> That they actually incurred the losses they claim to have incurred, so they get a tax break. The taxpayer is defrauded.
Did they not incur such losses? Did they claim to delete the movie but actually kept a backup? Granted, the loss is self-inflicted, but that's not a relevant factor in the tax code.
Destroying a movie to claim the tax break is analogous to burning your house down for the insurance money or to claim a casualty loss. Yes, you really did lose your house. No, you are not entitled to claim it as a write-off.
If I burn down my house and claim insurance or tax losses, they’ll laugh and send me to jail. Explain how a corporation doing the effectively the same thing should get a write off. It’s a sham.
The deductible losses are supposed to be incurred in pursuit of profit. Not every expense a business incurs is tax deductible. Not even trying to sell it calls into question whether it was in pursuit of profit. They’re expecting the American tax payer to make up the shortfall and that’s likely based on Hollywood’s unique accounting practices, which has a tendency to inflate the claimed expense amount.
You make a good point. When somebody says something should be illegal, the clever route of discussion is to repeatedly point out that it is not currently illegal — a fact that both of you agree about, since that is the premise for making the statement that it should be illegal.
We aren't arguing that it's tax fraud by definition, but that it should be considered fraud. If the tax code incentivizes destroying something then that seems like a defect of the tax code.
No insurance company in the world will pay out insurance if you commit arson against your own house because that's stupid. Same thing should apply here. Destroying a film to get a tax break at the very least should incur penalties
From wikipedia:
>In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.
Where's the deception here?