“This is a note of appreciation for the way the BVWire™ has served as a forum for the important discussion of BV standards, almost in real time,” writes David Anderson, ASA, MBA, Ph.D. (Amper Politziner & Mattia, P.C.; Bridgewater, NJ).  “It’s hard not to agree with the position that it is too late to ask whether the issuance of the AICPA’s Statement on Standards for Valuation Services (SSVS) was ill-advised.  And it may be high-time to deal with its implementation, by examining SSVS carefully in relation to other standards, especially USPAP.”   Although SSVS does not explicitly recognize USPAP (as the ASA standards do), it effectively requires the practitioners who still want or need to observe USPAP to consider whether a report written according to one set of standards meets the requirements of the other.  “Unfortunately for these practitioners, SSVS is highly innovative in structure and terminology: All of the prior BV standards align themselves with Revenue Ruling 59-60 and USPAP, and SSVS does things its own way,” Anderson says.  As many consider USPAP more strict than SSVS, however, “the need to serve two masters may prove easier than it did for Harlequin.”  

Anderson has currently drafted an article, coauthored with Martin J. Lieberman, CPA/ABV, ASA (Weiser LLP, New York City), entitled, “Will the Real Business Valuation Standards Please Stand Up: Dealing With AICPA’s SSVS, USPAP, and Other BV Standards,” to be published soon in the CPA Journal.  (And for a refresher on Carlo Goldoni’s The Servant of Two Masters, click here.)