@FireandBlood -

apparently Bob Iger forgot to send some executives to supervised this mediocre flick, same as for The Marvels....

@thedrudo -

Sounds like some producer got a new yacht, from the looks of it.

@WhateverItTakes - i didn't even know the volume was that expensive

@TheVisionary25 - I kinda assume they were locked into a planned way of doing the film and costs ballooned way over and above budget due to the impacts coming out of COVID and inflation etc, however also entirely plausible they padded the costs to the nth degree to get a bigger tax rebate thus not the actual costs at all and just a quirk of creative accounting.

@Itwasme - Theoreticaly speaking I could imagine a scenario where they built a facility for filming in the UK for multiple projects but due to the pandemic the others got dropped or delayed thus lumped all those costs onto the one film that was made (even if those facilities then do get used in the future still).

The stuff international/foreign companies do here to exploit rebates and/or avoid taxes can be insane at times such as HUGE companies like Amazon or McDonalds at times paying zero tax year on year at times by billing from shell companies to appear like they made zero profit or from tax credits for investing in infrastructure.

Specific to the COVID era there was a lot more dodgy accounting to not only get the tax rebate for shooting TV/films but also to cash in on the taxpayer-funded Covid support (McDonalds for instance had total claims on that to the tune of £872M).

@ObserverIO - Depends how they worked the figures, not defending anything here as they spent way too much on a flawed film however creative accounting could theoreticaly mean they included everything including marketing into that figure they submitted for the tax rebate.

They certainly would pad the number as much as they legaly could (not to mention the goto cheats of billing in the UK for stuff done elsewhere even if not explicitly just for that film) and downplay/exlude where they could any other reimbursements such a revenue from product placements so without knowing the precise details on how they cook the books near impossible to say for certain how big or small losses and gains are on any films with certainty.

@Izaizaiza - For one they shouldn't have greenlit more than $150M budget for an Antman film as non of them have done that well at the box office (look at the second one between IW and Endgame as a perfect example). However also do think it is possible they didn't spend over $300m on the film at all but lumped a whole load of unrelated costs onto it to increase the tax rebate as much as they could so...

@Izaizaiza - I say that not in defence but due to how much of it goes on ever here cos it has been an increasing issue of big multibillion dollar companies finding ways to cash in on subsidies, grants and tax breaks and sometimes all at the same time.

The following being an example for that...

https://waronwant.org/news-analysis/secrets-and-fries-mcdonalds-ps295-million-tax-dodge

...thus I never trust at face value any tax filings from any megacorp in the UK.

@JDL - They are avioding the tax that is supposed to be in the UK and Europe not in the country the company is HQ'd in so is huge tax dodges going on including in the US I'd wager. If a UK company was selling in America they should be paying some taxes in America and in the UK, vice versa for an American company selling products in the UK. Been multiple years that McDonald's has paid zero tax in the UK, same with Amazon by exploiting loopholes and creative accounting whilst at the same time taking taxpayer money for subsidies. If you think they are paying as much tax as they should be doing, even in America then...

@JDL - Not gonna sit and explain the UK tax system, multiple layers to it for one thing, but suffice to say a LOT off tax avoidance goes on, and exploitation of subsidies and grants with big companies and a LOT of reporting on it which is suffice to say nobody trusts any big company tax filings.

If your interested google it and research yourself but find it odd anyone trying to defend multi-million £ tax avoidance schemes even, or indeed especialy, when they don't understand the basic math in simplified articles on it.

@JDL - As an accountant you will thus know that exploitation of tax loopholes, sometimes legaly even if considered unfair, sometime illegal does go on and various ways it is or can be done so do your own research on it and find out for yourself.

I was merely giving a couple of examples of ones who were using such techniques on a massive scale to reduce tax burden by millions, whilst also utilising a range of subsidies and grants to additionaly reduce overall costs and increase profit margins as to why laymen tend not to trust at face value tax filings.

Most are aware that huge companies will manipulate figures even if legaly so to increase subsidies and/or tax rebates and/or through methods such as offshoring reduce figures to minimise tax burdens. Sorry if naming a couple of American companies offend but they are two who have been reported on the most but both those companies have been investigated and found to have unfair practices in regard to tax avoidance and at certain points found to be owing hundreds of millions of back taxes that were illegaly avoided.

As I say if your an accountant do your own research into it, all I'm saying is frequent reporting on it means there is little trust that tax filings are fair and accurate when it is known there are ways to inflate or reduce figures for financial advantages even if legal.

@JDL - I am not arguing for anything I gave a couple of examples who use creative accounting to alter their ta and subsidies to demonstrate that figures can be misleading...

...as in that with a film they could add on investments into infrastructure onto the cost of a film in order to increase the subsidy. That infrastructure could thus then earn back all that investment and then some leasing out to other studios after the film was released. Such an investment a laymen would not consider part of the film cost typicaly or at least completely changes the calculations of profit and loss. Thus if out of the submitted tax filing they included building a £100M high tech studio facility for filming the void that facility could be sold at a profit after, leased out and/or result in overall long term savings that pays off that investment and then some thus including that investment into the 2.5 budget equation for profitability would be misleading.

...how the author of an article frames it is another matter, not my words.

That said taxation should be fair such that a huge international company shouldn't be able to completely avoid taxation that a small local company can't to such levels that it completely undermines competition or that a billionaire pays less total tax on their earnings than their secretary in extreme circumstances but that wasn't a debate I was even trying to start.

@Apophis71 - Link doesn't work.