>>213606882
The figure for UK TAX RELEIF PURPOSES will be made as high as possible, in order to claim as much money knocked off taxes as possible, and to do that they'll include a lot of "creative accounting". Things like total expected lifetime residual payments inthe contracts of stars and the director, or wages that are actually paid by Warner Bros, like those of the accountants for example which are included in the assessment for tax as they were doing stuff for the film, so can be counted in an overall total.
Ever wonder why the "special thanks" section in the credits is so long these days?
Also note that it is quoted in $ not £ as it would be to the British Tax Authorities, they have done that to cherry pick a day with a favourable exchange rate for their accounting to bump the "UK costs" up and make it seem bigger.
Its unethical but not illegal, like the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. If you are getting a $370m movie tax break on what is really a $250m movie then you're saving a lot of money. That money can then be taken off the $250 budget meaning the film may have even cost less than $200m.
Dodgy accounting is where most films make most of their profits, its been like that almost as long as there have been films, how do you think Jews got such a strong presence in the industry in the first place?
