Michael Jackson’s Estate Challenges IRS in Tax Dispute

Beatles Guru Taxman Was Right MJ Collection Worth a Fortune!

2/9/2014 12:55 AM PST BY TMZ STAFF
EXCLUSIVE

The Michael Jackson Estate is insane for trying to value MJ's Beatles collection at ZERO for tax purposes ... so says one of the most prominent Beatles experts in the world ... who also happens to be a tax attorney.

The Estate is in a dogfight with the IRS ... which claims MJs people stiffed the government on more than a half a BILLION dollars in taxes by undervaluing assets ... including MJs interest in songs by MJ and the Beatles. The Estates says the asset is worth NOTHING. The IRS says the Estate should have declared a value of $469 million.

Beatles guru and attorney Bruce Spizer tells TMZ, "No one could value that collection at zero with a straight face." Spizer, who has written 8 books about the group that changed the world 50 years ago tonight on "The Ed Sullivan Show," says the IRS may have "slightly inflated" the value of the catalog, but believes it's definitely worth minimum $300 million and could be as much as $400 million.

Spizer says, "For the Estate to list the value at zero, they lose all credibility."

Reps for the MJ Estate tell TMZ, they dispute the entire IRS analysis of MJs assets. The reps say they used nationally-recognized experts to determine value while the IRS wallows in speculation.

The reps say the Estate paid more than $100 mil in taxes and fully complied with the law.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com#ixzz2sqYd95ws
 
The Michael Jackson Estate is insane for trying to value MJ's Beatles collection at ZERO for tax purposes ... so says one of the most prominent Beatles experts in the world ... who also happens to be a tax attorney.

No they weren't, if at the time the asset had a credit lien on it that was equal to or more than the agreed collateral amount.
 
^^

actually the above Beatles expert confirms Estate's valuation

Tax Value = Market Value - Liabilities

the expert himself puts the market value at "definitely worth minimum $300 million and could be as much as $400 million"

so from that market value of 300 M to 400 M if you subtract the $300M + loans on the catalog, you get close to $0 for tax value purposes.
 
Exactly, since they paid $ 100 millions in taxes, I believe they are covered.

I think the main point of dispute is the likeness figure.

AEG's expert already provided testimony on this issue. Regardless of selling 50 shows , they were not able to secure any endorsements for the shows. That's why the estate valued the likeness at a very low value.
 
^^

actually the above Beatles expert confirms Estate's valuation

Tax Value = Market Value - Liabilities

the expert himself puts the market value at "definitely worth minimum $300 million and could be as much as $400 million"

so from that market value of 300 M to 400 M if you subtract the $300M + loans on the catalog, you get close to $0 for tax value purposes.

That's right. you can't paid taxes when you are broke!!!.

Media spent 10 years brainwashing the public that MJ was broke. The MJ estate is living up to that perception.
 
That's right. you can't paid taxes when you are broke!!!.

Media spent 10 years brainwashing the public that MJ was broke. The MJ estate is living up to that perception.

I don't know what to think about this. Realistically - regardless of what media said - MJ had significant loans. So I don't get how anyone can deny the existence of liabilities.

The second aspect is the market valuation of the assets. Obviously Estate is going with a lower market value where as IRS goes with a higher market value (such as Estate market value of Sony catalog to be $300 - $400 Million and IRS valuing it about $800 Million). I would imagine the true value to be somewhere in the middle and Estate undervaluing it while IRS is over valuing it.

and some people's approach to this tax issue is dumbfounding for me. Do people want Estate to value the assets higher so they pay more tax? I don't get it.
 
I trust MJ Estate will work this out in a sensible, savvy, responsible manner that will allow Michael’s family to continue to live well as Michael intended. Their track record on solving big MJ issues is fantastic. :bow:
 
Victory22;3959887 said:
I trust MJ Estate will work this out in a sensible, savvy, responsible manner that will allow Michael’s family to continue to live well as Michael intended. Their track record on solving big MJ issues is fantastic. :bow:

I hope so.
 
They are all just stating the same thing over and over in these articles. The IRS and the Estate have given no new information. Now the Beatles guy weighs in.
 
Michael Jackson was broke as a joke when he died ... so the IRS tax attack is showing a glaring ignorance ... so claim the people who run the MJ Estate.

Sources connected with the Estate tell TMZ ... they never suggested the Beatles catalog was worth ZERO -- to the contrary they agree it's worth around $1.5 BILLION.

That said ... sources say there's a reason they put a big fat zero in the Beatles column when they filed tax returns just after Michael died. They say there was a $700 million loan taken against the purchase of the catalog, bringing the net value to $800 million. Michael and Sony were 50/50 partners ... which means Michael's share was around $400 million.

Now the debt. Michael leveraged his interest to the hilt -- he borrowed $320 million against the catalog. And He owed another $200 million in personal debt ... And that's why they put ZERO.

One bone of contention -- although the Estate values the catalog at $1.5 billion, the IRS says it's DOUBLE that amount.

Estate sources say the IRS is also off base on the issue of MJ's likeness and image, which they valued at only $2,105 at the time he died. The IRS says it's worth more like $434 million.

Our sources say you have to look back at June, 2009. They say Michael made zilch on his likeness and image for the 15 YEARS before his death -- no commercials, not even T-shirts ... no one wanted to be associated with him -- at least commercially.

And finally ... as for the Jackson 5 music collection -- the Estate says it was worth $11.2 mil when Michael died ... the IRS says $45.5 mil.

So the sources say after settling up with Motown, MJ's interest was a lot less than people think. The Estate would gladly sell Michael's rights even today for $45.5 mil ... they say they'd sell it for $30 mil!

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/02/10/micha...es-howard-weitzman-john-branca/#ixzz2suS06ZpS
 
"Our sources say you have to look back at June, 2009. They say Michael made zilch on his likeness and image for the 15 YEARS before his death -- no commercials, not even T-shirts ... no one wanted to be associated with him -- at least commercially."

This source says Michael didn't have commercials or nothing since 1994?

----------------
"So the sources say after settling up with Motown, MJ's interest was a lot less than people think. The Estate would gladly sell Michael's rights even today for $45.5 mil ... they say they'd sell it for $30 mil!"

What is that settlement with Motown this source is talking about?
I suppose that selling MJ's rights for $30 million is a joke, and bad one too, or is it some sort of tactics?
 
Haven`t we learnd when a article says source from family or Estate the press made it up.

I`m curios whey the LA-Times made the article month after the news and other press follows.
 
----------------
"So the sources say after settling up with Motown, MJ's interest was a lot less than people think. The Estate would gladly sell Michael's rights even today for $45.5 mil ... they say they'd sell it for $30 mil!"

What is that settlement with Motown this source is talking about?
I suppose that selling MJ's rights for $30 million is a joke, and bad one too, or is it some sort of tactics?

Doesn't that just means Michael's Motown songs?

Also it's so misleading when the media talks about "Beatles catalogue". The Beatles songs are just a tiny portion of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing_artists


But the media likes to leave the impression it's the Beatles songs alone which are worth $1.5 billion.
 
I got confused which rights and to which recording they are talking about:)

From that La Times article:
"The IRS also took issue with the valuation of Jackson's share of the rights to the Jackson 5 master recordings. The estate valued them at $11.193 million, while the IRS placed their worth at nearly $45.5 million."

IRS estimation seems to be rather big, as didn't Berry G owned 50% and Emi 50% of Jobete catalogue up until 2011, and after that Sony-Emi deal was made?
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackoma...eunites-jackson-5-songs-with-michael-jackson/

I found a little info regarding MJ suing Motown:
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/71113/jackson-sues-universal-over-motown-royalties
"The artist is seeking to terminate the 1980 contract and all other recording agreements with Motown, and seeks to reclaim "his right, title and interest in" all of his master recordings and compositions with the label. A UMG spokesperson declined comment."

I'm trying to find info how that case was settled and did MJ got rights to masters.
 
Last edited:
"Our sources say you have to look back at June, 2009. They say Michael made zilch on his likeness and image for the 15 YEARS before his death -- no commercials, not even T-shirts ... no one wanted to be associated with him -- at least commercially."

This source says Michael didn't have commercials or nothing since 1994?

I wouldn't worry about dates. I think - if true- this source is telling that Michael's image and likeliness value of $2,105 was determined based on the endorsement and merchandising deals/income he had at the time of his death. They are correct that he did not have any endorsements / sponsorship. There was a Bravado deal signed but it wasn't active yet so he did not have any income from that. So this kinda explains how Estate put a really low value to MJ's image and likeliness. I would imagine that IRS on the other hand has calculated a value based on possible future income that comes from merchandising, endorsements and sponsorship. Probably very similar to at KJ-AEG trial Estate might argue such estimates are speculative. and we don't know how the tax law approaches to such determinations.
 
People are again slamming the Estate for no reason. As with fans targeting AEG Live as a scapegoat, you should abstain from hasty conclusions.
The IRS' argumentation on many key points is scrappy and unsubstantiated. People tend to be quickly jumping on all sorts of bandwagons regarding the Estate, this time the trigger is "How dare the Estate have their own financial accountant experts valueing MJ's likeliness at such a low figure?" without adequate understanding of the law of taxation. The state trying to benefit from the Estate's business ventures as much as they can doesn't justify them applying calculations based on post-mortem success for a period of time in which the indebtedness outdid any earnings.
 
I would imagine that IRS on the other hand has calculated a value based on possible future income that comes from merchandising, endorsements and sponsorship. [...] and we don't know how the tax law approaches to such determinations.

For tax law such a calculation (short odds) would be a violation against the generally accepted accounting principles and the accounting legislation is the foundation of tax computation. The state have no right to allege earnings if they haven't come in yet.
According to the generally accepted accounting principles you have the right to account for expenses that have a definite/determinable due date, however you NEVER have to account possible earnings - whatever their chance of occurence might be.

The IRS lawyers will have a hard time to counter this. Hindsight is NOT the foundation for tax computation. AFTER actual earnings have come in, they can take them into account.
 
Billyjeanplxiv;3960076 said:
Michael's money goes to Katherine, and PPB. The Jackson hate has no place in this thread. The Brothers are doing their own thing and touring.

The Estate has solved MJ issues. Debt, improved image, if your upset about the Cascios I suggest you get over it.

Confused? There was no mention of Jackson hate, cascio tracks or estate issues in Victory22 post quoted below.

I trust MJ Estate will work this out in a sensible, savvy, responsible manner that will allow Michael’s family to continue to live well as Michael intended. Their track record on solving big MJ issues is fantastic.
 
I got confused which rights and to which recording they are talking about:)

From that La Times article:
"The IRS also took issue with the valuation of Jackson's share of the rights to the Jackson 5 master recordings. The estate valued them at $11.193 million, while the IRS placed their worth at nearly $45.5 million."

IRS estimation seems to be rather big, as didn't Berry G owned 50% and Emi 50% of Jobete catalogue up until 2011, and after that Sony-Emi deal was made?
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackoma...eunites-jackson-5-songs-with-michael-jackson/

I found a little info regarding MJ suing Motown:
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/71113/jackson-sues-universal-over-motown-royalties
"The artist is seeking to terminate the 1980 contract and all other recording agreements with Motown, and seeks to reclaim "his right, title and interest in" all of his master recordings and compositions with the label. A UMG spokesperson declined comment."

I'm trying to find info how that case was settled and did MJ got rights to masters.

/Bubs:

From what I know... Until this settlement Michael's solo albums (including Off The Wall) were in this agreement with Motown together with all the J 5 songs and albums. Then Michael wanted his own pieces take out of this agreement and put in his own catalogue MiJac.
About this was the case because Motown didn't want this. Finally MJ and Motown/Epic settled the case and Motwon gave Michael his solo pieces.

Of course: After that there were only the pieces from all the J5 and these were not so valuable.

Maybe somebody here knows more then I and can write better about this.
 
People are again slamming the Estate for no reason. As with fans targeting AEG Live as a scapegoat, you should abstain from hasty conclusions.
The IRS' argumentation on many key points is scrappy and unsubstantiated. People tend to be quickly jumping on all sorts of bandwagons regarding the Estate, this time the trigger is "How dare the Estate have their own financial accountant experts valueing MJ's likeliness at such a low figure?" without adequate understanding of the law of taxation. The state trying to benefit from the Estate's business ventures as much as they can doesn't justify them applying calculations based on post-mortem success for a period of time in which the indebtedness outdid any earnings.

Well the reality is some is slamming Estate because they hate Estate and they would use anything and everything they can against Estate. They don't care about the difference between market value and tax value, they don't care that we don't know how IRS or Estate calculated the asset valuations and therefore able to determine who is "correct" and yeah low valuations by Estate is also problematic. The hate for the Estate is so much blinding that these people do not care that actually paying high taxes isn't good for the Estate or the beneficiaries for that matter.

I wrote this before but let's do some math : Estate earns around 150 Million in gross income, after all the expenses (allowances, costs to run estate, salaries, debts being paid) and a income tax is paid estate is left around $20 Million in cash - that's what the second accounting has shown us. so even paying a $100M or so tax would take at least 5 years or even require 15 years payment plan. That would mean as long as Estate has a tax bill to pay the probate will not close and the beneficiaries will not see disbursements. Also $20 Million at 15 years makes 300 Million. So that also shows that Estate doesn't earn enough money to be able to pay a $700M tax bill so that would require to sell some assets to cover the tax bill. So this is what "IRS is right" people advocating. Do they not realize it? I don't know. Or is their hate of Estate so strong they don't care, I don't know.
 
Particularly, two individuals in the fanbase pretend to be tax experts and decided the Irs was right and the estate incompetent
 
Well the reality is some is slamming Estate because they hate Estate and they would use anything and everything they can against Estate. They don't care about the difference between market value and tax value, they don't care that we don't know how IRS or Estate calculated the asset valuations and therefore able to determine who is "correct" and yeah low valuations by Estate is also problematic. The hate for the Estate is so much blinding that these people do not care that actually paying high taxes isn't good for the Estate or the beneficiaries for that matter.

I wrote this before but let's do some math : Estate earns around 150 Million in gross income, after all the expenses (allowances, costs to run estate, salaries, debts being paid) and a income tax is paid estate is left around $20 Million in cash - that's what the second accounting has shown us. so even paying a $100M or so tax would take at least 5 years or even require 15 years payment plan. That would mean as long as Estate has a tax bill to pay the probate will not close and the beneficiaries will not see disbursements. Also $20 Million at 15 years makes 300 Million. So that also shows that Estate doesn't earn enough money to be able to pay a $700M tax bill so that would require to sell some assets to cover the tax bill. So this is what "IRS is right" people advocating. Do they not realize it? I don't know. Or is their hate of Estate so strong they don't care, I don't know.

Selling the assets for the long-term beneficiaries , the kids, is for sure not a good option. However, this is what Katherine's children desperately have been trying to do. This is the only way she gets 40% of MJ's estate. So they do probably want the estate to lose and sell the assets.
 
Selling the assets for the long-term beneficiaries , the kids, is for sure not a good option. However, this is what Katherine's children desperately have been trying to do. This is the only way she gets 40% of MJ's estate. So they do probably want the estate to lose and sell the assets.

but with a tax bill of hundreds of millions they would never see a dime. We know from second accounting is that MIJAC is the only one paid and is valued around $70-80 Million. Sony/ATV loan is being paid but that probably doesn't have much value as of now, Neverland is tied at Colony Capital with tens of millions of loans on it. Estate doesn't have income or the assets to cover a 500-700 M tax bill.
 
I don't want the estate to pay $700 million in taxes. I think that would be horrible especially when they have been turning around the finances so well.
 
It's not surprising to me that the Estate has undervalued some assets. My guess is a lot of people probably do it in order to pay less.

However the $700 mln amount is ridiculous IMO. I hope the judge has common sense. Do the IRS think the Estate is making billions upon billions? Man, even Bill Gates probably ain't paying that much in taxes LOL
 
and old story

Michael Jackson’s Bentley Valued at $250,000 by IRS: Taxes
By Alexander Ripps Aug 30, 2013 12:00 AM ET 0 Comments Email Print
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Save
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 the specific dollar amounts were redacted. The IRS response last week included a non-redacted copy of the government’s deficiency notice.

A publicist for Jackson’s estate disputed the IRS’s positions and questioned the appraisal methodology the IRS used. In a statement, Howard Weitzman, an attorney for the estate, said the executors are “disappointed the IRS continues to overreach in this matter but firmly believes all issues will be resolved in favor of the Estate and the beneficiaries.”

Of particular note is the different valuation of Jackson’s “image and likeness.” While the estate claimed a value of a mere $2,105, the IRS determined a value of more than $434 million.

Value Test

Attorney Adam Streisand, head of Loeb & Loeb LLP’s trusts and estate litigation department in Los Angeles, told BNA the issue is what the estate’s assets were worth at the time Jackson died, not what the IRS says they are worth after his death.

“There is really no debate” that Jackson’s death positively impacted the value of his image and likeness, Streisand said. “Michael’s name and image had a commercial value after and because of his death that it did not have during life.”

While the IRS does test the value based upon subsequent events, the executor is entitled to value the property based on what was known on the valuation date, not on circumstances that one might speculate might exist in the future, Streisand said.

The general method for valuing a person’s image and likeness when they die is to use an income-stream model where the executor “forecasts the income streams to be earned in the future and applies a capitalization rate to reach a present value,” he said.

Trust Accounts

In addition to the questions about the value of Jackson’s image and likeness, the singer’s estate and the IRS had very different takes on the value of two trust accounts -- New Horizon Trust II and New Horizon Trust III. While the estate claimed Jackson’s interests in those trusts to be zero and $2.2 million respectively, the IRS valued them at $469 million and $60.68 million.

Among the other notable assets that the IRS said the estate has undervalued are: real property located in Encino, California, valued by the estate at $4.1 million, compared with $5.5 million by the IRS; Jackson’s ownership interest in MJJ Ventures Inc., valued by the estate at $13.7 million compared with $81.1 million by the IRS; and Jackson’s ownership interest in Sycamore Valley Ranch Co., valued by the estate at zero, compared with $1.7 million by the IRS.

The Bentley

They also include a 2001 Bentley Arnage valued by the estate at $91,600, compared with $250,000 by the IRS; Jackson’s “share of artist mechanical rights related to Jackson 5 master recordings,” valued by the estate at $11.19 million, compared with $45.49 million by the IRS; tangible personal property valued by the estate at zero, compared with $47.46 million by the IRS; and a contingency non-appearance and cancellation policy issued by Lloyd’s of London, valued by the estate at zero, compared with $17.5 million by the IRS.

The IRS also disallowed $17 million claimed as debts to “other creditors.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...s-bentley-valued-at-250-000-by-irs-taxes.html
 
and an interesting info making the rounds

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.

http://www.srr.com/article/right-of-publicity-an-often-overlooked-asset-in-estate-planning
 
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-property-advice/marlon-brando-case-study.html
 
@Ivy, I found this on your twitter. Is this from courtpapers ?

Ivy ‏@Ivy_4MJ ·9. Feb.
Let me prove it by showing this calculation from IRS about MIJAC catalog - http://twitpic.com/dv0lh8
 
Last edited:
Mneme;3960130 said:
/Bubs:

From what I know... Until this settlement Michael's solo albums (including Off The Wall) were in this agreement with Motown together with all the J 5 songs and albums. Then Michael wanted his own pieces take out of this agreement and put in his own catalogue MiJac.
About this was the case because Motown didn't want this. Finally MJ and Motown/Epic settled the case and Motwon gave Michael his solo pieces.

Of course: After that there were only the pieces from all the J5 and these were not so valuable.

Maybe somebody here knows more then I and can write better about this.

I don't think Off The Wall or other solo albums were never under Motown or Jobete (Motown publ company) since they parted ways?
From what I know that when they walked out from Motown, Joe signed off all the royalties due to them from most of their famous songs(recordings made before 1 Dec 1979 and future releases of recordings made before 11 March 1976) The issue with Motown was that during their time with Motown, they recorded lets say 450 songs (cannot remember the correct number), and Motown released 50 of them. After they parted ways, Motown started releasing those unreleased songs that didn't make the albums and didn't pay royalties, see http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/michael-jackson-sues-motown-20030512
Jackson claims that Motown, the label he signed with in 1969, breached a contract dated January 1980 that required the label to pay him royalties for certain pre-1976 recordings made by Jackson as a solo artist and the Jackson 5. In exchange for those royalties, Jackson had agreed to waive his rights to other pre-1976 recordings. The 1980 contract was actually a settlement agreement stemming from lawsuits filed in 1975 and 1976 by the members of the Jackson 5 against Motown over accounting and contractual obligations.

and if you look the list of Michael's recordings release after 1980, you'll see there are many recordings releases by Motown and I think Berry didn't pay royalties to Michael from those.

More info here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3022737.stm

Jackson’s “share of artist mechanical rights related to Jackson 5 master recordings,” valued by the estate at $11.19 million, compared with $45.49 million by the IRS;

After all, I think IRS is wrong here.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top