Tax Court Explains Valuation Method Behind Solvency Ruling

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 22 No. 1
Legal and Court Case Update
January 2016

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. (938 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
1522 General Contractors-Residential Buildings, Other Than Single-Family
236118 Residential Remodelers
federal taxation
expert testimony, intangible assets, asset approach, fair market value (FMV), market approach, solvency, multiple, constructive fraud, internal revenue code (IRC), dividends, transferee liability
Kardash v. Commissioner (II)
2015 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 198
October 6, 2015
US
Federal Court
Federal
United States Tax Court
Stanley A. Murphy (petitioners); Dr. Israel Shaked (IRS/respondent)
Goeke

Summary

In transferee liability case, Tax Court reconsiders parts of its original solvency determination and clarifies that its analysis relies largely on IRS expert’s market multiple valuation, rather than the asset accumulation value the expert had recommended.

See Also

Kardash v. Commissioner (II)

Full Text of Court Cases
October 6, 2015

In transferee liability case, Tax Court reconsiders parts of its original solvency determination and clarifies that its analysis relies largely on IRS expert’s market multiple valuation, rather than the asset accumulation value the expert had recommended.