AMC needs to raise $750m to survive

[Jim Cassedy]

Speaking of lawsuits, I was browsing through old (actually ancient!) issues of Motion Picture World & Moving Picture News from the 1917/18 flu epidemic. Theaters & churches in many cities were shut down back then too. I came across a couple of articles indicating that theater owners in some cities were filing lawsuits to get back the fees they paid for their business licenses, since they were, in effect, prevented from doing business by 'the government'. Unfortunately I never found any follow-up articles as to if these lawsuits were successful or not. It certainly seems reasonable to me, both then and now, that if the state or city government tells you that you can't operate your business and shuts you down, then you shouldn't have to pay for your business license for the period during which you were unable to open.
> Does anyone know if the same thing has been tried during the present pandemic?

[Steve Guttag]

Lyle...coming from a family of lawyers (seriously, dad and two brothers)...few things in law are very cut and dried...they were, we wouldn't need the court system so much and judges to make...well judgements (which are written as "Opinions").

As for shutting down certain business versus others, businesses that provide groceries can be treated as a class and theatres (an entertainment venue) a different class. You could say that it would be wrong for Food Lion to remain open but not Walmart if Walmart also has a grocery section...I suppose there could be a restriction as to what would be available for sale. A case has been tried in New Jersey this year to keep a theatre open and the court (state) sided with the governor's order. You'll probably find stacks of precedent were the executive of a jurisdiction can institute temporary measures due to crisis, be that pandemic, flood, fire, war...etc. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as some things require the speed and decisiveness that can get caught up in the particulars of a legislature. Ultimately, there are remedies in place for an out of control executive to overturn executive orders both legislatively and via the judicial system. Executive orders are, rightly, the weakest form of law as they stem from a singular individual.

I think that there is probably a case to demanding compensation for shuttered businesses and their landlords due to such orders. I think the executive (and legislative) should feel the pressure of their actions. It is easy to wave one's hand and dole out an executive order...it's another thing if the pain felt for that is more immediate as it would temper such things.

And then there are the businesses, like theatres, where there is no statistical evidence of them contributing to the spread of the pandemic. What is the redress to compel the government to create a class (or add them to a class) known to be low-risk and treated accordingly. Not only is there the immediate damage of forcing the business to close, there is the long term damage of people being concerned about going back and forcing industries to change their entire operating procedure that will have long ramifications on the industry. All of that without any evidence that it was justified. Part of law and order includes either making whole or compensating for a wrong. Theatres have been wronged during this whole thing.

And, to be clear, if you own a business and don't think it is safe to operate it, that is your choice and you should do what you feel is best for your business and your patrons. I'm speaking to those that have been forced closed by government due to well-meaning but fact-less reasons and the outright slander that has been applied to the cinema industry.

[Martin McCaffery]

Steve, I think you and I were saying the same thing, just differently - General application vs targeting churches, strict scrutiny, etc. The question is always the limit, and that's what courts are for. The Supremes just today struck down another COVID Church ban because the Court said it improperly targeted churches. I haven't read it, but that seems to imply there are ways to properly target churches (ie treat them the same as any other gathering place). Strict scrutiny, which would check for an undue burden, may nullify any law, and given the current majority probably will, but that is not a given at this point.

Re: the takings clause,I'm not sure the Supremes have ever interpreted it that way, but there has long been a movement that argues regulation is takings, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the newer members of the court subscribe to the theory.

Of course, since the game is endless, you not only can, but must, change the rules in the middle of the game

And yes, everyone gets it wrong: One cannot be "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

[Bobby Henderson]

The funny thing is while there are little if any documented cases at all of SARS-CoV-2 spread in commercial movie theaters, in-person activities at churches (services, weddings, funerals, etc) have been host to many SARS-CoV-2 super spreader incidents.

As I understand it, a new federal relief bill has run aground on partisan disagreements as to what does and doesn't go in it. The airline industry was asking for an individually tailored bailout, too. The main difference is that civil aviation has a sustained lobbying presence in DC, whereas our industry appears not to. Not that it's done them much good so far.

The airline lobby has been pretty successful at helping derail passenger rail efforts in the US over the decades. Of course the US passenger rail industry hasn't needed much "help" in recent years since they've been great at sabotaging themselves. Breathtaking high construction costs, legal issues and stupid project time lines all help kill even modest projects. Our nation's failures in things like high speed rail are spreading to other categories, like building roads and bridges. And even new airports, or just an airport terminal re-model, are turning into high cost boondoggles. The United States is pretty much losing its ability to build big things.

This country, typically, has no shortage of lawyers to try and sift out these things, if those most effected were to seek legal compensation/remuneration for being wrongly shut down and the consequences of being put out of business.

I don't know if this statistic is still true, but at one time over 70% of the world's attorneys were practicing law in the United States.

And no, one cannot invent a religion in order to get around a law.

Tell that to L. Ron Hubbard. He's not the only one to start a religious organization with one of the primary motives being to dodge taxes.

[Leo Enticknap]

Hence the quote attributed to him when he was a struggling pulp sci-fi novelist in the depths of the '30s depression: "The only way I'm ever going to make any money is to invent a religion."

[Steve Guttag]

I never understood why a separation of church and state would exclude any religion from being responsible for any form of tax levied on income or currency transaction. To claim separation of church and state as the reason would therefore exclude the church from even having currency...which is state owned/controlled. The dollar is only worth what it is because the the government says it is and the world accepts that (and said value continually fluctuates based on perceived value). If you don't want to pay government money, don't use government money and start your bartering. Gold is worth quite a bit (and holding its value a bit more than the USD, at the moment). The separation of church and state is to prevent either a state endorsed religion or a religion from controlling the state. As previously discussed, it never entitled a religion to live in its own universe to do as it wants, if it would be in violation of laws or other rights (no human sacrifices).

[Martin McCaffery]

Churches are only federally tax-exempt if they apply for and meet the 501(c) qualifications. Tax exemption is a privilege not a right. Part of the privilege is a restriction from being involved in partisan politics, what Pat Robertson likes to call the Johnson Amendment (after LBJ). A rule that is often, shall we say, abused. Nonetheless, churches have had their 501(c) privileges revoked. A notable example was the late Dr Gene Scott, a brilliant and often hilarious crank (and star of a Werner Herzog short). He got into a fight with the IRS about the use of funds and lost his tax status, which he, of course, milked for more money from the congregation.
Property and sales tax exemption are a state/local responsibility, and they all have their own rules.

[Leo Enticknap]

That was my understanding, too - that many (but not all) religious organizations are exempt from federal taxation because they are nonprofits, not because they are religious orgnaizations, and that many non-religious organizations are also nonprofits.

This can create a, shall we say, interesting situation when nonprofits and for profits do business with each other. One theater I service is a for profit (but indie; not part of a chain), that rented its auditorium to a church to conduct services in on Sunday mornings, while their own building was being rebuilt after a fire. The theater charged a certain rental fee, and then immediately donated some of it back to the church, and claimed that donation against tax as a donation to a 501(c). That arrangement enabled the theater to charge the church less than they otherwise would have had to, to cover their costs.

[Mark Lane]

We have been ordered to close the theater but tomorrow night we will be opening to show a movie to the church. The church is our neighbor 50 inches to the south. They are bring some of their followers for a spiritual gathering and to watch a movie. I can show a movie to them since they are a church and while it is rented to them, it is a place of worship, and deemed to be within the orders.. but after the movie is over, we go back to being to dangerous to open to the public. The pastor is doing what he can to help support the theater and other local businesses.

[Randy Stankey]

I never understood why a separation of church and state would exclude any religion from being responsible for any form of tax levied on income or currency transaction.

So that the government can't decide that it doesn't like a certain religion or religious group and tax them out of existence or, inversely, decide to give special tax breaks to religions that the government likes.

That's how it's supposed to work, on paper, at least...

[Steve Guttag]

Exactly. With respect to taxes, you are just another entity. As for non-profit...that is a whole other discussion. Non-profit definitely does not also mean no/low money. There are non-profits that are definitely shoe-string operations and then there are those that seemingly have a bottomless pit of cash.

[Martin McCaffery]

As someone once said "Non-profit is a tax status, not a business model."

[Leo Enticknap]

Non-profit definitely does not also mean no/low money. There are non-profits that are definitely shoe-string operations and then there are those that seemingly have a bottomless pit of cash.

Universities being the obvious example: the last I saw the figures, Harvard has an endowment that exceeds the GDP of around 80 nations. Most of the USA's universities and colleges have an annual turnover that exceeds the GDP of at least some nations. Apart from a few notable exceptions (e.g. DeVry, University of Phoenix), they are all nonprofits.

[Mitchell Dvoskin]

]I am actually rooting for AMC to go out of business. They are the worst run movie theatres and do not deserve to survive. Their theatres are not adequately cleaned between shows, what cleaning they do starts during the end credits which I like to stay and read, and their paid level rewards program allows members to cut to the front of the concession line. It would not have been a problem if they had a server dedicated to the paid rewards members, but they don't. They just let them cut in front of everyone else. Fuck Them, I have not bought a concession item from AMC since, I sneak my own in, something I had not done since I was a teenager.

A few years ago, I was at the first show of The Hateful Eight at the AMC Garden State Plaza (70mm film). After I got home, I discovered that I (everyone the first day) was supposed to get a free souvenir program. I went back to complain the next day, and they got me one. I "unofficially" was told that the manager was hoarding them unless a customer asked, so he could sell them on eBay.

Good ridden's to AMC. They run movie theatres the AMC used to build cars, and deserve the same fate. Unfortunately, I suspect the Wanda Group which owns AMC will not let that happen.

[Mike Blakesley]

Normally I have a lot of animosity toward the chains... after all, they get 100% of the attention (and the movie swag) and most of the cool standees while us small guys, while paying the same percentages, have to be happy with the leftovers and the crap they don't want. But, without them we wouldn't have an industry. If the chains go away, especially one that has thousands and thousands of screens, it would wreck the industry faster than streaming will. So, in this one instance I'm pulling for the chains to get through. I do wish they would quit being such cheapskates when it comes to the number of people they put on the concession counter and stop running so damn many ads (among the other complaints about them) but they're run by bean counters so it's expected. Maybe this will be a wake up call for them and remind them that in many cases, we REALLY ARE competing against home theaters now.