Program
First Film Tax Credit
“Program 2.0”
2018 Extension
Years in Effect
2009‑2017
2015‑2020
2020‑2025
Amount per Year
$100 million
$330 milliona
$330 million
Credit Allocation
Lottery
Jobs ratio score
Modified jobs ratio score
Allocation Categories
10 percent of total credits reserved for independent films
Credits allocated as follows:
Credits allocated as follows:
Credit Percentage
Base: 20% of qualified spending.
Base: 20% of qualified spending, plus additional:
Base: 20% of qualified spending, plus additional:
Independent films and relocating television: 25%
Other Requirements
Complete “career readiness” requirement. Provide a statement that credit was a significant factor in choice of location.
In addition to the added requirements of Program 2.0, production companies must have a written policy against sexual harassment and provide a summary of programs to increase workplace diversity.
aOnly $230 million was available in the first year of Program 2.0 because it was concurrent with the first credit.
Additional Funding for Productions Filmed at New or Renovated Soundstages. The 2021 budget package also included an allocation of $150 million in film tax credits for productions that are filmed at new or renovated soundstages. The credits are available for productions in 2022 through 2032. The CFC identifies and certifies qualified soundstage construction projects. Productions receiving credits under this program are required to set ethnic, racial, and gender diversity goals and to develop a plan to achieve those diversity goals. Those productions are eligible to receive an additional 4 percent tax credit if they meet or make a good faith effort to meet their diversity goals. This new program otherwise is similar to the broader film credit program.
$646 Million in Credits Issued for First Film Credit. The state had expected to issue a total of $800 million in credits under the first version of the program. Of that amount, the CFC issued a total $646 million in tax credits. This amount is less than expected because some productions (1) were never made, (2) did not complete production on time, or (3) spent less on qualified expenses than anticipated.
Most Credits Issued Under First Film Credit Have Been Claimed. Most credits from the first film tax credit program were used to reduce corporation tax payments. Figure 4 shows film tax credit claims from 2011 to 2021. To date, taxpayers have used $571 million of credits from the first program to reduce their corporation tax payments. Much of the remaining credits have been claimed against sale taxes.
$1.55 Billion Allocated Under Program 2.0. The CFC allocated $1.55 billion in tax credits to 238 productions between 2015 and 2020. The average credit amount per production under Program 2.0 ($6.5 million) was notably higher than under the earlier program (about $2 million). Figure 5 shows the distribution of credits across types of production. TV received 70 percent of the credits, with 11 percent going to relocating TV shows. This contrasts with 55 percent under the first film tax credit program.
Credit Claims Shifting to Sales Tax. Whereas most of the credits from the first program were claimed against corporation taxes, claims against the sales tax have increased in importance during the time of Program 2.0. From 2017 to 2021, around $500 million in credits ($275 million from Program 2.0) have been claimed against corporation taxes. Over the same time period, around $300 million in credits were claimed against the sales tax. This shift may be due in part to actions taken in the 2020 budget package to limit taxpayers’ use of business tax credits in 2020 and 2021.
Limited Number of Taxpayers Benefit From the Credit. In tax years 2017 through 2019, 10 to 15 taxpayers annually used film tax credits to reduce their taxes.
Program 2.0 Demographics. Demographic data voluntarily submitted to the CFC by film tax credit recipients suggests that some demographic groups are underrepresented among the workforce on tax credit productions. In particular, the voluntarily reported statistics show men outnumbered women three to one on productions. Similarly, Latino and Asian American crew members make up a considerably smaller share of production workforce than their share of California’s overall population.
Most Other States Offer Film Tax Incentives. During the 2000s, state film tax incentives (primarily tax credits) expanded rapidly across the country. At the peak in 2010, 45 states had a film tax incentive. In the wake of the Great Recession, a number of states eliminated their programs. Nonetheless, 37 states currently have active film tax incentives.
Recent Expansions in Other States. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least ten states created or expanded film tax incentives in 2021. Another five states did so in 2022.
Several State’s Credit Programs Are More Generous Than California. Several other states have film tax credit programs that are more generous (and expensive) than California’s. Whereas California caps film tax credit allocations at $330 million per year, some states—such as Georgia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut—do not have an annual cap on the amount of tax credits available to production companies. Similarly, while California’s film tax credit is nonrefundable, more than ten states provide refundable credits. This means a taxpayer can claim more credits than their tax liability, allowing them to receive a refund.
In this section we review existing research on the economic effects of film tax credits. Dozens of studies over the last two decades have examined the economic effects of film tax credits in California and other states. These studies have used a variety of methods and reached varying conclusions. While all of these studies have limitations, some approaches are more reliable than others. In particular, our review focuses on studies that (1) account for the fact that some productions would have selected the same location even without a tax credit, (2) consider both direct economic effects (such as wage paid to production workers) and indirect economic effects (such as wages paid to workers at businesses supporting motion picture production), and (3) avoid the use of statistical methods known to be unreliable.
States With Film Tax Credits Likely Have More Motion Picture Production. While some studies reach mixed or inconclusive findings, the balance of the evidence suggests that motion picture production increases in states with film tax credits. Our 2016 analysis of data on productions that applied for California’s film credit suggested that two‑thirds of recipients would not have filmed here without the credit. A similar study of California’s film credit found being offered a credit doubled the chances a production would be made in California (Workman [2021]). Another study examining location decisions of productions around the country found that state film credits meaningfully shifted the distribution of productions towards states with credits (Owens and Rennhoff [2020]). Multiple studies systematically comparing states with film credits to states without generally showed increased production activity in states with film credits (Bradbury [2019], Rickman and Wang [2020], and Button [2021]). Overall, this evidence suggests that film tax credits probably influence the location decisions of 25 percent to 75 percent of credit recipients.
California’s Motion Picture Industry Probably a Few Percentage Points Larger. The CFC reports around $2 billion in annual production spending associated with projects that received Program 2.0 credits. Adjusting for the share of productions that would have happened anyway suggests the Program 2.0 credits were associated with around $1 billion in additional production activity per year. This represents about 2 percent of California’s overall motion picture industry.
Unclear Effect on the Broader Economy. Although the film tax credit likely increased economic activity in California’s motion picture industry, whether it resulted in growth of the state’s broader economy is unclear. Forgone state tax revenue from the film tax credit could have been spent on other programs or services. This alternative spending similarly would have increased activity in some part of the state’s economy. Measuring the economic effect of any state spending (including film tax credits) is challenging. Nonetheless, the best available evidence suggests that we cannot be confident that the economic benefit of film tax credits exceeds alternative uses of state funds.
Comparing Film Credits to Some Alternatives. One of the more optimistic estimates from the studies mentioned above suggests that each dollar of film tax credit results in an increase of $2 to $4 in earnings for workers in that state. At the same time, research on other types of public spending—such as K‑12 education and workforce development—suggests comparable or better earnings benefits for workers (Heinrich et al. [2013], Jackson [2015], and Hollenbeck [2017]). This suggests the potential for at least similar economic benefits if state resources used for film tax credits were instead allocated to other purposes.
Does Not Pay for Itself. A recent study from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation found that each $1 of Program 2.0 credit results in $1.07 in new state and local government revenue. This finding, however, is significantly overstated due to the study’s use of implausible assumptions. Most importantly, the study assumes that no productions receiving tax credits would have filmed here in the absence of the credit. This is out of line with economic research discussed above which suggests tax credits influence location decisions of only a portion of recipients. Two studies that better reflects this research finding suggest that each $1 of film credit results in $0.20 to $0.50 of state revenues (Owens and Rennhoff [2020]), Rickman and Wang [2020]).
Extend the Credit for Five Years. The Governor proposed to extend the film tax credit an additional five years, from July 2025 to June 2030. The annual allocation would remain $330 million.
Make Credit Refundable, but With Restrictions. The proposal also would make the film tax credit refundable. Production companies could receive a refund for a portion of their credits that exceed their tax liability. Specifically, a taxpayer may receive a refund equal to the lesser of: (1) 18 percent of the credit or (2) 90 percent of the portion of the credit exceeding their tax liability. A taxpayer electing to receive such a refund would forfeit a portion of their credit equal to the lesser of: (1) 2 percent of the credit or (2) 10 percent of the portion of the credit exceeding their tax liability.
Diversity Requirements. The proposal also includes diversity requirements that are similar to those that apply to productions filmed at new or renovated soundstages, with two key differences. First, whereas the soundstage requirement provides an additional 4 percent credit to productions that meet or make a good faith effort to meet their diversity goals, the Governor’s proposal would subtract 4 percent from baseline credit for productions failing to do so. Second, the requirements do not apply to independent films with qualified expenditures less than $10 million.
Legislature’s Assessment Should Depend on How It Prioritizes Hollywood’s Importance. Based on our research review discussed above, we do not recommend considering the film tax credit as a reliable tool to grow the state’s overall economy. Extending the film tax credit likely would lead to California’s motion picture industry being a couple percentage points larger than otherwise. However, it is not clear that extending the film credit would expand California’s overall economy. Instead, the film tax credit’s most likely impact appears to be increasing the motion picture industry’s share of California’s economy. Given this, how the Legislature assesses the Governor’s proposal should primarily depend on how much it prioritizes the importance of maintaining Hollywood’s centrality in the motion picture industry.
Refundable Credits Have Some Advantages… Making the film tax credit refundable could have some advantages:
…But Also Disadvantages. However, the potential benefits of a refundable film tax credit should be weighed against several disadvantages:
If Extending the Credit, Refundability Worth Considering but With Modifications. Ultimately, whether or not the Legislature approves the proposed extension of the film tax credit depends on how it weighs the importance of Hollywood against its various other priorities. If the Legislature elects to extend the credit, however, refundability is worth considering but with modifications. Specifically, we suggest several modifications to achieve some benefits of refundability while limiting the downsides. Taking these steps to contain costs could especially make sense in an environment where the Governor’s budget anticipates shortfalls over the next several years.
Consider Making Fully Refundable. The Governor’s proposed rules to limit the amount of film tax credits refunded each year are unnecessarily complex and would increase administrative burden for applicants and FTB. We think there are more straightforward methods to limit state costs while making the film tax credit fully refundable, which we discuss below. Further, the proposed restrictions on refundability would lessen the extent to which the policy change would improve taxpayer equity. The proposed restrictions could be binding on certain taxpayers for reasons unrelated to their motion picture production activities—such as whether or not they have significant sales tax liability. As such, we suggest the Legislature consider making the credit fully refundable, but only in combination with the additional suggestions below.
Specify a Schedule of Credit Claiming. As mentioned above, an advantage of the nonrefundable film tax credit is that it spreads state costs over several years. The state could maintain this benefit while making the credit refundable by specifying that the credit be claimed in equal increments over a number of years. A similar approach is used for other tax credit programs, such as the state’s low‑income housing tax credit. Spreading credit claiming over five years would achieve the same benefits as the Governor’s proposal for partial refundability, but with less complexity.
Reduce Annual Credit Allocation for Cost Neutrality. The administration estimates that making the film tax credit refundable will increase total state costs by about 12 percent. An option to reduce this impact could be to reduce the annual allocation of credits commensurately, from $330 million to $290 million.
Eliminate Some Flexibilities in Claiming the Credit. Some flexibilities in claiming the film tax credit, such as allowing credits to be applied to sales tax liability or reassigned within a corporate filing group, primarily exist to lessen the constraint non‑refundability creates for taxpayers. As such, these flexibilities become unnecessary if the credit is made refundable. Further, these flexibilities add to the administrative complexity of the credit. For this reason, we suggest eliminating these flexibilities if the credit is made refundable.
Despite years of competition from other states, Hollywood remains the center of the U.S. motion picture industry. California’s film tax credit has been one of several contributing factors to the stability of the motion picture industry in the state. As such, it is somewhat understandable that the Legislature would consider extending the film tax credit through the end of the decade. In doing so, however, it is important for the Legislature to weigh the importance of maintaining Hollywood’s primacy against its many competing priorities, especially in an environment where the Governor’s budget anticipates shortfalls over the next several years.
Note: This report was prepared in fulfilment of the reporting requirement of Revenue and Taxation Code 38.9(a).
Bradbury, John Charles. “Can movie production incentives grow the economy? Evidence from Georgia and North Carolina.” Evidence from Georgia and North Carolina (August 4, 2019) (2019).
Bradbury, John Charles. “Do movie production incentives generate economic development?” Contemporary Economic Policy 38.2 (2020): 327‑342.
Button, Patrick. “Do tax incentives affect business location and economic development? Evidence from state film incentives.” Regional science and urban economics 77 (2019): 315‑339.
Button, Patrick. “Can tax incentives create a local film industry? Evidence from Louisiana and New Mexico.” Journal of Urban Affairs 43.5 (2021): 658‑684.
Heinrich, Carolyn J., et al. “Do public employment and training programs work?” IZA Journal of Labor economics 2 (2013): 1‑23.
Hollenbeck, Kevin, and Wei‑Jang Huang. “Net impact and benefit‑cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State.” (2017).
Jackson, C. Kirabo, Rucker C. Johnson, and Claudia Persico. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131.1 (2016): 157‑218.
O’Brien, Nina F., and Christianne J. Lane. “Effects of economic incentives in the American film industry: An ecological approach.” Regional Studies 52.6 (2018): 865‑875.
Owens, Mark F., and Adam D. Rennhoff. “Motion picture production incentives and filming location decisions: a discrete choice approach.” Journal of Economic Geography 20.3 (2020): 679‑709.
Rickman, Dan, and Hongbo Wang. “Lights, Camera, What Action? The Nascent Literature on the Economics of US State Film Incentives.” (2020).
Swenson, Charles W. “Preliminary evidence on film production and state incentives.” Economic Development Quarterly 31.1 (2017): 65‑80.
Thom, Michael. “Lights, camera, but no action? Tax and economic development lessons from state motion picture incentive programs.” The American Review of Public Administration 48.1 (2018): 33‑51.
Thom, Michael. “Time to yell “cut?” An evaluation of the California Film and Production Tax Credit for the motion picture industry.” California Journal of Politics and Policy 10.1 (2018).
Thom, Michael. “Do state corporate tax incentives create jobs? Quasi‑experimental evidence from the entertainment industry.” State and Local Government Review 51.2 (2019): 92‑103.
Workman, Alec. “Ready for a close‑up: The effect of tax incentives on film production in California.” Economic Development Quarterly 35.2 (2021): 125‑140.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Breaking Down The Script. In order to estimate your film's budget, you need to decide how many days you aim to be in production. Studio films get by on shooting only one page of script a day. The majority of films average about five pages, and a low-budgets can plan to shoot as many as ten.
Thesis (1996 film) 18 languages. Català ... Budget: €721,214: Box office: 134 million ₧ (Spain) Thesis (Spanish: Tesis) is a 1996 Spanish horror-thriller film. It is the feature debut of director Alejandro Amenábar and was written by Amenábar and Mateo Gil. It stars Ana Torrent, Fele Martínez and Eduardo Noriega.
The Essential Guide for Crafting Film Budgets (with FREE Film Budget Template) Film budgeting is an essential part of the filmmaking process. Anyone vaguely thinking of a career as a producer needs to know how to make a film budget. Since film budget software like Movie Magic Budgeting, Showbiz Budgeting, and EP Budgeting can run on the pricey ...
If you'd like to follow along from the film budget template we've provided, you can also download it here. 1. Add costs for pre-production and wrap crew. Our spreadsheet includes a dedicated pre-production budget template section to help. Here, you can track your ADs, DP, gaffers, and anyone else you need in pre-production.
Works perfectly for budgeting out short films, features, commercials, music video, and more. Film Budget Template Includes: Auto-calculates expenses and grand total. Includes ATL, BTL, and production expense sheet. Fully customizable columns to fit your needs. DOWNLOAD TEMPLATE.
There are various types of film budgets, each catering to different stages of the filmmaking process and specific project needs. Here are three common types: Development Budget: This budget covers the initial stages of a film, including scriptwriting, research, and pitching to potential investors. Production Budget: This budget accounts for the ...
Film budgeting, tv budgeting, and movie budgeting are executed by a producer, line producer, production manager, Directors Guild of America Unit Production Manager (DGA UPM) or production accountant. It is most often the role of the Line Producer to create the film budget. However, each of these crew members are capable if experienced.
It's responsible and most financial professionals won't accept your film budget without one. The contingency should be 8-15% of the overall budget. For example, a $3 million movie with a 10% contingency should budget $300K for a contingency.
A film budget template is a document that helps filmmakers with the financial planning process of their project. The template provides detailed information about what production costs are and how they affect the total cost, as well as some important guidelines for when to use certain types of equipment or personnel.
1. Break down your script into pages per day. The first step of formulating a film production budget is deciding how many pages you plan to shoot for each scheduled production day. While there's no set number of pages to shoot per day, it typically breaks down to this: Major Hollywood films typically shoot about one page per day.
Get Out (2017): As mentioned earlier, this critically acclaimed horror film that Jordan Peele directed had a production budget of $4.5 million. It went on to gross over $255 million worldwide, making it a massive box-office success. The film illustrates the power of smart budgeting in the horror genre.
In any film budget, there's the topsheet, followed by the line items of each category. Typically, a budget will start out with the "Above The Line" expenses. Typically, above-the-line refers to producers, directors, writers, cast (including name actors/movie stars, etc.), and stunt cast/personnel. So "Above the Line expenses" would ...
film production. Through my thesis I hoped to answer the question, "What challenges and issues arise from producing and directing an independent low budget film," and have the audience of the film ask, "What ways do I deal with crisis, and are they healthy?" To reach this goal I
The proposal for the senior thesis project in film directing should include the following elements: • Complete Screenplay or Treatment (with production releases as necessary) • Production Board or Breakdown including list of locations, cast, equipment, and budget.
Create a film budget. in 5 minutes. Enter a few details about your film or series and our film budgeting engine will create a professional, extremely detailed 18-page line-item film budget. $179 for an editable Excel version or $149 for just the 1-page topsheet PDF. Create your film budget now.
Ultra-Low Budget. Next up is the SAG the Ultra Low Budget Project. This is a project that films entirely in the United States with a maximum budget of $300,000. This film budget format is one of the ones SAG modified in its low budget rates. In this updated category, projects must be non-episodic and producers will no longer have to declare ...
major has a greater emphasis on critical film studies, rather than film production, which makes it difficult for someone like me who is more interested in making films rather than studying them. But through the production classes I took, especially CINE 425 No Budget Filmmaking, I learned both theories and techniques of filmmaking, and am now
Business, Economics, and Finance. GameStop Moderna Pfizer Johnson & Johnson AstraZeneca Walgreens Best Buy Novavax SpaceX Tesla. Crypto
Each member of my four man senior thesis crew ponied up $4k...over 20 years ago. ... so it'd be best to know approximately how many minutes you're going to film. For me, in my ultra low budget indie world, I go by cards. 3 32GB cards, ~80 minutes each, I'm going to need 100GB of storage for ~200 minutes of filming. I'm not familiar with the F5 ...
Student Thesis Film Scoring Budget. Thread starter alexzli; Start date May 7, 2023; A. alexzli ... Doesn't have to be a big $$$ but I would say even for a student thesis film that isn't intended to be used commercially, if they want to hire you 40 bucks for a 2-3 minute sequence should be fine. Of course it depends on what else you have to do ...
2.8M subscribers in the Filmmakers community. Filmmakers, directors, cinematographers, editors, vfx gurus, composers, sound people, grips, electrics…
Primer (2007) - Budget: $7,000. Monty Python And the Holy G rail (1975) - Budget: $400,000. Get Out (2017) - Budget: $4.5 million. These three movies - Primer, Monty Python And the Holy Grail, and Get Out - represent three tiers of the low-budget movie spectrum. Primer was self-financed on a shoestring budget by writer/director/star ...
A low-budget film or low-budget movie is a motion picture shot with little to no funding from a major film studio or private ... and JC Crissey's doctoral thesis The UK low-budget film sector during the 'digital revolution' between 2000 and 2012: a quantitative assessment of its technological, economic and cultural characteristics. ...
Godzilla Minus One grossed $115.8 million on a budget of $15 million, proving big-budget films aren't necessary for profitability.; The film's success highlights a need for Hollywood to rethink ...
Trap (2024 film) Trap. (2024 film) Trap is an upcoming American psychological mystery thriller film written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The film stars Josh Hartnett, Ariel Donoghue, Saleka Shyamalan, Hayley Mills, and Allison Pill . Trap is scheduled to be released in the United States by Warner Bros. Pictures on August 9, 2024.
Warner Bros. Spends Big: 'Joker 2' Budget Hits $200 Million, Lady Gaga's $12 Million Payday, Courting Tom Cruise's New Deal and More. By Tatiana Siegel. Getty/Michael Buckner. In January ...
The studio said fine, but in turn only gave the film a budget of about $1 million. Cut to Rocky winning Best Picture for 1976 while making $225 million at the box office.
The Producers Guild of America's 14th annual Produced By conference drilled down into issues ranging from shrinking budgets to AI and deepfakes. Plus Icon Film Plus Icon TV Plus Icon What To Watch ...
The state film tax credit was set to expire in June 2020, but the 2018 budget package extended it for an additional five years (through 2025) and made relatively minor changes to the program—now referred to as Program 3.0. The 2021 budget package temporary increased the annual allocation of film tax credits under Program 3.0 by $90 million ...
The film, which stars Chris Pratt as Garfield, made just $31 million on its opening weekend. So, between "Garfield" and "Furiosa," the top two movies at the box office made a total of $63 million.