Court Pans Valuation Based on Expert’s Fiction, Not Fact
High court rejects valuation of husband’s interest in closely held company where wife’s expert transformed it from one owned by four people into one managed by one person to increase its overall value.
Prevost v. Prevost
Expert’s “market valuation assessment” to estimate sale price of husband’s two businesses satisfies principles for valuation of closely held company, says appeals court; case law looks to IRS Revenue Ruling 59-60, but disfavors use of book value.
Ward v. Ward
High court rejects valuation of husband’s interest in closely held company where wife’s expert transformed it from one owned by four people into one managed by one person to increase its overall value.
Expert’s Valuation Method Precludes Improper Inclusion of Goodwill
In using the capitalization of earnings method to value husband’s medical practice, the wife’s expert did not improperly include personal goodwill, the appellate court finds; the valuation rested on actual earnings with some adjustment for reasonable comp ...
Sharp v. Sharp
In using the capitalization of earnings method to value husband’s medical practice, the wife’s expert did not improperly include personal goodwill, the appellate court finds; the valuation rested on actual earnings with some adjustment for reasonable comp ...
Charles v. Charles
California appellate court affirms trial court’s rejection of husband’s motion to value the community business at separation rather than at trial; the latter is the presumed valuation date under state law and the husband’s request was not “good cause,” bu ...
Schuman v. Schuman
State high court says appeals court erred in classifying wife’s stock awards as separate property based solely on vesting; stock awards are form of deferred compensation, like retirement benefits, and are acquired “when they are earned, and not at the time of receipt, vesting or exercise.”
Dawyot v. Catawba Capital Mgmt., Inc.
In buyout dispute, court sets aside third-party appraisal performed pursuant to redemption agreement; court says final appraisal report contains at least one “palpable error” related to normalization of earnings that had a significant effect on the valuation; appraiser did not testify at trial.
Mulcahy, Pauritsch, Salvador & Co. v. Commissioner
Tax Court says, under independent investor test, taxpayer is not entitled to presumption that deductions for “consulting fees” are reasonable compensation; firm’s expert relied on irrelevant statistics to support reasonable compensation for services claim ...