In 2014, I authored a post on this blog entitled Stern Revisited – Using the Shareholder Agreement to Determine Value. I noted then that it seemed that after the Appellate Division’s decision in Brown v. Brown which changed the landscape by doing away with discounts and essentially ushered in more of a value to the
Inevitably, when there is a business to value as part of a divorce, the valuation experts will ask for buy/sell and/or shareholders agreements. I often wonder why because quite often, you really don’t see much discussion about these agreements in the valuation reports. Moroever, since Brown v. Brown changed the landscape, did away with discounts…
I recently blogged on the issue of how to treat unreported income, perks and other personal expenses paid through the business and the treatment of same for support purposes. As noted in that post, the issue comes up both for support and business valuation purposes.
In order to value a business, the experts come up…
While there are many similarities between the states when it comes to family law, there are also many differences. That fact was recently highlighted in the context of business valuation, specifically, what things should be considered to arrive at a value for equitable distribution, in a post recently seen on our firm’s Pennsylvania Family Law Blog. Specifically,Aaron Weems is an attorney in our Warrington (Bucks County), Pennsylvania office and editor of the Pennsylvania Family Law Blog wrote an interesting post entitled “Superior Court Changes How Businesses are Valued.”
In the Balicki case that Aaron discussed, at issue was the valuation of an insurance agency. It was understood that the business would not be sold, therefore, in deciding the value of the business, the Master excluded expenses of sale, transfer, or liquidation which could include broker commissions, finders fees, attorney fees and accountant fees. The appellate court reversed finding that this was improper. Moreover, the appellate court found error in the fact that the Master failed to take into consideration any taxes that may be associated with the sale or liquidation of a business.
Aaron noted that the appellate court held that Pennsylvania statutes 23 PACSA § 3502(a)(10.1) and (10.2) required that for the purposes of equitable distribution of marital property, the Court must consider the Federal, state and local tax ramifications even if they are not “immediate and certain”, and similarly, the sale, transfer, or liquidation of an asset need also not be “immediate and certain,” either.
The practical effect of this reducing these hypothetical expenses is that it reduces the marital estate, and therefore, the other spouses overall equitable distribution award. Would the same result be reached in New Jersey?