More than $68 million in film tax credits were claimed in 2023, with insurance companies claiming most of them, according to the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Annual Tax Report issued by the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services.
Of the $208.2 million in total tax credits claimed in 2023, the Film and Digital Media Production tax credit accounted for $61.1 million and the Film Infrastructure tax credit accounted for another $6.8 million. Those tax credits are used to incentivize film production in the state, largely by NBCUniversal and WWE in Stamford, and ESPN in Bristol, but Connecticut has also become one of the prime locations for filming Christmas movies.
While the state issues these film tax credits to film production companies, the credits are then sold by the film companies mostly to Connecticut’s insurance industry.
Of the $106.1 million in total tax credits claimed by insurance companies in 2023, film tax credits made up a little more than half – $57.7 million – and were the single largest source of tax credits claimed by the insurance industry. 2023’s figures were similar to those of 2022, when $61 million in film tax credits were claimed, and $49 million of them were claimed by insurance companies.
Established under Gov. Dannel Malloy’s administration as one of several business incentive structures created to grow jobs and increase state revenue during a decade of economic stagnation and budget deficits, Connecticut’s film tax credits have been under scrutiny for years following reports that they were a net loss for the state.
Earlier reports issued by Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) officials up to 2019 indicated the credits were a net loss for the state and created few jobs. Connecticut ended the Digital Animation Tax credit previously issued to animation companies after the one digital film company based in Connecticut – Blue Sky Studios – closed in 2021.
In 2021, the DECD commissioned a film industry consultant to produce a study on the state’s film tax credit – called the Olsberg report — which, according to DECD’s reports, did not include an estimate of the fiscal impact of the tax credits to the state, but rather looked at a broader, overall economic picture and determined that the state’s film tax credits were an economic win for Connecticut. Since then, DECD has reported the film tax credits as a net positive for Connecticut in its annual reports.
A 2024 state audit found hundreds of millions in film tax credits had been awarded through a process that, according to auditors, cut some corners and improperly utilized application fees, much of which the DECD disputed. An earlier audit found the impact of the film tax credit had been overestimated by $600,000, and in 2024, the state policy organization Voices for Children issued their own study indicating the credit is a net loss for taxpayers.
According to DECD’s 2025 annual report, Connecticut issued $176.7 million in tax credits to companies purporting to spend $634 million on in-state expenditures.
Although the department was not yet able to estimate job numbers as required by a statutory change in 2023, the DECD claims the Film and Digital Media Production Tax Credit generated total sales of $841 million and generated $22.8 million in net revenue to the state. However, the Film Infrastructure Tax Credit amounted to a $17.8 million loss to the state. The DECD recommended that both programs continue because they operate “in tandem.”
“Since the Film Infrastructure Tax Credit operates in tandem with the Film and Digital Media Production Tax Credit, it is not possible to attribute long-term industry job creation to one program in isolation,” the 2025 report says. “As a result, the fiscal impacts presented here likely understate the broader economic benefits associated with maintaining a competitive film production ecosystem in Connecticut.”
Legislative proposals to eliminate the film tax credit have been met with stiff pushback from those in the industry. Recently, the television show Hell’s Kitchen began filming in Connecticut and taking advantage of the state’s film tax credits. However, the state will not release any details about the deal, claiming that release would violate trade secrets.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Film credit tax to insurance companies is a huge fraud!!!
This has been noted and is to be discussed in future testimonies.
It was suggested to share the following from another article. Thank you for shedding light. A film industry is not talk shows, local news, nor is it sports broadcast. The issue has been obfuscated, compromised, and the lack of clarity has allowed for dubious activities for a number of years now: that there is a legit, full-blown film industry in Connecticut:
Stop, full stop…
There is no film industry in our state…full stop.. It hasn’t been way before Andrew Gernhard of Synthetic Cinema’s social from a few weeks ago…”Why Movies Stopped Filming in Connecticut”
It’s been dead as industry for years..DO NOT LISTEN to a few who can benefit from pushing this false story that it is living..the few who insist on that with their press releases are only getting freebis help..free social digital, free marketing publicity free student help! And it isn;t just a problem with goofy mixers..they r now calling them film festivals! Not UR run of the mill film festivals either but ridiculus ones targeting higher ed..so they make UR school a partner with them on a new film festival comin soon 2 ur neighborhood…too many film festivals as it is including legit ones no need 4 inundated waste fests in connecticut people…
Mr Gorman Bechard has said first in 2013 and said again:
You’re paying good money to meet with people who are more or less no different than you… because the people you’re actually “mixing” with are the other people who paid $50 and are sitting next to you in the lecture hall. It might make for interesting conversation, but it certainly won’t advance your career. This has also mirrored the experiences expressed by attendees at festival type events by the same organizers.
“Let’s start this lecture by me telling you where NOT to start: These so-called “Film Mixers” or “Film Industry Conferences” or whatever their promoters are calling them today. They truly piss me off. They are nothing but a rip-off for these people who sincerely want to work in film. Their promoters take advantage of that desire, and what do they deliver in return? Absolutely nothing. Look at the people running these things. Have you ever heard or seen any of their films? (If you have, did you actually make it all the way through before shutting the damn thing off?) Have you seen films based on their scripts? Do their acting abilities make you jealous? Is there anything about their careers that makes you say: “Yes, that’s what I want for my life?” Most likely not. Most likely the people running and speaking at these meetups and mixers are not working full time in the film industry. Mostly likely they’re producing wedding videos, or doing something completely unrelated to film to pay their bills. Most likely they’re very similar to you, except that they’ve figured out a way to get you to pay $50 to listen to them speak.”
So, the short and long answer. There is no film industry in Connecticut. Any film industry in Connecticut is not growing. Any film industry system in Connecticut is not thriving. Facts. Opinion pieces submitted with a different view are just that, opinions, written by someone wanting to market their vanity production, b level “film” or service. The opinion pieves found elsewhere are also quite old in terms of stats (i.e. productions in the state go back 2-30 years or more). And a film industry in Connecticut should not include talk shows, news or sports and a lot of those are gone by the wayside (Wilkos and Karamo are cancelled in Connecticut), Hallmark and Gernhard are also finished in Connecticut (moved to Buffalo).
“Connecticut has also become one of the prime locations for filming Christmas movies.” Update please to reflect that the Hallmark productions in Connecticut have now also left. Andrew Gernhard of the production company doing them has stated in multiple sources that they, and films in general, ‘are no longer coming to Connecticut.” He makes the case that it is due to an iffy and precarious scenario where productions will not want to stick around for a reasonable time due to an impending tax incentive removal; however, the case has also been made in many places how any “film industry in Connecticut” isn’t an industry, that the hey day is long gone for films as an industry in Connecticut, and that a disappointing series of hyperbole, and in some cases, people saying they were fleeced, but supposed industry leaders and gurus–all making Connecticut even less attractive as a film destination. BTW–Thank you for your excellent reporting. It is eye-opening.
Oversight Scrutiny: The industry faces ongoing political pushback. A state audit revealed that the DECD struggled to adequately justify millions of dollars in ongoing infrastructure tax credits, leading some lawmakers to demand stricter caps on aggregate film spending.
Mixed Networking: There are active, smaller communities of writers, directors, and actors looking to collaborate on independent projects. However, the general consensus warns that local industry “mixers” and film festivals can sometimes be exploitative or offer little genuine career advancement.
The Urban Incentive Expansion
In May 2026, Governor Ned Lamont signed a revised state budget that created an enhanced, urban-focused film tax credit.
The Terms: Productions shooting for at least 20 days in Bridgeport, Hartford, or New Haven can qualify for an additional 30% to 50% credit on eligible local expenses.
The Catch: The total pie for this supplemental pilot program is strictly capped at $1.5 million across the state.
The Industry Stance: Many local producers and crew members feel this cap is too small. They argue that a single mid-to-large-scale production could easily exhaust the fund, rendering it an inadequate tool for luring major, multi-million-dollar projects back to Connecticut’s downtowns.
The Ongoing Subsidy Battle
The Standard Credit: Connecticut’s primary transferable tax credit offers tiers of 10% to 30% (for spending over $1 million) with no overall program cap. However, critics and fiscal watchdogs, like CT Voices for Children, argue the credits result in significant lost tax revenue for negligible long-term job growth.
Subsidy and Incentive debates are no longer applicable considering the overall challenges to a film industry across the country (and some say, universally).
Irony: Film business sectors in Connecticut face challenges to sustain a “thriving” industry, while Hollywood, New York, and Georgia seek ways to sustain themselves. Work isn’t abundant for the almighty Hollywood nor the television studios in terms of scripted entertainment; so why are some people in Connecticut stressing the Nutmeg state as the end-all, be-all for careers in film and broadcasting? Can a tax-incentive program be shared amongst un-scripted entertainment (such as sports television) with organizations and initiatives such as Voices for Children? Some key points gleaned from a recent forum consisting of aspiring film personnel meeting in Guilford:
The current state of Connecticut’s film industry is perceived as turbulent and struggling, particularly when compared to the declining output of film industries in major locations such as Los Angeles (Hollywood), New York, and Georgia. Several indicators highlight this situation (see below):
The film industry as a whole is experiencing significant transformation and contraction, and Connecticut has never been at the forefront as being recognized as a hub for production. Hollywood studios and television networks have themselves discussed an industry contraction, and pre-covid levels of employment in traditional, production/exhibition and scripted broadcasting are highly unlikely to come to fruition. This is evident from analyses, reports, and testimonies from industry executives and personnel across the major filmmaking hubs, none of which are located in Connecticut.
The state of Connecticut does not appear on industry lists categorizing the best or worst states for tax incentive programs; rather, it has been described as a challenging environment for building a career in film and as being non-existent (e.g. in an industry form). Efforts to establish productions and nurture what is termed “home-grown” talent have been largely unsuccessful for years (at least since 2008) due to a shortage of qualified film professionals and a frequently contested tax incentive program, which has been nearly phased out (as of 2026, the program still exists but offers reduced tax benefits).
This situation contrasts with the ongoing advantages for sports broadcasting in the state (e.g. ESPN, WWE), which continues to benefit from tax incentives unrelated to film and filmmaking, leading to further confusion and frustration among Connecticut residents as to who may possibly benefit from a rebate program.
Connecticut’s enhanced urban film tax credit—which offers up to 50% for productions shooting in Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven—is considered flawed primarily due to an extremely restrictive $1.5 million yearly cap. Critics argue this fund can be easily exhausted by a single major production, making the expanded credit too limited to attract widespread, large-scale filming.
Specific flaws include:
Low Funding Cap: The $1.5 million overall limit is minuscule for the film industry, with experts suggesting the figure should be applied “per production” rather than as a statewide maximum.
Stringent Time Requirements: To access the enhanced rate, productions must complete at least 20 days of principal photography in one of the three designated cities. This excludes shorter shoots or standard made-for-television movies.
Broad Industry Skepticism: The state’s broader film credit system faces ongoing political pushback and audits. Previous state reviews highlighted misreported numbers, uncompleted applications, and concerns that the incentives primarily benefit out-of-state studios and local insurance companies rather than creating permanent industry jobs.
Uncertainty Over Covered Expenses: There is ambiguity regarding exactly which local expenses and vendors qualify for the increased 50% match, causing concern that accounting difficulties may offset the benefits in cities lacking extensive production infrastructure.
Self-appointed representatives of Connecticut’s film industry have attempted to advocate for its revival, but their testimonies before the state congress have often been met with laughter and scorn. While not all speakers faced ridicule, reports indicated the presence of controversial emissaries whose remarks were deemed lacking in professional merit and authenticity, raising questions about the credibility of some attendees regarding their representation of the industry.
Local Workload: Consensus among Connecticut residents and IATSE consistently report that actual film and television production within Connecticut has been very slow. While you occasionally hear of production credits in Fairfield County, the bulk of local crew work involves corporate video, commercials, or commuting directly to NYC. Fairfield County also has taken severe hits due to talk shows being phased out and cancelled.
Union Representation: For major film and TV jobs, Connecticut crew members generally fall under the jurisdiction of IATSE Local 52, which spans both the New York and Connecticut areas, rather than a standalone CT local union.
This situation contrasts with the ongoing advantages for sports broadcasting in the state (e.g. ESPN, WWE), which continues to benefit from tax incentives unrelated to film and filmmaking, leading to further confusion and frustration among Connecticut residents.
Self-appointed representatives of Connecticut’s film industry have attempted to advocate for its revival (e.g. hoping to revive the 2006-2008 heyday in Connecticut), but their testimonies before the state congress have often been met with laughter and scorn. While not all speakers faced ridicule, reports indicated the presence of controversial emissaries whose remarks were deemed lacking in professional merit and authenticity, raising questions about the credibility of some attendees regarding their representation of the industry. Meetings billed as “jumpstarting” careers at festivals, seminars, and mixers in Connecticut have been criticized as expensive and exploitative. Reports and a conclusions found that these events were mainly made up of non-industry organizers, many of whom charge fees for their services purporting to be entry-ways into a film industry in Connecticut, and within a film industry, in general.
Local Workload: Consensus among Connecticut residents and IATSE consistently report that actual film and television production within Connecticut has been very slow. While you occasionally hear of production credits in Fairfield County, the bulk of local crew work involves corporate video, commercials, or commuting directly to NYC. Fairfield County also has taken severe hits due to talk shows being phased out and cancelled.
Union Representation: For major film and TV jobs, Connecticut crew members generally fall under the jurisdiction of IATSE Local 52, which spans both the New York and Connecticut areas, rather than a standalone CT local union.
There was a consensus at a recent meetup that some area organizations are looking to steer people seeking a film career towards fee-based panels and seminars, while pushing the narrative that insurance is not part of a tax incentive debate. We disagreed wholeheartedly. The reality of film and television industry networking events in Connecticut is that they are frequently described as both expensive and highly prone to exploitative, predatory practices, offering very little in terms of real, authentic industry access. While the state itself hosts an authentic, booming commercial and broadcast TV ecosystem—driven by massive entities like ESPN, WWE, and NBC Sports—the local standalone “industry networking events,” mixers, and smaller festivals are heavily criticized.
The community consensus surrounding these events highlights several common issues:
The Cost and Exploitation Factor
The “Pay-to-Speak” Dynamic: Many local Connecticut panels and meetups charge aspiring creatives steep entry fees (often $50 or more) just to listen to speakers whose credentials are heavily inflated or tied to corporate video rather than actual narrative filmmaking.
Predatory Upselling: Independent attendees frequently note that these events encourage continuous spending on “packages,” including expensive entry badges, festival magazine advertisements, and costly, unvetted workshops.
Empty Networking: Local professionals warn that many of these Connecticut mixers, association gatherings, or low-tier festivals and festival planning meetups are ineffective. Attendees pay premium ticket prices only to find themselves networking in a room filled entirely with other unemployed or amateur creatives rather than actual gatekeepers, distributors, or active film producers.
The Authenticity Gap
The “Misnomer” Industry: While authentic television production is stable in Connecticut due to the state’s long-standing Digital Media and Motion Picture Tax Credits, narrative feature filmmaking is rare.
Inflated Reputations: Prominent Connecticut filmmakers have publicly cautioned that paid, generic industry mixers, some of which are now merging with higher education venues and low-tier festivals, are hollow. Organizers frequently market these mixers that are arranged and organized by associations in the state as high-profile “wrap parties” or “film fests” to give the illusion of an active community, but they rarely lead to genuine career advancement or legitimate production jobs.