Michael Jackson’s Estate Challenges IRS in Tax Dispute

[myosotis]

I hope that this case won't be an example of 'Justice delayed is justice denied'. It must be difficult to make valuations nearly 8 years after the event, when so much has occurred since.
I well remember most of the press saying of the planned TII concerts: 'If these are successful, it will be the biggest comeback in (music) history' .

Unfortunately the nature of trials is that both sides need to be adversarial, and I hope that the estate will win. It will mean more money for Michael's beneficiaries and more for charity. I'd rather Michael's money was used for humanitarian purposes, than for eg nuclear weapons.

 

[redfrog]

Now wait-where did you hear that? From Tweets? It wasn't in the media reports and if he did say it, you don't know how he said it. He might just be pointing out that there are ongoing allegations that are still hurting the image.

Yes tweets, I said allegedly he said that. I don't find it unlikely that he actually said that.

They wouldn't not fight the allegations because of the IRS-they know if they don't fight those tooth and nail, it's game over. There's no restoring anything. That's why there will never ever be a settlement with Robson, Safechuck and Doe, and they were crazy to even think they would consider one.

I was referring to their passivity in the media. They did nothing to fight the bogus FBI files report, the bogus 200 million payoff report, the bogus child porn report. They not only didn't refute Robson/Safechuck in the media they let all the other smear campaigns go unchallenged.
There is no excuse for that and it looks like they wanted as much dirt on Mj as possible.

 

[HIStoric]

How dare they drag the 93' and 03' allegations into this case? The IRS b@$^@#%$ have gone too far this time.

Could not agree with you more must it always be brought up.

Uhh... part of this whole trial is based around the value of Michael Jackson's image at the time of his death right?

Well two giant, internationally publicised child molestation trials (especially one just a few years before) are going to have an impact on a man's image and should be discussed in such a trial. If anything, it would make less sense to not bring them up.

 

[HIStoric]

I was referring to their passivity in the media. They did nothing to fight the bogus FBI files report, the bogus 200 million payoff report, the bogus child porn report. They not only didn't refute Robson/Safechuck in the media they let all the other smear campaigns go unchallenged.
There is no excuse for that and it looks like they wanted as much dirt on Mj as possible.

It's a tough position because they explained that they didn't want to respond and add fuel to the fire. I get that position and for most times, hell I agree with it, all it would do is bring extra attention to it... but when it hit boiling point last year with those falsified police reports? Something that was evidently having a strong impact on public opinion? They should've responded more often and with something more stronger than what they did, the barrage of news at that time was making much more headlines than most tabloid filth about MJ.

It is likely that in the long term, they kept both the IRS and the Robson trial in mind when choosing to release statements.

 

[barbee0715]

^^i thought they did make a statement about the false police reports and child porn. I know even Zonen made a statement that they were falsified.

They do make statements and CNN debunked that payout story from a few years ago. It just didn't make a lot of traction.

They need to bring up those cases and hit hard with them. They're not saying he did it-they're saying how they destroyed him, his reputation, and his image.
They don't need to bring up drug stuff-nobody cares if musicians are drug addicts and I don't believe Michael was one anyway.

 

[HIStoric]

^^i thought they did make a statement about the false police reports and child porn. I know even Zonen made a statement that they were falsified.

They do make statements and CNN debunked that payout story from a few years ago. It just didn't make a lot of traction.

They need to bring up those cases and hit hard with them. They're not saying he did it-they're saying how they destroyed him, his reputation, and his image.
They don't need to bring up drug stuff-nobody cares if musicians are drug addicts and I don't believe Michael was one anyway.

Yep:
Seven years ago this coming Saturday, the world lost an amazing artist and humanitarian devoted to helping children in need in all corners of the world. Michael Jackson's fans, including the Executors of his estate, prefer to remember the wonderful gifts Michael left behind instead of having to once again see his good name dragged through the mud by tabloid trash.

Everything in these reports, including what the County of Santa Barbara calls "content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources" is false, no doubt timed to the anniversary of Michael's passing. Those who continue to shamelessly exploit Michael via sleazy internet "click bait" ignore that he was acquitted by a jury in 2005 on every one of the 14 salacious charges brought against him in a failed witch hunt.

Michael remains just as innocent of these smears in death as he was in life even though he isn't here to defend himself.
Enough is enough.
The Estate of Michael Jackson

I felt it was too little, too late and I didn't like how they started the statement ('we prefer to remember Michael this way' felt... odd). This was around a time when heaps of stuff was coming out and they didn't do much, this was one of their very few statements. I also remember they issued another statement but to the fan communities as it was in response to a fans letter. They essentially said what I said above about not wanting to reply as it would add fuel to the fire and draw more attention.

 

[8701girl]

All i have to say bout this is... BRANCA DO YOU EVEN CARE BOUT YOUR CLIENT??!!!!!!! CUZ YOU ARE ACTIN LIKE U DONT SMH

 

[redfrog]

IRS is clearly ****ing with MJ's Estate because it's MJ's Estate. Nothing else would explain the extreme numbers they pulled
out of their ass. 164 million conceded? You don't overvalue by that much accidentally.

I wonder about the Estate's original evaluation of these assets and how much taxes and penalties do they have
to pay now based on the settled values. No info about that anywhere.

At the same time the Michael Jackson Estate doesn't know that Don't stop till you get enough was
written and composed by Michael Jackson. :doh:

Thank you Branca for sounding like a National Enquirer reporter.

Where are those several surgeries between Thriller and Bad?

 

[Goddess4Real]

At the same time the Michael Jackson Estate doesn't know that Don't stop till you get enough was written and composed by Michael Jackson.:doh:


Your kidding me, that can't be right....damn it's not so difficult to do research :shock2:

 

[redfrog]

Lawyers Eye King of Pop’s Case for Estate Valuation Answers

An opinion in the Jackson estate case isn’t likely for at least a year.

https://www.bna.com/lawyers-eye-king-n57982084590/

 

[barbee0715]

At the same time the Michael Jackson Estate doesn't know that Don't stop till you get enough was written and composed by Michael Jackson.:doh:


Your kidding me, that can't be right....damn it's not so difficult to do research :shock2:

You'd think they'd know that without research-I thought everybody in the world knew that-it was so darn popular and still is.

The dimple in his chin was between Thriller and BAD.

 

[redfrog]

The dimple in his chin was between Thriller and BAD.

That's not SEVERAL surgeries. He had that cleft and one nosejob between 1982 and 1987 that's it.
It's obvious from the pictures, his face didn't change at all, same eyes, same chin, same cheeks, same forehead, same lips.
So WTF was the Estate talking about?

 

[HIStoric]

Where are those several surgeries between Thriller and Bad?

His nose changed between 1982 and the mid-1980s. The photos below span this time period.

Alongside the changes to his nose, he got a noticeable cleft in his chin too before the shooting of the Bad music video.

The stupid thing about this Thriller vs Dangerous era comparison is that it essentially ignores the fact the tip of his nose faced more upwards than it did before (easier to see from side photos). The bridge of his nose is also thinner. It's hard to make out in a straight on, low quality portrait that has been scrubbed of most details (I mean, you can barely make out his bridge in the Dangerous era photo).

1983/4 vs 1990.

 

[redfrog]

His nose changed between 1982 and the mid-1980s. The photos below span this time period.

Alongside the changes to his nose, he got a noticeable cleft in his chin too before the shooting of the Bad music video.

That's why I said he had a nosejob and a cleft was put in. But where are the SEVERAL surgeries they talk about?
Nothing changed on his face between Thriller and Bad except his nose and the cleft.
The last three pictures were taken from different angles which can be misleading.

The stupid thing about this Thriller vs Dangerous era comparison is that it essentially ignores the fact the tip of his nose faced more upwards than it did before (easier to see from side photos). The bridge of his nose is also thinner. It's hard to make out in a straight on, low quality portrait that has been scrubbed of most details (I mean, you can barely make out his bridge in the Dangerous era photo).

1983/4 vs 1990.

Dangerous yes but not Bad and that's what the Estate was talking about.
I don't see any difference between these two noses,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WKFYivQ6sE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg6Xa8zadLQ
These interviews were made in 1983 and 1987 He had a nosejob between the Thriller cover shoot and the 1983 interview
but none between 1983 and 1987



His bridge can look thinner than it is due to contouring.
These two were made in 1986 and 2003 and the bidge looks pretty much the same, no bad makeup
may explain it:

LOL can't believe we ended up talking about his nose. I went off topic with this big time.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

More important things to discuss or be bothered about. a couple, several? we have no idea whther mj had one two three or four surgeries during that time. Who cares

 

[redfrog]

More important things to discuss or be bothered about. a couple, several? we have no idea whther mj had one two three or four surgeries during that time. Who cares

I don't but apparently the Estate considered it important enough to include this nonsense in their brief. Why?
What is this tabloid junk doing in the Estate's argument about the real value of MJ's assets?

 

[barbee0715]

I don't but apparently the Estate considered it important enough to include this nonsense in their brief. Why?
What is this tabloid junk doing in the Estate's argument about the real value of MJ's assets?

Because we are talking about the value of his image and the bad tabloid press devalued that image.

 

[redfrog]

Because we are talking about the value of his image and the bad tabloid press devalued that image.

Yes but instead of stating that tabloids constantly lied about him, including about his face, they instead state is as a fact
that he had several surgeries between Thriller and Bad including on his nose and chin basically repeating the very lies which they used to ridicule him. Nothing on his face changed between Thriller and Bad only his nose and chin and he didn't have several surgeries. But what can we expect from those who don't even know that MJ composed don't stop till you get enough. :scratch:

Besides I don't see how surgeries between Thriller and Bad have anything to do with the value of his name and likeness in
2009. Their entire argument is based on the drastic change after 1993. MJ obviously got sponsors between 82 and 87

 

[myosotis]

Thank you Ivy for posting the pre-trial brief on 'dailymichael'.

It seems that Michael's appearance wasn't the only thing the Estate believed had changed. This snippet doesn't fill me with confidence....

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/poU3RtURj][/URL]

 

[barbee0715]

Lol. Attorneys are paid such huge amounts of money and hire innumerable assistants, paralegals and fact checkers to always get the simplest things wrong. Like birth dates. Like DSTYGE origins. Like Panish had the incorrect date on a slide in the AEG trial. Like Finaldi switched genders and entities etc. all thru their papers.
How do I find a job like that.

 

[redfrog]

Thank you Ivy for posting the pre-trial brief on 'dailymichael'.

It seems that Michael's appearance wasn't the only thing the Estate believed had changed. This snippet doesn't fill me with confidence....

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/poU3RtURj][/URL]

LOL this is pathetic.
How much money do these lawyers get for getting his date of birth wrong?

 

[ivy]

Personally I think you are nitpicking minor details. These are tax lawyers, they aren't fans of Michael and what matters it the valuations not the birth dates or release dates of the songs etc.

 

[8701girl]

At the same time the Michael Jackson Estate doesn't know that Don't stop till you get enough was
written and composed by Michael Jackson. :doh:

Thank you Branca for sounding like a National Enquirer reporter.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?v...lectedIndex=0&qpvt=spit+coffee+gif&ajaxhist=0




WHAT IN THE WORLD!!??????????

 

[myosotis]

Personally I think you are nitpicking minor details. These are tax lawyers, they aren't fans of Michael and what matters it the valuations not the birth dates or release dates of the songs etc.

Well, I am reading these documents with 'British' eyes. In the UK, a person's date of birth is an essential part of their legal identity and must be stated correctly where required on all tax documents and in all court papers (or the papers are likely to be deemed invalid). If an incorrect date is given, it does tend to cast doubt on the accuracy of other information in the same document.

If an incorrect DoB is acceptable in a legal tax-related document in the USA, I can only conclude that the acceptability of 'alternative facts' is more deeply embedded in USA culture than we foreigners are aware of

 

[redfrog]

Personally I think you are nitpicking minor details. These are tax lawyers, they aren't fans of Michael and what matters it the valuations not the birth dates or release dates of the songs etc.

Yes but it makes you wonder just exactly how much these guys really know and care about MJ, what
they said about him during this trial, if they are so distant they cannot get his date of birth right, or tell obvious lies like
he had several surgeries between Thriller and Bad INCLUDING on his nose and chin or that he didn't compose DSTYGE
Without transcripts there is no way to know for sure I just don't like it when people who don't give a shit
about MJ represent his Estate in court.

 

[barbee0715]

Well, I am reading these documents with 'British' eyes. In the UK, a person's date of birth is an essential part of their legal identity and must be stated correctly where required on all tax documents and in all court papers (or the papers are likely to be deemed invalid). If an incorrect date is given, it does tend to cast doubt on the accuracy of other information in the same document.

If an incorrect DoB is acceptable in a legal tax-related document in the USA, I can only conclude that the acceptability of 'alternative facts' is more deeply embedded in USA culture than we foreigners are aware of

Really? That would make it invalid?

Although I was one to hoot at the term "alternative facts" when I first heard it, and of course, noticed the birthdate, DSTYGE error, etc. etc. right away, I just see it as as insignificant details and it seems a little petty to make a lot out of it. I did skim the IRS' version of Michael's background and that's a "whitewashed" version if I ever read one.
It reads as though it was just one success after another from birth to death, and yes, although 93 and 2005 happened, they were just little minor details and everything was just hunky dory before and after.

(And yes, the Estate's lawyers should have hired a proof reader/fact checker and some of that could have been worded a lot better).

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Probably someone on work experience did it ? its not like the big wigs are writing up those documents.

 

[HIStoric]

Personally I think you are nitpicking minor details. These are tax lawyers, they aren't fans of Michael and what matters it the valuations not the birth dates or release dates of the songs etc.

I'm not sure how I stand on the wrong facts issue... but it really doesn't help their case if they get their clients birthdate wrong. Sloppy and unprofessional tbh...

Wouldn't be surprised if I started seeing them spell it Micheal Jackson haha.

 

[Korgnex]

Probably someone on work experience did it ? its not like the big wigs are writing up those documents.

Yes, a common misconception. They are usually handing over such stuff to people in inferior positions.

 

[ivy]

In the UK, a person's date of birth is an essential part of their legal identity and must be stated correctly where required on all tax documents and in all court papers (or the papers are likely to be deemed invalid).

this isn't a document where his identity is established. this is a pretrial brief that each parties use to tell the judge their side of the dispute. everyone knows they are talking about michael jackson the king of pop.

Yes but it makes you wonder just exactly how much these guys really know and care about MJ

again they are expert tax lawyers and their job is to handle the tax matters. There is no requirement for them to know or love Michael.

I'm not sure how I stand on the wrong facts issue... but it really doesn't help their case if they get their clients birthdate wrong. Sloppy and unprofessional tbh...

perhaps but still irrelevant. Court know which Michael, they aren't trying to determine his identity. They are arguing on his image and likeliness.



So overall you are nitpicking on small things that has no effect on tax valuation.