4 ms·

In the IRS's eyes, you destroyed an item that had value. Its value was whatever someone was willing to pay for it. Say $30M. If you destroyed it, that was your

In the IRS's eyes, you destroyed an item that had value. Its value was whatever someone was willing to pay for it. Say $30M. If you destroyed it, that was your choice, but you didn't thereby incur a loss of $30M. Any more than if you had dynamited your HQ building.

gruez 3y ago
>If you destroyed it, that was your choice, but you didn't thereby incur a loss of $30M. Any more than if you had dynamited your HQ building. Where's the line between "dynamited your HQ building" and "investing money into FTX"? Both are intentional activities that leads to total loss of value, but I think most people would agree that the latter is tax deductible.
- antasvara 3y ago
  Did your investment of money in FTX cause it to fail? Because that's what destroying a building is: an intentional choice by a company to destroy an asset that it owns.
  - gruez 3y ago
    What about "destroying all copies of the movie except one, then moving that onto a sd card you got off aliexpress"? Sure, that's a pretty dumb thing to do, but arguably so was investing into FTX.
    - antasvara 3y ago
      There are legal definitions of negligence. IANAL, but I'd imagine that what you're describing would meet those definitions. Investment decisions aren't as easy to diagnose because there's a chance of upside. If FTX didn't end up as a scam, you stand to gain a LOT of money. The same can't be said of putting your only copy of a movie on a crappy SD card. In addition, you could make the argument that the chances of FTX being a scam were priced in. That is, you're buying stock that accounts for the scam chances.
tpmoney 3y ago
That's not how this works though, right? They're not saying "we think this movie was worth $100 million because that's what someone offered us, so we're going to write off $100 million.", they're saying "We spent $100 million on making this, and we think there's no way to recoup the expenses by releasing it, so we're writing off the $100 million we already spent on it." The "we already spent that money" is the key part here. If you're running "Loot Boxes Unlimited" and your business is taking off like a rocket and you invest $300 million in a new HQ, and then just as your finishing up, congress passes a law making loot boxes illegal and you're no longer going to be able to afford moving into that new HQ, you get to write off those expenses just the same. You must offset them by any gains you get from any part of it you do sell off, but you're under no obligation to sell the building, you can just keep it on the books depreciating slowly. Most companies will try to sell what they can to recoup some of those losses, because recouping any of the loss tends to be a better financial option than the write off for that same amount. But selling a building doesn't have the same legal and contractual entanglements that selling a movie might have. Additionally a building is still useful even if you can't use it for what it was originally intended for. But who is going to buy a movie they can't release? You'd need some company with enough money to buy a produced movie (even if at a discount) who also thinks they could release it and make enough money on it to cover their costs AND who will also be willing to take on all the contractual obligations like licensing and residuals. And chances are in addition to all of that, they also have to be willing to license the various properties that the movie studio already owns (or worse, re-negotiate the rights from the original holders that the studio had already previously negotiated). It's also important to remember that those expenses would have been written off whether or not the movie was released. My understanding here is the only difference between releasing and not releasing the movie is whether that write off occurs over 3-5 years, or all in this year
- leni536 3y ago
  If they spent $100M and get an asset out that is worth $30M then they have a loss of $70M. Lighting the $30M shouldn't count as additional loss that they can write off, IMO.
  - dxdm 3y ago
sokoloff 3y ago
If you decide to rebuild your HQ, you may well have to destroy the old one, even if someone would have bought it from you. When a developer buys a property, razes it, and builds a new building there, all those costs and actions are permitted. I find it amusing that a studio, who is almost surely getting professional tax advice with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, is having the legality of the proposed course of action not just questioned but outright confidently asserted as contrary to the law based on an article that’s light on details.
- ambichook 3y ago
  > is having the legality of the proposed course of action not just questioned but outright confidently asserted as contrary to the law based on an article that’s light on details. i'm confused, is the article saying that its illegal, or is it saying that it ought to be illegal? i for one agree with that attitude, or at the very least believe that a studio shouldnt be able to get a tax writeoff for just sending a completed film to the void.
singron 3y ago
The value prior to disposal is irrelevant. The IRS cares about the basis (cost to produce) and that it was disposed at $0.

gruez 3y ago

>If you destroyed it, that was your choice, but you didn't thereby incur a loss of $30M. Any more than if you had dynamited your HQ building. Where's the line between "dynamited your HQ building" and "investing money into FTX"? Both are intentional activities that leads to total loss of value, but I think most people would agree that the latter is tax deductible.

antasvara 3y ago
Did your investment of money in FTX cause it to fail? Because that's what destroying a building is: an intentional choice by a company to destroy an asset that it owns.
- gruez 3y ago
  What about "destroying all copies of the movie except one, then moving that onto a sd card you got off aliexpress"? Sure, that's a pretty dumb thing to do, but arguably so was investing into FTX.
  - antasvara 3y ago
    There are legal definitions of negligence. IANAL, but I'd imagine that what you're describing would meet those definitions. Investment decisions aren't as easy to diagnose because there's a chance of upside. If FTX didn't end up as a scam, you stand to gain a LOT of money. The same can't be said of putting your only copy of a movie on a crappy SD card. In addition, you could make the argument that the chances of FTX being a scam were priced in. That is, you're buying stock that accounts for the scam chances.

tpmoney 3y ago

That's not how this works though, right? They're not saying "we think this movie was worth $100 million because that's what someone offered us, so we're going to write off $100 million.", they're saying "We spent $100 million on making this, and we think there's no way to recoup the expenses by releasing it, so we're writing off the $100 million we already spent on it." The "we already spent that money" is the key part here. If you're running "Loot Boxes Unlimited" and your business is taking off like a rocket and you invest $300 million in a new HQ, and then just as your finishing up, congress passes a law making loot boxes illegal and you're no longer going to be able to afford moving into that new HQ, you get to write off those expenses just the same. You must offset them by any gains you get from any part of it you do sell off, but you're under no obligation to sell the building, you can just keep it on the books depreciating slowly. Most companies will try to sell what they can to recoup some of those losses, because recouping any of the loss tends to be a better financial option than the write off for that same amount. But selling a building doesn't have the same legal and contractual entanglements that selling a movie might have. Additionally a building is still useful even if you can't use it for what it was originally intended for. But who is going to buy a movie they can't release? You'd need some company with enough money to buy a produced movie (even if at a discount) who also thinks they could release it and make enough money on it to cover their costs AND who will also be willing to take on all the contractual obligations like licensing and residuals. And chances are in addition to all of that, they also have to be willing to license the various properties that the movie studio already owns (or worse, re-negotiate the rights from the original holders that the studio had already previously negotiated). It's also important to remember that those expenses would have been written off whether or not the movie was released. My understanding here is the only difference between releasing and not releasing the movie is whether that write off occurs over 3-5 years, or all in this year

leni536 3y ago
If they spent $100M and get an asset out that is worth $30M then they have a loss of $70M. Lighting the $30M shouldn't count as additional loss that they can write off, IMO.
- dxdm 3y ago

sokoloff 3y ago

If you decide to rebuild your HQ, you may well have to destroy the old one, even if someone would have bought it from you. When a developer buys a property, razes it, and builds a new building there, all those costs and actions are permitted. I find it amusing that a studio, who is almost surely getting professional tax advice with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, is having the legality of the proposed course of action not just questioned but outright confidently asserted as contrary to the law based on an article that’s light on details.

ambichook 3y ago
> is having the legality of the proposed course of action not just questioned but outright confidently asserted as contrary to the law based on an article that’s light on details. i'm confused, is the article saying that its illegal, or is it saying that it ought to be illegal? i for one agree with that attitude, or at the very least believe that a studio shouldnt be able to get a tax writeoff for just sending a completed film to the void.

singron 3y ago

The value prior to disposal is irrelevant. The IRS cares about the basis (cost to produce) and that it was disposed at $0.