Do TV games have tax exemptions when prize money goes to an non-profit? In some TV games, where participants are usually famous people, the prize money goes to charity organization. In France, donations to such organizations by individuals give right to tax exemptions. Do the producers of such shows (&quot;Fort Boyard&quot;, &quot;Qui veut gagner des Millions&quot;, &quot;LOL qui rit sort&quot;) have a right to the same tax exemption for game earnings, and do they use it ? In other words, for instance when &quot;LOL qui rit sort&quot; announces 90k€ winnings for various charities, does it cost Amazon 90k€ or less than that due to tax exemptions ?
It doesn’t matter who the winnings go to, they’re legitimate business expenses and therefore tax deductible The prize money for these shows is a tax deductible business expense just like the salaries of the cast and crew, the hire of the studio, or the marketing and advertising expenses. As such they are part of the expenses that are deducted from the revenues to determine the taxable profit. Whether the winnings are taxable in the hands of the winners depends on local tax law. Some countries treat prizes as taxable income, some treat it as a non taxable windfall, and some make a distinction between professional “gamblers” and amateurs. For those celebrity episodes, the celebrities are paid a fee for their performance (because it’s their job) and the prize goes straight from the producer to the charity.
Not with that license Your post makes clear that you have a sports license, not a hunting license. In that case, it was delivered in accordance with R312-40 of the code de la sécurité intérieure: Peuvent être autorisés pour la pratique du tir sportif à acquérir et à détenir des armes, munitions et leurs éléments (...): 1° Les associations sportives agréées (...) 2° Les personnes majeures (...) Sauf dans le cadre des compétitions internationales, ces armes ne peuvent être utilisées que dans les stands de tir des associations mentionnées au 1° du présent article. A license to acquire and own arms, ammunitions and related elements (...), can be granted to: 1° Accredited sports associations (...) 2° People older than 18 (...) Except within the framework of international competitions, those weapons can only be used in shooting ranges of associations mentioned at 1°.
Suppose you want to pay for your son's college tuition with cocaine sales proceeds. You hire your son as an actor in your miserable movie and pay him $90,000 for doing so. The movie is produced by a corporation that you don't have to 1099 when you give it money. The corporation treats the money in as a loan which isn't income to it and doesn't have to report the lender to anyone. The son has the money (after paying income tax on it) and can pay for college for the year. The movie company and son don't appear to be doing anything other than being incompetent movie producers and lousy overpaid actors unless you know the big picture. The money has effectively been spent in a way that conceals its illegal origins and makes it look legitimate. Ergo, money laundering.
Pay him the $1,000: it's his video so it his money. If you're lucky he won't sue you for copyright infringement. If you're very lucky he won't sue the TV station for copyright infringement (because they would immediately sue you under the indemnity clause you undoubtedly signed when you submitted a video you said you owned but didn't). If you're extremely lucky he might buy you a beer.
Only if you ask Valve for permission first, and they agree in writing. I'm not a lawyer, but when I was reading through the Subscriber license you linked, this stuck out to me: You are entitled to use the Content and Services for your own personal use, but you are not entitled to: (i) sell, grant a security interest in or transfer reproductions of the Content and Services to other parties in any way, nor to rent, lease or license the Content and Services to others without the prior written consent of Valve, except to the extent expressly permitted elsewhere in this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use); (ii) host or provide matchmaking services for the Content and Services or emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by Valve in any network feature of the Content and Services, through protocol emulation, tunneling, modifying or adding components to the Content and Services, use of a utility program or any other techniques now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose including, but not limited to network play over the Internet, network play utilizing commercial or non-commercial gaming networks or as part of content aggregation networks, websites or services, without the prior written consent of Valve; or (iii) exploit the Content and Services or any of its parts for any commercial purpose, except as expressly permitted elsewhere in this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use). The part that I've bolded is probably the part that makes this against the Terms of Service, since in order to post these sorts of automated messages to their service, you'd need to use a &quot;utility program&quot; to &quot;emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by Valve in any network feature of the Content and Services, through protocol emulation, tunneling, modifying or adding components to the Content and Services&quot;. I doubt that Valve would ever agree, since such a program could very easily be used to create spam bots that works bombard users with unsolicited advertisements, but maybe Valve would be willing to cut deals with AAA video game companies to let them deploy tools to automatically manage their store pages.
The argument would have to be either a derivative work under copyright, or a trade dress/trademark claim. Neither sounds very solid at all. Neither copyright nor trade dress/trademark protect ideas like a TV format. They can only protect very similar expressions of an idea that necessarily flow one from the other and, for example, the game mechanics can't be protected by copyright.
california This is a lottery, and thus illegal as a for-profit business Calfornia Penal Code § 319 defines a &quot;lottery&quot; as any scheme for the disposal or distribution of property by chance, among persons who have paid or promised to pay any valuable consideration for the chance of obtaining such property or a portion of it, or for any share or any interest in such property, upon any agreement, understanding, or expectation that it is to be distributed or disposed of by lot or chance.&quot; Under Calfornia Penal Code § 320 (with some later exceptions for nonprofit charities), Every person who contrives, prepares, sets up, proposes, or draws any lottery, is guilty of a misdemeanor People v. Settles held that an obligation, such as the one you propose, is &quot;property&quot; within the meaning of the above section of the Penal Code: The duty of the operators of this game to permit the winner to play further games free is an obligation arising from contract, and the right of the player in the matter is personal property (Civ. Code, sec. 663), and a thing in action. It is, therefore, property within the meaning of [29 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 787] section 319, Penal Code. Therefore, running this scheme as a for-profit business would constitute a misdemeanor in California.
No &quot;Election interference&quot; is not a crime or a legal category. It is a term often used by the press to indicate a variety of actions, some illegal, some legal but argued to be improper or dangerous. For example, it is perfectly legal for anyone, citizen or alien, to make statements about the election or the candidates, even if these are knowingly false, as long as they do not rise to legal defamation (and the bar for that in an election context is very high). But doing this has been called &quot;Election interference&quot; in the press. It is generally unlawful for an alien to make a direct campaign contribution. The Federal Election Commission page on Who can and can't contribute says: Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees and building funds and to make electioneering communications. Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations. There is an exception for the holders of green cards (who do not fit the conditions of the question). This same site's page on Types of contributions also says that: &quot;The entire amount paid to attend a political fundraiser or other political event or to purchase a fundraising item sold by a political committee is a contribution&quot; regardless of the expenses of the committee or market value of the merchandise. Thus when the question says that &quot;purchasing election merchandise is illegal&quot; it is correct if that merchandise is being sold as a fundraising effort, as most campaign merchandise is. But when it refers to &quot;discussing elections with a US citizen&quot; that is not only not illegal, it is protected activity under the US First Amendment (freedom of speech), which is not limited to US citizens or residents. If a statement or electioneering communications is published, and its publication is paid for by a foreign national, and this is done at the request of or is suggested by a candidate or campaign committee, the payment will probably constitute an &quot;in-kind contribution&quot; and thus fall under the law against contributions by a foreign national. The above is a matter of federal law and Federal Constitutional rights, and so applies in every part of the US, including CA. Any state law purporting to make an alien &quot;discussing elections with a US citizen&quot; unlawful would almost surely be held unconstitutional and void on its face, although I don't know of a case where there was a court decision on this exact point. A law requiring a widely distributed statement supporting or opposing a candidate in an election identify its sources or sponsors might well be constitutional, by analogy with the &quot;I approve this message&quot; requirement for broadcast advertisements.