The post The Downside Of Using Investment Contracts For Films appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. I t is extremely common in the film industry for investments in films to be documented with “investment contracts,” rather than as membership interests in an LLC used by almost all other industries. This practice evolved due to the film industry’s historic practice of relying on informal contracts (napkin deals do occur) and the perceived complexity of using LLCs. This article suggests a number of downsides to this approach. Unlimited Liability. One potential downside is that an investment contract may be treated as creating a deemed partnership under state law if the investor has a share of net profits, as is common. This result applies notwithstanding the standard provision in investment contracts stating, “this is not a partnership,” since such clauses may be ignored by the courts if the transaction is in substance a partnership. If an investment contract is treated as creating a deemed partnership, it will be treated as a general partnership because there is no state filing for it, as would be the case for a limited partnership or LLC. The net result is that the investor may be treated as a general partner, so the investor may be liable for any third-party claims that arise in connection with production of the film. If the transaction had been structured as a membership interest in an LLC, the investor would have no risk of personal liability for such claims. Tax Consequences to Investor. Notwithstanding the possible treatment of an investment contract as a partnership under state law, the tax rule is, “you made your bed, go lie in it.” Since the transaction is not structured as a partnership or LLC for tax purposes, the investors may not be entitled to any deduction for their investment, since there is no tax code provision that would permit it. The investors… The post The Downside Of Using Investment Contracts For Films appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. I t is extremely common in the film industry for investments in films to be documented with “investment contracts,” rather than as membership interests in an LLC used by almost all other industries. This practice evolved due to the film industry’s historic practice of relying on informal contracts (napkin deals do occur) and the perceived complexity of using LLCs. This article suggests a number of downsides to this approach. Unlimited Liability. One potential downside is that an investment contract may be treated as creating a deemed partnership under state law if the investor has a share of net profits, as is common. This result applies notwithstanding the standard provision in investment contracts stating, “this is not a partnership,” since such clauses may be ignored by the courts if the transaction is in substance a partnership. If an investment contract is treated as creating a deemed partnership, it will be treated as a general partnership because there is no state filing for it, as would be the case for a limited partnership or LLC. The net result is that the investor may be treated as a general partner, so the investor may be liable for any third-party claims that arise in connection with production of the film. If the transaction had been structured as a membership interest in an LLC, the investor would have no risk of personal liability for such claims. Tax Consequences to Investor. Notwithstanding the possible treatment of an investment contract as a partnership under state law, the tax rule is, “you made your bed, go lie in it.” Since the transaction is not structured as a partnership or LLC for tax purposes, the investors may not be entitled to any deduction for their investment, since there is no tax code provision that would permit it. The investors…

The Downside Of Using Investment Contracts For Films

For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

I

t is extremely common in the film industry for investments in films to be documented with “investment contracts,” rather than as membership interests in an LLC used by almost all other industries. This practice evolved due to the film industry’s historic practice of relying on informal contracts (napkin deals do occur) and the perceived complexity of using LLCs. This article suggests a number of downsides to this approach.

Unlimited Liability. One potential downside is that an investment contract may be treated as creating a deemed partnership under state law if the investor has a share of net profits, as is common. This result applies notwithstanding the standard provision in investment contracts stating, “this is not a partnership,” since such clauses may be ignored by the courts if the transaction is in substance a partnership. If an investment contract is treated as creating a deemed partnership, it will be treated as a general partnership because there is no state filing for it, as would be the case for a limited partnership or LLC. The net result is that the investor may be treated as a general partner, so the investor may be liable for any third-party claims that arise in connection with production of the film. If the transaction had been structured as a membership interest in an LLC, the investor would have no risk of personal liability for such claims.

Tax Consequences to Investor. Notwithstanding the possible treatment of an investment contract as a partnership under state law, the tax rule is, “you made your bed, go lie in it.” Since the transaction is not structured as a partnership or LLC for tax purposes, the investors may not be entitled to any deduction for their investment, since there is no tax code provision that would permit it. The investors certainly don’t get any deductions directly attributable to the film (such as section 181 deductions). The result may be that the investors are taxed on 100% of any cash they receive, even if they don’t recoup their investment, and they may end up with an unhappy capital loss at some distant point in the future.

There is also uncertainty regarding the tax characterization of the payments the investors receive. The payments won’t be treated as “passive income” (which would permit the income to be offset by “passive losses), and it is not clear what withholding rate applies if the investors are foreign.

Tax Consequences to Producer. A corollary to the tax rule of “you made your bed, go lie in it,” is that the producer is probably immediately taxed on receipt of the investment, since an investment contract is treated as a current taxable sale of a potential future income stream. An investment contract isn’t a loan and it isn’t equity, since the tax definition of equity is an interest in an entity, such as a membership interest in an LLC. That leaves the only alternative for the payment the producer receives being taxable income. It is also not clear whether the producer can deduct any payments to the investor when made, or whether the payments have to be capitalized to the film. The producer will also be at risk if the producer doesn’t withhold tax if the investor is foreign.

Unclear Rights. While LLC’s have a set of statutory provisions outlining the rights of the members (such as inspection, voting, and dissenters’ rights), there are no such provisions governing investment contracts, so disputes can occur when the investor and the producer have different understandings of the investor’s rights.

Overlooking the Securities Laws. It is quite common for producers using investment contracts to not realize (or ignore the fact) that they are issuing a securities, which can expose them to criminal and civil liability. When membership interests in an LLC are issued, everyone is much more alert to the requirement to comply with the securities laws.

So at least take these issues into consideration before choosing an investment contract instead of an LLC. LLC agreements don’t have to be long or complicated. Indeed, they can be shorter than some investment contracts, so length alone should not be a consideration.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/schuylermoore/2025/09/18/the-downside-of-using-investment-contracts-for-films/

Market Opportunity
Threshold Logo
Threshold Price(T)
$0.00663
$0.00663$0.00663
+0.04%
USD
Threshold (T) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Tags:

You May Also Like

American Bitcoin’s $5B Nasdaq Debut Puts Trump-Backed Miner in Crypto Spotlight

American Bitcoin’s $5B Nasdaq Debut Puts Trump-Backed Miner in Crypto Spotlight

The post American Bitcoin’s $5B Nasdaq Debut Puts Trump-Backed Miner in Crypto Spotlight appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Takeaways: American Bitcoin (ABTC) surged nearly 85% on its Nasdaq debut, briefly reaching a $5B valuation. The Trump family, alongside Hut 8 Mining, controls 98% of the newly merged crypto-mining entity. Eric Trump called Bitcoin “modern-day gold,” predicting it could reach $1 million per coin. American Bitcoin, a fast-rising crypto mining firm with strong political and institutional backing, has officially entered Wall Street. After merging with Gryphon Digital Mining, the company made its Nasdaq debut under the ticker ABTC, instantly drawing global attention to both its stock performance and its bold vision for Bitcoin’s future. Read More: Trump-Backed Crypto Firm Eyes Asia for Bold Bitcoin Expansion Nasdaq Debut: An Explosive First Day ABTC’s first day of trading proved as dramatic as expected. Shares surged almost 85% at the open, touching a peak of $14 before settling at lower levels by the close. That initial spike valued the company around $5 billion, positioning it as one of 2025’s most-watched listings. At the last session, ABTC has been trading at $7.28 per share, which is a small positive 2.97% per day. Although the price has decelerated since opening highs, analysts note that the company has been off to a strong start and early investor activity is a hard-to-find feat in a newly-launched crypto mining business. According to market watchers, the listing comes at a time of new momentum in the digital asset markets. With Bitcoin trading above $110,000 this quarter, American Bitcoin’s entry comes at a time when both institutional investors and retail traders are showing heightened interest in exposure to Bitcoin-linked equities. Ownership Structure: Trump Family and Hut 8 at the Helm Its management and ownership set up has increased the visibility of the company. The Trump family and the Canadian mining giant Hut 8 Mining jointly own 98 percent…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:33
MetaMask Partners with Uniswap to Enhance Cross-Chain Token Trading on 16+ Networks

MetaMask Partners with Uniswap to Enhance Cross-Chain Token Trading on 16+ Networks

MetaMask now uses Uniswap API to deliver enhanced liquidity and faster token swaps across 16+ blockchain networks. Learn how this integration works. The post MetaMask
Share
Blockonomi2026/03/12 00:24
Top Crypto Gainers Today – AI Tokens and Web3 Infrastructure Lead Market Recovery

Top Crypto Gainers Today – AI Tokens and Web3 Infrastructure Lead Market Recovery

Internet Computer leads today's top crypto gainers as decentralized infrastructure and AI-driven utility projects drive significant market momentum.
Share
Blockchainreporter2026/03/12 00:00