Overhead not to be deducted in determining value of receivables

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 10 No. 7
Legal and Court Case Update
July 2004

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (576 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
8062 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
marital dissolution/divorce
marital dissolution
Adametz v. Adametz
2004 Ark. App. LEXIS 223
March 24, 2004
US
State Court
Arkansas
Court of Appeals
Tracy Fox, CPA (for wife); Mike Schaufele, CPA (for husband); Rufus Wolfe (for husband)
Bird

Summary

The valuation issue in this case was the value of the husband’s shares in a yet to be developed specialty hospital and interest in husband’s receivables from his medical practice.

See Also

Adametz v. Adametz

Full Text of Court Cases
March 24, 2004

Trial court erred in allowing the deduction of future overhead expenses against husband's share of the accounts receivable at the hospital of which we was part owner.