If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TaxProf)   What is Michael Jackson's name worth? Estate says $2,105. IRS says $434 million   (taxprof.typepad.com) divider line 70
    More: Interesting, Michael Jackson, IRS, U.S. Tax Court  
•       •       •

5206 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 12 Nov 2013 at 11:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-12 09:36:49 AM  
The estate's representative submitted a frivolous and false claim under penalty of perjury. Should be worth a few years in Club Fed.
 
2013-11-12 09:53:47 AM  

ZAZ: The estate's representative submitted a frivolous and false claim under penalty of perjury. Should be worth a few years in Club Fed.


The estate claims that the valuation is based on appraisals from qualified appraisers and based on those appraisals, the valuation was done in good faith. Therefore, no perjury results.
 
2013-11-12 09:55:42 AM  
I would think that the fact that state law doesn't protect his rights posthumously, then they don't exist. $2,105 might even be on the high side.

If I wanted to use his name and likeness, the estate can't collect or sue me for anything. So there's no value.
 
2013-11-12 10:00:53 AM  

rotsky: I would think that the fact that state law doesn't protect his rights posthumously, then they don't exist. $2,105 might even be on the high side.

If I wanted to use his name and likeness, the estate can't collect or sue me for anything. So there's no value.


It really all comes down to his state of residence at the time of death. If he was a CA resident, then his rights are protected for 70 years after death and should be valued as such.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-12 10:05:29 AM  
The_Six_Fingered_Man

There was a recent study showing that corporate auditors generate bogus results when they are paid by the companies they are auditing. Same principle here. If you pay somebody to tell you what you want to hear, reliance is not as reasonable as if you had looked to an independent expert.

I worked for a company that made medical equipment. We came out with a new device that had a similar name to the old device. Management didn't want to do paperwork so they hired a lawyer to write a letter saying premarket notification was not required. Managers figured that the lawyer letter would create reasonable doubt of intent to violate the law.

In due course the division came under new ownership. The new management was horrified at the way we did things. The new device was clearly a new device despite the similar name. They ordered a 510(k) prepared. An expert opinion only helps if your reliance on it is reasonable.

In the Jackson case a change in law could fix the problem. Give the IRS an option to buy any reasonably severable part of an estate at a moderate premium over the declared value. If you say the Jackson name is worth $2,105, the IRS can buy his name for $4,000. Now the appraisers will try to make an honest estimate.
 
2013-11-12 10:09:20 AM  

ZAZ: The_Six_Fingered_Man

There was a recent study showing that corporate auditors generate bogus results when they are paid by the companies they are auditing. Same principle here. If you pay somebody to tell you what you want to hear, reliance is not as reasonable as if you had looked to an independent expert.

I worked for a company that made medical equipment. We came out with a new device that had a similar name to the old device. Management didn't want to do paperwork so they hired a lawyer to write a letter saying premarket notification was not required. Managers figured that the lawyer letter would create reasonable doubt of intent to violate the law.

In due course the division came under new ownership. The new management was horrified at the way we did things. The new device was clearly a new device despite the similar name. They ordered a 510(k) prepared. An expert opinion only helps if your reliance on it is reasonable.

In the Jackson case a change in law could fix the problem. Give the IRS an option to buy any reasonably severable part of an estate at a moderate premium over the declared value. If you say the Jackson name is worth $2,105, the IRS can buy his name for $4,000. Now the appraisers will try to make an honest estimate.


This assumes that the appraisers are willing to risk their licensure over whatever paltry sum they were paid by the Jackson estate to value it at such a low number. I find that hard to believe. That's approaching conspiracy theory levels.

Also, the IRS is not in the business of buying assets, no matter how valuable they may be.
 
2013-11-12 10:32:17 AM  
OK, then I open bidding for the rights at $2,106!
 
2013-11-12 10:47:07 AM  
When greed fights greed, greed always wins.
 
2013-11-12 11:05:27 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: When anyone greed fights greed, greedthe IRS, The IRS always wins.



FTIRS
 
2013-11-12 11:06:53 AM  
well you can call me Ray
or you can call me Jay
but you don't have to call me $434,000,000.00, Michael Jackson
 
2013-11-12 11:10:08 AM  
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the Jackson Estate.
 
2013-11-12 11:10:42 AM  
Captain Said now works for the IRS?
klipd.com
 
2013-11-12 11:12:56 AM  

rotsky: I would think that the fact that state law doesn't protect his rights posthumously, then they don't exist. $2,105 might even be on the high side.

If I wanted to use his name and likeness, the estate can't collect or sue me for anything. So there's no value.


Except that California law does.
 
2013-11-12 11:14:00 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ZAZ: The estate's representative submitted a frivolous and false claim under penalty of perjury. Should be worth a few years in Club Fed.

The estate claims that the valuation is based on appraisals from qualified appraisers and based on those appraisals, the valuation was done in good faith. Therefore, no perjury results.


networthq.com

I got a guy who can tell me if your name is really good or not.
 
GBB
2013-11-12 11:14:02 AM  
Ah, the "estate tax".  Proof that you really didn't make anything.  You only borrowed it, and now it's time to give it back.
 
2013-11-12 11:14:39 AM  
What's a few orders of magnitude between rich people and the people who make the rules? A mere rounding error. Now, about your taxes last year, citizen...
 
2013-11-12 11:15:00 AM  
How much did Sony pay for him?
 
2013-11-12 11:16:27 AM  

snocone: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the Jackson Estate.


Jackson's wealth came from the people,  not his abusive parents or leeching siblings. His kids will be better off without the money or the family (who will ditch them the minute the money's gone).
 
2013-11-12 11:18:15 AM  
FTFA: the valuations of the assets "were accurate and based upon qualified appraisals by qualified appraisers who had extensive experience valuing entertainment industry assets."

Somehow, this made me immediately imagine Jermaine Jackson sitting at a huge ornate dining table in Neverland Ranch covered in papers with a pocket calculator and a pencil in his teeth.
 
2013-11-12 11:18:31 AM  
That's a big difference.  But after haggling and going back and forth, I'm sure the two sides will meet at....

$434 million.
 
2013-11-12 11:20:34 AM  

jso2897: snocone: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the Jackson Estate.

Jackson's wealth came from the people,  not his abusive parents or leeching siblings. His kids will be better off without the money or the family (who will ditch them the minute the money's gone).


I'd say that's overly critical of his siblings.  They rode his coat-tails and cashed in when he died, but "leeching" is a bit much.  Especially since Janet managed to actually have a career and Latoya never seemed to attempt to cash in that much.  I think she just did lame administrative work for Michael or something.
 
2013-11-12 11:21:52 AM  

GBB: Ah, the "estate tax".  Proof that you really didn't make anything.  You only borrowed it, and now it's time to give it back.


The estate tax only affects the top 5% or so. It's an attempt to discourage inter generational, unearned wealth hoarding which has demonstrated over the centuries to be a really bad thing. It has provisions for your heirs to still get a leg up but not a free ride (several million per person). There are ways of avoiding estate tax via charitable remainder trusts etc, but in the end is a good thing.

The fact the GOP can rally the derp brigade around it (those whom it will NEVER apply towards) is an indicator of the power of imaginary greed.
 
TWX
2013-11-12 11:25:01 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ZAZ: The_Six_Fingered_Man

There was a recent study showing that corporate auditors generate bogus results when they are paid by the companies they are auditing. Same principle here. If you pay somebody to tell you what you want to hear, reliance is not as reasonable as if you had looked to an independent expert.

I worked for a company that made medical equipment. We came out with a new device that had a similar name to the old device. Management didn't want to do paperwork so they hired a lawyer to write a letter saying premarket notification was not required. Managers figured that the lawyer letter would create reasonable doubt of intent to violate the law.

In due course the division came under new ownership. The new management was horrified at the way we did things. The new device was clearly a new device despite the similar name. They ordered a 510(k) prepared. An expert opinion only helps if your reliance on it is reasonable.

In the Jackson case a change in law could fix the problem. Give the IRS an option to buy any reasonably severable part of an estate at a moderate premium over the declared value. If you say the Jackson name is worth $2,105, the IRS can buy his name for $4,000. Now the appraisers will try to make an honest estimate.

This assumes that the appraisers are willing to risk their licensure over whatever paltry sum they were paid by the Jackson estate to value it at such a low number. I find that hard to believe. That's approaching conspiracy theory levels.

Also, the IRS is not in the business of buying assets, no matter how valuable they may be.


In 'bomber class' racing, where the cars are supposed to be mechanically stock other than improvements for safety, the rules state that all cars could be purchased, usually at a low price like $500 or $1000. This is to keep drivers from putting aftermarket upgraded parts on their cars and to reduce the likelihood of them spending considerable time and money balancing the engine. Basically if you're cheating or suspected of cheating then your car can be bought out from under you.

To the point of this IRS-first-option argument, if the IRS has the option of buying estate items for close to what the declared worth is, it will force appraisals to more accurately reflect value so to avoid this happening. Like when a bank forecloses on a house, the IRS would turn around to auction the asset.

To keep it honest, one could even require the bulk of the proceeds of the auction, less taxes, IRS purchase price already paid, and a percent fee be returned to the party it was originally undervalued by. That significantly curtails the use of this method as a seizure-type money grab.
 
2013-11-12 11:26:00 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I find that hard to believe. That's approaching conspiracy theory levels.


Paying people to tell you what you want to hear and fudge the numbers for your legal benefit is now a conspiracy?

I suppose you think the Harry Potter movies didn't generate a profit, either.
 
2013-11-12 11:26:36 AM  

ZAZ: The estate's representative submitted a frivolous and false claim under penalty of perjury. Should be worth a few years in Club Fed.


Must be an Obama Navigator
 
2013-11-12 11:29:07 AM  

TWX: if the IRS has the option of buying estate items for close to what the declared worth is


I understand the rationale behind the argument, but the IRS is not a profit making enterprise. They have no business in purchasing estate assets just to sell them. They are a tax collection agency, not a clearinghouse for estate assets.
 
2013-11-12 11:35:32 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I find that hard to believe. That's approaching conspiracy theory levels.

Paying people to tell you what you want to hear and fudge the numbers for your legal benefit is now a conspiracy?

I suppose you think the Harry Potter movies didn't generate a profit, either.


No, the thought that someone would risk losing their license for good over what is likely a paltry sum just so that the Jackson estate could evade some taxes is approaching conspiracy theory levels.

I have several clients that are worth a good amount of money and pay me obscene amounts for tax planning, preparation and accounting work each year. It's a year after year deal. And in no case would I risk my license to practice for any of them. An individual client is not worth it.
 
2013-11-12 11:38:14 AM  
He also lived in a state where a movie can gross $700 million at the box office and still "lose money".
 
2013-11-12 11:38:18 AM  

jso2897: Except that California law does


Yeah... If it's determined he was a CA resident. You're right, though. The Jackson estate seems to want it both ways - since they recently sued a Japanese company for using his name and likeness.

Japanese Companies Sued by Jackson Estate
 
2013-11-12 11:42:19 AM  
Just remember that no matter how successful you get, eventually, it's going to wind up on some dump gutted, gray prick's desk at the IRS.  The house gets it all back.
 
2013-11-12 11:57:51 AM  
The situation is not black or white.

Unlike Michael.
 
2013-11-12 12:05:44 PM  
FTFA:
...and, like most property rights, are licensable, transferable and descendible.

www.bullz-eye.com
Approves
 
2013-11-12 12:08:34 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ZAZ: The_Six_Fingered_Man

There was a recent study showing that corporate auditors generate bogus results when they are paid by the companies they are auditing. Same principle here. If you pay somebody to tell you what you want to hear, reliance is not as reasonable as if you had looked to an independent expert.

I worked for a company that made medical equipment. We came out with a new device that had a similar name to the old device. Management didn't want to do paperwork so they hired a lawyer to write a letter saying premarket notification was not required. Managers figured that the lawyer letter would create reasonable doubt of intent to violate the law.

In due course the division came under new ownership. The new management was horrified at the way we did things. The new device was clearly a new device despite the similar name. They ordered a 510(k) prepared. An expert opinion only helps if your reliance on it is reasonable.

In the Jackson case a change in law could fix the problem. Give the IRS an option to buy any reasonably severable part of an estate at a moderate premium over the declared value. If you say the Jackson name is worth $2,105, the IRS can buy his name for $4,000. Now the appraisers will try to make an honest estimate.

This assumes that the appraisers are willing to risk their licensure over whatever paltry sum they were paid by the Jackson estate to value it at such a low number. I find that hard to believe. That's approaching conspiracy theory levels.

Also, the IRS is not in the business of buying assets, no matter how valuable they may be.


They run the same risk overestimating it. I don't believe ethics are an issue.
 
2013-11-12 12:10:15 PM  

ElPresidente: The situation is not black or white.

Unlike Michael.


That's bad.
 
2013-11-12 12:12:54 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TWX: if the IRS has the option of buying estate items for close to what the declared worth is

I understand the rationale behind the argument, but the IRS is not a profit making enterprise. They have no business in purchasing estate assets just to sell them. They are a tax collection agency, not a clearinghouse for estate assets.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-12 12:16:11 PM  
Back in the 90s Michael Jackson said this to Lorena Bobbit:

"Silly Bobbit, Dix are for kids"
 
2013-11-12 12:17:59 PM  

ReverendJynxed: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TWX: if the IRS has the option of buying estate items for close to what the declared worth is

I understand the rationale behind the argument, but the IRS is not a profit making enterprise. They have no business in purchasing estate assets just to sell them. They are a tax collection agency, not a clearinghouse for estate assets.

[i.imgur.com image 400x525]


It is your position that the IRS is in the business of making money above and beyond tax collections (which include penalties and interest on tax owed)?

Perhaps it is I who should having a hearty laugh.
 
2013-11-12 12:23:46 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ReverendJynxed: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TWX: if the IRS has the option of buying estate items for close to what the declared worth is

I understand the rationale behind the argument, but the IRS is not a profit making enterprise. They have no business in purchasing estate assets just to sell them. They are a tax collection agency, not a clearinghouse for estate assets.

[i.imgur.com image 400x525]

It is your position that the IRS is in the business of making money above and beyond tax collections (which include penalties and interest on tax owed)?

Perhaps it is I who should having a hearty laugh.


Show me where the constitution says I have to pay the taxes they come up with? Looks more like a private enterprise backed by arms to me.


/umad
 
2013-11-12 12:24:52 PM  
Nevermind, you're from Florida. I can't take anything you say seriously :P
 
2013-11-12 12:28:48 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, the thought that someone would risk losing their license for good over what is likely a paltry sum just so that the Jackson estate could evade some taxes is approaching conspiracy theory levels.

I have several clients that are worth a good amount of money and pay me obscene amounts for tax planning, preparation and accounting work each year. It's a year after year deal. And in no case would I risk my license to practice for any of them. An individual client is not worth it.


You misunderstand. I didn't say illegal. I specifically said legal and fudging the numbers, things that often can and do occur, that would leave you in no danger of losing your license, but nonetheless are fast and loose with the way money is calculated. Much like, as I mentioned, the Harry Potter movies magically producing no profit, despite all seven being blockbusters. Not conspiracy level at all. No, more like how Hollywood and Big Entertainment operates.
 
2013-11-12 12:32:23 PM  
This does not sound like much of a stretch to me:
Estate says $2,105 = what it would like to sell off the assets at or a value it wants to use to leverage
IRS says $434 million = probably a more valid valuation.
//does anyone really want the IRS shooting for the stars on price?
 
2013-11-12 12:32:39 PM  
Wow, just think how much Abe Lincoln's name is worth. He was a President. Jackson was just a singer.
 
2013-11-12 12:37:51 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: ElPresidente: The situation is not black or white.

Unlike Michael.

That's bad.


You know it.

Hee HEE!
 
2013-11-12 12:53:27 PM  

ReverendJynxed: The_Six_Fingered_Man: ReverendJynxed: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TWX: if the IRS has the option of buying estate items for close to what the declared worth is

I understand the rationale behind the argument, but the IRS is not a profit making enterprise. They have no business in purchasing estate assets just to sell them. They are a tax collection agency, not a clearinghouse for estate assets.

[i.imgur.com image 400x525]

It is your position that the IRS is in the business of making money above and beyond tax collections (which include penalties and interest on tax owed)?

Perhaps it is I who should having a hearty laugh.

Show me where the constitution says I have to pay the taxes they come up with? Looks more like a private enterprise backed by arms to me.


/umad


www.godlikeproductions.com

You have to pay taxes, dimwit.  Not everything required by law is in the constitution.  (See: driver's licenses, FDA regulations, patent law, and a brazillion other things...)  The_Six_Fingered_Man is raising valid points.  You're being an arsehat.
 
2013-11-12 12:58:06 PM  

ReverendJynxed: The_Six_Fingered_Man: ReverendJynxed: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TWX: if the IRS has the option of buying estate items for close to what the declared worth is

I understand the rationale behind the argument, but the IRS is not a profit making enterprise. They have no business in purchasing estate assets just to sell them. They are a tax collection agency, not a clearinghouse for estate assets.

[i.imgur.com image 400x525]

It is your position that the IRS is in the business of making money above and beyond tax collections (which include penalties and interest on tax owed)?

Perhaps it is I who should having a hearty laugh.

Show me where the constitution says I have to pay the taxes they come up with? Looks more like a private enterprise backed by arms to me.


/umad


Sounds like you should get acquainted with the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. Specifically the portion that says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
 
2013-11-12 12:58:10 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, the thought that someone would risk losing their license for good over what is likely a paltry sum just so that the Jackson estate could evade some taxes is approaching conspiracy theory levels.

I have several clients that are worth a good amount of money and pay me obscene amounts for tax planning, preparation and accounting work each year. It's a year after year deal. And in no case would I risk my license to practice for any of them. An individual client is not worth it.


I know you're not new here, so I must ask what drugs you're taking today that makes you believe this.

If MJ's beneficiaries come to you and offer you $2M to save them $400M, I find it highly unlikely you're going to turn it down. Who knows, maybe you're just super rich but I can have a person killed for a fraction of that.
 
2013-11-12 01:01:07 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, the thought that someone would risk losing their license for good over what is likely a paltry sum just so that the Jackson estate could evade some taxes is approaching conspiracy theory levels.

I have several clients that are worth a good amount of money and pay me obscene amounts for tax planning, preparation and accounting work each year. It's a year after year deal. And in no case would I risk my license to practice for any of them. An individual client is not worth it.

You misunderstand. I didn't say illegal. I specifically said legal and fudging the numbers, things that often can and do occur, that would leave you in no danger of losing your license, but nonetheless are fast and loose with the way money is calculated. Much like, as I mentioned, the Harry Potter movies magically producing no profit, despite all seven being blockbusters. Not conspiracy level at all. No, more like how Hollywood and Big Entertainment operates.


For an accountant, he's really bad at accounting, apparently.

But he has some wealthy clients who pay him obscene amounts of money, so there's that. Also he's a professional male model slash actor, not the other way around.
 
2013-11-12 01:04:01 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sounds like you should get acquainted with the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution.


I think he's specifically looking for his own name to be singled out in the Constitution requiring him to pay taxes.

Irwin Schiff used the same argument
 
2013-11-12 01:06:45 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, the thought that someone would risk losing their license for good over what is likely a paltry sum just so that the Jackson estate could evade some taxes is approaching conspiracy theory levels.

I have several clients that are worth a good amount of money and pay me obscene amounts for tax planning, preparation and accounting work each year. It's a year after year deal. And in no case would I risk my license to practice for any of them. An individual client is not worth it.

You misunderstand. I didn't say illegal. I specifically said legal and fudging the numbers, things that often can and do occur, that would leave you in no danger of losing your license, but nonetheless are fast and loose with the way money is calculated. Much like, as I mentioned, the Harry Potter movies magically producing no profit, despite all seven being blockbusters. Not conspiracy level at all. No, more like how Hollywood and Big Entertainment operates.


Severely underestimating the value of an asset would open you up to complaints to the state licensing board, which could seriously impact your ability to continue to hold your license to appraise property and intangible assets. No reputable company would ever risk that just so that they can value something like this for $2100.

Ask yourself if you would take a sum of money for a one time deal with the knowledge that it may cost you your ability to work in that particular industry again. Let's even make the sum of money something outrageous, like $100,000. Would you risk further lifetime earnings for a lump sum payment? I know that I wouldn't, but maybe that's just me.

And I never said illegal either. Unethical, sure. There are ways that I could do severely unethical things in my industry without ever crossing the line into illegal activities. Doesn't make it right or even prudent.
 
2013-11-12 01:08:35 PM  

justtray: I find it highly unlikely you're going to turn it down


I sure as hell would, because future earnings and my own ethical conscience are worth more than $2m. Give me enough so that I and 4-5 generations of my line never have to work again, I might consider it. But that would be in the $400M range.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report