Expand the following panels for additional search options.

In re Marriage of Marasco

This case was an appeal of an Iowa marital dissolution decree. The husband on appeal argued the value the wife’s expert determined was too high and should not have been relied on. The appellate court noted that part of the reason the trial court used the wife’s expert’s appraisal was that the business was able to obtain a $10 million loan during the time of the valuation. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed that the entire value of the business was community property.

Iowa Court of Appeals Affirms Value of Husband’s Business Determined by Wife’s Expert and Includes Total Value as Marital Property

This case was an appeal of an Iowa marital dissolution decree. The husband on appeal argued the value the wife’s expert determined was too high and should not have been relied on. The appellate court noted that part of the reason the trial court used the wife’s expert’s appraisal was that the business was able to obtain a $10 million loan during the time of the valuation. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed that the entire value of the business was community property.

Yaquinto v. Thompson St. Capital Partners (In re Stone Panels, Inc.)

Trustee argued that a cash transfer by debtor was a constructively fraudulent transfer under the bankruptcy code. The Trustee was able to show that the transaction was an interest in property for which debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value. The Trustee was not able to show that the debtor was insolvent at the date of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The debtor was engaged in a business for which the property remaining was sufficiently capitalized. It appeared that the debtor would have sufficient access to cash to service its obligations and operate its business in a sustainable way. The Trustee failed in its burden of proof.

Property Transfer Was Not Fraudulent Because Debtor Was Not Insolvent

Trustee argued that a cash transfer by debtor was a constructively fraudulent transfer under the bankruptcy code. The Trustee was able to show that the transaction was an interest in property for which debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value. The Trustee was not able to show that the debtor was insolvent at the date of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The debtor was engaged in a business for which the property remaining was sufficiently capitalized. It appeared that the debtor would have sufficient access to cash to service its obligations and operate its business in a sustainable way. The Trustee failed in its burden of proof.

Valuation based on future "option to purchase" price rejected by trial court

The issue in this marital dissolution matter was whether the husband had realized any "added value" when he exercised stock options in Cedar Works, Inc. Facts Under the terms of th ...

Willman v. Cole

The issue in this marital dissolution matter was whether the husband had realized any "added value" when he exercised stock options in Cedar Works, Inc.

Taxpayer Hurt in Undivided Timberland Case

At issue is the fair market value of a 25% undivided interest in timberland Barge owned, which was the subject of gifts Barge made in 1987.

Estate of Barge v. Commissioner

Business Valuation and Taxes: Procedure, Law and Perspective ...

In re Marriage of Adams

One isssue in this case was the valuation of a corporation's goodwill.

9 results