYAR S. DEVITRE,
THOMAS F. FARRELL II,

DEBRA J. KELLY-ENNIS,

W. LEO KIELY III,

KATHRYN B. MCQUADE,

GEORGE MUÑOZ,
MARK E. NEWMAN,

NABIL Y. SAKKAB,

VIRGINIA E. SHANKS,
HOWARD A. WILLARD III

ELLEN R. STRAHLMAN
Directors
*By:
/s/ MARTIN J. BARRINGTONWILLIAM F. GIFFORD, JR.
(MARTIN J. BARRINGTONWILLIAM F. GIFFORD, JR.
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT)
February 27, 201825, 2022







118115