To Earn Some Countries’ Film Tax Incentives, You Have to Pass the Test

As seen in the Los Angeles Times.

Pomising rebates of up to 40% on an infamously expensive art form, tax incentives for film and television production — now offered by nearly four dozen countries — have been instrumental in luring the industry from its traditional capital in Los Angeles to locations around the globe. But there is a catch. Or, more precisely, a test.

Cultural tests, reviewed by a nation’s film office, are meant to determine if a production has significant enough ties to a given country to receive a tax rebate. But they also reveal what factors a country prioritizes to attract entertainment productions.

In the United Kingdom, which offers a 25.5% rebate for high-budgeted films and TV shows and a roughly 40% rebate for features that cost under $31.5 million — the test is broken into four pillars: Content, contribution, hubs and practitioners. There are 35 points possible across the test; a production requires 18 to pass.

Of these pillars, only two are explicitly centered around the UK: “Contribution” specifically requires a connection to British heritage and “hubs” refers to a percentage of production or postproduction taking place in the UK. Points for “content” — which evaluates elements seen on screen such as the characters’ nationalities or the setting — and “practitioners” — which identifies the nationalities of the cast and crew — can be earned via representation by the UK or another European Economic Area state.

“It’s not only about location of production, location of activity. It’s also about who’s involved in it and what we’re seeing,” says Lloyd Gunton, the vice president of incentives for production finance organization Entertainment Partners.

Gunton notes that even relatively loose ties to Britain can help accumulate points, such as a project being based on the works of Shakespeare or in the English language. “So even if it’s … an American version of ‘Hamlet,’ entirely theoretical, it’s set in America but we’ve got all the VFX done in the UK, postproduction done in the UK, a British director, a British lead actor and a British composer, suddenly we’ve qualified that production,” Gunton explains.

Many other European countries have similar frameworks for their cultural tests. Hungary, which has grown significantly as a hub for international production over the last decade, divides its test for a 30% rebate between cultural content and production conditions. There are 32 possible points, 24 under the latter category.

“Cultural content is important but [it’s] more important to work with our professionals,” says Csaba Káel, chairman of the National Film Institute, acknowledging that most productions become eligible through the production conditions category.

Points are awarded for having cast and crew who are Hungarian citizens, citizens of another EEA member state, and/or citizens from non-EEA member states who have been awarded a prize at an international film festival. This would qualify a Canadian director like Denis Villeneuve, whose “Dune” films shoot in Hungary, as a past winner of awards at the Toronto International Film Festival and the Cannes Film Festival.

While large international productions like “Dune” and “Poor Things” have helped boost Hungary’s film industry ranks to 20,000 workers, Káel also takes pride in smaller-scale films like “The Brutalist,” which centers the story of a Hungarian immigrant. “I push, as chairman of the National Film Institute and film commissioner, to make more of this kind of content. Because our history, not only Hungary but Central Europe, is very interesting and [there are] very exciting stories which are not very well known.”

Australia’s system balances encouraging local stories with large-scale economic infusions through two separate incentive programs. The 30% rebate for its Location Offset program, targeted at the big-budget productions that usually come from overseas, decides eligibility solely on money spent on Australian goods and services for the production; the 40% rebate of its Producer Offset uses a cultural test.

“That test is really about Australian storytelling and to what depth local intellectual property ownership is part of the project and is there Australian creative leadership,” says Liana Dubois, the managing director for Australia and New Zealand at Entertainment Partners.

Rather than use a point system, Dubois describes Screen Australia’s process for passing the cultural test as more of a “holistic review” of the production’s conditions.

Indeed, the Australian government sees economic impact and cultural development as symbiotic: “The foreign investment, skills development opportunities and infrastructure these productions bring are invaluable for strengthening the local industry and its ability to tell local stories,” a spokesperson from the Australian Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts said in a statement to The Envelope.

This mission led to a 2025 law that requires streaming services with more than 1 million Australian subscribers to invest 10% of their total expenditure for the country on local content.

“There’s still a few pieces of the puzzle yet to click into place, but certainly my hope is that the global streaming platforms will embrace the audiences they can access here in Australia,” says Dubois.

The wider goal of cultural tests is to leverage the high value of tax rebates against the international reach and economic opportunities entertainment productions can offer. On top of its base 15% rebate, Thailand offers additional incentives of up to 5%, respectively, for productions that film in tourism provinces; employ Thai nationals in key positions; or promote a positive image, tourism and “soft power.” The possibility for accessing greater rebates in turn incentivizes productions to pass the cultural test. These conditions are visibly satisfied by Season 3 of “The White Lotus,” which highlights the tropical splendor of the country and poured tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.

“Soft power” may in fact be the most apt descriptor of a cultural test’s goal. It exists as an economic qualifier and becomes a tool for building up cultural influence in a globalizing medium. Whether it prioritizes investment in local economies or artistic output it ends up having the same net effect: to increase each nation’s stake in their cultural imprint.