Movie production incentives in the United States

Last updated
Many states provide financial incentives for film and television production. Roman & RED camera.JPG
Many states provide financial incentives for film and television production.

Movie production incentives are tax incentives offered on a state-by-state basis throughout the United States to encourage in-state film production. Since the 1990s, states have offered increasingly competitive incentives to lure productions away from other states. The structure, type, and size of the incentives vary from state to state. Many include tax credits and exemptions, and other incentive packages include cash grants, fee-free locations, or other perks.

Contents

Proponents of these programs point to increased economic activity and job creation as justification for the credits. Others argue that the cost of the incentives outweighs the benefits and say that the money goes primarily to out-of-state talent rather than in-state cast and crew members.

Studies show that tax incentives for movie and television productions have low overall economic effects, with low rates of return for states that offer the incentives. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

History

In the 1990s, U.S. states saw the opportunity to launch their own production incentives as an effort to capture some of the perceived economic benefits of film and TV production. Louisiana was the first state to do so in 2001, and in 2002 passed legislation to further increase the scope its incentives. Over the next three years Louisiana experienced an increase in film and television productions some of which were nominated for Emmy Awards. The perceived success of Louisiana's incentive program did not go unnoticed by other states, and by 2009 the number of states which offered incentives was 44, up from 5 in 2002. [6] Critics have suggested that the increase in states offering incentives mirrors a race to the bottom or an arms race because states continue to increase the scope of their incentive packages to compete on a national level to not only maximize their individual benefits but also to stay ahead of their competitors. [6]

In 2013, Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti appointed former Motion Picture Academy president Tom Sherak as the city's first "film czar" to advocate the state on behalf of the city for more favorable movie production incentives, [7] an office then held by entertainment attorney Ken Ziffren. [8]

Types

State-by-state

States offering movie production incentives by type as of December 2009 [6]

 *GA - Georgia has transferable tax credits, meaning that production can sell tax credit to the state's taxpayers. Rates run at 20% on certified expenditures, including nonresident compensation, with an added 10% if the production holds end credit/exceptional GA promotional material. Basically, most productions are qualified for 30% total rate. Not applying to payments made to loan-outs, there is an individual compensation cap of $500k, which is also the minimum spend number. Unlike MA, there is no required final certification process, but the state offers a "verification review" at $55/hour per state auditor. This insulates purchasers of certified credits from recapture. [27]

 *HI - This tropical state offers refundable tax credits where production receives a cash refund after filing tax return. This state's rates are 20% on certified production expenditures with a 5% extra credit for production in counties outside of Honolulu County. $15M is the tax credit cap per production with a minimum spend number of $200k. Many expenditures involving, and subject to, Hawaii tax are eligible. This includes the cost of flights and shipping equipment to and from Hawaii. [27]

 *IA - As of November 24, 2009, Iowa has suspended new registration for incentives pending a criminal investigation into the handling of past film tax credits.

 *LA - The state of Louisiana has redeemable tax credit where production can exchange tax credit for cash at an excellent rate of 88% of the tax credits earned after paying for the transfer fees. With a 25% base rate on certified production expenditures, there is a 5% increase to the base rate if over 60% of production takes place outside of metro New Orleans. These area-oriented rules should be thoroughly researched before addressing redeemable tax credits. Louisiana has a $150M annual reservation cap, which can possibly allocate from future years (if exhausted). Additionally, there is a $180M annual cap on tax credits held with the state. These events can unfortunately delay the monetization of credits. [27]

 *MA - In Massachusetts, the field of production can sell tax credits to MA taxpayers. On the flip-side, you can restore tax credit with the State for cash. That rate is 90% of the tax credits collected. This is known as transferable and redeemable tax credit. Regarding rates, production receives 25% on qualified production expenditures, which includes nonresident rectification. The cap for individual compensation is $1M. But if you do half of your principal photography days or half of your total production expenditures in MA, there is no cap. The minimum spend is $50K. Additionally, independent CPA cost verification is required, and you cannot earn credits with the state after transferring them to another individual or entity. Sales tax exemption for production expenditures is also available. [27]

 *ME - Maine's wage rebate is effectively a cash rebate and is considered as such in this table.

 *NM - In New Mexico, the type of incentive is refundable tax credit, so production obtains a cash refund after submitting tax return. This states rates include: 25% on certified production expenditures for film;30% certified production expenditures for television;30% regarding resident BTL crewmembers when working in a qualified production facility;and 15% on nonresident BTL crewmember compensation (when meeting many conditions, like a high level of production activity). The annual claims cap in NM is $50M, and the minimum spend number is $500k for TV/features while the minimum for music videos/soundtracks is $50K. [27]

 *OH - This Midwestern state offers production companies refundable tax credit which can be traded for a cash refund after filing tax return. Rates run at $30M on certified production expenditures with an annual cap of $40M. This yearly program cap is reserved by application. The minimum spend number for Ohio is $300K and, like most states, loan-outs must be registered with the state. [27]

 *PA - Pennsylvania has transferable tax credit where production can sell tax credit to PA taxpayers. Rates are 25% on certified production expenditures and 5% credit added to those expenditures if using a qualified facility and meeting other requirements. The annual cap is reserved by application, set at $65m, with a $15m aggregate ATL compensation cap. The minimum spend number for PA is 60% of the PA expenditure budget. [27]

Economic impact

Studies show that tax incentives and subsidies for movie productions have low overall economic effects, with low rates of return for states that offer the incentives. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Proponents of production incentives for the film industry argue that it increases job creation, small business and infrastructure development, tourism, and tax revenue generated. [28] [29] Tax incentives in Georgia were also credited with increasing the membership of entertainment-related labor unions in that state. [30] Although film tourism has sometimes been cited as a possible example of film and television tax incentives, claimed examples of the phenomenon tend to be anecdotal and there is no reliable method for measurement. [31]

Overall economic losses to the US due to runaway productions are difficult to measure, as the perceived economic benefit of film production could include benefits from tourism in the short and long-term, local job creation, and any number of other benefits. Most methods of measuring such economic benefit apply a multiplier to production costs in order to account for the lost opportunities from taxes not collected, jobs not created, and other revenues that are lost when a film is made outside of the US. A 1999 study by The Monitor Group estimated that in 1998 $10.3 billion was lost to the US economy due to runaway productions. [32]

Movie production incentives do not necessarily result in the creation of jobs. Rather, the economic impact is that of a transfer of jobs from one location or state to another. [6] Additionally, unless the state in question has a consistent stream of productions, the project-based nature of the film and television industry generates short-term jobs that eventually leave specialized laborers out of work. [6] [33]

States have a tendency to use vague language and refer to successes in other states when advocating in support of production incentives. Critics maintain that information is selected to present positive results, and that states rely too heavily on perceived successes in other states without adequately considering how available resources within the state will impact their respective economies. [6] States often incorrectly use economic measurements, such as a multiplier or an increase in different types of tax revenue, to promote film tax credits. When comparing multipliers across different projects, movie production incentive multipliers tend to be smaller than those for other investment projects (e.g. nuclear power plant, hotels). Revenue from alternate taxes not covered under tax credit policies do not always cover the original cost of the given film tax incentives. [6]

Politicians focus on immediate, short-term projects because it is politically easier to change these incentive policies. However, a focus on improving baseline tax policies to incentivize long-term private investment in industry would lead to higher levels of job creation, productivity and economic development. [6]

Critics of MPIs include the Tax Foundation, which published a 2010 study saying that MPIs "have often escaped routine oversight about benefits, costs and activities" and favor a politically connected industry over other industries. [6] Critics propose that unilateral or multilateral moratoriums [34] and federal intervention be used to solve economic inefficiencies created by MPIs. [6] For example, in a 2009 article, entertainment attorney Schuyler M. Moore proposed a federal tax credit combined with complete federal preemption of all state-level tax credits in order to halt the states' race into insolvency. [35]

Content conditions

Some states that grant significant MPIs have content requirements, limiting grants to films that portray the state in a positive light to benefit state travel and tourism departments. [6] Hawaii's MPI program offers one-third more funding to productions that include "Hawaiian terminology in the title" or that promote "Hawaiian scenery, culture, or products" in the film. [6] The Tax Foundation argues that "Requiring films to pass a sensitivity test before being granted a credit subsidizes government-approved opinion with taxpayer dollars" and constitutes "some degree of censorship." [6] New Mexico bars films with an R rating from receiving credits unless the Private Equity Investment Advisory Committee, a politically appointed board, deems the film "acceptable"; [6] the state committee barred movies deemed culturally insensitive or sexually explicit from receiving tax credits. [36]

State-by-state cost-benefit analysis

Some states have attempted to evaluate the economic impact of their movie production incentives to establish whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

Connecticut

In 2008, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development released a report on the economic impacts of the state's film production tax incentive program. [37] The report concludes the tax incentive program has a "modest" impact on the state's economy, returning $1.07 of real gross state product (RSGP) for every dollar spent (or tax revenue dollar foregone). The report also finds that the program in FY2007 stimulated $55.1 million in film production spending, generated $20.72 million in new RGSP, and created 395 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. [37]

An analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston reached a different conclusion when reviewing the tax incentive program in 2009, finding that the program does not pay for itself and that the economic benefits are short-lived and easily lost if the program is discontinued. [38]

In the face of 2011 budget shortfalls, Connecticut state legislators are considering ending the tax incentive program to balance the budget. [39]

Massachusetts

In January 2011, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue released its third annual report detailing the impact of the state's film tax incentive program, specifically focusing on the productions and tax credits of 2009. [15]

The report's key findings for 2009 showed:

At a 2011 legislative hearing on the film tax credit program, policy analysts from Massachusetts think tanks criticized the film tax incentive program. [40] Critics have also complained that much of the tax credit money goes to cover the pay of celebrity actors. [41] Debate within state government over the value of the tax credits in the face of budget shortfalls led Governor Deval Patrick to attempt to cap the tax credit in 2010. Although this effort was not successful, some point to it as a reason for a decline in film productions in Massachusetts in recent years. [42]

Michigan

A September 2010 report by the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency detailed the economics underlying the state's incentive programs. [43] In particular it found that:

New York

New York provides major subsidies for the film industry. [44] In fiscal year 2017 New York gave out $621 million in tax breaks for film and TV shoots that take place in the empire state. This works out to $31 a year in per capita. [45] Season two of Madam Secretary received $21,217,413 in state aid. [45]

In 2023, the Eric Adams administration made an agreement to allow a film studio to open on prime real estate at Pier 94, a pier in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Midtown Manhattan. The agreement entailed that the film studio would pay no property tax and that the location could be rented for far lower rent than what tenants pay at neighboring piers. The city would also contribute tens of millions of dollars to maintaining the pier. [44]

Rhode Island

Supporters of the film tax credit in Rhode Island are urging state officials to maintain the program, pointing to a study showing the program created more than 4,000 jobs in the state between 2006 and 2009. [46] Critics of the program say the ubiquity of incentives in most states have diminished Rhode Island's competitive advantage and that the funds would be better spent elsewhere. [46]

See also

Related Research Articles

In economics, the fiscal multiplier is the ratio of change in national income arising from a change in government spending. More generally, the exogenous spending multiplier is the ratio of change in national income arising from any autonomous change in spending. When this multiplier exceeds one, the enhanced effect on national income may be called the multiplier effect. The mechanism that can give rise to a multiplier effect is that an initial incremental amount of spending can lead to increased income and hence increased consumption spending, increasing income further and hence further increasing consumption, etc., resulting in an overall increase in national income greater than the initial incremental amount of spending. In other words, an initial change in aggregate demand may cause a change in aggregate output that is a multiple of the initial change.

A tax credit is a tax incentive which allows certain taxpayers to subtract the amount of the credit they have accrued from the total they owe the state. It may also be a credit granted in recognition of taxes already paid or a form of state "discount" applied in certain cases. Another way to think of a tax credit is as a rebate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program</span> United States government food assistance program

In the United States, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, is a federal government program that provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income people to help them maintain adequate nutrition and health. It is a federal aid program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), though benefits are distributed by specific departments of U.S. states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal budget</span> Budget of the U.S. federal government

The United States budget comprises the spending and revenues of the U.S. federal government. The budget is the financial representation of the priorities of the government, reflecting historical debates and competing economic philosophies. The government primarily spends on healthcare, retirement, and defense programs. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office provides extensive analysis of the budget and its economic effects. It has reported that large budget deficits over the next 30 years are projected to drive federal debt held by the public to unprecedented levels—from 98 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 to 195 percent by 2050.

A tax incentive is an aspect of a government's taxation policy designed to incentivize or encourage a particular economic activity by reducing tax payments.

Film finance is an aspect of film production that occurs during the development stage prior to pre-production, and is concerned with determining the potential value of a proposed film.

The Canadian Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Incentive Program provides support in the form of tax credits and/or refunds, to corporations, partnerships or individuals who conduct scientific research or experimental development in Canada.

Runaway production is a term used by the American Hollywood industry to describe filmmaking and television productions that are intended for initial release/exhibition or television broadcast in the U.S., but are actually filmed outside of the immediate Los Angeles area, whether in another country, another U.S. state, or in another part of California.

Film and TV financing in Australia refers to government assistance to TV and cinema in Australia. Over the past 30 years, government assistance has involved a mixture of government support, distributor/ broadcaster involvement and private investment. To a significant extent, government policies have shaped the form and scale of financing.

The hidden welfare state is a term coined by Christopher Howard, professor of government at the College of William and Mary, to refer to tax expenditures with social welfare objectives that are often not included in discussions about the U.S. welfare state. Howard's terminology implies that "visible" social welfare programs are designed to help the neediest, but the "hidden" programs often offer benefits to wealthier individuals and companies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of New Mexico</span> Overview of the economy of New Mexico

Oil and gas production, tourism, and federal government spending are important drivers of New Mexico's economy. The state government has an elaborate system of tax credits and technical assistance to promote job growth and business investment, especially in new technologies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009</span> Stimulus package

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), nicknamed the Recovery Act, was a stimulus package enacted by the 111th U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in February 2009. Developed in response to the Great Recession, the primary objective of this federal statute was to save existing jobs and create new ones as soon as possible. Other objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most affected by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and renewable energy.

The official history of motion picture production in the U.S. state of Michigan dates back to the beginning of the Post–World War II baby boom. As of March 14, 2013, the Michigan Film Office website contains a list of 319, filmed in Michigan titles, beginning with This Time for Keeps, starring Esther Williams and in 1946, followed by Anatomy of a Murder, starring Jimmy Stewart and Lee Remick in 1959. Contemporary nationally known works filmed in the state include the drama Conviction (2010), starring Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell, Kill the Irishman (2011), starring Val Kilmer and Christopher Walken, HBO's series Hung was filmed, and is set in, Detroit, and the Discovery Channel's Motor City Motors (2009), formerly Monster Garage (2002-2006). Originally slated for Minneapolis, Minnesota, Clint Eastwood's film Gran Torino (2008) was filmed in the Detroit area.

LIFT Productions was the first concerted private sector effort to combat "runaway production" of film and television from the United States. In the 1990s the U.S. market lost over 100,000 production-related jobs, as motion picture and television programming increasingly became manufactured offshore. The outflow of work was in large part due to lucrative incentives offered by Canada, its provinces, and European Union members.

film industry in louisiana

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Virginia Film Office</span>

The Virginia Film Office is a part of the Virginia Tourism Corporation located in Richmond, Virginia. The Virginia Film Office brings jobs and revenue to the Commonwealth by marketing the state as a location for film, television, and commercial production and by supporting and fostering Virginia's in-state production industry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deficit reduction in the United States</span> Economic policy debates and proposals designed to reduce the U.S. federal government budget deficit

Deficit reduction in the United States refers to taxation, spending, and economic policy debates and proposals designed to reduce the federal government budget deficit. Government agencies including the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the U.S. Treasury Department have reported that the federal government is facing a series of important long-run financing challenges, mainly driven by an aging population, rising healthcare costs per person, and rising interest payments on the national debt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Solar power in Utah</span>

The U.S. state of Utah has the solar potential to provide all of the electricity used in the United States. Utah is one of the seven states with the best potential for solar power, along with California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas. Utah's only investor owned utility currently allows partial net metering for residential systems up to 25 kW and up to 2 MW for non-residential users. In the past RMP allowed full net metering, and partial net metering. Neither of these Schedules allows for new customers to sign up any longer. Utah's municipal utilities and electric cooperatives set their own net metering policies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1990 Canadian federal budget</span>

The Canadian federal budget for fiscal year 1990–1991 was presented to the House of Commons of Canada by finance minister Michael Wilson on 20 February 1990. It was the second budget after the 1988 Canadian federal election.

The United States federal child tax credit (CTC) is a partially-refundable tax credit for parents with dependent children. It provides $2,000 in tax relief per qualifying child, with up to $1,400 of that refundable (subject to a refundability threshold, phase-in and phase-out). In 2021, following the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, it was temporarily raised to $3,600 per child under the age of 6 and $3,000 per child between the ages of 6 and 17; it was also made fully-refundable and half was paid out as monthly benefits. This reverted back to the previous in 2022. The CTC is scheduled to revert to a $1,000 credit after 2025.

References

  1. 1 2 Cohn, Scott (2020-01-31). "Multibillion-dollar tax breaks for movie production are getting bad reviews, and some states are walking out". CNBC. Retrieved 2022-02-24.
  2. 1 2 Button, Patrick (2019). "Do Tax Incentives Affect Business Location and Economic Development? Evidence from State Film Incentives". National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.3386/w25963 .
  3. 1 2 Bradbury, John Charles (2019). "Do Movie Production Incentives Generate Economic Development?". SSRN   3155407.
  4. 1 2 Robert Tannenwald. "State Film Subsidies: Not Much Bang For Too Many Bucks". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved 2022-02-24.
  5. 1 2 Riley Snyder (2017-07-20). "Economists: Film tax incentives are to states as "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is to movies". The Nevada Independent. Retrieved 2022-02-24.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Luther, William (January 2010), "Movie Production Incentives: Blockbuster Support for Lackluster Policy" (PDF), Special Report, Tax Foundation (173): 4–20
  7. ↑ "Behold, LA's New Film Czar". HuffPost.com. 27 September 2013. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  8. ↑ Patten, Dominic (February 10, 2014). "UPDATE: It's Official – Lawyer Ken Ziffren Named New LA Film Czar". Deadline.com.
  9. 1 2 "Giving Away Louisiana: Film tax incentives". Blogs.theadvocate.com.
  10. ↑ "Tax Breaks for Sale: Transferable Tax Credits Explained". Pewtrusts.org.
  11. ↑ "The Massachusetts Film Tax Credit - MassBudget". Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
  12. ↑ "Some States Yell 'Cut!' on Film Tax Credits". HuffPost . 18 May 2015.
  13. ↑ "NY keeps public in dark as (Film tax) credits roll". Syracuse.com. 4 March 2013.
  14. ↑ "Group Backed by Koch Brothers Takes Aim at Tax Credits for Films". Wall Street Journal . 25 March 2016.
  15. 1 2 "A Report on the Massachusetts Film Industry Tax Incentives" (PDF). Massachusetts Department of Revenue. 2011. Retrieved 8 August 2013.
  16. ↑ "Alabama Film Office". Alabamafilm.org. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  17. ↑ "Alaska Department of Revenue - Alaska Film Office". Tax.alaska.gov.
  18. ↑ "Film-Media". Azcommerce.com. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  19. ↑ "Film and Motion Picture | Arkansas Economic Development Commission". Arkansasedc.com.
  20. ↑ "Film Incentives and Applications | Georgia Department of Economic Development". Georgia.org. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  21. ↑ "Hawaii Film Office". Filmoffice.hawaii.gov. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  22. ↑ "Louisiana Entertainment". Louisianaentertainment.gov. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  23. ↑ "Production Tax Incentives". Mafilm.org.
  24. ↑ "NMFilmOffice – New Mexico Film Office". Nmfilm.com. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  25. ↑ "Ohio Film Office". Archived from the original on 2013-12-30. Retrieved 2022-02-19.
  26. ↑ "Home". Filminpa.com. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  27. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "7 Film Friendly US States with Great Tax Incentives". Beverlyboy.com. 24 May 2019.
  28. ↑ "Alabama Entertainment Industry Incentive Act of 2008 HB356 (Companion Bill SB404)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 July 2011. Retrieved 6 March 2011.
  29. ↑ David, Mari-Ela (December 6, 2010). "Hawaii's Film Industry Seeing Record Numbers". Hawaiinewsnow.com.
  30. ↑ "An Unexpected Bright Spot For Unions". Fortune.com. May 21, 2013.
  31. ↑ "Is Tourism a Side Benefit of Movie, TV Tax Incentives?". Variety.com. 22 April 2015.
  32. ↑ "US Runaway Film and Television Production Study Report" (PDF). The Monitor Group. 1999. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 6, 2008. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
  33. ↑ Grand, John (March 2006), "Motion Picture Tax Incentives: There's No Business Like Show Business", Special Report, Tax Analysts: 5
  34. ↑ Burstein, Melvin L.; Rolnick, Arthur J. (1994), "Congress Should End the Economic War Among the States", Annual Report, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (9): 3–19
  35. ↑ Moore, Schuyler (29 May 2009). "Commentary: Could federal tax credit end economic war among states?". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
  36. ↑ Edgy flicks don't get breaks from the state, Associated Press, May 26, 2003
  37. 1 2 "The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Connecticut's Film Tax Credit" (PDF). Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. 2008. Retrieved 5 April 2011.
  38. ↑ Weiner, Jennifer (January 19, 2009). "Cost-benefit analysis of Connecticut's film tax credit" (PDF). Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-05. Retrieved 5 April 2011.
  39. ↑ Hladky, Gregory (25 January 2011). "Time to End Connecticut's Film Tax Credits?". The Fairfield Weekly. Fairfield, CT.
  40. ↑ Mohl, Bruce (5 April 2011). "Negative reviews for film tax credit". CommonWealth Magazine. Boston.
  41. ↑ Leblanc, Steve (13 January 2011). "State tax credits help cover stars' pay". Associated Press. Boston.
  42. ↑ Shea, Andrea (22 February 2011). "At Oscar Time We Ask: Is the Mass Movie 'Boom' Over?". WBUR. Boston.
  43. ↑ Zin, David (September 2010). "Film Incentives in Michigan" (PDF). Senate.michigan.gov.
  44. 1 2 Haag, Matthew; Rubinstein, Dana (2023-06-11). "A Pier Deal Is Full of Developer Perks, but Is It Good for the City?". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331.
  45. 1 2 Demause, Neil (2017-10-11). "New York Is Throwing Money at Film Shoots, But Who Benefits?". The Village Voice . Retrieved 2017-10-12.
  46. 1 2 Klepper, David (24 March 2011). "Filmmakers urge RI not to end film tax credit". The Associated Press. Providence.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.