- Days left

Do State Film Tax Credits Benefit Taxpayers ... or Movie Stars?

The highest paid actor in Hollywood last year, according to Forbes magazine, was Johnny Depp, earning an amazing $75 million, significantly more than runners up Ben Stiller and Tom Hanks. Taken as a group, the year's top 10 highest paid actors earned a collective $349 million.

Thousands of miles away, in the relatively affluent state of Massachusetts, the median family income stands at $65,304, roughly 1,150 times less than Depp's take home pay. Why is it, then, that Massachusetts taxpayers are ponying up to support the film industry?Like many others, the Bay State hopes to benefit from big-time movie dollars even as the state's budget is otherwise in disarray. Massachusetts, which is facing a $1.5 billion deficit, offers significant tax breaks to film companies willing to make movies there; the idea is to promote local jobs. A recent report, however, found that a quarter of the costs that qualified for state tax credits in 2009 actually went to payrolls for non-resident actors making more than $1 million.

Since credits are dollar for dollar reductions in the amount of tax due, balancing out that millionaire payroll cost every household in Massachusetts an estimated additional $34.

So does that mean the credit is a bust? Proponents say no, pointing to an increase in movie-making in the state since the credit was signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney in 2005. In 2009 alone, three hugely successful films were shot on location around the state, Golden Globe winners The Fighter and The Social Network -- both notable for their Massachusetts characters -- and The Town, which stars Boston native Ben Affleck. Supporters of the film credit are quick to point out that stars of the films must pay state taxes on income, including residual income, earned from films made in Massachusetts.

As movie production continues to thrive in the state, a move to cap available film credits was defeated last year -- the Massachusetts film office obviously believes there's a sufficient payoff. Meanwhile, a 2009 report by Ernst and Young claims that New Mexico brought in $1.50 in revenue for each dollar of tax credits it offered.

Other states' taxpayers haven't been so eager to embrace existing credits. More than 40 states have film tax credit programs, pumping nearly $2 billion in tax breaks and incentives into the TV and movie industry over the past two years. New York and California have contributed a huge chunk of that, yet both states are facing massive deficits this year. Similarly, film tax credits were recently expanded in the state of North Carolina, which raised taxes on its own residents.

My own state of Pennsylvania is re-examining its film tax credit program -- despite the success of movies like Baby Mama and Marley and Me, the net growth of the industry appears to be less than $5 million. Newly elected Governor Tom Corbett is considering limiting the scope of the credits. In Iowa, the film tax credit has been making news for all the wrong reasons, including criminal charges against former state employees in the industry. Connecticut has reported a loss on each dollar of investment in the industry, while a bipartisan committee in the Michigan senate showed that the state was actually paying film companies that reported a loss on projects.

All this, however, probably doesn't mean states are ready to toss those film credits. Filmmakers have increasingly threatened to leave the U.S. altogether for countries like Canada and New Zealand, which are more than happy to offer tax breaks in exchange for the publicity. The threat of losing business -- even if new business isn't necessarily being created -- is enough to send most states scurrying for ways to preserve the credits. This is especially true for states whose laws require that films be completed before any tax breaks are realized; the dollars will flow into the state before any outlay is required. That's attractive for state legislatures facing current financial woes. But is it enough for individual taxpayers feeling the burden of higher taxes?

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Timing Your Spending

How to pay less by changing when you purchase.

View Course »

Building Credit from Scratch

Start building credit...now.

View Course »

TurboTax Articles

What is IRS Form 8824: Like-Kind Exchange

Ordinarily, when you sell something for more than what you paid to get it, you have a capital gain; when you sell it for less than what you paid, you have a capital loss. Both can affect your taxes. But if you immediately buy a similar property to replace the one you sold, the tax code calls that a "like-kind exchange," and it lets you delay some or all of the tax effects. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses Form 8824 for like-kind exchanges.

What are ABLE Accounts? Tax Benefits Explained

Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts allow the families of disabled young people to set aside money for their care in a way that earns special tax benefits. ABLE accounts work much like the so-called 529 accounts that families can use to save money for education; in fact, an ABLE account is really a special kind of 529.

What is IRS Form 8829: Expenses for Business Use of Your Home

One of the many benefits of working at home is that you can deduct legitimate expenses from your taxes. The downside is that since home office tax deductions are so easily abused, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tends to scrutinize them more closely than other parts of your tax return. However, if you are able to substantiate your home office deductions, you shouldn't be afraid to claim them. IRS Form 8829 helps you determine what you can and cannot claim.

What is IRS Form 8859: Carryforward of D.C. First-Time Homebuyer Credit

Form 8859 is a tax form that will never be used by the majority of taxpayers. However, if you live in the District of Columbia (D.C.), it could be the key to saving thousands of dollars on your taxes. While many first-time home purchasers in D.C. are entitled to a federal tax credit, Form 8859 calculates the amount of carry-forward credit you can use in future years, not the amount of your initial tax credit.

What is IRS Form 8379: Injured Spouse Allocation

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has the power to seize income tax refunds when a taxpayer owes certain debts, such as unpaid taxes or overdue child support. Sometimes, a married couple's joint tax refund will be seized because of a debt for which only one spouse is responsible. When that happens, the other spouse is said to be "injured" and can file Form 8379 to get at least some of the refund.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum