Christopher Tolkien: kill HOBBIT film

[Sauron the White]

While not being a tax accountant or attorney, I do know this much: you never have to pay income tax unless you first generate the income. JRRT - God bless him - generated lots of income. He took the profit sharing checks and cashed them and spent them. And then the tax came due and surprise surprise - no money was left. I do not think he was all by himself in that line.

There is a certain conservative element in todays politics who bring up the word TAXES as if it is the filthiest profanity one can utter. They use it like a broadsword making you think they are wielding a weapon from God fighting against all types of sinful governmental behavior.

JRRT had to pay his taxes because of income earned from the books. He apparently did not put aside the money and instead had to generate new income so he sold the film rights. Thats the way life works - for him and the rest of us. At least he had some film rights to sell.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

'... JRRT - God bless him - generated lots of income. He took the profit sharing checks and cashed them and spent them. And then the tax came due and surprise surprise - no money was left. I do not think he was all by himself in that line. (...) He apparently did not put aside the money and instead had to generate new income so he sold the film rights. Thats the way life works - for him and the rest of us. At least he had some film rights to sell.

How do we know what Tolkien did and did not do here, what he spent and so forth, or how he saved with respect to taxes in 1969?

The picture painted by the very detailed Chronology of H&S is that Tolkien made a deal with Stanley Unwin well before 1969. And in 1961 Rayner reminded Tolkien of the policy he had agreed to with Stanley Unwin: cash or Kudos (source Hammond and Scull) when Rembrandt Films became interested in cartoon films of the Hobbit. Tolkien wrote to Raynor:

'I clearly understand that one must either turn the matter down or put up with many objectionable things that they are sure to perpetrate in their production. I am sure advice or argument would be quite unavailing (except to make them throw the whole thing up) and I have no time for either. In any case I do not feel so deeply about The Hobbit; and anyway I am now mainly dependent for my support on my earnings as an author I feel justified in sinking my feelings in return for cash.' JRRT

In September 1967 Rayner Unwin sent Tolkien various letters from their American agent, a Mr. Swanson: 'Swanson has also written about an offer for film rights of the Lord of the Rings.' (H&S). In November, Rayner, having just returned from the United States, writes to Tolkien, stating that he thinks 'agreement is close with United Artists for the Lord of the Rings film rights.'

In 1969 (near the rumors of the Beatles and a film surfaced) Rayner Unwin again reminded Tolkien of their agreement (Hammond and Scull): that if a film brings cash, they will waive any kudos. He points out to Tolkien that whatever the film is like 'the book remains inviolable and that is the main thing. What they do with the property in other media will, I regret to say, be entirely their responsibility from an aesthetic point of view, will only vary in degrees between bad at best and execrable at the worst.'

OK, negotiations had begun in 1967. The implication I get is that the agreement in the 1950s was in play, and that A&U and Swanson were basically handling things; and the deal was finally ready in 1969. Of course I've read this before about the bill, and so it would seem to be true; but if so I would hope it has a fairly reliable source (and probably does).

I just want to know the source of this statement to see if it is true and to consider for myself its reliability -- Rayner Unwin? Joy Hill? Tolkien himself? some 'deduction' made by some lawyer?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The tax bill story has been repeated often in the press- and although the press is notoriously unreliable on these things, I believe the tax bill line appeared in the very accurate story printed in 2001 in The Financial Times, which for the first time (TMK) gave the correct cash consideration and the fact that there were residuals.

The problem which afflicted Tolkien in the late 1960's was that the Ballantine paperbacks and ensuing Tolkien Craze generated royalties vastly beyond anything he had anticipated even in 1962- and *suddenly* exposed him to Surtax. (The Inland Revenue, at least back then, had a nasty habit of 'surprising' you with a bill- calculated on an accrual, not a cash, basis). There was also the fact that Tolkien had been forced in 1968 to make an unplanned move to Bournemouth and buy a very expensive house, which probably consumed most of his liquid cash.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

While not being a tax accountant or attorney, I do know this much: you never have to pay income tax unless you first generate the income. JRRT - God bless him - generated lots of income. He took the profit sharing checks and cashed them and spent them. And then the tax came due and surprise surprise - no money was left. I do not think he was all by himself in that line.

I think that you are missing the point that the tax rate was potentially over 100% ie he was expected to pay more than he had actually earnt. Which is not something most of us could cope with especially without the benefit of collateral.
. It isn't quite the same as me knowing that when I receive my dividends I should put aside 10-20% for the bill that will arrive at Christmas. He didn't just go mad at Blackwells or anywhere. This was a man who had worked hard and struggled to feed and educate his family, who lived in a modest house with very basic amenities in Oxford, hit by a punitive tax regime from a Labour Government that was actually socialist and was trying to redistribute wealth as well as shore up a dire economy. To make a man who lived as frugally as Tolkien seem a irresponsible spendthrift while wilfully ignoring the reality of the situation is neither fair nor charitable.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

There was also the fact that Tolkien had been forced in 1968 to make an unplanned move to Bournemouth and buy a very expensive house, which probably consumed most of his liquid cash.

Carpenter says that JRRT and Edith decided to move for several reasons including to be with people of their own class. I find no evidence that Tolkien had been forced to do anything that he did not himself elect to do including use of that cash to buy what he wanted to buy instead of putting it aside for taxes.

This entire line of excuse - that JRRT was thrust into this terrible tight spot where he had to swallow hard, grit his teeth and give up his beloved baby to an evil government is a bit much.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This entire line ofexcuse - that JRRT was thrust into this terrible tight spot where he had to swallow hard, grit his teeth and give up his beloved baby to an evil government is a bit much.

Any government that imposes the draconian, sadistic levels of taxation Harold Wilson's did is ipso facto evil.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Any government that imposes the draconian, sadistic levels of taxation Harold Wilson's did is ipso facto evil.

I seem to remember at that point in time in Britain there was a great drain of talent (actors and rock stars with large amounts of disposable income mostly) who fled to the US or France to escape the ridiculous taxation. George Harrison's 'Taxman' sums it up nicely (including a snide jab at Harold Wilson):

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

(If you drive a car) I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk) I'll tax your feet

Taxman!

'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for
(Tax man, Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more
(Tax man, Mr. Heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die (Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes (Taxman!)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one, but me
(Taxman!)

[Sauron the White]

I did not think we were debating the merits of high tax versus low tax. In fact, I thought there was a strict policy here of NOT discussing political issues and keeping it on point of Tolkien and his creations. I am not a British citizen and have no opinion on their tax system, its history or its application and impact. All I know, and what I have stated, is that every citizen has to pay their taxes just like any other expense.

There is a obvious undercurrent here in some posts which more or less go like this:

The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate.

Its really a bit silly.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

There is a obvious undercurrent here in some posts which more or less go like this:

The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate.

Undercurrent?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I

The evil , terrible, opressive government used their coercive state powers to force kindly, old JRRT into a no-win spot putting a gun to his head forcing him to unwillingly sell film rights to a bunch of satanic pirates who then destroyed the heart and soul of his work making movies we now hate.

Its really a bit silly.

No, the only undercurrent is some of us like to put the record straight.... you make unfounded accusations such as Tolkien was financially profligate with only genaralities like "we all have to pay tax". Then when those of us who are British citizens, accountants, lawyers point out the facts we are some how contravening Downs rules.

Stating historical fact is not political ... I very much doubt that referring to forty year old fiscal legislation will get me banned but you are welcome to try. Just don't pin some secret agenda from your own imagination on me.