Barnes v. Barnes
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Valuation and Trial Court’s Skepticism of Husband’s ‘Projections’
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
Reasonable Compensation Analysis Ignores Objective Evidence, Tax Court Says
Tax Court dismisses taxpayer expert’s reasonable compensation analysis as not helpful to trier of fact; court points to failure to consider objective evidence and detects willingness to “validate and confirm” the amounts reported on taxpayer’s returns.
Reasonable Compensation Analysis Ignores Objective Evidence, Tax Court Says
Tax Court dismisses taxpayer expert’s reasonable compensation analysis as not helpful to trier of fact; court points to failure to consider objective evidence and detects willingness to “validate and confirm” the amounts reported on taxpayer’s returns.
Transupport, Inc. v. Commissioner
Tax Court dismisses taxpayer expert’s reasonable compensation analysis as not helpful to trier of fact; court points to failure to consider objective evidence and detects willingness to “validate and confirm” the amounts reported on taxpayer’s returns.
Zelouf Court Reasserts Its Objection to DLOM
New York court rejects majority owners’ post-trial objection to prior ruling against DLOM based on unlikelihood of sale of the business; court is guided by fairness, noting “a DLOM here would be the economic equivalent of imposing a minority discount.”
Court Hitches DLOM Application to Probability of Sale
In fair value appraisal proceeding, New York court finds DLOM inappropriate given low probability of sale of family business and finds assumption of hypothetical impediments to sale irrelevant; New York law does not mandate DLOM in every circumstance.
Zelouf International Corp. v. Zelouf (II)
New York court rejects majority owners’ post-trial objection to prior ruling against DLOM based on unlikelihood of sale of the business; court is guided by fairness, noting “a DLOM here would be the economic equivalent of imposing a minority discount.”
Zelouf International Corp. v. Zelouf (I)
In fair value appraisal proceeding, New York court finds DLOM inappropriate given low probability of sale of family business and finds assumption of hypothetical impediments to sale irrelevant; New York law does not mandate DLOM in every circumstance.
Lost Opportunity Damages Calculated Using Direct-Market-Data Method
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed a lost opportunity damages award for Stevens’ failure to transfer ownership of a hospice.
Saforo & Associates, et al. v. Porocel Corporation
The Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled, on an issue of first impression, that the appropriate measure of damages for misappropriation of a trade secret is either the infringer's actual profits or the plaintiff's lost profits, whichever is greater.