3 ms·

It feels like tax fraud. Given that it is apparently not possible to prove that they deleted the movie, it seems like the IRS should assume that they still hav

It feels like tax fraud. Given that it is apparently not possible to prove that they deleted the movie, it seems like the IRS should assume that they still have the movie. I bought a stock share for $1000. I wanted to sell it for $2000, but no one was willing to pay more than $400, so I decided to tell the IRS that it was worth zero and take the full tax write off (which was tax fraud). On top of that, refusing to release or sell the movie should have triggered a shareholder lawsuit.

gruez 3y ago
> Given that it is apparently not possible to prove that they deleted the movie, it seems like the IRS should assume that they still have the movie. Even if they didn't delete the movie, the fact that they claimed to have deleted the movie and used it as a tax credit basically makes the value $0, because in the unlikely event they have a copy around, they wouldn't be able to sell it without having all of the profits seized from them.
dahart 3y ago
> Given that it is apparently not possible to prove that they deleted the movie Why does it matter if they delete it or not? As long as they don’t sell it, they don’t make a profit on it, and don’t pay taxes on the profits. If they didn’t delete it and then actually sold it after enjoying their tax break, then they’d be committing actual tax fraud. > refusing to release or sell the movie should have triggered a shareholder lawsuit And yet it didn’t. So maybe shareholders are fine with it? Why should shareholders sue when a company doesn’t release a product? This literally happens all the time.