eWombat Search

Latest Accounting News
Hot Issues
Tax Office sounds alarm on popular property strategy
Our Advent calendar for 2018
‘Please do not panic’: ATO boss addresses STP concerns
Stop!! Don't do a paper Budget, use our online budgeting tools instead.
Employee Christmas Parties and Gifts – Any FBT?
Behavioural Coaching and your financial plans
FBT – Christmas Parties and Taxi Fares
Information needed to be the BBQ expert.
Tax consequences of trust vesting
Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT): employees’ private use of vehicles
ATO to contact clients over bank details
ATO claws back $850m in unpaid SG in FY 17-18
Appetite for property in SMSFs shows signs of life despite tough market
Superannuation gender gap narrowing, research shows
Identification numbers for directors
How financial advice helps create wealth.
Australia's vital statistics
Unlocking equity crowdfunding in Australia
$20m boost for SME clients looking to exporting
Work-Related Expenses
ATO updates crypto guidance
ATO zones in on hundreds of newly created reserves
Senate passes $20,000 instant asset write-off extension
Victorian Vacant Property Tax
Director Penalty Notices
ATO set to pounce on undisclosed income streams
In case you missed it – The company tax Bill that did pass Parliament.
GST spotlight headed to smaller end of town
Superannuation Amnesty – Maybe! Maybe Not!
ATO drills in car-sharing focus this tax time
Articles archive
Quarter 3 July - September 2018
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 of 2015
Articles
Individual Tax Returns – Medical Expenses 2015
Resources on our site to help you and your family.
Retirement Planning becoming more difficult
Salary and Superannuation after the death of an employee
Ambiguity in Shareholder Agreements - what you need to know
Five reasons the RBA will likely cut rates again
Consistency between Income Tax and Business Activity Statements (BAS)
Tax Time Checklist - Individual - 2015
Tax Time Checklist - Company Trust or Partnerships - 2015
Tax Time Checklist - Superannuation Funds - 2015
Ambiguity in Shareholder Agreements - what you need to know

 

When the debate comes as to the value of shareholdings many shareholders agreements provide very little assistance.



       


I just reviewed a valuation clause in an existing shareholder’s agreement for a company.


In summary the shareholders agreement sets out the following:


  • If the members or respective buyer and seller cannot agree value, the Company’s accountant must determine it on the request of any member, the value being the greater of:
    • The value of the Company in accordance with its balance sheet at the relevant time and without any updating of assets values for that purpose; and
    • The value of the Company by valuing it on a multiple of the average earnings of the Company before interest and tax for the last 3 years, where the multiple is determined by 2 valuers as agreed between the respective parties.
  • The deed then goes on and sets out how to appoint the 2 valuers and if the 2 valuers cannot agree on a multiple then it is to be the average
  • Finally the deed states that the valuation will be binding on the parties affected by it

The background of this assignment is that one of the minority shareholders is going through a marital split and his minority shareholding needs to be valued for family law purposes. And so now what??


Clearly the methodology as set out in the shareholders agreement is not binding in relation to a family law valuation but can and should be used as a guide for the independent family law valuer. Let’s assume that in this instance the husband will retain his shareholding and pay his ex-wife out in cash. It is then equitable that the valuation for family law purposes be valued on the same basis as if one of the husband’s business partners were to pay him out, after all, based on current circumstances, this is what the husband is likely to get for his shares into the future.


However the above gives no guidance for the family law valuer if for no other reason than there is no agreed multiple. Additionally the family law valuer will not be bound in his valuation approach. For example, he may decide not to value the business based on average earnings over the last 3 years, he may take into account future events. This likely leads to the family law valuer coming up with a different value than if one of the husband’s business partners were to buy him out, which in turn may lead to an additional legal fight and costs, and of the husband overpaying or underpaying his ex-wife when it all pans out.


The solution is the more specific the valuation clause in shareholders agreements the better. I believe the valuation clauses in shareholders agreements should refer to an annexed schedule which is an agreed worked example of the business valuation. This worked example should stipulate the process for arriving at maintainable earnings and should stipulate the agreed multiple. This annexed worked example can then be revised and if agreed amended by all shareholders in agreement allowing for changes in business circumstances. Much better to know where you stand up front and as much as possible take away the ambiguity. This would then in turn give concrete guidance to in this example the family law valuer.


 


Columnist:   Ross Mottershead
Wednesday, 05 August 2015 
accountantsdaily.com.au


 




2nd-September-2015
 

Stapleton Group: Suite C, 6 – 8 Floriston Road Boronia VIC 3155 | Phone: (03) 9760 7800 | Fax: (03) 9760 7860