Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

New Federal Tax Act Gives New Life, and Twists, to Treatment of Film, TV and Stage Productions

By Thomas D. Selz and Bernard C. Topper Jr.
March 01, 2018

Section 181 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) was first introduced in 2004 and, with some gaps in time, lasted through its expiration at the end of 2016. It has provided benefits to both producers of movies and television programs (and, for a shorter period of time, to producers of live stage productions) and — under pass-through legal structures such as limited liability companies — to their investors. Now, with the enactment at the end of 2017 of the sweeping new federal tax law, commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Jobs Act), §181 has been given new life, with a couple of additional benefits and a couple of additional twists.

First: When can the deduction for production costs be taken? Under §181, prior to the Jobs Act, production costs incurred during a year could be deducted for such year if the costs were incurred with a reasonable certainty that the production would be completed (as a practical matter, the year in which funds for the budgeted costs had been fully raised and were beginning to be spent on production costs). That meant that unlike income forecast depreciation (the alternative in effect prior to §181's enactment), costs could be deducted even before a film was released, a television show broadcast or a live stage production had it first paid public performance.

Of course, if a project was not yet in release in the year in which production costs were incurred, there would not yet be revenue to report to take advantage of the deduction for cost of production. In that case, the production costs would produce a loss that could be carried forward and used to offset income when revenue started to come in or, alternatively, investors in a pass-through entity such as an LLC that owned the copyright to the project could take immediate advantage of the loss as a deduction against other qualifying passive income (subject to applicable limitations).  And if the deduction for costs of production were not fully used against other qualifying passive income, then it could be used to offset project income when the revenue comes in.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.