Добро пожаловать в Мир Майкла Джексона, Гость!    Регистрация  Или выполнить  Вход       

Ближний и дальний круг знакомых Майкла. Предполагаемые участники и посвященные в хоакс./The inner circle of Michael Jackson. People that are supposed to be in the know, insiders involved in the hoax.

Эстейт Майкла Джексона / Michael Jackson's Estate

Эстейт Майкла Джексона / Michael Jackson's Estate

#131  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 18 июл 2017, 13:05

Tax Court Won't Seal Testimony In Michael Jackson Case

Law360, New York (May 1, 2017, 6:16 PM EDT) -- A federal tax judge on Friday refused to strike or seal testimony by an expert government witness accused of lying on the stand in the estate of Michael Jackson’s tax trial, rejecting the Internal Revenue Service’s claim the testimony contains protected information about the estate of Whitney Houston.
U.S. Tax Court Judge Mark V. Holmes rejected the IRS’ claim that testimony in which Weston Anson, chairman of Consor Intellectual Asset Management, admitted that his firm had been retained by the IRS in a tax dispute with the Houston estate constituted protected information about the deceased singer’s estate, saying it had already become public knowledge that it is involved in a tax dispute with the IRS.

The Jackson estate had accused the IRS of trying to conceal evidence that Anson lied under oath when he previously said he had “not begun any work” on the Houston case.

“The problem for the commissioner here is that it is a matter of public record that the Houston estate is also in Tax Court to challenge the commissioner's determination of a deficiency, and that part of that challenge includes a dispute about the value of Ms. Houston's intellectual-property rights at the time of her death,” the opinion states. “This means that the fact that the Houston estate is being audited is no longer information protected by I.R.C. [Section] 6103.”

While the IRS had sought to have only portions of Anson’s testimony related to his involvement in the Houston estate case sealed or stricken, the Jackson estate has moved to strike the entirety of Anson’s statements, saying the entire testimony is tainted by perjury.

Hochman Salkin Rettig Toscher & Perez PC attorney Avram Salkin, who represents the Jackson estate, told Law360 he expects a decision on that motion sometime this summer.

The IRS claimed that information from Anson’s report regarding the Houston estate constituted protected tax return information. The argument, said Judge Holmes, was plausible, but the court’s decision to allow only the first and last page of that report had been sufficient to establish whether Anson was indeed working on the Houston case without releasing any confidential information.

The IRS also could not argue that disclosure of Anson’s role as an assessor of the value of intellectual property rights of the Houston estate resulted in improper disclosure of the fact that the Houston estate was being audited, since the case is now being heard in the Tax Court and is therefore public record.

Jackson’s estate petitioned the tax court in July 2013, challenging a lengthy notice of deficiency the IRS mailed to the estate that month. The notice contested the estate’s reported valuation of a litany of items, including a 2001 Bentley Arnage and rights to the master recordings of the Jackson 5.

According to the notice, the IRS had adjusted the value of the estate from $7 million to $1.32 billion. As a result, the agency demanded $702 million, including $505.1 million in deficiencies and $196.9 million in accuracy-related penalties.

Anson was called to the stand in the final week of the trial to explain his report, which concluded Jackson’s publicity rights were worth $161 million at the time of his death, compared with the estate’s claim they were worth just $3 million.

During the cross-examination, Anson testified that he had not yet performed any work in connection with the Houston case. But Anson later recanted, saying he gave that answer “on the direction of counsel,” who he said had informed him that revealing information about the case “could result in a felony.”

Anson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The IRS does not comment on pending litigation.

Jackson's estate is represented by Avram Salkin, Charles Paul Rettig, Steven Richard Toscher, Robert S. Horwitz, Edward M. Robbins Jr., Sharyn M. Fisk and Lacey E. Strachan of Hochman Salkin Rettig Toscher & Perez PC, Paul Gordon Hoffman, Jeryll S. Cohen and Loretta Siciliano of Hoffman Sabban & Watenmaker APC, and Howard L. Weitzman of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP.

The IRS is represented in-house by Donna F. Herbert, Malone Camp, Sebastian Voth, Jordan Musen and Denise Larson.

The case is Estate of Michael J. Jackson et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, case number 17152-13, in the U.S. Tax Court.

--Additional reporting by Jimmy Hoover. Editing by Jack Karp.


Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 3):
Admin (17 авг 2017, 01:24) • Olenca (18 июл 2017, 19:40) • franklin5569 (18 июл 2017, 17:04)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2478 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13022 раз.

Re: Эстейт Майкла Джексона / Michael Jackson's Estate

#132  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 25 июл 2017, 14:39

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 3):
Admin (17 авг 2017, 01:24) • franklin5569 (25 июл 2017, 22:54) • Olenca (25 июл 2017, 17:34)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2478 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13022 раз.

Эстейт Майкла Джексона / Michael Jackson's Estate

#133  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 25 июл 2017, 14:48

"CONTRACT MONTRACT"

Quincy Jones, who is suing the Estate of Michael Jackson for $30m for alleged breach of contract, earned major press coverage with his testimony on 7/20. But Jackson’s team points out that the trial had been going on for weeks, with minimal press, prior to Jones taking the stand. They say the case is not based so much on standing contracts as unfounded interpretations—coupled with an emotional appeal that Jones should have a greater share of the Estate’s success.

The Estate team, led by Ziffren Brittenham’s John Branca and John McClain, has transformed the $500m in debt the singer left after his 2009 death into big profits, thanks to a series of innovative record, film, stage and other projects, creating a huge base of wealth for Jackson’s progeny.

Jones, some observers say, feels entitled to a greater share of that pool of money than his contracts stipulate, perhaps motivated by a claim to greater credit more than greed. “I’m not suing, Michael,” he said on the stand. “I’m suing you all [the Estate team].”

Jones has earned some $100m overall on Jackson projects and $19m just since the artist’s death. Any monies he might be awarded by the jury in this case would come out of the Jackson children’s share.

“What’s happened [with the Estate] is nothing short of a miracle for Michael’s kids,” insists MJ Estate attorney Howard Weitzman of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert. “And all of a sudden, out of left field, a guy you would never expect this from makes these claims.”

During his time on the stand, Jones—the producer of Off the Wall and Thriller and co-producer (with Jackson) of Bad—underlined his contributions to Jackson’s albums. When pressed on the points of the deals he’d signed, however, Jones was dismissive. “I don’t care what the agreement says,” he said at one point; at another, “contract, montract.” He made several other remarks minimizing the importance of contractual language (and admissions that he hadn’t read his contracts) throughout his exchange with Weitzman.

“Quincy’s lawsuit [alleges] breach of contract and yet he says the contract doesn’t matter,” notes Branca. “An interesting theory.”

No one on the Jackson team underestimates Jones’ creative contribution. “He is and was a phenomenal producer,” says Branca. “Nobody is trying to take anything away from Quincy,” adds Weitzman. “He is as good as anyone who ever was as a producer. But it’s fair to say that Michael took him to another level too. And he’s done quite well, to say the least.”

Jones has been compensated in the same way—and by the same people, namely Branca—for more than 30 years. During that same period, the producer was repped by Don Passman. “Don never made any of the major claims that are being advanced in this case in 30 years,” Branca relates. “The only thing that’s changed is Quincy’s legal team.” That team, he says, has “trumped up a bunch of stuff and thrown it in front of the jury in the hopes of them getting confused and something sticking.”

“Quincy’s lawsuit [alleges] breach of contract and yet he says the contract doesn’t matter,” notes Branca. “An interesting theory.”

Jones has hired Texas contingency lawyer Mike McKool of McKool Smith, whose new legal team is making a number of fresh claims. One is that the producer is entitled to be paid on song downloads as though they are a license rather than a sale; another is he should participate in productions like the documentary film This Is It and Cirque du Soleil’s Jackson-themed shows as though they were videos, rather than master use licenses; and still another is that a standard clause in his deal that gave Jones first crack at requested “re-edits” from newly submitted albums should now be construed as the exclusive right to do any reworkings of the tracks, in perpetuity.

The Estate called music-biz contract specialist Owen Sloane of Eisner Jaffe as an expert witness to dispute these claims. Sloane described the demand for ticket royalties, for example, as “outrageous” and “absurd.”

It should also be noted that Jackson paid Jones monies not owed contractually as a sort of honorarium, and that the Estate has maintained this tradition. “Technically he only gets paid on the sale or download of records,” Branca points out. “Nevertheless, we have paid him, at my instruction—and, of course, Michael’s, since the ’80s—as if he had a clause in the contract.”

“What do you imagine Michael Jackson would think,” muses Weitzman, who gives his final argument to the jury today (7/24), “if he knew what was going on?”

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 4):
Admin (17 авг 2017, 01:24) • xxx5020xxx (26 июл 2017, 01:01) • franklin5569 (25 июл 2017, 22:54) • Olenca (25 июл 2017, 17:47)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2478 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13022 раз.

Эстейт Майкла Джексона / Michael Jackson's Estate

#134  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 15 авг 2017, 23:24

Specifics of the verdict at Quincy Jones v. MJ Estate trial

Last week jury awarded Quincy Jones $9.42 million in damages in the breach of contract and royalties case Quincy Jones filed against MJ Estate. (His claims against Sony are still pending.). The jury had to answer a very detailed verdict form that consisted of 28 questions. In this post, you will find verdict form questions, jury’s answers and damages awarded.

Question 1 Did Quincy Jones and MJJ Productions enter into a 1978 producer agreement?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 2 Is MJJ productions nonetheless bound by the 1978 producer agreement?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 3 Do any of the following contain re-mixes or re-edits of the master recordings produced by Quincy Jones under the 1978 producer agreement?
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer Yes
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer Yes
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer Yes
D. The album "IMMORTAL"
Jury Answer Yes

Question 4 Under the 1978 producer agreement, was Quincy Jones's right of first opportunity to perform re-mixes or re-edits limited to only those situations where Sony required the re-mix or re-edit of master recordings from "Off the Wall" or "Thriller"?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 5 For the projects listed below that you found in Question 3, contain re-mixes or re-edits, did Sony require the re-mixing or re-editing of master recordings from "Off the Wall" or "Thriller"?
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer Yes
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer Yes
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer Yes
D. The album "IMMORTAL"
Jury Answer Yes

Question 6 For the following projects, did Quincy Jones waive the right to have the first opportunity to create re-mixes or re-edits of master recordings from "Thriller" and/or "Off the Wall"?
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer No
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer No
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer No
D. The album "IMMORTAL"
Jury Answer No

Question 7 Did MJJ Productions fail to provide Quincy Jones with the first opportunity to re-mix or re-edit master recordings from "Off the Wall" and "Thriller" under the 1978 producer agreement on any of the following projects:
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer Yes
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer Yes
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer Yes
D. The album "IMMORTAL"
Jury Answer Yes

Question 8 Was Quincy Jones harmed by MJJ Productions' failure to give him the first opportunity to create re-mixes or re-edits under the 1978 producer agreement?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 9 Are the following projects considered records as used by the 1975 or 1981 recording agreements:
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer No
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer No
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer No

Question 10 Did MJJ productions fail to pay Quincy Jones royalties due to him under the 1978 producer agreement on the following projects:
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer No
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer No
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer No

Question 11 Under the 1978 producer agreement, is Quincy Jones entitled to a share of money from the 2009 joint venture agreement between Michael Jackson and Sony in addition to monies previously paid to Quincy Jones?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 12 Under the 1978 producer agreement, did MJJ Productions fail to pay Quincy Jones a share of the money of the 2009 joint venture agreement between Michael Jackson and Sony in addition to monies previously paid to Quincy Jones?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 13 Under the 1978 producer agreement, is Quincy Jones entitled to a share of SoundExchange, foreign public performance income, and foreign income tax deductions?
Jury Answer No

Question 14 Under the 1978 producer agreement, did MJJ Productions fail to pay Quincy Jones a share of SoundExchange, foreign public performance income, and foreign income tax deductions?
Jury Answer Jury skipped this question as they answered “No” to Question 13

Question 15 Did Quincy Jones and MJJ Productions enter into a 1985 producer agreement?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 16 Do any of the following contain re-mixes or re-edits of the master recordings produced by Quincy Jones under the 1985 producer agreement:
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer Yes
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer Yes
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer Yes
D. The album "IMMORTAL"
Jury Answer Yes
E. The album "Bad 25th Anniversary Edition"
Jury Answer Yes

Question 17 Under the 1985 producer agreement, was Quincy Jones's right of first opportunity to perform re-mixes or re-edits limited to only those situations where Sony or MJJ Productions required the re-mix or re-edit of master recordings from "Bad"?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 18 For the projects listed below that you found in Question No. 16 contained re-mixes or re-edits, did Sony or MJJ Productions require the re-mixing or re-editing of master recordings from "Bad?
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer Yes
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer Yes
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer Yes
D. The album "IMMORTAL"
Jury Answer Yes
E. The album "Bad 25th Anniversary Edition"
Jury Answer Yes

Question 19 For the following projects, did Quincy Jones waive the right to have the first opportunity to create re-mixes or re-edits of master recordings from "Bad"?
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer No
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer No
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer No
D. The album "IMMORTAL"
Jury Answer No
E. The album "Bad 25th Anniversary Edition"
Jury Answer No

Question 20 Did MJJ Productions fail to provide Quincy Jones with the first opportunity to re-mix or re-edit master recordings from "Bad" under the 1985 producer agreement on any of the following projects:
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer Yes
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer Yes
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer Yes
D. The album "IMMORTAL"
Jury Answer Yes
E. The album "Bad 25th Anniversary
Jury Answer Yes

Question 21 Was Quincy Jones's harmed by MJJ Productions' failure to give him the first opportunity to create re-mixes or re-edits under the 1985 producer agreement?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 22 Are the following projects -- are the following projects considered videoshows under the 1985 producer agreement
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer Yes
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer No
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer No

Question 23 Did MJJ Productions fail to pay Quincy Jones on the following projects as videoshows under the 1985 producer agreement?
A. The movie "This Is It"
Jury Answer Yes
B. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: The IMMORTAL World Tour"
Jury Answer No
C. Cirque live show "Michael Jackson: ONE"
Jury Answer No

Question 24 Under the 1985 producer agreement, is Quincy Jones entitled to a share of money from the 2009 joint venture agreement between Michael Jackson and Sony in addition to monies previously paid to Quincy Jones?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 25 Under the 1985 producer agreement, did MJJ Productions fail to pay Quincy Jones a share of money from the 2009 joint venture agreement between Michael Jackson and Sony in addition to monies previously paid to Quincy Jones?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 26 Under the 1985 producer agreement, is Quincy Jones entitled to a share of SoundExchange, foreign public performance income, and foreign income tax deductions?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 27 Under the 1985 producer agreement, did MJJ Productions fail to pay Quincy Jones a share of SoundExchange, foreign public performance income, and foreign income tax deductions?
Jury Answer Yes

Question 28 Jury Award
A. What is the amount that you find that MJJ Productions agrees is owed under the 1978 and 1985 producer agreements? (Note: This is the amount Estate expert testified that Estate owes Quincy) $392,895
B. If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 8, what are Quincy Jones's damages, if any, from MJJ Productions' failure to provide him with the first opportunity to re-mix or re-edit the masters recording produced under the 1978 producer agreement? $745,640
C. If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 21, what are Quincy Jones's damages, if any, from MJJ Productions' failure to provide him with the first opportunity to re-mix or re-edit the master recordings produced under the 1985 producer agreement? $828,488
Re-mix or re-edit total 1,574,128
D. If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 10, what are Quincy Jones's damages, if any, for the following projects under the 1978 producer agreement which covers the albums "Off the Wall" and "Thriller :
A. The movie "This Is It." $0
B. Cirque “The IMMORTAL World Tour." $0
C. Cirque "Michael Jackson: ONE." $0
Royalties under 1978 agreement total $0
E. If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 23, what are Quincy Jones's damages, if any, for the following projects under the 1985 producer agreement which covers the album "Bad"?
A. The movie "This Is It." $1,960,167
B. Cirque “The IMMORTAL World Tour." $0
C. Cirque "Michael Jackson: ONE." $0
Videoshows total $1,960,167
F. If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 12, what are Quincy Jones's damages, if any, under the 1978 producer agreement, for a share of money from the 2009 joint venture agreement between Michael Jackson and Sony in addition to monies previously paid to Quincy Jones? $3,705,819
G. If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 25, what are Quincy Jones's damages, if any, under the 1985 producer agreement for a share of money from the 2009 joint venture agreement between Michael Jackson and Sony in addition to the monies previously paid to Quincy Jones? $1,609,968
2009 Joint Venture Total $5,315,787
H. If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 13, what are Quincy Jones's damages, if any, for SoundExchange, foreign public performance income, and foreign income tax deductions under the 1978 producer agreement? $0
I. If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 27, what are Quincy Jones's damages, if any, for SoundExchange, foreign public performance income, and foreign income tax deductions under the 1985 producer agreement? $180,718
SoundExchange, foreign income total $180,718
TOTAL DAMAGES $9,423,695[/align]

[align=justify]As a comparison below you can find the number from Quincy Jones Expert Report on Damages based on May 2016 revision and August 2016 Supplemental Report. Unfortunately these are organized differently than the verdict form. That makes direct comparison impossible.

Note: These number may have been revised up until trial and some might be demanded from Sony. During the opening statements Jones's lawyer said Jones was owed $30 million.


Quincy Jones Expert Report on Damages as of August 2016
1. Foreign Rates 2001 Artist Agreement $401,209
2. Participation Percentage $194,403
3. Remix fees $4,845,000
4. Audiovisual configuration reduction $148,575
5. Permanent digital downloads $4,778,938
6. Ringtones $285,558
7. Subscription income – Zero royalty $89,165
8. Subscription income – USA and Foreign $1,215,898
9. Coupling/Medleys – Immortal $110,656
10. Markups $169,907
11. Album free goods $136,338
12. Failure to report royalties – videos $282,928
13. Litigation settlements To be determined
14. Public performance and broadcast income $465,426
15. SoundExchange $490,107
16. This is it $462,284
17. This is it Synchronization Fees $3,998,793
18. Ancillary income $10,815
19. Foreign Income Taxes $111,644
20. Master use licenses- 2009 JV Amendment $1,158,678
21. Joint Venture Profits $6,075,186
22 Joint Venture Profits – This is it $569,548
23. Compact Disc Reduction $1,894,672
S1 Unpaid Royalties on MJ net receipts from This is it $11,319,094
Total $37,320,150

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарил:
Admin (17 авг 2017, 01:24)
Рейтинг: 9.09%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2478 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13022 раз.

Facebook

Пред.

Вернуться в ЛЮДИ И СОБЫТИЯ / PEOPLE AND EVENTS