Robertson v. Hyde Park
This case was a partnership dispute where the defendant partners tried to buy out the plaintiff partners. On appeal before the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ dissociation was wrongful and damages should be assessed, discounts for lack of control and marketability should be applied to the value, and the partnership value should be reduced to account for partnership outstanding debts and other amounts. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by relying on the defendants’ expert’s report and not their expert’s report, refusing to increase the value by personal loans taken by the defendant partners, and failing to find that the partnership overpaid management and accounting fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court with one exception, whether the partnership agreement disassociated properly. On that count, the appellate court determined that the disassociation was appropriate.
New Jersey Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Shopping Mall, Disallows Any Control or Marketability Discounts, Affirms Proper Dissociation by Plaintiffs
This case was a partnership dispute where the defendant partners tried to buy out the plaintiff partners. On appeal before the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ dissociation was wrongful and damages should be assessed, discounts for lack of control and marketability should be applied to the value, and the partnership value should be reduced to account for partnership outstanding debts and other amounts. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by relying on the defendants’ expert’s report and not their expert’s report, refusing to increase the value by personal loans taken by the defendant partners, and failing to find that the partnership overpaid management and accounting fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court with one exception, whether the partnership agreement disassociated properly. On that count, the appellate court determined that the disassociation was appropriate.
New case affirms treatment of goodwill in Indiana divorces
In Indiana, enterprise goodwill is includable in the marital estate, but personal goodwill is not (see BVR’s Charting Goodwill map).
Dispelling the ‘hired gun’ perception of testifying experts
A question often comes up: “How can two qualified and experienced business valuation experts analyze the same company and come up with widely disparate values?”
Cain v. Cain
The Nebraska District Court in this case accepted the value of the wife’s expert testimony at trial as to the value of the husband’s 50% interest in his business. Both appraisers included DLOMs in determining value, and both appraisers utilized appropriate valuation methodologies. The difference in the two valuations is a matter of the difference in professional judgment.
The Nebraska District Court’s Determination of the Value of a Husband’s Business Is Affirmed—Appraisers Used Acceptable Valuation Methodology
The Nebraska District Court in this case accepted the value of the wife’s expert testimony at trial as to the value of the husband’s 50% interest in his business. Both appraisers included DLOMs in determining value, and both appraisers utilized appropriate valuation methodologies. The difference in the two valuations is a matter of the difference in professional judgment.
Tax Court rejects claimed deduction for management fees
The U.S. Tax Court recently agreed with the Internal Revenue Service that management fees a corporation paid to its three shareholders over a three-year period were not deductible since none of the fees were paid “purely for services” and the petitioner failed to show the fees were “ordinary, necessary, and reasonable.”
Tax Court Rejects Claimed Deduction for Management Fees
The U.S. Tax Court recently agreed with the Internal Revenue Service that management fees a corporation paid to its three shareholders over a three-year period were not deductible since none of the fees were paid “purely for services” and the petitioner failed to show the fees were “ordinary, necessary, and reasonable.” Rather, they represented disguised distributions, the court found.
Aspro, Inc. v Commissioner
The U.S. Tax Court recently agreed with the Internal Revenue Service that management fees a corporation paid to its three shareholders over a three-year period were not deductible since none of the fees were paid “purely for services” and the petitioner failed to show the fees were “ordinary, necessary, and reasonable.” Rather, they represented disguised distributions, the court found.