Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Journal of Business Valuation 2018 Edition

From the CBV Institute ...

On double-dip issue, Ohio appeals court agrees with Gallo analysis

A recent Ohio appeals court decision expressly agreed with its sister court’s 2015 ruling in Gallo that state law does not prohibit double dipping but does require the trial court to avoid unfairness in distributing marital assets and determining spousal support.

Ohio Court Affirms Facts of Case Don’t Require ‘Double-Dipping Offset’

Ohio appeals court upholds trial court’s spousal support determination based on husband’s average, rather than normalized, income, finding “equity did not require a double-dipping offset”; court agrees with sister court’s ruling in Gallo that applicable statute does not prohibit double dipping.

Kim v. Kim

Ohio appeals court upholds trial court’s spousal support determination based on husband’s average, rather than normalized, income, finding “equity did not require a double-dipping offset”; court agrees with sister court’s ruling in Gallo that applicable statute does not prohibit double dipping.

Connecticut Appellate Court Remands Because of Impermissible Double Dipping

Appellate court remands because of trial court’s impermissible double dipping, where trial court awarded wife half of the fair market value of husband’s two solely owned businesses, which represented husband’s sole income stream, and based spousal support on annual income generated by businesses.

Oudheusden v. Oudheusden

Appellate court remands because of trial court’s impermissible double dipping, where trial court awarded wife half of the fair market value of husband’s two solely owned businesses, which represented husband’s sole income stream, and based spousal support on annual income generated by businesses.

Brusach v. Brusach

In divorce case featuring veterinary practice, appeals court finds trial court did not err when it did not differentiate between personal and enterprise goodwill and trial court’s spousal support determination did not represent unlawful double dipping.

Court Declines to Set Firm Rules on Goodwill and Double Dipping

In divorce case featuring veterinary practice, appeals court finds trial court did not err when it did not differentiate between personal and enterprise goodwill and trial court’s spousal support determination did not represent unlawful double dipping.

Avoiding Value Double-Count in Companies With Cross-Holdings

Have you unwittingly double-counted value in circumstances where there are cross-holdings? When undertaking a valuation, we sometimes come across companies within an organization structure that have cross-holdings in each other. In this article, we explore the valuation of such companies (the “cross-holdings companies”), including the valuation of the pro-rata common equity ownership interests held by individuals or entities above the cross-holdings companies. After arriving at the en bloc value of the common equity of the ...

Court Distinguishes Between Goodwill and Trail Income in Solo Practice Valuation

Professional practice, sole proprietorship, goodwill, valuation, marital property, equitable distribution, valuation method, income, child support, double counting ...

Washington Court Explains Principle Guiding Double-Dip Analysis

Appeals court says there was no double dipping where the business, valued under an income approach, was a going concern, not a fixed asset, and would continue to generate income for owner spouse with which to pay maintenance award to nonowner spouse.

Double-Dip Claim Fails to Resonate With Appeals Court

Court says awarding husband family business plus business income taken out to make business-related payments does not fit “notion of an impermissible ‘double dip’”; business was not a diminishing asset, and wife did not receive either of those assets.

Fuller v. Fuller

Appeals court says trail income generated by solo financial planning practice is different from professional goodwill; it can be sold separately or assigned, and there exists a formula for valuing it; trial court was right to consider it a marital asset.

Court Distinguishes Between Goodwill and Trail Income in Solo Practice Valuation

Appeals court says trail income generated by solo financial planning practice is different from professional goodwill; it can be sold separately or assigned, and there exists a formula for valuing it; trial court was right to consider it a marital asset.

Washington Court Explains Principle Guiding Double-Dip Analysis

Appeals court says there was no double dipping where the business, valued under an income approach, was a going concern, not a fixed asset, and would continue to generate income for owner spouse with which to pay maintenance award to nonowner spouse.

In re Marriage of Cheng

Appeals court says there was no double dipping where the business, valued under an income approach, was a going concern, not a fixed asset, and would continue to generate income for owner spouse with which to pay maintenance award to nonowner spouse.

Double-Dip Claim Fails to Resonate With Appeals Court

Court says awarding husband family business plus business income taken out to make business-related payments does not fit “notion of an impermissible ‘double dip’”; business was not a diminishing asset, and wife did not receive either of those assets.

In re Marriage of Kirkendoll

Court says awarding husband family business plus business income taken out to make business-related payments does not fit “notion of an impermissible ‘double dip’”; business was not a diminishing asset, and wife did not receive either of those assets.

Service Business Valuation Triggers Double-Dip Rule

New York appellate court finds trial court’s spousal support determination violated double counting rule where expert valued husband’s solely owned engineering company based on an income approach and the business was a service business.

Court Nixes Double-Dip Claim Based on Accounts Receivable Treatment

Appeals court rejects claim that accounts receivable used in asset-based business valuation by wife’s expert are analogous to future income stream for purposes of arguing double dip in light of income determination for spousal support award.

Husband's Roles in Company Negate Need for DLOC

Court affirms valuation of husband’s minority interest in business featuring zero DLOC where husband was key driving force behind business’s success and wielded influence and control; use of asset approach rendered double-dip theory inapplicable.

Gifford v Gifford

New York appellate court finds trial court’s spousal support determination violated double counting rule where expert valued husband’s solely owned engineering company based on an income approach and the business was a service business.

Sieber v. Sieber

Court affirms valuation of husband’s minority interest in business featuring zero DLOC where husband was key driving force behind business’s success and wielded influence and control; use of asset approach rendered double-dip theory inapplicable.

Asset Approach Avoids Double Counting of Future Earnings

Appeals court affirms trial court’s decision favoring asset approach for valuing owner spouse’s medical practices; unlike income approach, it avoids accounting for owner spouse’s future earning twice, in asset valuation and determination of alimony.

Court Rejects Double-Dip Claim, Emphasizing Owner’s General Earning Capacity

Appellate court says trial court did not double dip where it predicated its alimony order on husband’s general earning capacity, independent of husband’s employment at companies that were marital assets subject to property division.

1 - 25 of 36 results