Large Language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing the conversational recommender systems (CRS) through their impressive capabilities in instruction comprehension, reasoning, and human interaction. A core factor underlying effective dialogue is the ability to infer and reason about others' mental states (such as desire, intention, and belief), a cognitive capacity commonly referred to as Theory of Mind (ToM). Despite growing interest in evaluating ToM in LLMs, current benchmarks predominantly rely on synthetic narratives inspired by Sally-Anne test, which emphasize physical perception and fail to capture the complexity of mental state inference in real-world conversational settings. Moreover,existing benchmarks often overlook a critical component of human ToM: behavioral prediction, the ability to use inferred mental states to guide strategic decision-making and select appropriate conversational actions for future interactions. To better align LLM-based ToM evaluation with human-like social reasoning, we propose RecToM, a novel benchmark for evaluating ToM abilities in recommendation dialogues. RecToM focuses on two complementary dimensions: Cognitive Inference and Behavioral Prediction. The former focus on understanding what has been communicated by inferring the underlying mental states, such as intentions, beliefs, and desires of the recommender and the seeker. The latter emphasizes what should be done next, evaluating whether LLMs can leverage these inferred mental states to predict, select, and assess appropriate dialogue strategies. Together, these dimensions enable a comprehensive assessment of ToM reasoning in CRS. Extensive experiments on state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate that RecToM poses a significant challenge. While the models exhibit partial competence in recognizing mental states, they struggle to maintain coherent, strategic ToM reasoning throughout dynamic recommendation dialogues, particularly in tracking evolving intentions and aligning conversational strategies with inferred mental states.