Michael Jackson’s estate was not simply handed to his children when he died. Co-executors John Branca and John McClain managed the estate’s assets and businesses, addressed debt and a major dispute with the IRS over estate-tax valuations, and pursued film, music and catalog transactions. As described in a 2024 California Court of Appeal opinion, the assets remained in probate rather than being distributed to the Michael Jackson Family Trust. Later objections by Paris Jackson brought renewed scrutiny to the estate’s accountings and fees, but those claims and the executors’ responses are allegations in a dispute, not court findings of mismanagement.
Who controlled the estate, and who was meant to benefit?
Jackson died on June 25, 2009. His will named attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain as co-executors. They administered estate property and businesses through multiple companies and joint ventures; the intended destination for estate property was the Michael Jackson Family Trust.
The trust’s beneficiaries include Jackson’s three children and charities. His mother, Katherine Jackson, had a life-beneficiary interest in a sub-trust intended to support her, according to the California Court of Appeal’s 2024 record. The will’s direction to transfer property to the trust did not mean the children received the estate immediately: as of that appeal, estate assets had not been distributed to the trust because tax disputes and other litigation had kept the property in probate.
How did the estate’s business activity change after his death?
The estate faced substantial debt when Jackson died. Afterward, it pursued commercial projects based on his music and likeness and operated businesses connected to recording and publishing rights. The Tax Court’s 2021 account describes the October 2009 release of the concert-rehearsal film This Is It as an early post-death project. Later activity included licensing and major catalog transactions.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
- New
- Mint Condition
- Dispatch same day for order received before 12 noon
- Guaranteed packaging
- No quibbles returns
Several important events involved different assets or kinds of valuation. A reported sale price, a court’s estimate of an asset’s value on the date of death, and money ultimately available to beneficiaries are not interchangeable figures.
Major catalog and rights developments
- In 1985, Jackson bought the ATV Music Publishing Catalog, which the U.S. Tax Court’s 2021 historical account says contained at least 175 Beatles songs. He later merged ATV with Sony’s publishing business to form Sony/ATV.
- According to later reporting, Sony acquired the estate’s interest in Sony/ATV in a 2016 transaction.
- In February 2024, Sony Music Group closed a separate transaction reported by the Los Angeles Times at $600 million or more for half of Jackson’s music assets. That is a reported gross deal price, not the estate’s net proceeds or a valuation of all of Jackson’s music rights.
The rights involved in a transaction matter: the available account does not support describing the 2024 deal as a sale of “all” of Jackson’s music. Nor does a reported deal price reveal how much, if anything, was distributed to beneficiaries after debt, taxes, expenses and other liabilities.
What did the estate-tax dispute decide?
The estate and the IRS disputed the date-of-death values of three assets. In its 2021 memorandum decision, the U.S. Tax Court made the following findings for those disputed assets:
| Disputed asset | Tax Court’s value | What the asset or figure represents |
|---|---|---|
| Jackson’s image and likeness | $4,153,912 | The court’s value for the date-of-death estate-tax dispute. |
| New Horizon Trust II | $0 | The trust held Jackson’s Sony/ATV interest; the court valued it at zero for the disputed date-of-death valuation. |
| New Horizon Trust III | $107,313,561 | The trust held the Mijac Music interest; the court’s value for the disputed date-of-death valuation. |
The Tax Court said it would adopt its findings and opinion as its report under Rule 155, with a decision to follow under that rule. These three values therefore describe findings on particular disputed assets; they are not a complete estate balance sheet or proof that every tax and probate issue was resolved.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesWhy did the estate remain in probate?
Katherine Jackson challenged the executors’ authority to make a transaction involving estate assets. In 2024, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s authorization. It read the will to give the executors broad powers to manage property while probate remained open, while requiring the remaining estate property to pass to the trust when probate concluded.
The ruling addressed the challenged transaction and the executors’ authority under the will during probate. It was not a blanket approval of every future transaction or a finding that every beneficiary supported the deal. The appellate opinion said Katherine was the only beneficiary to file written objections to that transaction; it also noted that the children’s positions at hearings were not uniform or always clearly stated.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What scrutiny followed from beneficiaries?
A July–August 2026 American Bar Association article reports that Paris Jackson filed formal objections on November 19, 2025, to accountings for 2021. The article summarizes her allegations about delayed transparency, executor fees and risks connected with the estate’s investment in a biopic. The executors denied the claims and said their work had saved the estate from insolvency. They also asserted that Paris had received approximately $65 million in benefits since Jackson’s death.
Those are opposing positions reported in litigation, not findings that the executors mismanaged funds. The available reporting does not establish the outcome of the later accounting and fee proceedings, so no definitive conclusion about those disputes can be drawn here.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
