JayElle said: "Totally inaccurate analysis. Talk to a tax attorney or tax accountant. There is no tax on losses, so start there. Taxes pertain to income/revenue."
Uh... losses reduce income. Reduced income=lower taxes.
"You make conclusion that any such insurance would be cost prohibitive. A statement without any supporting evidence to justify that. Production companies went after their insurance for coverage back in 2020."
Believe what you want. This is not 2020 and actuaries have adjusted accordingly. No one can afford what a policy covering pandemic ticket revenue losses would cost.
So if reducing the price is not for a tax loss, then what is the reason that the production company won't? Tell us. Why won't they cut the price in half or give it to TDF? I don't see anyone offering that explanation. Rather, the responses are "no it's not for a tax loss." Then what is it?"
You are not paying attention and are confusing two things. First, the tax loss issue arose in the context of NOT reducing the prices, and thus not selling the tickets at all. There is, of course, a tax reduction when revenue is lower because there is less income on which to pay taxes. Reducing the price of tickets is undertaken in the hopes of INCREASING revenue and thus income and taxes.
Regarding a reason, as I stated, it's irrational. Are you seriously expecting someone to supply you with a reason for an irrational act? There are various possible explanations for an irrational act. One is stupidity of course. Another is pride. A third is wishful thinking. I have not spoken to the lead producers, I don't know them, but regardless we know that there is no tax advantage to wasting (in my example) $10k to get $2k back.
If this is not clear to you, I don't know what else to say. If you are actually interested in understanding and still have questions, ask away. I will do my best to illuminate your path.