Audit Finds New York's $700 Million Film Tax Credits Make Little Difference
The credit "is at best a break-even proposition and more likely a net cost" for the state.

Governments love doling out taxpayer money in the hopes that businesses will invest in their respective states. Often, this takes the form of grants or credits to businesses that build manufacturing plants, but it also includes tax credits for film and television production.
Last year, New York expanded its already-generous tax credit for productions that choose to film in the Empire State. But a recent state-funded report found that the credit may do more harm than good.
Previously, film and TV productions that filmed in New York could qualify for a 25 percent tax break. Then the state budget—passed in May 2023—increased the cap from 25 percent to 30 percent, with a 10 percent bump for any productions that film in upstate New York. It also allowed production companies to count cast and crew salaries for tax credit reimbursement, up to $500,000 apiece.
Under the new proposal, then, a movie that chose to film in Buffalo could get a 40 percent tax break on production and salaries—credits that are also fully refundable, meaning a production could end up getting a check from the state instead of owing any taxes.
With the expanded credit, the state increased its film credit budget from $420 million to $700 million per year.
Last year, the state contracted with PFM Group Consulting to conduct an audit of New York's film tax credit, as is required under state law for any "tax credit, tax deduction, and tax incentive…which relates to increasing economic development." The report, completed in December, was published on the state Department of Taxation and Finance's website with seemingly little fanfare: It is not mentioned on the site's list of press releases or on the "News" section of Gov. Kathy Hochul's state website.
Perhaps there's a reason for that, as the report is scathing. PFM found that the credit "is at best a break-even proposition and more likely a net cost" for the state. Rather than a lucrative financial investment, the credit "does not provide a positive return to the state in terms of direct state taxes revenues, with $0.15 in direct tax revenue and $0.31 for all combined state tax revenue for every $1.00 invested."
In response to questions from Crain's New York Business, a spokesman for Hochul pointed to other state-funded audits that had reached more positive results—though one study, commissioned by the Empire State Development Corporation, found that while state and local governments received $1.70 for every dollar invested in 2021 and 2022, the state government by itself actually lost money over that period, receiving only $0.60 for every dollar spent on the film tax credit.
While disappointing for proponents of New York's film industry, the results shouldn't be surprising. When the state expanded the program last year, a proponent told Buffalo's WGRZ that the extra cash would "allow us to compete with other states like Georgia and New Jersey who we have been losing films to consistently throughout the past couple of years."
But auditors found that Georgia only generates $0.19 for every dollar spent on its tax credits, which works out to a $160,000 taxpayer loss for each job the credit creates.
Rather than expanding the tax credits, New York should scrap them altogether. "It is highly likely, given the existing workforce and infrastructure, that much of the economic activity would occur in [New York State] regardless of the credit," the PFM report found. And while both New York City and the state "benefit from exposure in film and television," "it is likely that much of the exposure would exist because of its prominence in U.S. culture."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Members of Congress mysteriously beat out the market on investments.
Republicans made 18% (below the S&P average of 24%) and Democrats made 33%.
Just from the headline and subhead, I gotta ask, why does a HyR blogger care about those metrics for a matter of public policy? Tax credits for movie making are not like government (or government-guaranteed) expenditures on sports stadiums. Tax credits are an opportunity, of which we should be glad for every one taken, to leave more money in taxpayers' hands instead of the public fisc.
Tariffs are supposed to make things cheaper, not incentivize local production.
Read the damn article! You've ranted on every one of these movie-credit articles about how tax credits aren't really costs (and you're wrong because opportunity costs are so costs) but in this case, the credits are fully refundable!!! In other words, these are hard dollars out the door.
You have a half a point when you say that these "leave more money in taxpayers' hands" but only half a point because you're ignoring the transaction costs and the massive distortions and inefficiencies that occur whenever government tries to pick winners and losers.
Are you Lancaster?
Not paying taxes is never lost revenue because the state wasn't morally entitled to your money in the first place. This article's arguing that the highway robber who's pretending to be a Robin Hood paid you money because he didn't completely clean out your wallet.
The Reason-type "libertarian" case against tax breaks.
Here's the libertarian take AGAINST tax breaks.
It allows the government to pick and choose winners.
If some movie shooting in town pays less in taxes, EVERYONE should pay less in taxes. Otherwise, it is an invitation to grift and favoritism. You've handed massive power to government wonks to give out to their preferred industries, groups, businesses, or individuals.
That way lies tyranny. Or, less far down that slippery slope, way too many perverse incentives for the people who get to rejigger the tax code for their friends.
Opportunity cost? You want to count the tax collector's missing out on a chance to rake some dough as a cost!?
OK, now that I've read it, it is a bit much that the credits are refundable. However, I bet that distinction is not kept in the accounting of "every dollar spent on the film tax credit"; rather, I bet they include every dollar not taken in taxes, and also that the "refunds" turn out to only be a small amount of that total. That is, I'm betting an honest accounting, which shows every dollar taken in tax in such enterprises as state revenue, would still show a net tax collection, rather than government expenditure.
Oh darn! The state is missing out on some money.
Maybe Joe failed to consider that film industry tax credits were never INTENDED to make any difference? Whenever government gives a benefit to someone there's usually a quid pro quo involved. It may take a little digging to uncover what the payoff is for, but then that's why Joe gets the job of journalist, right? Now what could the entrenched liberal democrats possibly want to achieve by giving their friends and supporters in the heavily liberal-biased Hollywood media culture some freebies?
What a waste of ones and zeros.
Hollywood; no one outside Hollywood cares
New York City; no one outside New York City cares
New York (upstate); no one outside New York (upstate cares
It is the thought that counts.