The IRS concluded that for purposes of Section 199, a television broadcaster (the network) that produced and broadcast a professional sports team’s games under a license granted by the team was the producer of the game broadcasts on its own behalf and not pursuant to a contract with the team. Accordingly, a benefits and burdens test was not required.
Revenues attributable to the broadcast could be domestic production gross receipts (DPGR) under Section 199 to the network, but not to the team that had granted the license. This is consistent with the IRS’ attempt to move away from the application of the benefits and burdens test embodied in proposed regulations.
In a recent chief counsel advice memorandum (CCA 201630015
), the IRS clarified prior advice in CCA 201545018 that discussed whether a professional sports team’s share of gross receipts from a contract with the network qualifies as DPGR.
Both memoranda dealt with a professional sports team that is a member of a league whose members include other sports teams, sold rights to broadcast games to the network pursuant to a contract with the league. The network was required to produce a specified number of game broadcasts per week. The team needed to prove that the broadcasts were produced pursuant to a contract for which the team had the benefits and burdens of ownership in order to be considered the producer of the qualified film for purposes of Section 199.
In the earlier CCA, the IRS position was that the contract could be interpreted as the network’s producing the game broadcasts on its own behalf, but also applied the benefits and burdens factors in determining the Section 199 deduction belonged to the network and not to the team. The IRS determined that the network controlled most aspects of the creative production of the game broadcasts, and provided and controlled all of the equipment essential to broadcasting and the game day employees and contractors responsible for production.
In the recent CCA 201630015, the IRS clarified its position that the network produced the games on its own and that the benefits and burdens of ownership analysis to determine whether the network or the sports team was the producer of the qualified film for purposes of Section 199 was not necessary, although it confirmed that the network held the benefits and burdens of ownership.
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.