this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
127 points (97.7% liked)
movies
1814 readers
710 users here now
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is there someone who understands / can explain the tax principles behind the removal? I see the term impairment charge mentioned in the article. Best I can tell, the company is saying their book value is higher than the actual value of the item, so they can take the loss and write it off. But why does that necessitate removing it?
Is this also the reason that Disney used to put stuff into "the vault" back in the day?
I'm all on board with piracy-first (I don't even bother to figure out how to pay for movies/TV anymore because piracy is so much more convenient), but I want to be able to explain to a layman why things are getting worse.
Not an accountant but I assume they have to pay members of the cast and crew for having it on their streaming service and, potentially license other content (like songs). In the contracts it'll say they have to pay a lump sum for removing it early and they have figured that this would be the cheaper option.
That makes sense, thanks.