Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson’s Estate Challenges IRS in Tax Dispute

Soundmind;3960154 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think these people who are against the estate, sees this is opportunity to family to go on court and tell the judge that executors f..ed up and needs to be fired or something similar :doh:

Addition, those people who are against the executors thinks that both John's are personally liable for IRS penalties, and they are hoping that court finds them guilty of tax evasion, and have to pay IRS from their own personally assets + beneficiaries will request executors removal for damaging their inheritance :smilerolleyes:

As per article a few pages back:
"If it is found liable for the taxes, the Jackson estate could pay them off by selling assets or asking the IRS if it could pay over 15 years, Katzenstein said."

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

"Family" knows that KJ only gets allowance as per trust instructions (no other way around it), there is no big 40% distribution to KJ even the estate sells all the assets. In their dreams they want both John's out and put someone else as executor who is close to them and will increase KJ monthly allowance to millions.


marc_vivien;3960146 said:
Particularly, two individuals in the fanbase pretend to be tax experts and decided the Irs was right and the estate incompetent
Click to expand...

Those "tax experts" who thinks IRS is right are off the wall:)
IRS also accounted 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. IRS cannot put a value on something that doesn't exist at the time of the death.
Same goes with IRS putting value on things that came only after the death.
Lloyds case was only settled recently and we don't even know what was the settlement amount so IRS can be wrong.

Also they should remember this:
"The Estate used independent, nationally-recognized and highly-qualified expert appraisers in determining the value of the Estate’s assets."

The executors personally didn't do these appraisals, but they hired someone to do it.
 
Last edited:
Bubs said:
I think these people who are against the estate, sees this is opportunity to family to go on court and tell the judge that executors f..ed up and needs to be fired or something similar :doh:

Addition, those people who are against the executors thinks that both John's are personally liable for IRS penalties, and they are hoping that court finds them guilty of tax evasion, and have to pay IRS from their own personally assets + beneficiaries will request executors removal for damaging their inheritance :smilerolleyes:
Click to expand...

yes that's exactly what they are hoping and that's why they are on a "IRS is right" path. However it is important to note that there's a huge difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is using the legal aspects to reduce your tax burden for example there might be 4 approaches to calculate something and you can go with the one that gives the lowest tax amount. Also yes they used appraisal experts.

So there could be instances where Executors of any Estate can be personally held responsible for tax "evasion" but what people think "evasion" might not be evasion (illegal) but it could be avoidance (legal) and they might be okay as long as they can show a reference / reasoning / method for their appraisers calculations.
 
Don't forget that a probate referee (Joseph D. BUA) approved the appraisal.

And this story between the IRS and estate began 18 months ago. There were meetings to settle. But the
estate is standing by their valuations
 
Last edited:
^^^ Good thing they are standing their ground and just don't hand out money to IRS without fight.


Any idea if trial date has been mentioned? I was wondering why Jeff from LA Times dug out this old news, if there is something brewing?

Ivy, you posted this bit:
"So there could be instances where Executors of any Estate can be personally held responsible for tax "evasion" but what people think "evasion" might not be evasion (illegal) but it could be avoidance (legal) and they might be okay as long as they can show a reference / reasoning / method for their appraisers calculations."

So if the estate show reference, reasoning method to their calculations, then the IRS have to shave of $196 million of penalties from total $700 million?

Ref from article:
"The IRS claims that Mr. Jackson’s estate owes a whopping $505.1 million in estate taxes, plus $196.9 million in penalties.[2] Fortunately for the estate, the penalties are based on the taxes due. If the tax charge is struck down, the penalties should go with it."

1 more question. Is this estate tax thingy one time only or yearly thing?
 
Last edited:
In all countries tax authorities are not to be joked with. Sometimes it will be called 'robbers' or 'cutthoats'.
But nothing is as hot eaten as cooked and I am confident.
The IRS officials are fighting for the state and therefore they must try to get money in the treasory so much as possible and they are doing this with teeth and knifes. This is their job!!!
But I never have heard about tax authorities who drived somebody in the ruin. no tax authority is interested on that because they would lose a tax payer in the future.

And Mr. Branca & Mr. Weitzman? They both have build Michael's estate with very much sense, knowledge , passion, heart and soul.
They too will fight with teeths and knifes. They both bring along best prerequisites: their reputation as respectable and credible lawyers and persons.

Both sides will fighten and sometime both sides will do steps. If it need with court's help.


Maybe my view is too naive but although I am a pessimist in this case I am optimistic.
 
Bubs;3960326 said:
Is this estate tax thingy one time only or yearly thing?
Click to expand...

one time thing.

There's income tax which is yearly and paid on anything you earn. Michael and his Estate has been paying that every year. Estate tax is paid once after the death while assets change ownership from the deceased person to their beneficiaries.


Any idea if trial date has been mentioned? I was wondering why Jeff from LA Times dug out this old news, if there is something brewing?
Click to expand...

no nothing going on. You can follow it from here

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

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

So if the estate show reference, reasoning method to their calculations, then the IRS have to shave of $196 million of penalties from total $700 million?
Click to expand...

Well who has the correct calculation for valuation is now a decision for the court. I imagine both sides to explain their calculations and have experts testify and the court would make a decision. If the court agrees Estate's calculations are correct the penalties can be removed or reduced.

Ref from article:
"The IRS claims that Mr. Jackson’s estate owes a whopping $505.1 million in estate taxes, plus $196.9 million in penalties.[2] Fortunately for the estate, the penalties are based on the taxes due. If the tax charge is struck down, the penalties should go with it."
Click to expand...

ditto to this. Penalties are determined based on the difference between the actual tax amount and reported tax amount. IRS charged a penalty because they believe Estate reported a hugely different tax amount. So as the court agrees the taxes due is same or closer to what Estate reported the penalties should go down.

What I was talking about was more about some fans claims of "tax evasion". As I said there are two concepts, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax evasion is doing illegal stuff to not pay taxes and it involves deliberately misrepresenting stuff to pay less taxes. For example if you knew the deceased person had a house and did not list that on Estate tax that would be a deliberate and illegal act of tax evasion. Executors can be personally held responsible for such willful misrepresentations. The other one is "tax avoidance" and it is completely legal. It's when someone uses tax laws, rules, practices to their advantage such as if there are multiple acceptable valuation methods using the one that gives the lowest tax amount and such. So if we are talking about "Can the executors be held responsible", the answer depends on if they can justify their tax reporting.
 
It's a shame that some MJ fans don't understand 'name and likeness' concepts. Tabloid, press or TV coverage just don't cover this concept. It's the capacity for a celebrity (for itself) to earn money, to promote/advertise a product for a company, etc.


"The right of publicity is the right of an individual to control and choose whether and how their identity is used for commercial purposes in an advertisement, promotion of a product/service, or other form of media/communication intended to exploit that person’s likeness for a commercial gain."


TV coverage, tabloid articles don't mean $ in the celebrity pocket. But a company associating with a celebrity to sell a product or service, yes! It's "rights of publicity" concept. California limits this right to 70 years, not hundreds of years.

Now we have some fans pretending (particularly b__marco and themjap) to be "tax experts" but just don't understand the "rights of publicity" concept. And their conspiracy theoris are now annoying. They knows more that Avram Salkin and Charles Rettig, the tax attorneys for estate. They are in negociations with the IRS from 18 months now and never backed off.

Prior to 2009, no company wanted to involved with MJ and to pay him for promotion/t-shirts/commercials.
 
Last edited:
Its funny how the same ppl that tried and to an extent destroyed mjs rep are the same ppl now claiming the opposite inorder to screw him out of more money/assets
 
What do you mean Elusive? What people you are talking about?
-----------------------------------



Anyone knows if this goes to trial whether it will be behind closed door and we only get to hear the results?
 
Last edited:
marc_vivien;3960558 said:
It's a shame that some MJ fans don't understand 'name and likeness' concepts. Tabloid, press or TV coverage just don't cover this concept. It's the capacity for a celebrity (for itself) to earn money, to promote/advertise a product for a company, etc.


"The right of publicity is the right of an individual to control and choose whether and how their identity is used for commercial purposes in an advertisement, promotion of a product/service, or other form of media/communication intended to exploit that person’s likeness for a commercial gain."


TV coverage, tabloid articles don't mean $ in the celebrity pocket. But a company associating with a celebrity to sell a product or service, yes! It's "rights of publicity" concept. California limits this right to 70 years, not hundreds of years.

Now we have some fans pretending (particularly b__marco and themjap) to be "tax experts" but just don't understand the "rights of publicity" concept. And their conspiracy theoris are now annoying. They knows more that Avram Salkin and Charles Rettig, the tax attorneys for estate. They are in negociations with the IRS from 18 months now and never backed off.

Prior to 2009, no company wanted to involved with MJ and to pay him for promotion/t-shirts/commercials.
Click to expand...

And TheMJAP..This is what they say and it´s retweeted by Karen.. pfft..

Retweeted by Karen Faye
TheMJAP ‏@TheMJAP 12h

@B__Marco Look at them scrambling around trying to denigrate Michael Jackson's image in order to prop up John Branca and McClain's image.
View conversation

Retweeted by Karen Faye
TheMJAP ‏@TheMJAP 12h

@B__Marco But it's another great example of what the MJ Estate think of Michael Jackson and what the MJ Estate fans think of Michael Jackson
View conversation
Click to expand...

I´m not an MJ Estate fan, I wish they could get their heads out of their as___les and understand that. But I do think they (Estate) do a good job, so far after all these years it seem like it at least.
 
^^ I had a giggle at that:) I was thinking that if those estate hired experts had put Michael's image and likeness for $500 million, what would they say then?

If that was the case, then estate had to sell the assets to pay IRS, and no doubt in my mind, those conspiracy theorists would be accusing them that they purposely put it so high, and it was their plan all along to sell catalogues :doh:

Btw, Karen fake re-tweeting this bit:
"But it's another great example of what the MJ Estate think of Michael Jackson and what the MJ Estate fans think of Michael Jackson"

Rich, coming from so called friend whose email was found from Frank's laptop, which she most likely would have preferred not to see a day light.
"It seems like he is setting himself up to be the victim,"
"I don't think you, Kenny, or Randy deserve becoming the villains, or the financial victims."

Karen's own email is clear indication of what she thinks of Michael, so she just should shut her mouth and disappear.

Btw, I'm glad to see that things aren't too good for her, as she is spending her time in twitter talking to those two conspiracy theorist:cheeky:
 
Last edited:
B__marco just don't understand the likeness concept. For him, likeness = likeability.

Just because people bought TII tickets or bought albums don't mean any company wanted to endorse MJ
 
Annita said:
Join Times staff writer Jeff Gottlieb for a live chat at 12:30 p.m. Wednesday on the battle between Michael Jackson's estate and the Internal Revenue Service.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...on-20140211-dto,0,1312968.story#ixzz2t8FpEOvO

Looks as if Gottlieb sees himself as an expert in the case
Click to expand...

thanks. but no thanks.

I wouldn't watch it even if they pay me. another lame attempt to exploit MJ.

they wrote an article last friday that was quickly copied and pasted around the net. and now they want to capitalize on it by hosting a so-called chat where they obviously going to smear MJ memory.
 
Annita said:
Join Times staff writer Jeff Gottlieb for a live chat at 12:30 p.m. Wednesday on the battle between Michael Jackson's estate and the Internal Revenue Service.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...on-20140211-dto,0,1312968.story#ixzz2t8FpEOvO

Looks as if Gottlieb sees himself as an expert in the case
Click to expand...

LATIMES Chat log

Kimi Yoshino: Hi. I'm assistant metro editor Kimi Yoshino. Reporter Jeff Gottlieb is joining me today to talk about the battle between the Michael Jackson estate and the IRS.

Jeff Gottlieb: Hi Kimi

Kimi Yoshino: Here's a link to Jeff's story: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-jackson-taxes-20140208,0,3089248.story

LAT: Sorry. I'm having a couple technical problems.

LAT: Jeff, an interesting thing has happened since MJ died ... he's making more money now.

LAT: What's the IRS have to say about this?

Guest:
hi, what is the estate's position here ?

lolo:
What is the estate's position in this battle ? Do they stand by their caluations ?


Jeff Gottlieb: He is. Of course, we don't know what would have happened if he had lived, since he was rehearsing for a tour, but his death created more interest in him, led to more CD's being sold and the documentary "This Is It."

Kimi Yoshino: So the guests are wondering ... what does the estate have to say? And how does all this get sorted out?

Jeff Gottlieb: The IRS says Jackson's estate was worth $1.125 billion. The estate says it was worth $7 million at the time of his death. They wouldn't have submitted those numbers if they didn't believe in them.

Kimi Yoshino: That's a HUGE, HUGE disparity.

Kimi Yoshino: What happens next?

Jeff Gottlieb: The IRS and the estate continue discussions, hoping to come to a settlement. If not, it ends up in federal tax court, where it will be up to the judge.

Kimi Yoshino: Another disparity: The estate valued Jackson's likeness at just $2,105. The IRS put it at $434.264 million.

Kimi Yoshino: That seems like a pretty low number for his likeness. How did they even come up with that number?

Jeff Gottlieb: The estate wouldn't comment for the story, but they probably would say that when he died, no one was beating down Michael's doors for endorsements and had no merchandise on the market. He hadn't toured and put out a CD in many years.

Kimi Yoshino: But money is coming in now, right? Can the estate foot a big tax bill?

Jeff Gottlieb: the estate hired appraisers who filed reports explaining their numbers. those reports aren't public

Kimi Yoshino: Katherine Jackson and the family lost their wrongful-death case against AEG. Is there anything new on that?

Jeff Gottlieb: The estate is making lots of money. If they have to pay the IRS, the could sell assets or ask the IRS if they could pay it over 15 years.

Jeff Gottlieb: The judge wouldn't set aside her verdict. More appeals are coming, I'm sure

Kimi Yoshino: Is there a deadline for the IRS and the estate to work out a deal?

Jeff Gottlieb: Most of the information on the case is not public. As far as I know, there is no trial date, and you can always cut a deal until the judge makes a decision.

Kimi Yoshino: So this could drag on for awhile?

Jeff Gottlieb: It could, although the huge majority of these cases are settled before they go to court.

Kimi Yoshino: Other than the AEG case and possible appeals, are there any other pending legal matters related to Jackson's death?

Jeff Gottlieb: None that I know of

Kimi Yoshino: This is a pretty interesting comment from a reader:

juneyny1 :

Valuation of assets for estate tax purposes should be at date of death. Catalog was valued at zero b/c MJ had borrowed against it nearly up to its value, hence, tax value would be minimal. Now, nearly five years later, most debts have been paid and catalog is no longer encumbered, but this is now, not June 25, 2009. Just don't understand the IRS' position on this one.


Jeff Gottlieb: that's what the Jackson estate would say. Unfortunately, the IRS won't explain its reasoning.

Jeff Gottlieb: Most people agree that the executors of the estate have done a very good job of maximizing income.

Kimi Yoshino: Thanks, jeff.

Kimi Yoshino: We'll just await further developments.

Jeff Gottlieb: You're welcome. People can follow me on twitter at gottliebjeff

Kimi Yoshino: Thanks for joining us. We'll see everyone tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. for another L.A. Now Live chat.
 
So what was the point of the Jeff chat. He had nothing new to say. He did not know what the IRS explanations are since the IRS is not talking. There is no news about what is happening between the two parties. The estate is not talking and neither is the IRS. Everything was just a rehash of what was said since day one.
 
Well it gave listeners, who know Nothing, some perspective of what the case is about. . The best info of the Estates side came from one of the listeners and Jeff agreed. Most fans have no idea what this case is about. So the more info getting out there is good, Because the Estate is taking a bashing from some factions of the fan base. It good fans can hear another more rational side of this issue. IMO
 
Petrarose said:
So what was the point of the Jeff chat. He had nothing new to say. He did not know what the IRS explanations are since the IRS is not talking. There is no news about what is happening between the two parties. The estate is not talking and neither is the IRS. Everything was just a rehash of what was said since day one.
Click to expand...

A massive waste of time. LA times trying to exploit yet again MJ.
 
Bubs said:
What do you mean Elusive? What people you are talking about?
-----------------------------------



Anyone knows if this goes to trial whether it will be behind closed door and we only get to hear the results?
Click to expand...

the establishments bubs whether it be the police the media or the tax man
 
I wouldn't waste my time reading certain people's tweets, they have been naming and shaming the Estate's co-executors since 2009 and they will be doing this for the rest of their lives the same way they will always refuse to learn why there's nothing wrong with the 2002 will, why there's no black and white such as their "Estate plants / fake fans" conviction.
Who cares about these individuals?
It all started with Michael's rant against Sony - which they see nothing wrong with because they don't care about MJ's personal issues and breaches of contract, to them Michael is perfect and everyone else is evil - which gives them room for their fictional painting of all kinds of conspiracies regarding the Estate and Sony.
Because there have been indeed leeches like Tohme Tohme - introduced to Michael by his own family, the "lion cubs" - and other people who got rich on and cheated on MJ (Chandlers, Arvizo, Bashir etc.), it's easy for them to make the Estate and Sony appear as evil, too.
 
Korgnex said:
I wouldn't waste my time reading certain people's tweets, they have been naming and shaming the Estate's co-executors since 2009 and they will be doing this for the rest of their lives the same way they will always refuse to learn why there's nothing wrong with the 2002 will, why there's no black and white such as their "Estate plants / fake fans" conviction.
Who cares about these individuals?
It all started with Michael's rant against Sony - which they see nothing wrong with because they don't care about MJ's personal issues and breaches of contract, to them Michael is perfect and everyone else is evil - which gives them room for their fictional painting of all kinds of conspiracies regarding the Estate and Sony.
Because there have been indeed leeches like Tohme Tohme - introduced to Michael by his own family, the "lion cubs" - and other people who got rich on and cheated on MJ (Chandlers, Arvizo, Bashir etc.), it's easy for them to make the Estate and Sony appear as evil, too.
Click to expand...

To this there is nothing to add!
 
passy001 said:
A massive waste of time. LA times trying to exploit yet again MJ.
Click to expand...

I agree. If listeners tuned in to hear new information it was a waste of time. The original information that came out it still the best information since nothing new is known to anyone. Even if people were listening to made up fan stories, the original information is still there for people to read. All this is just a rehashing of what is known.
 
Michael Jackson vs. IRS: Killer battle over value of the estate
For famous clients, careful planning needed to keep the value of image out of Tax Man's clutches

By Darla Mercado
Feb 13, 2014 @ 12:01 am (Updated 10:39 am) EST
PrintE-mailOrder Reprints
8Shares

A bitter court battle between Michael Jackson's estate and the Internal Revenue Service spotlights a major problem for clients who are rich and famous: placing a value on intangible assets.

Mr. Jackson, who died in 2009, is once again front-and-center as his estate takes on the IRS in Tax Court. The chief problem at hand is the valuation of the estate, which Mr. Jackson's executors valued at just over $7 million but the IRS contends is worth about $1.125 billion, according to The Los Angeles Times. As a result, the Tax Man is now saying that the estate owes some $702 million in taxes and penalties, the Times reported.

Key valuations the IRS is fighting include Mr. Jackson's likeness, which the estate placed at $2,105. The IRS claims that that number should be $434 million, according to the Times.

Advertisement


Why the wide range?

The problem is that the IRS doesn't have a defined method when it comes to determining the commercial value of publicity rights at death, noted Charlie Douglas, editor of the National Association of Estate Planners and Councils' Journal of Estate and Tax Planning. The assets in question are intangible, such as the likeness or image of a rock star, as opposed to the value of the music he or she released and the records sold.

The other issue is that in general, a higher valuation on an estate will lead to higher estate taxes. But where do intangibles stand among other assets in an estate?

More: 5 biggest estate planning mistakes

One possible method to put a value on the intangible asset is to project the income the image or likeness could earn over what's called its “remaining useful life” — the expected period in which the image will remain relevant. Income can include the royalties the estate receives from licensing the name or image of the decedent to a company that will make T-shirts or posters using it.

“Everyone agrees on the methodology [of using the income method], but it's the inputs in the methodology that they disagree over. The key input is: What's the remaining life on the brand?” said Robert Reilly, an accountant and valuation expert at Willamette Management Associates. “For someone like Marilyn Monroe or Elvis, that income goes on for years and years.”

But even if two parties — say an estate and the IRS — come to agreement on the length of the “remaining useful life,” there can still be a dispute on what will happen to that projected income over that time. Will it rise or fall?

“If you look at those factors, we're going to agree on the same formula in the equation, but the input will be different and so will the output,” Mr. Reilly said.

In the best of scenarios, celebrities' executors bring in not just the accountant and lawyer, but also a skilled appraiser when determining how to account for the value of a trademark, brand or image.

“When there are unusual assets, for which there aren't public markets or many comparable sales, valuation becomes a more difficult process,” said Andrew M. Katzenstein, a partner in the personal planning department at Proskauer Rose. Vetting the valuation for the tax return is then up to the estate attorney or the accountant, or whoever is preparing the estate tax return for submission.

There's plenty for estate planning experts to take away from the tiff between the IRS and Michael Jackson's estate. For one thing, having the IRS assign a huge value to an allegedly undervalued estate could potentially render it insolvent if there aren't enough assets to pay the tax bill, Mr. Douglas noted.

As a result, there are a couple of planning tactics to consider while the celebrity is still on the right side of the grass. For instance, it may be time to think about reassessing life insurance arrangements and ensuring they match up with the perceived value of the intangible assets and the income they produce.

Another idea: If the person is at a low point in his or her career, why not place a valuation on the intangible assets and then transfer the right to them to a trust to keep the intangible assets out of the estate? Mr. Douglas suggested. This works even better if the asset eventually goes up in value because all the appreciation will be out of the estate.

“If Jackson's case becomes a precedent, there will be a new area of planning for celebrities,” he said. “Nobody is thinking of what to do, and there is the potential to wipe out the estate if the [intangible assets] end up with a large valuation.”

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20140213/FREE/140219952
 
IRS continues fight over Jackson estate valuation

On behalf of Connie Yi of Law Offices of Connie Yi, PC posted in Estate Taxes on Wednesday, February 12, 2014.

The conflict between the Internal Revenue Service and the estate of legendary pop singer Michael Jackson continues as the IRS announces huge penalties for the alleged purposeful undervaluing of the estate. We covered this issue in a post last year when it first came to light that there was a valuation issue.

Valuing an estate can be a tricky business, particularly when the estate is made up assets like intellectual property that can change in value over time and may have unpredictable worth. In the case of Jackson’s estate, two central trust assets were responsible for a large part of the discrepancy between the estate’s $7 million valuation and the $1.125 billion valuation assessed by the IRS.

One of those trust assets is Jackson’s likeness, which the estate valued at just $2,105. His likeness is used for merchandise and promotional materials and may rise or fall in value depending upon the popularity of the singer at any given time. We know now that in the months after he passed away, Jackson’s work began selling at higher rates and his likeness was shown to have quite a high value, perhaps closer to the $434 million that the IRS estimated.

Another asset of uncertain value is Jackson’s interests in copyrights, particularly his interest in a large portion of The Beatles’ catalog of hits. At the time of his passing, Jackson had taken out a large loan on the value of that catalog. The estate valued the catalog at zero dollars, while the IRS found it to be worth $469 million.

These are clearly contentious issues and the vast difference in valuation on this scale is not something that the average California family will face. However, the issue of properly valuing estate assets to minimize taxes within the bounds of the law is something that many family deal with and often the advice of an expert can help strike the appropriate balance.


http://www.connieyilaw.com/blog/2014/02/irs-continues-fight-over-jackson-estate-valuation.shtml
 
“If Jackson's case becomes a precedent, there will be a new area of planning for celebrities,” he said. “Nobody is thinking of what to do, and there is the potential to wipe out the estate if the [intangible assets] end up with a large valuation.”

Michael is still breaking ground for new things, but in this case it's not good thing.

Isn't this first time when image and likeness is valued as asset for estate tax?
 
Bubs said:
Isn't this first time when image and likeness is valued as asset for estate tax?
Click to expand...

No actually the first time is V.C. Andrews - the author back in the 90s. She had a multiple book deal signed but died before completing the book deal. Her Estate did not list her name as an asset but IRS did and valued her name at $1.2 Million. Her Estate disagreed with it. It went to trial with multiple experts battling. At the end the court ruled her name worth $703,500.

This is the ruling on that case - http://www.completevca.com/art_EstAndrews.shtml
 
I know I am going to sound really paranoid here. It's just I feel whenever things are going well for Michael and now that the estate doing better financially people just want to destroy it. These articles make things look bad. I am sorry for my paranoia here.
 
For reference

Valuations by Estate / IRS

Hayvenhurst : $4,100,000 / $ 5,525,000 (Mortgage on Hayvenhurst: $ 4,071,931 to be subtracted)

MJJ Ventures : $13,739,304/ $81,133,084

Neverland : $0 / $ 1,755,722

1955 Rolls Royce : $26,300 / $0

1957 Rolls Royce : $74,200 / $ 0

1990 Rolls Royce : $ 55,000 / $45,000

2001 Bentley : $ 91,600 / $250,000

J5 Master recording rights : $11,193,329 / $45,492,424

Image and likeliness : $2,105 / $434,264,000

Personal property on tour in Japan : $ 624,380 / $0

Personal property in storage 1 : $ 6,077,738 / $0

Personal property in storage 2 : $15,000,000 / $0

Personal property (not in Estate’s possession) : $2,000,000 / $0

Personal property not reported : $0 / $45,000,000

Personal property Feb 2013 addition: $0 / $24,350

Lloyd’s policy : $0 / $17,500,000

Cash recoverable from Tohme : $0 / $5,510,478

Sony/ATV : $0 / $ 469,005,086

MIJAC : $2,207, 351 / $ 60,685,944 (Liabilities of $72, 152,649 has been subtracted)

Note: Any loans/debts excluding mortgage have been subtracted from above assets.

Other Debts valued by Estate /IRS

Creditor claims paid: $6,539,545 / $11,268,595

Other creditor’s claims : $17,000,000 / $0

2008 federal income tax : $136,614 / $137,861

2008 NY income tax : $ 109,552 / $ 116,386

2008 federal gift tax : $ 254,007 / $ 262,323

2007 federal income tax: $ 124, 422 / $ 126,384

Hayvenhurst mortgage : $ 4,071,931 / $4,071,931
 
Creditor claims paid: $6,539,545 / $11,268,595

They cannot even agreed how much of creditors claims has been paid!


Just for fun I checked going rate on 2001 Bentley Arnage which was valued by the estate at $91,600, compared with $250,000 by the IRS. Going rate is around $25-45 thousands, so those experts putting double because it was owned by MJ is ok, and IRS is off the wall.
I looked Juliens April 2009 catalogue and what prices he put on MJ's cars, but none of the car were valued anywhere near what IRS valued that Bentley (I know there are variables but still).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top