World
Increased Tax Credit Provides Welcome Relief to U.K. Independent Film Industry
The announcement of the U.K.’s new Independent Film Tax Credit (IFTC) back in March had a near instantaneous impact, at least in the case of one film production.
“Giant,” the biopic of boxer Naseem Hamed and starring Amir El-Masry, was in advanced pre-production when the news landed, with plans to shoot location work in Hamed’s home town of Sheffield and all the interiors — including the essential boxing rings — in Malta. Sets were already being built on the Mediterranean island, which has been courting numerous film productions in recent years thanks to a generous 40% tax rebate initiative.
But then the IFTC was unveiled and the U.K., when it came to producer’s all-important bottom line, was suddenly much more competitive. What had previously been a 20% tax break was now around 32.5% (it was initially billed as 40%, but is actually lower after corporation tax). Given the costs involved in shipping the film overseas, “Giant” didn’t need to pack up its bags.
“As soon as the tax credit came out, we did the analysis and immediately it made more economic sense, straight away, to keep it here,” explains Zygi Kamasa, the head of distributor and producer True Brit Entertainment. “So we pivoted within days of it coming through.”
“Giant” may have been the first, but just six months on from the announcement of the IFTC Kamasa says that it’s contributed enormously to the output of his nascent company — which was only launched in November 2023 with a focus on films for British cinemagoers. Where there was an initial aim to produce three films in its first year, True Brit will soon begin shooting its eighth. And while some — like “Giant” — would have happened regardless of the tax credit, he says “there were movies that were definitely expedited” because of it.
The significant interest and optimism within the British film industry since the IFTC’s announcement, despite not yet being fully implemented, is a far cry from the dark days of 2022. A report commissioned by the British Film Institute (BFI) that year had the key and ironic takeaway that the overall boom in the country’s film and high-end TV sector had led to a corresponding negative impact on the independent sector. It found that the speed and volume of growth strained the sector so much that it couldn’t compete with larger budget international productions on several levels — from accommodating the rising cost of production to securing cast and crew, and ultimately to reaching audiences.
BFI statistics reveal that getting U.K. films budgeted under £15 million ($19.6 million) into production had become increasingly challenging. After plummeting by 31% in 2022, spend on independent U.K. film in 2023 fell a further 11% to just £150 million ($196.9 million).
Now, in 2024, post IFTC announcement, Harriet Finney, BFI deputy CEO and director of corporate and industry affairs, says, “We’ve seen a lot of positivity in the industry. It’s definitely changed the conversation for independent filmmakers in this country.”
The BFI is currently preparing for increased capacity once the statutory instrument and guidance notes are published later this year. Finney explains, “We’re making sure that we’re in the best possible position to deal with what is likely to be a flurry of activity. It feels like there’s a growing sense of confidence around domestic production.”
Simon Williams, managing partner at Ashland Hill Media Finance, reports seeing an uptick in projects considering filming in the U.K. “We’re getting lots of different projects coming to us, asking if they should be shot in the U.K.,” Williams says. He notes that some international producers are exploring the possibility of adapting their scripts to meet U.K. requirements. “The U.K. looks more attractive for film currently, because the tax credit, it’s probably bigger than pretty much anywhere else in the world, aside from maybe Australia. But Australia is far away and it’s costly to take people over there,” Williams said.
However, Williams expresses concerns about potential cost increases. “We don’t want costs to increase by shooting in the U.K., which negates the benefit of the tax credit,” he cautions.
Ashland Hill-backed “The Magic Faraway Tree,” based on Enid Blyton’s beloved book, is currently in production. “The Scurry,” directed by Craig Roberts and starring Ella Purnell, Rhys Ifans and Antonia Thomas, has just finished shooting, which Ashland Hill funded against the increased tax credit. “That film would never have happened if it wasn’t for this increased tax credit. I think the only thing that may deter some lenders from putting money against it [is] if you are entering into a production now, you can’t put a claim in for your tax credit until April next year. Whereas in the current tax credit, you can make interim claims, which from a producer’s perspective, if you have a lender, you can make multiple claims and pay down the loan quicker, rather than doing one big claim in 18 months time,” Williams said.
Alex Ashworth, head of production at Anton, believes the IFTC will make a significant impact, particularly for films in the £5-15 million ($6.5-19.6 million) budget range. “I think it will really help independent film producers where we’ve lost that mid-budget section,” Ashworth says. “There was a long time where that was the U.K. sweet spot, films like ‘The King’s Speech,’ and I feel like the cost of production has gone up so that it’s very hard to make those at that level. Our incentives are good, but they aren’t necessarily comparable to some other territories. So by doing this, you’re offsetting basically the inflation that our production industry has experienced in the last five to seven years. I think it will really help those independent films who are probably struggling to get their finance plans to hit those higher budget levels.”
Ashworth estimates that Anton is currently working on four to five projects with the IFTC in mind for shooting in the next 12 to 18 months.
Producer Alastair Clark, whose recent film “Sister Midnight” premiered at Cannes, also sees the IFTC as a positive development for the industry. “The mood is great,” Clark says. He also points out that while the net benefit is around 32.5% after corporation tax, rather than the initially advertised 40%, it’s still a significant improvement over the previous system.
Clark is already incorporating the IFTC into his project planning. “Certainly, one very solid project right now that we’re raising the finance for. It’s a big part of it,” he says. Clark believes the increased tax credit will reduce the need for riskier private financing in some cases. “Borrowing against the tax credit versus borrowing against an MG (minimum guarantee) or a sales advance, is cheaper, and therefore helps finance plan a budget,” Clark said.
While the industry awaits full implementation of the IFTC, the initial response suggests it could play a crucial role in bolstering the U.K.’s independent film sector and positioning it far more attractively on the global stage. For Phil Hunt at Head Gear Films, it’s certainly a very positive move after the “nightmare of Brexit,” which he claims “ripped the heart out of indie co-productions.” The veteran producer says he’s already noticed that producers in North America are “definitely now looking to put more productions in the U.K. and, when talking to folk in LA, there seems to be a drain away from the U.S.”
But that’s not to say that execs are seeing IFTC at the perfect solution, of course. As with most newly-launched financial incentives, there are hopes that it will be tweaked and changed along the way, especially with the U.K. under a new Labour government that has, traditionally, been more supportive of the arts. An ideal situation for many is that the 40% rebate actually does mean a full 40% for producers.
“I’d love the government to look at that,” says Kamasa. “I think it should be the full 40%, because then you’d be truly competitive with places like Malta and Italy.”
HOW THE IFTC WORKS
The IFTC is calculated on “core expenditure” related to production activities, with qualifying companies able to claim up to 80% of their core expenditure or the amount of U.K. core expenditure, whichever is less. For a £15 million ($19.6 million) budget film, this could mean a maximum credit of £6.36 million before tax.
After corporation tax, which varies between 19% and 25%, the actual cash benefit could range from £4.77 million ($6.26 million) to £5.15 million ($6.76 million). This represents a substantial increase from the previous Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) system, which would have provided between £3.06 million ($4.01 million) and £3.30 million ($4.33 million) for the same budget.
The BFI will assess film budgets to ensure they meet the IFTC criteria. Productions that exceed the £15 million budget cap during filming will have the option to continue with the IFTC or switch to the AVEC system.
Claims for the IFTC can be submitted to HMRC (His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs) from April 1, 2025, for expenditure incurred from April 1, 2024, provided principal photography began after April 1, 2024.
World
Maduro arrives in US after stunning capture in operation that Trump says will let US ‘run’ Venezuela
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro arrived in the United States to face criminal charges after being captured in an audacious nighttime military operation that President Donald Trump said would set the U.S. up to “run” the South American country and tap its vast oil reserves to sell to other nations.
Maduro landed Saturday evening at a small airport in New York following the middle-of-the-night operation that extracted him and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their home in a military base in the capital city of Caracas — an act that Maduro’s government called “imperialist.” The couple faces U.S. charges of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.
The dramatic action capped an intensive Trump administration pressure campaign on Venezuela’s autocratic leader and months of secret planning, resulting in the most assertive American action to achieve regime change since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Legal experts raised questions about the lawfulness of the operation, which was done without congressional approval. Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, meanwhile, demanded that the United States free Maduro and called him the country’s rightful leader as her nation’s high court named her interim president.
Some Venezuelan civilians and members of the military were killed, said Rodríguez, who didn’t give a number. Trump said some U.S. forces were injured, but none were killed.
Speaking to reporters hours after Maduro’s capture, Trump revealed his plans to exploit the leadership void to “fix” the country’s oil infrastructure and sell “large amounts” of oil to other countries.
Trump says US will ‘run the country’
The Trump administration promoted the ouster as a step toward reducing the flow of dangerous drugs into the U.S. The president touted what he saw as other potential benefits, including a leadership stake in the country and greater control of oil.
Trump claimed the U.S. government would help lead the country and was already doing so, though there were no immediate visible signs of that. Venezuelan state TV aired pro-Maduro propaganda and broadcast live images of supporters taking to the streets in Caracas in protest.
“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago news conference. He boasted that this “extremely successful operation should serve as warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives.”
Maduro and other Venezuelan officials were indicted in 2020 on narco-terrorism conspiracy charges, and the Justice Department released a new indictment Saturday of Maduro and his wife that painted his administration as a “corrupt, illegitimate government” fueled by a drug-trafficking operation that flooded the U.S with cocaine. The U.S. government does not recognize Maduro as the country’s leader.
The Trump administration spent months building up American forces in the region and carrying out attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean for allegedly ferrying drugs. Last week, the CIA was behind a drone strike at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels — the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the U.S. campaign began in September.
Early morning attack
Taking place 36 years to the day after the 1990 surrender and seizure of Panama leader Manuel Antonio Noriega following a U.S. invasion, the Venezuela operation unfolded under the cover of darkness early Saturday. Trump said the U.S. turned off “almost all of the lights” in Caracas while forces moved in to extract Maduro and his wife.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces had rehearsed their maneuvers for months, learning everything about Maduro — where he was and what he ate, as well as details of his pets and his clothes.
“We think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we debrief, we rehearse again and again,” Caine said. “Not to get it right, but to ensure we cannot get it wrong.”
Multiple explosions rang out that morning, and low-flying aircraft swept through Caracas. Maduro’s government accused the United States of hitting civilian and military installations, calling it an “imperialist attack” and urging citizens to take to the streets. The explosions — at least seven blasts — sent people rushing into the streets, while others took to social media to report what they saw and heard.
Under Venezuelan law, Rodríguez would take over from Maduro. Rodríguez, however, stressed during a Saturday appearance on state television that she did not plan to assume power, before Venezuela’s high court ordered that she become interim president.
“There is only one president in Venezuela,” Rodriguez said, “and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”
Some streets in Caracas fill up
Venezuela’s ruling party has held power since 1999, when Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, took office, promising to uplift poor people and later to implement a self-described socialist revolution.
Maduro took over when Chávez died in 2013. His 2018 reelection was widely considered a sham because the main opposition parties were banned from participating. During the 2024 election, electoral authorities loyal to the ruling party declared him the winner hours after polls closed, but the opposition gathered overwhelming evidence that he lost by a more than 2-to-1 margin.
In a demonstration of how polarizing Maduro is, people variously took to the streets to protest his capture, while others celebrated it. At a protest in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, Mayor Carmen Meléndez joined a crowd demanding Maduro’s return.
“Maduro, hold on, the people are rising up!” the crowd chanted. “We are here, Nicolás Maduro. If you can hear us, we are here!”
In other parts of the city, the streets were empty hours after the attack.
“How do I feel? Scared, like everyone,” said Caracas resident Noris Prada, who sat on an empty avenue looking at his phone. “Venezuelans woke up scared. Many families couldn’t sleep.”
In Doral, Florida, home to the largest Venezuelan community in the United States, people wrapped themselves in Venezuelan flags, ate fried snacks and cheered as music played. At one point, the crowd chanted “Liberty! Liberty! Liberty!”
Questions of legality
linger
Whether the United States violated any laws, international or otherwise, was still a question early Sunday. “There are a number of international legal concepts which the United States might have broken by capturing Maduro,” said Ilan Katz, an international law analyst.
In New York, the U.N. Security Council, acting on an emergency request from Colombia, planned to hold a meeting on U.S. operations in Venezuela on Monday morning. That was according to a council diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a meeting not yet made public.
Lawmakers from both American political parties have raised reservations and flat-out objections to the U.S. attacks on boats suspected of drug smuggling. Congress has not approved an authorization for the use of military force for such operations in the region.
Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he had seen no evidence that would justify Trump striking Venezuela without approval from Congress and demanded an immediate briefing by the administration on “its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”
___
Toropin and Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela; Lisa Mascaro, Michelle L. Price, Seung Min Kim and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington; Farnoush Amiri in New York; and Larry Neumeister in South Amboy, New Jersey, contributed to this report.
World
Maduro capture echoes Noriega takedown that used rock music as psychological warfare against dictator
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The U.S. capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife on Saturday is reviving memories of the dramatic 1989 takedown of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, which coincidentally took place 36 years ago to the day of Maduro’s Jan. 3 capture.
Under former President George H.W. Bush, U.S. forces launched a surprise invasion of Panama in the early hours of Dec. 20, 1989, accusing Noriega of conspiring with drug traffickers to funnel cocaine into America.
He had also faced allegations of manipulating the country’s 1989 presidential election.
MADURO MET CHINESE ENVOY HOURS BEFORE US CAPTURE FROM CARACAS AS BEIJING SLAMS OPERATION
“The goal was to restore the democratically elected government of Guillermo Endara and arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges,” the U.S. Army’s website states. “At the time, Operation Just Cause was the largest and most complex combat operation since the Vietnam War.”
Similarly to Saturday’s operation involving Maduro, the Panama invasion proceeded without explicit authorization from Congress, according to Axios.
Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega at a ceremony commemorating the death of the national hero, Omar Torrijos, in Panama City. (Bill Gentile/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)
Noriega’s capture, however, unfolded over several weeks as he evaded arrest by taking refuge inside the Vatican’s embassy in Panama City.
U.S. troops used psychological warfare to force Noriega out of hiding.
In a tactic known as Operation Nifty Package, military vehicles with loudspeakers blasted non-stop rock music with a playlist that included songs by The Clash, Van Halen and U2, BBC News reported.
Noriega surrendered to U.S. forces Jan. 3, 1990, 36 years to the day before the U.S. capture of Maduro, and was flown to America to stand trial, Axios reported.
MADURO-BACKED TDA GANG’S EXPANSION INTO US CITIES EMERGES AS KEY FOCUS OF SWEEPING DOJ INDICTMENT
Former Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega is pictured in this Jan. 4, 1990, file photo. (Reuters/HO JDP)
The operation resulted in the deaths of 23 U.S. service members and left 320 others wounded. The Pentagon estimated that roughly 200 Panamanian civilians and 314 Panamanian military personnel were killed, according to The Associated Press.
In 1992, Noriega was convicted on drug trafficking charges in a Miami federal court and received a 40-year prison sentence.
He was granted prisoner-of-war status, housed in a separate bungalow away from other inmates and was allowed to wear his Panamanian military uniform and insignia in court, the AP reported.
WASHINGTON POST PRAISES TRUMP’S VENEZUELA OPERATION AS ‘UNQUESTIONABLE TACTICAL SUCCESS’
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro addresses supporters during a rally marking the anniversary of the 19th-century Battle of Santa Ines in Caracas, Venezuela, Dec. 10. (Pedro Rances Mattey/Anadolu via Getty Images)
After serving 17 years in a U.S. prison, he was extradited to France and later Panama. He died in 2017.
President Donald Trump announced Saturday that Maduro and his wife had been captured and flown out of the country as part of Operation Absolute Resolve.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
In recent months, the U.S. military has carried out a series of strikes on suspected drug vessels allegedly liked to the Venezuelan regime in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific.
Until a permanent leader can be found, the U.S. government will “run” Venezuela, Trump said, “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”
World
US Republicans back Trump on Venezuela amid faint MAGA dissent
Since coming down the escalator in 2015 to announce his first presidential run, Donald Trump has presented himself as a break from the traditional hawkish foreign policy in the United States.
The US president has even criticised some of his political rivals as “warmongers” and “war hawks”.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
But Trump’s move to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and announce that the US will “run” the Latin American country has drawn comparisons with the regime change wars that he built a political career rejecting.
Some critics from Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, who backed his message of focusing on the country’s own issues instead of conflicts abroad, are criticising Washington’s march to war with Venezuela.
Still, Trump’s grip on Republican politics appears to remain firm, with most legislators from the party praising Trump’s actions.
“To President Trump and his team, you should take great pride in setting in motion the liberation of Venezuela,” Senator Lindsey Graham wrote in a social media post.
“As I have often said, it is in America’s national security interest to deal with the drug caliphate in our backyard, the centrepiece of which is Venezuela.”
Graham’s reference to a “drug caliphate” seems to play on Islamophobic tropes and promote the push to liken the US attacks on alleged drug traffickers in Latin America to the so-called “war on terror”.
The US senator heaped praise on the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize – handed to Trump by the association’s chief, Gianni Infantino, in December – and called him “the GOAT of the American presidency”, which stands for “the greatest of all time”.
Muted criticism
While it was expected that Graham and other foreign policy hawks in Trump’s orbit would back the moves against Venezuela, even some of the Republican sceptics of foreign interventions cheered the abduction of Maduro.
Former Congressman Matt Gaetz, one of the most vocal critics of hawkish foreign policy on the right, poked fun at the “capture” of the Venezuelan president.
“Maduro is gonna hate CECOT,” he wrote on X, referring to the notorious prison in El Salvador where the Trump administration sent hundreds of suspected gang members without due process.
Libertarian Senator Rand Paul, who has been a leading voice in decrying Congress’s war-making power, only expressed muted disapproval of Trump’s failure to seek lawmakers’ authorisation for military action in Venezuela.
“Time will tell if regime change in Venezuela is successful without significant monetary or human cost,” he wrote in a lengthy statement that mostly argued against bringing “socialism” to the US.
“Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorisation for a reason – to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defence. Let’s hope those precepts of peace are not forgotten in our justified relief that Maduro is gone and the Venezuelan people will have a second chance.”
Early on Saturday morning, Republican Senator Mike Lee questioned the legality of the attack. “I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorisation for the use of military force,” he wrote on X.
Lee later said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him that US troops were executing a legal arrest warrant against Maduro.
“This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect US personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” the senator said.
Dissent
Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the few dissenting voices.
“Americans’ disgust with our own government’s never-ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,” Greene wrote on X.
Greene, a former Trump ally who fell out with the US president and is leaving Congress next week, rejected the argument that Trump ordered Maduro’s “capture” because of the Venezuelan president’s alleged involvement in the drug trade.
She noted that Venezuela is not a major exporter of fentanyl, the leading cause of overdose deaths in the US.
She also underscored that, last month, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a convicted drug trafficker who was serving a 45-year sentence in a US jail.
“Regime change, funding foreign wars, and American’s [sic] tax dollars being consistently funneled to foreign causes, foreigners both home and abroad, and foreign governments while Americans are consistently facing increasing cost of living, housing, healthcare, and learn about scams and fraud of their tax dollars is what has most Americans enraged,” Greene said.
Congressman Tomas Massie, another Republican, shared a speech he delivered in the House of Representatives earlier this month, warning that attacking Venezuela is about “oil and regime change”.
“Are we prepared to receive swarms of the 25 million Venezuelans, who will likely become refugees, and billions in American treasure that will be used to destroy and inevitably rebuild that nation? Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?” Massie said in the remarks.
“If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it as a voice of the people and in accordance with our Constitution.”
While Massie and Greene are outliers in their party, Trump’s risky moves in Venezuela were a success in the short term: Maduro is in US custody at a minimal cost to Washington.
Similarly, few Republicans opposed the US war in Iraq when then-President George W Bush stood under the “mission accomplished” sign on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln after toppling Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, in 2003.
But there is now a near consensus across the political spectrum that the Iraq invasion was a geopolitical disaster.
The fog of war continues to hang over Venezuela, and it is unclear who is in charge of the country, or how Trump will “run” it.
The US president has not ruled out deploying “boots on the ground” to Venezuela, raising the prospect of a US occupation and the possibility of another Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
“Do we truly believe that Nicolas Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in… Libya, Iraq or Syria?” Massie warned in his Congress speech.
“Previous presidents told us to go to war over WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, that did not exist. Now, it’s the same playbook, except we’re told that drugs are the WMDs.”
-
Entertainment1 week agoHow the Grinch went from a Yuletide bit player to a Christmas A-lister
-
Connecticut1 week agoSnow Accumulation Estimates Increase For CT: Here Are The County-By-County Projections
-
World7 days agoHamas builds new terror regime in Gaza, recruiting teens amid problematic election
-
Indianapolis, IN1 week agoIndianapolis Colts playoffs: Updated elimination scenario, AFC standings, playoff picture for Week 17
-
Southeast1 week agoTwo attorneys vanish during Florida fishing trip as ‘heartbroken’ wife pleads for help finding them
-
Business1 week agoGoogle is at last letting users swap out embarrassing Gmail addresses without losing their data
-
World1 week agoSnoop Dogg, Lainey Wilson, Huntr/x and Andrea Bocelli Deliver Christmas-Themed Halftime Show for Netflix’s NFL Lions-Vikings Telecast
-
World1 week agoBest of 2025: Top five defining moments in the European Parliament