ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

6 years, 4 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

You would probably join the slate of a company that specialises in EIS finance, although that runs the risk that your individual backers are exposed to several projects. If you have several people wanting to invest in you and your project alone, they may end up being diluted.

6 years, 4 months ago - Ray Brady

Hi Michelle,
I put more or less the same question to Richard Holmes re SEIS and EIS less than a month ago, in his experienced opinion, they were both now dead as Dodo's as viable options. As a footnote I asked if he was aware of anything else new on the horizon that might help breach the finance gap, sadly he was at that time, not aware of anything new in regard to tax breaks, to take their place.
Regards Ray Brady
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002916/

6 years, 4 months ago - AndBut Films

Current regulations, while intended to curb misuse, may render investment less attractive for financial service providers and therefore make it more difficult for production companies to find finance. However film and tv production remains a permitted industry for SEIS and EIS, when the rules are followed. SEIS finance is appropriate for some companies but not for others. As always, a particular application may or may not be approved. What do you have in mind?

filmpartners@andbut.co.uk

6 years, 4 months ago - Michelle Parkyn

Thanks folks

@AndBut Films, the situation is that we have a group of investors interested in getting involved in a slate of features, the first super low budget, the second would be slightly higher - using any gross profits from the first to go back into the production budget - and so on. Production and distribution would be handled by the company, with each production being set up as a SPV wholly owned by the EIS company and all profits to go back to the EIS company for reinvestment in the next project. The idea is to grow the production company and film budgets with each film; with a production and distribution model that becomes self sustaining. The production company would initially be run by two key people (Producer and Director) however we would be looking to use the funding to expand to bring in additional staff.
Obviously thats just some topline info for purposes of this chat

6 years, 4 months ago - John Lubran

It's always been a convoluted business model making fiction drama movies independently out side of the big studio establishment. We get excited when one of these mavericks achieves something that at least looks like a business success, let alone a financial one, in terms of a net distributed profit, something that differs from many other misleading charicterisations. Tax schemes and some other convoluted tactical business structures have enabled productions to manifest that would otherwise had very little chance. Often it's been the better part of valour not to look a "gift horse in the mouth". For whatever reason, and for legal caution I won't go into them in any detail here, government has chosen to regulate those reasons much more tightly. The need for creatives to extend their imaginations into the business of the business is going to the essence of success. The alternative reality bubble we're moving into is likely to look a lot different to the one that we must move out of; and a good thing too. Unfortunately there's likely to be collateral damage to some sectors whilst providing opportunities for others. It's not a million proverbial miles from how the nimble little mammals emerged after the extinction of the dinosaurs.

6 years, 4 months ago - Glyn Carter

I have an SPV approved for SEIS before the change in the regulations - ie for a single film, not for a slate. It hasn't been used. I have been advised that because of the old approval, it is still eligible for a single film.

If anyone has a film with investors on board, who's looking for an SEIS vehicle, please contact me.

6 years, 4 months ago - Ray Brady

Hi Glyn,
Be very wary for your investors, though very rare, the Revenue can retrospectively change the agreed tax break or even completely negate them. Nothing would do more damage to your career than disgruntled investors feeling like they had been persuaded to invest, even when you acted compeletly with full honest disclosure only to then discover not only were they being denied a promised tax break but maybe, and it has happened, that they were later made liable to pay out further amounts to the Revenue than their original planned investment. Every producer wants to find the money to make their film, but your reputation as a producer could be burned if you fail to make good on promised tax breaks, yes everyone should read the small print and the standard disclaimers, but it is all too easy to be lulled into a false sense of security when it comes to grey area tax breaks​ in the enthusiasm of funding an exciting feature film​.

6 years, 3 months ago - Jane Sanger

I'd be very wary. I had an SEIS and it was revoked when the changes came in last year. I have an accountant husband, but just to make sure I spoke to Nyman, Lisbon, Paul last week, a leading media accountants and they said they have not had one advanced assurance from SEIS or EIS in a year. What the revenue are saying is get all your investors then apply. Its a*** about face and no incentive to investors. There is another route. If your investors are a bone fide business they can sponsor your film and claim that expense against tax liabilities. Individual investors cannot do this.

6 years, 3 months ago - John Lubran

It's all a construct of artificial legitimacy. Such rules apply to those who are so caught up in that elaborate charade that they're unable to see the wood for trees. They have their own types of lawyers and accountants,; other realities are available together with other types of lawyers and accountants. Jane makes a pertinent point about claiming against tax liabilities. What constitutes bone fidies though in defining a business is actually not as HMRC decrees but as the High Court decides. It's one set of rules for the sheep and another for the goats.