Michael Jackson’s Estate Challenges IRS in Tax Dispute

Ivy if this would have happen would the Estate still have these taxes with the IRS?

Ivy i think i answer my own question your last part because there was debts on the assets you have the taxes so the Estate will have to pay right?
no. She means if he had been able to transfer the assets to a living trust it would have been exempt from IRS estate tax (also known as the death tax).
But he couldn't transfer the assets until the debt was paid.

This is a one time tax on what you're worth at time of death. And I think all experts would argue that those values were all over the place in 2009.
 
In other words I'm sure that it's not like Estate Executors themselves personally determined the values of the assets and prepared their Estate tax return, most probably (and almost certainly) there were other third parties that prepared the valuation for final Estate tax filing.

As we both already mentioned and agreed, the most likely outcome that IRS and Estate would settle the dispute. If Estate believes there was a mistake by those third parties that caused the Estate to pay higher taxes, they can pursue those third parties to recover the extra taxes paid.

Of course the executors did not complete the valuations themselves which is why I asked what tax firm completed them. It seems it was more than one and the Estate should look into pursuing legal action if they so choose.

This will be interesting to see if the Estate will not support these valuation that it seems they and some fans have been rather supportive of since Michael's passing.

I do not believe the Estate will sue tax planners because it is the estate planning that dictated the tax planning. This is why I stated Branca can be penalized but, that is a choice for the beneficiaries in the future if they so choose.

Michael's tax plan looks okay but failed due to the debts. If you read the trust document, you will see the goal was for Michael to transfer the ownership of his assets to "MJ Family Trust" when he was alive. The assets would be owned by "MJ Family Trust" and there wouldn't be an Estate tax on them as they weren't changing ownership after MJ's death. However due to the debts on the assets , the transfer to the "MJ Family Trust" never happened and that's why they are now need to be taxed for Estate tax purposes.

Therein lies the difference between the Jackson and Davidson estate. Branca's law firm completed the estate planning while others completed tax planning. Deloitte completed the estate planning and the tax planning for the Davidson estate and it will be interesting to see how this lawsuit is resolved.

As per the above, it seems you believe Michael is to blame because of debt he incurred. This in turn leaves Branca's team unaccountable when they should have had a plan in place in the event the "MJ Family Trust" was not successful. Complicated estates have several scenarios covered while Michael's complicated estate did not. Michael is not blameworthy because an estate planner did not protect his estate appropriately leaving it vulnerable (as we know from the Robson/Safechuck thread). That logic would similarly blame Davidson for the actions of Deloitte.
 
Last edited:
no. She means if he had been able to transfer the assets to a living trust it would have been exempt from IRS estate tax (also known as the death tax).
But he couldn't transfer the assets until the debt was paid.

This is a one time tax on what you're worth at time of death. And I think all experts would argue that those values were all over the place in 2009.


Thank you for clearing that up for me:)
 
Last edited:
This is why I stated Branca can be penalized

not personally though. the most that can be done is to sue his law firm.

As per the above, it seems you believe Michael is to blame because of debt he incurred. This in turn leaves Branca's team unaccountable when they should have had a plan in place in the event the "MJ Family Trust" was not successful. Complicated estates have several scenarios covered while Michael's complicated estate did not. Michael is not blameworthy because an estate planner did not protect his estate appropriately leaving it vulnerable (as we know from the Robson/Safechuck thread). That logic would similarly blame Davidson for the actions of Deloitte.

I never used the word "blame" or blamed anyone for anything. So kindly do not twist what I wrote. I merely explained why the MJ family trust wasn't properly funded. Plus we seem to be talking about two different stuff. You are taking Davidson example way too literally and trying to blame tax planners . My point has been about the valuation and how those people could be pursued to recover extra taxes paid if the executors believe they made gross mistakes. So apples to oranges.
 
ivy;4109297 said:
not personally though. the most that can be done is to sue his law firm.

Not true. Branca is executor and his law firm is responsible for the estate planning. If the beneficiaries believe that to be a conflict of interest, they can indeed sue.

I never used the word "blame" or blamed anyone for anything. So kindly do not twist what I wrote. I merely explained why the MJ family trust wasn't properly funded.

There are two parties involved with the creation of the “MJ Family Trust.” One incurred the debt and passed before curing said debt. The other left no other option beyond a trust that could not be funded because the other party passed before curing their debt. There is no need to twist your words that defend the actions of the latter.

You are taking Davidson example way too literally and trying to blame tax planners. My point has been about the valuation and how those people could be pursued to recover extra taxes paid if the executors believe they made gross mistakes.

My response discussed the similarities and differences between the Davidson and Jackson estates which went deeper than your point. There is no issue with my response except that it is simply not the response that may have been expected from one reading the article.
 
Last edited:
Tygger;4109311 said:
Not true. Branca is executor and his law firm is responsible for the estate planning. If the beneficiaries believe that to be a conflict of interest, they can indeed sue.

Personally I wouldn't hold my breath for it. If they wanted to sue him for estate planning or conflict of interest, they would already done it.

There are two parties involved with the creation of the “MJ Family Trust.” One incurred the debt and passed before curing said debt. The other left no other option beyond a trust that could not be funded because the other party passed before curing their debt. There is no need to twist your words that defend the actions of the latter.

Don't worry I know folks get upset over people even remotely suggesting MJ was an adult man with choices, decisions. It's always someone else's fault and it's a plus if Estate can be blamed for anything and everything. It's nothing new.

it is simply not the response that may have been expected from one reading the article.

no not really, your posts are exactly as I expected.
 
Hmmm, the more things change, the more they stay the same.....

189.gif
 
Last edited:
The rep adds, "The Estate used independent, nationally-recognized and highly-qualified expert appraisers in determining the value of the Estate’s assets. By contrast, the IRS consultant’s values are not based on standard appraisal methodology, but rather are speculative and erroneous assumptions unsupported by the facts or law. The Estate has paid over $100 Million dollars in taxes and is in full compliance with the tax laws."
---------------------------------------------------------

As much some irrational estate haters would like to see Branca gone/penalised/sued......., that ain't going to happen.
Branca is not tax/IRS expert and as an executor to the MJ estate, he doesn't have to be an expert in any area.
He only needs to find people with expertise in certain area, and that is exactly what he did.
Also he got one of the best tax litigator on board,
http://taxlitigator.com/directory/charles-p-rettig/
so I'm confident that the estate pays something but not as much IRS wants.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely no one is blaming Michael for that debt. That was completely unavoidable due to the allegations, his health, reputation and career going down the toilet.

What kind of tax shelter could they have used that still would enable him to access for loans?? Desperate times call for desperate measures.

The IRS estate rules and opinions are written in their favor and the values are subjective. Because of the lousy economy, US citizens aren't paying taxes on income the way they used to. They don't have the same income. The IRS is desperate for money. Again desperate times call for desperate measures.
 
Trial is set for next year - 2017

ORDER

This case was on the Court's November 17, 2014 trial calendar for Los Angeles, California, and raises mostly valuation questions. The Court spoke with the parties on January 6, 2016 and all agreed that it requires a special session and pretrial order. After discussing trial dates for early next year with the parties, it is ORDERED that this case is calendared for a 3-week trial at a special session of the Court starting at 10:00 a.m., on Monday, February 6, 2017, Room 1174, Edward R. Roybal Center & Federal Building, 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. This order is the official notice to the parties of that trial.

It is also ORDERED that the parties shall file on or before February 26, 2016, a joint status report proposing a pretrial order that shall include dates for at least the
following events:

I. Deadlines for informal and formal discovery.
II. Identification of each witness expected to be called by name, address, qualifications of the witness, and a brief summary of the expected testimony of each such witness.
III. Deadline for filing discovery motions.
IV. Deadline for exchange and lodging with the Court of any expertwitness reports.
V. Deadline for filing any motions concerning stipulations of fact.
VI. Deadline for submitting any dispositive motions.
VII. Deadline for submitting any other pretrial motions (e.g. motions in limine to exclude evidence or to shift the burden of proof).
VIII. Identification and exchange of any exhibits that each party may offer into evidence as part of his case in chief (excluding only exhibits to be used solely for impeachment).
IX. Lodging of stipulations of fact with Court.
X. Submission oftrial memoranda with Court.

(Signed) Mark V. Holmes
Judge
Dated: Washington, D.C.
February 2, 2016
 
Thanks ivy. So do they still try to settle this inbetween or is that it,no more talks and its a see u in court?
 
A trial for this? Jeez. Those $$$ sucking leeches will just never learn. They will not get a single cent.
 
I believe (hope) that would be the last of the trials and then they can close the probate, unless someone sues the estate (Michael).

Wade+Safejunk, Quincy and Tohme cases should be solved by first half of this year, so its only IRS left.
 
I believe (hope) that would be the last of the trials and then they can close the probate, unless someone sues the estate (Michael).

Wade+Safejunk, Quincy and Tohme cases should be solved by first half of this year, so its only IRS left.

Yeah I'm getting sick and tired people trying to sue Estate, like when everybody trying to sue Michael just so they leech $$$ off him trying to get him bankrupt. All those are just fricking conspiracies, one after another. I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again, the justice system in California is so screwed up and needed to be changed and for them to leave Michael in peace and leave the Estate alone.
 
Thanks ivy. So do they still try to settle this inbetween or is that it,no more talks and its a see u in court?

it can be settled anytime, even right before the trial.

Wade+Safejunk, Quincy and Tohme cases should be solved by first half of this year, so its only IRS left.

I think with appeals WR and JS could take longer.
 
Thanks. Hope tbh theres a settlement as the media will love disecting mj yet again
 
I'm against the settlement, that's what those damned IRS want.
 
Michael Jackson Estate Faces Billion-Dollar Tax Court Battle

How much was the King of Pop's name and image worth when he died? The estate says $2,105, but the IRS insists its value is more than $434 million. "This is bizarre," says the estate's lead attorney, Howard Weitzman.

This story first appeared in the May 6 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.

Of all the befuddling legal matters in the entertainment business, there's perhaps none that causes attorneys to scratch their heads like the battle between Michael Jackson and the Internal Revenue Service over what the late entertainer should be paying in estate taxes. In the years after his death in 2009 at age 50, Jackson has experienced a commercial rebirth thanks to the savvy executors who have managed his assets. The 2009 documentary This Is It grossed $261 million, a Cirque du Soleil tribute show packs in fans, and there have been albums, video games and other lucrative memorials. Now the IRS wants its share, claiming the value of Jackson's name and image upon death amounted to more than $434 million. The estate's own valuation? Just $2,105.

That's a huge discrepancy, and even that difference undersells the stakes. With interest and penalties, lawyers estimate the case — set for trial at a Los Angeles tax tribunal in 2017 — could be worth more than $1 billion. Some tax specialists even wonder if it could lead to criminal tax evasion charges. The outcome could impact celebrity estate planning. "This is the biggest estate tax case I've ever seen," says attorney and tax specialist Gary Wolfe.

Given that, it might be surprising to learn the Jackson reps have little idea about what to expect in the case. Speaking publicly about the IRS battle for the first time, Howard Weitzman, the estate's lead attorney, says both sides haven't exchanged much information and the IRS hasn't explained how its independent auditor determined the huge valuation. Executors John Branca and John McClain have overseen a remarkable turnaround, wiping out Jackson's debt and making enough revenue to generate about $100 million in tax payments already. But Weitzman estimates that Jackson earned no more than $50 million from the licensing of his name and image when the pop star was alive, even during Jackson's Thriller heyday. "It seems preposterous that the IRS would arrive at a value 10 times this amount," he says. "This is bizarre."

And importantly, what matters most for tax purposes is the value of Jackson's name and likeness at the time of his death — not now, after his executors have worked their magic. "Michael Jackson had no merchandising deals then," says Weitzman. "Only after we began the resurrection and This Is It did things begin to change. The IRS says, 'You should have known about the documentary.' That's like [saying] we should have known he was going to die."

And why didn't the King of Pop earn licensing money in the years before his death? See: charges of child molestation, rumors of drug use and no tours back then. In fact, when he died of an overdose, he was preparing for a "comeback" tour. It's enough to take a wonky tax case into sensational territory.

The IRS declined to comment, but one source in Hollywood's legal community says the agency has asked for some of the documents in the Jackson family's wrongful death case against AEG, the concert promoter that was set to stage the Jackson tour before he died. (AEG won the case against Jackson's estate, and the family lost its attempt to appeal.)

Wolfe speculates the IRS could be interested in rebutting the estate's position that Jackson's likeness held no value at the time of his death by showing interest from AEG and others. "Who were the corporate sponsors?" asks Wolfe. "This is a total clusterf— that makes zero sense. You're telling me that Jackson's name was worth less than a bottle of expensive wine?"

Adam Streisand, a probate attorney who has worked with celebrity estates including those of Ray Charles, Marlon Brando and Marilyn Monroe, says he doesn't expect the IRS to be able to point to other celebrities' post-death earnings as part of the valuation process. Then again, given that this is the first time ever that the IRS is pursuing estate taxes for name and likeness, it’s hard to say for sure how something like the “Jim Croce effect” — referring to the singer who died in an airplane crash in 1973, and standing for the proposition that many entertainers are worth more dead than alive — will factor. A judge's valuation could focus on what licensors were willing to pay to be associated with Jackson rather than what he actually got in sponsorship and merchandise deals. And so: Might this be like someone who buys a home in a rotten neighborhood upon hearing that the district is about to gentrify? Maybe not? “Unless and until people actually put money into improving the neighborhood, you can’t value it that way,” says Streisand.

Weitzman thinks this is a "once in a lifetime" case, but others aren't sure. If the IRS wins, it likely will pursue other celebrity estates that have increased in value. The business of commercializing dead stars has boomed in recent years as publicity rights have expanded and technology such as holograms and CGI has allowed the dead to live on in entertainment. For that reason, those with the ability to profit from their fame should start preparing — or they will sock their heirs with a huge tax bill.

Streisand helped write the California law that gives celebrities posthumous rights to their names and images. It's been a boon to the spouses and children of these famous people, but there have been ramifications, the Jackson case serving as perhaps the most high-profile example. Asked if he's partly responsible for the IRS' hunt, Streisand responds: "I plead guilty as charged. It's the statute that really codifies the concept that a celebrity's name and image is a property right like a house — and it's hard for me to say it doesn't have value."

***

Tax Tips: How to Plan for Death

FORGET THE AFTERLIFE Robin Williams restricted commercial use of his image for 25 years. Beastie Boy Adam Yauch made a similar deal. If the name can’t be exploited, the value of such rights is nil. What’s 40 percent of nothing? The IRS can do the math.

CHECK IN WITH THE BRAND DOCTOR The IRS has an opening in the Jackson dispute because there’s room for disagreement about the value of the singer’s name/likeness at the time of death. Had his appraiser made the $2,105 valuation before death, that likely would be the best evidence. Regular appraisals could be one strategy.

GIVE MANY GIFTS There are unlimited estate tax deductions for charity, plus legal ways to gift assets tax-free to spouses. Trusts provide another valuable option.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/what-is-michael-jacksons-image-884963
 
I thought this picture that went with the article was kind of cute-reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon:


jacksonfinal_v2_island-h_2016.jpg



I definitely disagree with the statement that Michael's "turnaround" was solely due to the executors-I think this article was a little misleading because it talked about the major amount of money that Michael brought in after death, which has nothing to do with estate taxes. That irritated me so I wrote a comment on the article.

"I do give Branca props for his negotiating skills with Epic when Michael made 'Off the Wall' , with Bone when buying Neverland, and with leCourt when purchasing the ATV catalog. And for not destroying "Thriller" video, as requested by Michael. Even the merger of Sony Music and ATV. Probably lots of deals I know nothing about.
And I'm glad that he has continued to credit Michael's legacy with quality projects like "This is It" doc and the Cirque shows.

I think the BIG mistake they did here was valuing Michael's image at 2,000.00. That's laughable and a huge red flag. I understand that Michael's image was tainted (not in my eyes) at the time of his death, and his death made people wake up and remember the artist they loved. But I do think they should have taken into consideration the AEG deal and the number of tickets that were sold for that unrealized concert. It went from 10 shows to 50 shows in just a day or two-and they could have sold 50 more shows.
The IRS can not factor in anything that happened after Michael's death-but for estate taxes, the AEG deal and the tickets sold should have been taken into consideration. Obviously Michael could still sell out arenas. I hope the settlement is fair."
 
Now the IRS wants its share, claiming the value of Jackson's name and image upon death amounted to more than $434 million. The estate's own valuation? Just $2,105.

Yep, and Michael's still alive, living on an island with Elvis Presley and John Lennon.
 
Additional paragraph at the Billboard version

It's estimated that the Michael Jackson Estate has earned another $50 million in name and likeness earnings in the six years since his death, but according to Weitzman, the IRS' calculation assumes the Estate should have earned in this time $260 million, which is more than the value the tax agency ascribed to Jackson's songs. Weitzman says that the IRS is essentially seeking an "advance" on future payments with no refunds given if its valuation is wrong.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...state-tax-court-battle-irs?utm_source=twitter
 
but for estate taxes, the AEG deal and the tickets sold should have been taken into consideration. Obviously Michael could still sell out arenas.

that's irrelevant to the image and likeliness value though. AEG concerts required Michael to perform.

Image and likeliness is like merchandise (such as a tshirt with MJ name on it) and endorsements (such as TV ads).
 
Ivy, is there something going on with this tax case or why this article was published out of blue?
 
Ivy, is there something going on with this tax case or why this article was published out of blue?

not really. they just set their schedule and discovery / information exchange is about to start.

I think this attracted interest again due to the Sony/ATV sale and Estate now being debt free. This is the biggest thing remaining for the Estate. Plus the journalist got quotes from Weitzman so that's a first too. So he might have thought it's worthwhile to write about it.
 
that's irrelevant to the image and likeliness value though. AEG concerts required Michael to perform.

Image and likeliness is like merchandise (such as a tshirt with MJ name on it) and endorsements (such as TV ads).
No, I understand-obviously Michael wasn't being asked to endorse products or had his image on merchandise pre June 2009.
But that 3 minute press conference and seeing his name alone was enough to send people into a frenzy and buy tix. AEG advanced him millions for the concert. People hadn't seen him in years and didn't know if he could perform or not. But it was a sell out and more.
So to me, his image should have been valued at more than 2K.
It's actually the only part of the estate valuation I disagree with. And I think the IRS valuation is absurd.
 
not really. they just set their schedule and discovery / information exchange is about to start.

I think this attracted interest again due to the Sony/ATV sale and Estate now being debt free
. This is the biggest thing remaining for the Estate. Plus the journalist got quotes from Weitzman so that's a first too. So he might have thought it's worthwhile to write about it.



You are right in the bold.
 
So to me, his image should have been valued at more than 2K.

I agree. 2 K valuation is really low. The only thing I was trying to say is that you are looking to interest at a performance and suggest it would also result in endorsements /merchandise. That might not be always the case. It was also possible that Michael could have a successful sell out tour but get no endorsements for example. It's been too long but didn't AEG try to find sponsors but they couldn't?

--------------------------------------------------

That being said, now it is much more clear which approach the parties used to determine the value of the image and likeliness. Looks like Estate used past historical values to determine the future values. In other words most probably they looked to last 10-15 years of MJ's life, his likeliness and image revenues from that time and determined the future value based on that. So that's why they came up with a such low number. MJ's deal with Pepsi ended in 93. He had some other deals during history tour but most of it failed / went bankrupt. Shortly it looks like Estate's position is that as MJ didn't earn much from endorsements when alive, he wouldn't have earned much after death either. Actually Marlon Brando Estate used the same method. They looked to last 15 years of Marlon's life and based on that valued the image and likeliness income for 15 years after his death.

IRS on the other hand looks like they don't look to past values but operate on the logic that interest in MJ have increased after his death. In other words they don't care if MJ had income from image and likeliness when alive. Their position is that he would start earning money from it after his death.

There are several consequences to this though - for the famous people. For example let's go with IRS. Let's say MJ has the capability to earn $400 Million from image and likeliness in the 10-20 years after his death. Estate tax is asking a payment on the potential earning before it happens. In other words if we assume a 40% interest rate, it would mean that IRS is asking a $160 Million in tax payment right after MJ's death for an income that wouldn't be achieved until years/decades later. That would make it hard to pay. That's what weitzman means by "IRS is asking for an advance on future payments". Also what happens if the valuation is wrong?

Quite interesting if you ask me. I'd love to see what would be the outcome. It would have important consequences for Estate planning for the famous. Celebrities beneficiaries can find themselves hit with high tax bills based on "worth more dead than alive" approach and may not afford to pay taxes on a future yet to be earned estimated income. The alternative to overcome this seems to be Robin Williams approach. Block the use of image and likeliness and bring the value of it to 0. But then it would mean limiting the options for the celebrity Estates/beneficiaries to earn money from posthumous projects.

-----------------------

oh and the oddest thing of all? I don't get how they don't know how each party calculated the values? They have engaged in settlement talks. I would have thought that meant they explained each other how they came up with the numbers and challenged each other's calculations to find a middle ground to settle. Without that information, how did they engage in meaningful settlement talks?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top