Four absolute rules of business valuation
Discover the four absolute rules of business valuation and hear the perspective of a veteran valuer on the current state and future of the valuation profession.
NAV Alone Fails to Capture Distributional Interest’s Fair Value
Appellate court affirms fair value determination of distributional interest in family farm based on multiprong valuation; company is not a holding company, and net asset valuation alone fails to capture fair value of dissociating members’ interest.
Schewe v. Schewe Farms
Appellate court affirms fair value determination of distributional interest in family farm based on multiprong valuation; company is not a holding company, and net asset valuation alone fails to capture fair value of dissociating members’ interest.
NAV Alone Fails to Capture Distributional Interest’s Fair Value
Appellate court affirms fair value determination of distributional interest in family farm based on multiprong valuation; company is not a holding company, and net asset valuation alone fails to capture fair value of dissociating members’ interest.
What Role for Revenue Ruling 59-60 Factors in Valuing Closely Held Business?
Expert’s use of Revenue Ruling 59-60 for valuation of closely held business and for damages calculation does not render opinion inadmissible under Daubert, court says, noting that scope of revenue ruling goes beyond valuation of estate and gift taxes.
J&M Distrib., Inc. v. Hearth & Home Techs., Inc.
Expert’s use of Revenue Ruling 59-60 for valuation of closely held business and for damages calculation does not render opinion inadmissible under Daubert, court says, noting that scope of revenue ruling goes beyond valuation of estate and gift taxes.
What's new online at BVLibrary.com
BVLibrary is a website designed with the business valuation professional in mind. It offers instant access to the latest business valuation research ...
Court of Appeals Holds Commisioner to Published Revenue Rulings in Partnership and Annuity Transaction
Because the facts were not in dispute, the only question before the Court of Appeals was whether or not Gordon B. McLendon was sufficiently close to death on March 5, 1986, to require him to depart from the actuarial tables published by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in valuing a remainder interest and related annuity.
Estate of McLendon v. Commissioner
Issue was whether McLendon was sufficiently close to death on March 5, 1986, to require him to depart from the actuarial tables in valuing a remainder interest and related annuity.