Steuerbehörde fordert 702 Millionen von Michael Jackson

[geli2709]

Aber was Du gerade schreibst impliziert doch, dass Du meinst das die IRS im Recht ist, sprich die 200 Mio. Strafe zu Recht gefordert werden. Bis Du Dir sicher, dass die am Ende des Rechtsstreites noch Bestand haben werden?

Nein, mein Geschriebenes impliziert nicht, dass ich der Meinung wäre, die IRS sei vollkommen im Recht !
Ich schrieb: Der wahre Wert wird irgendwo in der Mitte liegen, schätze ich.

Woher sollte ich diese Sicherheit nehmen ?!

Man kann nur hoffen, das dieser Rechtsstreit ohne (größeren) Schaden für die Erben beigelegt/bereinigt werden kann !

[rip.michael]

In Anbetracht dessen aber, dass die Behörde wegen grober Fehlangaben allein ca. 200 Mill. Strafe fordert und die
ganze Geschichte Michael's Erben, nämlich seinen Kindern und seiner Mutter auf die Füße fällt, hätte ich mir an dieser Stelle wirklich mehr Kompetenz der Vermögensverwalter gewünscht.

Fordern kann die finanzbehörde augenblicklich viel ... ist ja noch gar nicht raus, ob das Estate tatsächlich fehlerhafte angaben machte und wenn ja, welchen umfang das einnimmt.

Das tauziehen geht wohl noch eine weile so ...

Irrtum! Michaels kinder und seiner mutter wird wegen der steuerforderung gar nix vor die füsse fallen @geli!
Wie immer auch diese nachlasssteuerforderung ausgehen wird, das Estate haftet für deren begleichung.
Das kann nicht so einfach auf MJs kinder/mutter abgewälzt werden .. irgendwann.

Die nachlasssteuererhebung geht vom ungeteilten nachlass aus, mit allem was er eben umfasst zum todestag des erblassers.
Insofern lässt sich die künftige summe des nachlasses derzeit noch gar nicht exakt beziffern ... erst muss mal die +/- rechnung vollständig abgeschlossen sein ... und zum 'minus' gehört die ausstehende steuerforderung.

[geli2709]

Auf der Seite der Gerichtspapiere steht noch folgendes unter MEHR:


IRS VS JOHN BRANCA, JOHN McCLAIN-
Petition for redetermination of the deficiencies
of Estate Tax

Veröffentlicht vonTeamMichael


What's Michael Jackson's image worth? A $434 million question for the IRS

Michael Jackson’s Bentley Valued at $250,000 by IRS: Taxes

What's a face worth? Or a look? Or a dance move?

When it comes to Michael Jackson, there's a huge difference between how the government values his image and what his family thinks the likeness of the "Man in the Mirror" is worth.

About $434 million to be exact.

There's a big disparity over Jackson's image, as well as his recording legacy. The late singer's estate said the taxable value of his image and likeness was $2,105 — while the IRS says it's more like $434 million. The estate's stake in Jackson's recording assets was valued at $469 million by the IRS, but was not even included in a 2009 estate filing.

The Internal Revenue Service says that the Michael Jackson estate owes $702 million in federal taxes, plus penalties, according to charges the agency brought in U.S. Tax Court.

IRS representatives say the estate has undervalued the late "King of Pop's" assets by hundreds of millions of dollars, amounts they say were not disclosed in a court challenge the estate filed in July, as a response to a bill from the IRS.

Essentially, the estate is saying Jackson's legacy is worth considerably less than the tax agency believes it is.

"Every estate wants to lowball the value of assets," said Alex Raskolnikov, a professor at Columbia Law School, who specializes in tax law. "The amount of tax an estate has to pay is based on the value of the assets."

Raskolnikov told NBCNews.com that there is no magic formula the IRS uses to determine the value of assets. "When there is an audit and a valuation of substantial assets (over $50,000), they will use a panel of experts."

He said, for example, if artwork is involved, the tax authorities will consult the experts in the field to put a value on the assets.

But, when it comes to a likeness or image of a celebrity, as opposed to physical assets, Raskolnikov said, "it is prone to disagreement.

"If they (Jackson estate) do not settle, the IRS will get its experts and the family will get theirs and there will be different valuations."

Then the case will probably go to federal tax court, he said, rather than district court, where taxes would have to be paid in advance.

"Given the valuations, I do not think the family will want to go to district court," Raskolnikov said. In tax court, the estate will not have to pay any taxes or penalties beforehand, and then, only if the court rules in favor of the IRS.

Jackson died on June 25, 2009, which is the date of the estate's tax return, and left his estate to his mother Katherine, his three children and various charities. The filing the estate submitted indicated that his estate was valued at $7 million, for tax purposes. But in May the IRS said that was deficient by $505.1 million, plus penalties of $196.9 million. Tax Court documents indicating the amounts were released Tuesday, said Reuters.

A spokesperson for the Jackson estate disputed the IRS's appraisals, telling Reuters that they were "based on speculative and erroneous assumptions unsupported by the facts or law."

So far, the Jackson estate has paid $100 million in taxes, said the spokesperson.

How much would you pay for a Bentley Arnage driven by pop icon Michael Jackson? The IRS says the car is worth $250,000.

The Internal Revenue Service is seeking more than $700 million in tax penalties from Jackson’s estate, and after a U.S. Tax Court challenge last month from the estate, the government has now released valuations on everything from the car to his business interests and property.

The IRS valued his estate at more than $1.1 billion and said executors significantly undervalued his property, resulting in a tax deficiency of more than $505 million and additions to tax of more than $196 million, Bloomberg BNA reported.

The estate filed a petition July 26 challenging the deficiencies and penalties, and

More info:
Published by: TeamMichael on Sep 02, 2013
Urheberrecht:Attribution Non-commercial

http://de.scribd.com/doc/164886060/IRS-VS-JOHN-BRANCA-JOHN-McCLAIN-Petition-for-redetermination-of-the-deficiencies-of-Estate-Tax

[Lena]

Beispiel Marlon Brando

The Marlon Brando Estate: Publicity Rights as Intangible Assets

An excerpt from The Intangible Assets Handbook

By Weston Anson

Several months after Marlon Brando’s death in the summer of 2004, counsel and executors for his estate sought advice on publicity rights – whether they had value, and, if so, what was the residual value (if any) of the publicity rights of Marlon Brando upon his passing. In the case of individuals, where publicity rights may exist, the reason for the valuation comes directly from the IRC Section 2031, which defines gross estate as the following:

“The value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including to the extent provided in this part the value at the time of his or her death of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated.”
[1]

Therefore, the core task was to determine an appropriate method to estimate the fair market value of the intangible assets known as publicity rights, for the estate of Marlon Brando at the time of his death in July 2004, and then apply the appropriate methodology to establish a fair market value as of that date. In selecting a methodology, we considered the four most accepted methods – income, market, relief from royalty, and cost. In the end, we adopted a modified income approach.

One of the challenges was to establish to what extent Brando’s persona would continue to have appeal after his death, and also to determine for how many years there might be a market for use of his likeness. In addition, future income needed to be established, and was done so by looking at past income patterns for various movies, as well as his licensing activities including advertising, spokesperson appearances for companies as diverse as Budweiser Beer, Infinity Automobiles, and Lipton Tea – clearly Brando’s persona was being used in a number of different ways for a variety of different products. (However, it is useful to note that most of these were in one sense or another offbeat usages, typically involving some form of one of his characters as found in “The Godfather” or “On the Waterfront.”) As a superior actor, Brando may have had, at one time, the potential to earn a continuous stream of income by licensing his name, voice and likeness to endorse a broad range of products. However, he rarely exploited this avenue until very late in his life with most activity occurring after 1996, including during his creative decline.

With all of the above in mind, the most appropriate valuation methodology had to be determined. In general, the best method for valuing publicity rights with some history and pattern of use is the Income Approach. The Income Approach is based on future income streams that will be earned by the intangible assets – in this case, the post-death publicity rights of Brando. With the Income Approach, the goal was to establish the three appropriate parameters of value:

1. The type and amount of future income;
2. The remaining useful life/duration of that income stream; and
3. The risk or discount rate to be applied to that income stream.

The establishment of publicity right values is also difficult with actors and performers because often a contract to use their persona has both a performance component and a publicity component to it. In general, performance values, which are typically calculated for any commercial use, are paid only to a person who is living. Thus, after death, any use of the Brando voice, likeness or image would be fully attributable only to publicity value and not to performance value.

In order to get future potential income, we looked at historical activity by Mr. Brando. He did not engage in a great deal of commercialization of his celebrity status at either the beginning or peak of his career. However, in his later years, he did begin to license his name and likeness. In fact, from the years 1997 to 2003, Brando received 15 different contract offers to use his name, likeness or voice in advertisements and/or commercial products. However, he chose to accept only six of those contracts and this ratio was important to our calculations as future potential income is based on that same ratio of acceptance. In Exhibit VI-8, each of the 15 offers is identified by name, the year the offer was presented, the venue, and type of use is also identified. Importantly, we also identify those offers that were accepted in order to calculate future value, given the span of time during which the offers were received (and given the future span of time during the remaining useful life of the publicity) a time adjustment to the dollar value must be made. In Exhibit VI-8, the fifth column provides that adjustment.

As Exhibit VI-8 illustrates, the total value of all the contracts offered to Brando during that six-year period (1997 – 2003) was approximately $4.3 million as measured in July 2004 dollars. However, he only accepted $2.7 million of those contracts or approximately 62%. In addition, it is noteworthy that the fees of contracts that were accepted split almost equally between performance fees and publicity fees; put another way, the value of the publicity rights portion as a result of these 15 contracts is 30% of the total (30% x $4.3 million = $1.3 million). This then was the historical amount of income received by Brando and the 30% ratio of publicity fees is used in our final valuation calculations as we projected future income. Therefore, the expected amount or value of Brando’s future publicity rights that will accrue to the estate will be 30% of the value of all the offers expected to be received over the estimated remaining life of the publicity rights.

MARLON BRANDO ESTATE CONTRACT OFFERS ACCEPTED

As to the remaining useful life for the publicity rights and appropriate discount rates, both were estimated based on observation of market conditions. In the case of remaining life, over time the roles that Brando was most associated with, such as the characters he portrayed in “The Godfather” or “On the Waterfront,” became part of common pop culture and are no longer identified with Brando the persona. As a consequence, the need for the use of his name, voice, and likeness will decline over time. It was estimated that the remaining life of his publicity rights was no more than 10 years. Beyond that point in time, any further projection of income would be too uncertain to even be considered in the valuation period. The discount rate used was relatively easy to develop using a risk-free rate of 4.5%, a risk premium of 7.5% for the intermediate horizon return on investment, and a small industry risk premium to reflect the uncertainty of the advertising and promotion business. In sum, the cost of capital was determined to be 14.75%, and this was the discount rate applied to the future income from rights of publicity.

Given the findings in Exhibit VI-8, which show that, on average, Brando had been receiving offers for use of his publicity rights of just under $200,000 per year; given a 10 year remaining life; and given a discount rate of 14.75%, it was determined that the value of his future publicity rights was $1.3 million.

This case study is intended to illustrate two things. First, intangible assets can take many forms such as publicity rights, and in the case of individuals (and some commercial entities), the value of that person’s or entity’s intangible assets can survive beyond the death or demise of said individual/entity. Second, this case study illustrates that even with uncertain events in the future such as publicity rights, a fair amount of certainty can be brought to the valuation of the assets by using carefully reasoned assumptions as to future activity, remaining life, and discount rates.


http://www.consor.com/intellectual-p...ase-study.html

[Brigitte 58]

Können Branca und Co. eigentlich irgendwie haftbar gemacht werden?
oder wird es komplett weitergegeben, an die, die für sie arbeiten.
ich denke, es kostet doch sicher einen haufen geld. und es sind doch sicherlich einige unternehmen,
die helfen.
gibt es da auch eine aufstellung, was diese für ihre dienste erhalten?

[rip.michael]

Branca und Co. - ich gehe davon aus, du meinst damit die nachlassverwalter?
Klar können die haftbar gemacht werden i.s.v. die aufgaben als nachlassverwalter ausfüllen, wie es ihnen obliegt.
Klar wird es unternehmen geben, die ihnen zuarbeiten ... so wie jetzt z.b. das expertenteam, welches das nachlassvermögen begutachtet.
Letztlich ist es aber das MJ Estate, vertreten die beiden nachlassverwalter, welche die unterschrift unter die steuererklärung setzen und MJEstate haftbar ist für die steuerschulden.

John Branca wird wohl kaum seine persönliche börse aufmachen müssen .. ... wohl kaum, also in dem sinn, dass er auch mit seinem privatvermögen für die nachlasssteuerschuld haftet ... ... wäre höchst unwahrscheinlich.
Die steuerschuld geht ab vom der gesamtheit des ungeteilten nachlasses ...
Ich würd' mich sehr wundern, wenn's anders wäre ...

[Brigitte 58]

danke schön für deine antwort.
es ging mir gerade so durch den kopf.
außerdem würde es mich interessieren, welche kosten durch diese zuarbeiten entstehen.
ich habe mal einen bericht gelesen, da ging es um enorme summen.

ferner frage ich mich, ob wirklich alle besitze von Michael gefunden wurden.

[Brigitte 58]

ichael Jackson dürfte sich bei der Nachricht im Grabe umdrehen: Die amerikanische Steuerbehörde ist dem im Juni 2009 mit 50 Jahren verstorbenen einstigen "King of Pop"auch heute noch auf den Fersen. Jetzt berichtet die "Los Angeles Times", dass die Nachlassverwalter von Jackson der IRS (Internal Revenue Service) satte 700 Millionen Dollar nachzahlen müssen.
In Dokumenten, die der amerikanischen Steuerbehörde in Washington vorlägen, hätten die Nachlass-Verwalter das Netto-Vermögen von Jackson beim Tod des Popstars auf rund sieben Millionen Dollar geschätzt, heißt es. Die US-Steuerbehörde hingegen habe das Vermögen auf 1,1 Milliarden Dollar angelegt. Die schier unglaubliche Diskrepanz habe die Steuerfahndung misstrauisch gemacht.
Die IRS sei der Ansicht, Jacksons letzte Steuererklärung war voller Fehler, was eine 20-prozentige Strafzahlung rechtfertige, schreibt die Zeitung.
Rechte an Beatles-Hits keinen Dollar wert?

In dem Disput mit der Steuerbehörde geht es laut "Los Angeles Times" in erster Linie darum, wie viel Jacksons Image und die Rechte an seinen eigenen Liedern wert sind. Zudem gehe es um den Wert von Songs aus einem Beatles-Katalog, den Jackson vor seinem Tod erstanden hatte. Der "King of Pop" war demnach intellektueller Eigentümer von Liedern wie "Yesterday", "St. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band" und "Get Back".
Im Steuerbescheid vom Jackson-Nachlass sei der Wert des Katalogs mit 0 Dollar angegeben. Die IRS jedoch habe seinen Wert auf 469 Millionen Dollar geschätzt. Ein Steuerberater hatte im Prozess gegen Jacksons Arzt Conrad Murray ausgesagt, dass der Musiker einen Kredit in Höhe von 320 Millionen Dollar aufgenommen hatte - mit dem Katalog als Sicherheit.
Unter dem Strich scheint die US-Steuerbehörde einen Steuerbetrug im Hause Jackson zu wittern und verlangt jetzt offenbar 500 Millionen Dollar Nachzahlung. Dazu käme dann noch eine Geldstrafe von knapp 200 Millionen Dollar.
Die umstrittenen Nachlassverwalter John Branca und John McClain müssen jetzt wohl vor Gericht erscheinen und den Steuerbescheid vom Jackson-Nachlass erklären. Besonders interessant dürfte sein, wie die Wächter des Jackson-Erbes erklären wollen, dass der Beatles-und Michael-Jackson-Songkatalog keinen einzigen Cent wert sein soll - und demnach auch mit keiner Steuer belegt werden müsse.
http://www.stern.de/lifestyle/michae...e-2088921.html

[Lena]

Oh mei, nimm ein paar engl. Artikel und füge noch ein paar Fehler hinzu und übersezte das ganze, dann entsteht so ein Artikel wie der der Stern ihn fabriziert hat. Und das Ganze nennen wir dann Journalismus.
Aber kennen wir ja schon.
____________________

Scheint so, dass das Ganze seit August letzten Jahres noch nicht weiter voran ging. Damals reichte der Estate bereits die Klage gegen die IRS ein nach deren Forderung ein.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/DocketDisplay.aspx?DocketNo=13017152

So as far as I can see there hasn't been any movement since August while Estate filed the lawsuit and IRS filed the reply.

Zitat aus einem Artikel
"The IRS claims that Mr. Jackson’s estate owes a whopping $505.1 million in estate taxes, plus $196.9 million in penalties.[2] Fortunately for the estate, the penalties are based on the taxes due. If the tax charge is struck down, the penalties should go with it."
Kurz: Eine angeforderte Strafzahlung fällt weg, wenn die tats. Zahlung an die IRS später deutlich reduziert werden sollte.

Bzgl. der Haftbarmachung dürfte klar sein, dass eine ermittelter Steuerhinterziehungsversuch strafbar ist. Sollte die von den Verwaltern in Aufrag gegeben worden sein, würden sie sich strafbar gemacht haben. Dies wäre z.b. der Fall, wenn man genau weiß der Verstorbene bestitzt das und das, weil ich aber Steuern sparen will, gebe ich das einfach mal nicht an.
Völlig legal ist es aber, wenn man ihm Rahmen der Gesetze versucht für das Erbe steuern zu sparen, die vorhandenen Steuergesetze zum größt möglichen Vorteil für das Erbe anwendet.

Für welche Methode werden sich wohl die Verwalter entschieden haben als sie die Expertenaufträge erteilt haben, die die Bemessung der Steuerwerte (hierzu erfolgte eine Ausschreibung) vorgenommen haben und bzw. nach der 700 Mio. Forderung der IRS im August 2013 eine Rechtsanwaltskanzlei eingeschaltet haben, spezialisiert auf Steuerrecht um Klage gegen die IRS einzureichen.

Mir fällt die Antwort nicht schwer.

[geli2709]

Hier ist ein Fachartikel zu dieser speziellen Thematik:


The Right of Publicity: An Often Overlooked Asset in
Estate Planning

T.J. Hope · thope@srr.com


Fall 2011

Earlier this year, professional basketball star Chris Bosh of the Miami Heat filed a lawsuit against the mother of his child for infringing upon his trademark and publicity rights. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Allison Mathis, who starred in the third season of the VH1 reality television show Basketball Wives, and the producer of the show, Shed Media Limited. Bosh accused the two co-defendants of exploiting his name and likeness for commercial gain without his consent and argued that the show could confuse the general public into believing that he sanctioned and endorsed Basketball Wives (which, despite its title, primarily features women who are dating, have dated, or have previously been married to such players). Specifically, the suit declared that the portrayal of NBA players is “the very sum and substance of the show,” and that the show does not attempt to express anything “other than … to profit from (Bosh’s) fame”.1 In filing the case, Bosh asked for an injunction preventing the use of his name or image, disgorgement of profits, and further damages. Bosh is not the first professional basketball player to take action against an individual appearing on the reality show. Last year, Orlando Magic star Dwight Howard sued his ex-girlfriend, Royce Reed, in a Florida court for allegedly violating an order not to discuss their relationship with the media (Howard won a $500,000 judgment in the case). In addition, Shaquille O’Neal threatened his ex-wife, Shaunie O’Neal, with legal action if she mentioned him during her appearance on the show, claiming that confidentiality agreements the two had signed prevented her from doing so.

The Bosh and Howard lawsuits, and others like them that have popped up in recent years, reflect a growing trend – namely, that of famous athletes and celebrities asserting their “right of publicity” to prevent others from commercially exploiting their name, likeness, or image without their prior approval. As discussed herein, the right of publicity has only recently emerged as an important asset that must be considered by estate practitioners when planning or filing for their more well-known clientele.

What Is the Right of Publicity?

In general terms, the right of publicity is the right of an individual to control and choose whether and how their identity is used for commercial purposes; e.g., in an advertisement, promotion of a product or service, or other form of media or communication intended to exploit that person’s likeness for commercial gain. The right of publicity is not protected by federal law – rather, it is a matter of state law. Currently, 31 states recognize the right of publicity, 19 of them via an explicit statute, and 12 others that have recognized the right through common law decisions within their court systems. Not surprisingly, as each state’s laws have developed independently from one another, there are often significant differences in the various states’ application of the right. However, every state that recognizes the right of publicity protects, at a minimum, an individual’s name and either his likeness or picture. New York and California, as home to more celebrities than any other state, receive the greatest amount of interest and attention. The New York statute protects an individual’s “name, portrait, picture, or voice,” while the California statute protects a person’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness.”

As an identifiable and legal form of property, the right of publicity is freely transferable or licensable under any circumstances or commercial conditions that two or more parties may agree upon. The right is also divisible, such that specific components of the right can be assigned while others retained. For instance, someone could hypothetically sell the right of publicity to his name to an individual (or entity), while maintaining the right to control his image and likeness. In addition, if an individual’s right of publicity is infringed upon, they make seek compensatory damages and punitive or exemplary damages in addition to injunctive relief. Stated simply, the right of publicity relates to the business value of the very identity or persona of an individual as a human being, and the commercial damage that may ensue if that identity is used in an unauthorized manner in ways that bring harm to the image and reputation of the individual.

Legally, the right of publicity applies to every individual, and not just those who are famous (or infamous). However, as a practical matter, disputes over the right of publicity usually involve celebrities, since it is their name, image, and likeness that is typically used in advertising and selling products. Since celebrities invest considerable time, energy, and effort in developing and cultivating their public image, the right of publicity recognizes that it would be patently unfair to not compensate that celebrity for using his or her image or likeness to increase the sales, profits, or profile of a product or service.

The right of publicity in the United States was first recognized as a separate and distinct right in the 1953 case Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, in which Judge Jerome Frank coined the phrase “right of publicity” by distinguishing it from the “right of privacy.”2 In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the right of publicity as a separate and distinct commercial tort in the 1977 case Zacchini v. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co.3 Two of the more famous cases involving the right of publicity involved the actress Marilyn Monroe. Upon dying of a drug overdose in 1962, Ms. Monroe left the majority of her estate to her acting coach, Lee Strasberg. When he died 20 years later, Strasberg left the bulk of his estate to his third wife, Anna. Ms. Strasberg subsequently asserted her exclusive right to control Ms. Monroe’s likeness and image in separate cases brought in California and New York, respectively. In each case, Strasberg sued corporations established by the surviving family members of photographers who took photographs of Monroe during her life, including her famous Playboy spread and the publicity photograph for her film The Seven Year Itch, in which Ms. Monroe stands on a New York subway grate wearing a flowing white dress. Ultimately, the courts ruled against Ms. Strasberg in both cases. This outcome led directly to California’s recognition of postmortem publicity rights and New York’s current proposal to do the same (such postmortem rights will be discussed in further detail below).

Other famous individuals who have asserted their rights of publicity in various lawsuits include television personalities Johnny Carson and Vanna White, actors Dustin Hoffman and Woody Allen, singers Bob Marley and James Brown, and boxer Muhammad Ali.

Estate Planning Implications

Up until the landmark 1994 case Estate of Andrews v. United States, the common thinking in the estate planning community was that a decedent’s right of publicity was of no value for the purposes of calculating federal estate taxes due upon death, and therefore need not be reported on the form 706 estate tax return.4 Andrews, however, changed this thinking considerably.

V. C. Andrews was an international bestselling author of paperback novels in the “children in jeopardy” genre. At the time of her death in 1986, there was a signed and executed contract for Andrews to produce two manuscripts that provided $3 million in advanced royalty payments. At first, Andrews’ descendents decided not to use a ghostwriter to fulfill the contract due to fears that an unsuccessful ghostwriting effort would adversely affect sales of her previously published books, thereby reducing the anticipated stream of royalty income. Later, the estate did choose to use a ghostwriter to publish a book under the name V.C. Andrews, which turned out to be an enormous commercial success. Several other ghostwritten books followed, all of which were commercial successes in their own right.

However, when she died, her Estate did not list Andrews’ name as among its assets and, consequently, none of the estate taxes it paid were based on the value of her name. The IRS, though, did not agree with this position. It determined that the name V.C. Andrews, and her likeness, had measurable value based on the prior earnings of the decedent and the contract signed shortly before her death. The Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) defines the value of the gross estate as “the value at the time of … death of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, whatever situated.”5 Under the broad definition in the IRC, the right of publicity qualifies as an intangible property right.

In November 1990, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency, asserting that the Andrews’ name was an asset of the Estate having a value of $1,244,910.84 on the date of death, and thereupon assessed deficient taxes in the amount of $649,201.77. The IRS valuation in this case centered around the known (i.e., already contracted) and potential income from the novels that could be produced and written under Ms. Andrews’ name. The estate subsequently relented and agreed that the right of publicity was a valid asset that should have been included in Ms. Andrews’ estate upon death, but put forth a much lower valuation of the asset in response to the IRS’ notice of deficiency. Ultimately, the court adopted elements of both the IRS’ and the Estate’s valuation in its findings, and concluded upon a value for Andrews’ name at date of death of approximately $700,000.

The Andrews case demonstrated that a descendible right of publicity should be included in a decedent’s gross estate for federal estate tax purposes. Moreover, a celebrity’s estate needs to acknowledge the asset in the estate, or it may not be able to exercise it later. However, doing so can present complications when this right, which is a highly illiquid asset, is the estate’s primary asset and the value equals or exceeds the liquid assets available to pay the corresponding estate taxes. This could lead to the difficult circumstance in which the estate is either forced to use all of its liquid assets to pay the estate tax or – even worse for those estates that do not wish to exploit their postmortem rights of publicity – sell or license the right in order to generate funds to pay the tax. If a celebrity knows that her descendents may not wish to exploit the right of publicity, she may be able to transfer or sell those rights prior to death. Alternatively, the celebrity could make gifts to children and trusts early in his or her career when the value of the right is negligible. Any subsequent appreciation in the value of the right would thus escape the reach of a transfer tax.

Valuation Issues Surrounding the Right of Publicity

Even if the beneficiaries choose not to exploit the celebrity’s right of publicity, descendible property rights to postmortem publicity is an asset that still needs to be valued for federal estate tax purposes at its Fair Market Value at the time of death. The “highest and best use” standard measures the full market potential of an asset regardless of how the descendant will actually use the publicity rights. In valuing such assets, the practitioner should consider the three main approaches to valuation: the Income Approach, the Market Approach, and the Cost Approach. Although there is no best practice for valuing publicity rights, the Income Approach and the Market Approach are the most appropriate methods to estimate the Fair Market Value of publicity rights. The Cost Approach, which relies on the underlying concept that an investor would pay no more for an asset than it would cost to recreate a similar asset from scratch, is generally inappropriate because it would be nearly impossible to calculate the amount “invested” in an individual to establish and support his or her personal brand during his or her lifetime.

The most common method to value a celebrity’s persona involves a combination of the Income Approach and the Market Approach. Under this methodology, the value of a celebrity’s persona is based on the present value of the potential stream of income that could be realized from this right. This is determined by projecting the expected future benefits from the ability to continue to exploit the celebrity’s persona, and discounting these benefits back to their present value at a rate of return that reflects the risk involved in realizing the benefits. These benefits may involve streams of income from both existing contracts, licensing, and sponsorship agreements, as well as anticipated agreements. The latter source of income is far more difficult to estimate as it is both potentially long lasting and subject to changing consumer preferences. Numerous assumptions will need to be made in attempting to project the future benefits, including the amount of income to be expected and the duration of the income. The amount of income will be influenced by the appropriate royalty or licensing rate, which will depend on both the celebrity’s popularity and the particular item involved (e.g., photographs, clothing, reproductions). In many cases, future royalty rates may be estimated based on rates achieved by the celebrity in past deals, or similar agreements achieved by other celebrities. By considering actual royalty rates or comparable rates in the determination of future rates, this latter analysis reflects the application of the Market Approach in the valuation.

Of even further difficulty may be estimating the post-mortem duration of income from the celebrity’s status. Although beyond the scope of this article, this may be accomplished through the use of a “lifing” or “survival” curve, which attempts to estimate the remaining useful economic life of an asset, or the amount of time the asset is expected to survive and continue producing income. To estimate remaining useful life, appraisers often study the lives of similar intangible assets by selecting a population of comparable assets and analyzing the turnover, or “decay,” of these assets over time. For instance, for licensing agreements involving a celebrity’s likeness, the appraiser may look at the pattern of royalty income over time. An illustration of this type of analysis is presented below.

In addition, as we have noted previously, the recognition, application, and protection of the right of publicity varies greatly from state to state. As such, the legal landscape must be considered in making assumptions and estimates for use in the valuation analysis. For instance, the appraiser must consider whether the rights in question are actually descendible in the individual’s state of residence and, if so, how long do they last post-mortem? Not all states recognize a post-mortem right of publicity, and for those that do recognize it, the number of years that post-death rights are recognized varies significantly. Indiana and Oklahoma, for instance, provide recognition of the right of publicity for 100 years following the death of an individual, while Tennessee limits the right to just 10 years. Kentucky, Nevada, and Texas all recognize the right for 50 years post-death, and California for 70 years. New York does not currently recognize a post-mortem right of publicity, although there is legislation pending in the state that would grant such a right.

Finally, it may also be necessary to consider that death may actually cause a surge in an entertainer’s popularity and the associated income from the licensing of their image or likeness. This phenomenon was most clearly illustrated with the estate of Michael Jackson, who received an intense amount of interest (and a large surge in income) following his death.

Summary

A celebrity’s persona and likeness may produce considerable income for the individual both during life and after death. As such, the right to commercially exploit this image can be an extremely valuable asset. In the relatively recent past, it was common practice to ignore this right in determining the value of a decedent’s estate for federal estate tax reporting purposes. However, in the wake of the Andrews decision, estate practitioners must consider the value of this asset, and do what they can to protect the estate from the potentially unwelcome circumstance of needing to use liquid assets to pay taxes on the value of illiquid property or, worse, having to sell or license the property against their will in order to generate cash to satisfy the taxes. Whether it be through the gifting of the right of publicity to beneficiaries before death, or determination of the value of this asset upon death, estate practitioners should consider a well documented and supportable valuation of this right as a critical component of the pre-death estate planning strategy and the post-death federal estate tax reporting requirements of a celebrity client.



1 Bosh v. Shed Media US Inc et. al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 11-3782.
2 Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, 202 F.2d 866 (2nd Cir. 1953)
3 Zacchini v. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 573 (1977)
4 Estate of Andrews v. United States, 850 F. Supp. 1279 (E.D. Va. 1994)
5 IRC Sec. 2031(a).

http://www.srr.com/article/right-of-publicity-an-often-overlooked-asset-in-estate-planning

[Lena]

Intressanter Artikel von einer Anwaltsseite aus 2009, der sich mit mit dem Steuerwert von MJs Publicity-Rechten zum Todeszeitpunkt beschäftigt und dabei die Davie Brown Index (DBI)-Stellungnahme vom 26. Juni 2009 zitiert, der den Score-Wert von 2500 Persönlichkeiten untersucht hat.


July 2, 2009
Michael Jackson Estate: Value of Right of Publicity
http://ipandentertainmentlaw.wordpre...-of-publicity/
By Tamera Bennett
by Tamera H. Bennett
July 2, 2009
I vacillate between the most valuable asset in Michael Jackson’s estate being his 50% interest in the Sony/ATV Tunes, LLC music publishing catalog and his right of publicity.
Estate Tax attorneys are chomping-at-the-bit about the calculation of the value of Michael Jackson’s name and likeness, i.e., his right of publicity. It is possible the actual value for estate tax purposes may exceed the liquid assets of his estate. Under California law, an individual’s right of publicity is descendible and can be transferred by a contract, will or trust. If there is not a specific bequest in the will, then the interest may pass via a residuary clause (Cal. Civil Code Sec. 3344.1(b)).
If the Will of Michael Joseph Jackson that recently surfaced is valid, and there was no previous transfer of his right of publicity, then the interest transfers to the Michael Jackson Family Trust executed on March 22, 2002. If the will is not valid and the right of publicity interest passes intestate, in accordance with California Civil Code Section 3344.1(d)(2), because Michael Jackson died unmarried his interest would pass equally to his three children.
The question looms, what is the value of his right of publicity? For estate tax purposes, the goal will be to comply with the tax laws, but keep the figure as low as possible. For dealing with a third party that wants a license to use his name or likeness the goal is to maximize the right.
Die Frage ist wie hoch ist der Wert von seinen Publictiy-Rechten? Für Steuerzwecke wird es das Ziel sein mit den Steuergesetzen übereinzustimmen, aber die Zahl so niedrig wie möglich zu halten. In the 1980′s the value of Mr. Jackson’s right of publicity had skyrocketed. Who can forget the Pepsi commercials? Reportedly Mr. Jackson received $1.5 for the Pepsi spots.
Additionally, the song in the Pepsi commercial is a derivative of “Billie Jean.” I cannot find confirmation regarding who owns the copyright in the music in the commercial. It is possible that Mr. Jackson was earning public performance songwriter and/or publisher royalties each time the commercial aired.
There was an LA Gear deal that went south and various posters, stickers and molded dolls with custom outfits.
Reportedly a custom clothing line, not for dolls, was scheduled to launch in the Fall of 2009. Depending on the contract that may still occur.
The Marketing Arm’s June 26, 2009 Press Release stated:

According to data from the Davie Brown Index (DBI), which uses consumer surveys to score 2,500 celebrities across various attributes, at the time of his death, Jackson’s trust among U.S. consumers was significantly lower than other iconic musicians, including Elvis Presley, Elton John, and Bruce Springsteen, whose trust scores were as much as 30 points higher than that of Jackson. Data from the DBI indicates that while Jackson is known by a remarkable 99 percent of U.S. consumers, his scores for attributes such as appeal, aspiration, breakthrough, and endorsement are notably lower.

The press release goes on to say the focus moving forward should be on Mr. Jackson’s career successes rather than any legal or personal issues he faced during his life.Could the value for either estate tax purposes or for licensing purposes go down because of past allegations? Recent examples of personal life issues potentially lowering a celebrity’s right of publicity include American Apparel’s attempt to lower the value of Woody Allen’s name and likeness for calculating damages in a lawsuit. Additionally, Olympic Gold Medalist Michael Phelp’s perceived value went down after an unfortunate photograph surfaced.What there is no question about is the right of publicity exists and the family/estate/trust/whoever owns the right should strongly enforce the right and guard the nature and types of licenses issued. “Fair Use” is a defense in right of publicity cases, but it is often very difficult to prove. There will be a lot of unauthorized goods floating around out there.

To some it all up, if the Lego company wants to have a Michael Jackson Lego block constructed look-a-like, they are probably okay so long as there is one or a very limited quantity because they would be protected under free speech. If they plan to mass-produce them in kits….get a license.

[Brigitte 58]

kann man es irgendwie beziffern, welchen wert der ATV-Catalog mittlerweile hat?
mesereau hat sich auch mal dazu geäußert.

[Brigitte 58]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-now-live-michael-jackson-20140211-dto,0,1312968.story#axzz2t4qSvA3R

February 11, 2014, 7:00 p.m.


Join Times staff writer Jeff Gottlieb for a live chat at 12:30 p.m. Wednesday on the battle between Michael Jackson's estate and the Internal Revenue Service.
The agency has told Jackson's executors that the estate owes $505 million in taxes and an additional $197 million in penalties, for a total of more than $702 million.
According to documents filed with the U.S. Tax Court in Washington, Jackson's executors placed his net worth at the time of his June 2009 death at slightly more than $7 million.




PHOTOS: Michael Jackson | 1958-2009
The IRS placed it at $1.125 billion, a difference so vast it looks like a typo.
Jackson's return was so inaccurate, the IRS said, that it qualified for a gross valuation misstatement penalty, which would allow the government to double the usual 20% penalty for underpayment.
"I've never even heard of the gross valuation misstatement penalty being asserted," said Andrew Katzenstein, an estate tax expert at the law firm Proskauer Rose in Los Angeles.
PHOTOS: Behind the gates at Neverland
Most of the dispute is over the value of Jackson's image, along with his interest in a trust that includes the rights to some of his songs and most of the Beatles catalog, including "Yesterday," "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and "Get Back."
The estate valued Jackson's likeness at just $2,105.
The IRS put it at $434.264 million.
Gottlieb, who also covered the the wrongful-death lawsuit the Jackson family filed against AEG, will answer your questions. Readers can join the conversation at 12:30 p.m. and submit questions live or tweet them to @aribloomekatz or the hashtag #lanowlive.




http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...#ixzz2t8qpckUC


es würde mich mal interessieren, wer das angeleiert hat.

[geli2709]

700 Mio. Forderung der Steuerbehörde

12. Februar 2014

Die amerikanische Steuerbehörde fordert über 700 Millionen Dollar vom Michael Jackson Estate. Die IRS (Internal Revenue Service) klagt an, die Nachlassverwaltung von Michael Jackson habe sein Nettovermögen bei seinem Tod mit 7 Millionen Dollar viel zu tief festgelegt. Die Steuerbehörden kommen mit ihren eigenen Berechnungen auf einen Betrag von 1,1 Milliarden Dollar.

Die IRS hat zur Aufgabe, Bundessteuern zu erheben, sowie Steuerstrafsachen zu ermitteln. Mit der Nachzahlung von über 505 Millionen und eine Strafzahlung von rund 197 Millionen Dollar fordert die IRS einen rückwirkenden Ausgleich vom Estate.

Wie die `Los Angeles Times` berichtet, gehe es einerseits um den Wert des Beatles Katalogs, sowie auch um Michaels eigenes Vermögen seiner Songs und seines Images. Demnach habe der Estate den Wert des Beatles Katalog mit 0 Dollar angegeben, die IRS hat den Wert des Katalogs jedoch auf 469 Millionen Dollar angesetzt. Ebenfalls wurde der Wert von Michaels Image vom Estate mit nur 2‘105 Dollar angegeben, die IRS setzt dieses bei über 434 Millionen an.

Es wurde nun offiziell ein Fall gegen den Estate von Michael Jackson eröffnet. Für weitere Informationen stehen euch folgende Links zur Verfügung:

Bericht der `Los Angeles Times` http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-j...#axzz2srNIcSFF und hier
Einsicht in die Originalunterlagenhttp://de.scribd.com/doc/164886060/I...-of-Estate-Tax


Weiterlesen unter http://www.jackson.ch/700-mio-forder...steuerbehorde/
Copyright © jackson.ch

[Memphis]

mesereau hat sich auch mal dazu geäußert.

er äußert sich oft zu dinge über die er nicht immer genau informiert ist (sage ich jetzt mal so).
keine ahnung ob die einschätzung des beatles-katalog stimmt (kenne mich mit den beatles gar nicht aus). die einschätzung von michael jackson image ist spekulativ, da 2009 diese bewertung nicht abzusehen waren (trotz london).