CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
As far as I know, Axanar is not a signatory to the WGA, so its agreement doesn't apply to them, particularly since it's no longer allowed to pay its writers or production staff.
On AxaMonitor: We've obtained documents revealing Axanar's undisclosed corporate structure, shining light onto previous obfuscations about Alec Peters from his official spokesman, Mike Bawden. Read more »
Does anybody have a GIF of the anvil falling on the Coyote's head?
Does this shock ANYONE at this point?On AxaMonitor: We've obtained documents revealing Axanar's undisclosed corporate structure, shining light onto previous obfuscations about Alec Peters from his official spokesman, Mike Bawden. Read more »
I think at this stage Lane is talking for the sake of talking. Fight the good fight, defend the defenceless etc - and the more it goes on, it feels like a desperate need to be part of the inner circle.
Still makes more sense than Peters though....
I would be pooping myself in this scenario. I've had run ins with HMRC in the UK with the biggest bug bear being that most transactions with performers were cash in hand and customers paid mostly by cash (initially 70-80%, but that fell to around 30% cash only intake and 86% outgoings in good old fashioned paper money). They became convinced that I was hiding something, or not declaring income and stalked my finances relentlessly - and it was a completely normal, understandable issue with a full paper trail well before they got involved.
Axanar seems to just make it up as they go. And the IRS seems far more threatening than our system. With so many inconsistencies and fairy tales so far, I just can't understand why they (he) is so convinced nothing bad can happen.
Hi. Its interesting that such guidelines exist. And Axanar, representing themselves as a "fully professional producer of Trek" should perhaps have been paying attention to the union, etc. guidelines that a "fully professional" entertainment industry operation might be subject to. Maybe they did.
However, the main issue about Axanar that has caught peoples' attention is more basic. Where's the money. Where's the film. Isn't what Axanar is doing sometimes illegal?
Is your point that Axanar breaks rules because rules in Hollywood are too ponderous, so its obvious that rules should be ignored?
That's interesting. But the rules Axanar (arguably) may have have broken/acted questionably about pertain to copyright, taxes/employment law, and (potentially) contract law between donors and the project. It seems way more serious than the union guidelines example you offer.
Hm. Begs for a superhero designation. Someone who unstoppably comes to your defense with the argument "that's nothing by comparison to what else they have done!".
By day, Professional Land Surveyor for Star Trek Federation University.
By night, declaiming What's The Fuss with Leonard Mccoy Acting Outrageously !
its...
Last edited:
@RedForman .... Funny, but those look like regular puppets, not sock puppets.
Hey, you can get better looking Puppets when you have 1.4+ million to spend.
Damn, dude, you must be a lawyer. You actually took the time to understand and parse that word salad!
Ha ha. I'm a journalist. Wer're trained to scan and look for anomalies. In this case, the phrase "look at the rules they [WGA] gave Axanar to go by" was the problem, since Axanar isn't bound by that union's rules.Damn, dude, you must be a lawyer. You actually took the time to understand and parse that word salad!
Are we assuming money raised by social funding is income? I don't pay attention to the fund raising programs anymore which leaves me with zero clue how the money is considered.
I would imagine some poor soul having a successful $2 million fund raiser in which the completed transfer came at years end and owing a boat load to the State and IRS, if it were income.
Or are you closer to a ward of the funds with fiduciary responsibility to cause or create a desired effect or product?
Does anyone know if the received funds have been means tested for classification?
I would imagine some poor soul having a successful $2 million fund raiser in which the completed transfer came at years end and owing a boat load to the State and IRS, if it were income.
Or are you closer to a ward of the funds with fiduciary responsibility to cause or create a desired effect or product?
Does anyone know if the received funds have been means tested for classification?
It depends on the actual receiver of the crowdfunding. If it's you, an individual, you have tax liability. If you have a corporation or LLC and they're the recipients then those entities are liable for applicable taxes. In the case of an LLC, the tax liability may funnel down to the LLC members.
Looks like California charges a 1.5% tax on net profits plus an $800/yr fee for S Corps. Axanar supposedly didn't ever make a profit so no tax would be due. The profits or losses flow through the S Corp to the shareholders via a Schedule K-1, which Lane said Alec never received, even though it is required to be filed every year. How did he file his taxes for the past three years without a K-1? It would be like an employee trying to file without a W-2. You can, I suppose but it would be weird. Lane said he never got a W-2 either. Unreal.
https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/structures/s-corporations.shtml
If I understand correctly, the tax laws are pretty lenient with the first couple of years for startups. Showing a loss is not really a problem, but after that, the IRS can start seeing the "business" as a "hobby" with far fewer tax breaks. At some point you need to show some sign of making a profit to prove you are a genuine business. I doubt if the IRS would be amused if someone tried to justify the lack of any profit by saying the business is supposed to be "not for profit". You don't get to have it both ways, although that's never stopped LFIM from trying...
Its a "domestic stock" corporation at the California level, per those terms. No S/C type at state level is what I understand.
From what I read, at a Federal level if Alec filed a pass-through "S Corp", then the corporate profit/loss tax burden is passed through to the shareholders.
What would be 'profit' when you have a good year where donations exceed expenses, as may have been the case in 2015? Is crowdsourced money "profit" when received by a for profit corporation and not fully spent during the year received?
Perhaps Axanar was spending on personal matters ("salary" and "business expenses") and throwing the money into a studio in 2015 partly so that that enough money could be written off as business expense to wipe out any 2015 taxable "profit".
Maybe the space/utilities allocated to Propworx is not treated as an income for Propworx, and is additionally written off as an expense by Axanar... since its space paid for by Axanar and not generating a profit for Axanar.
It could be a problem to explain any business deductions on that 'salary' with no empoyment records. And as I read, you can't set up a corp and then just use its money personally as a loan. You could for example unofficially loan yourself all the corporation money for a term of life+1 day, debt released upon passing.
I'm not a tax consultant so this is just trying to piece things together.
Last edited:
Since it sounds like Alec finally hired a CPA I'm sure they will advise him to follow the law, which does allow some working of the numbers to reduce his tax burden. But he may be in for a penalty for late filing as well as back taxes due. I just can't comprehend how an experienced business owner could have screwed up this badly, unless it was intentional, of course.
I'd bet real money it was intentional
More Slow Lane for your amusement though
http://fanfilmfactor.com/2017/03/07...heck-part-3-the-inconvenient-truth/#more-3546
- Status