Latest News

Hot Issues
spacer
2019: Tax Time Checklists - Individuals; Company; Trust; Partnership; and Super Funds
spacer
Small business clients need to be ready for STP by 30 September
spacer
Big four firm outlines new financial year checklist for SMSFs
spacer
Alert - Online Share Accommodation
spacer
ATO flashes warning over $7.2bn car expenses claims
spacer
Vital statistics for our great nation.
spacer
3 out of 4 tax dob-ins are about business
spacer
Tax on compensation received for inappropriate advice
spacer
‘Extra care’ crucial in avoiding ATO spotlight this tax time
spacer
ATO clears up FAQs about Single Touch Payroll
spacer
GST reporting: common errors and how to correct them
spacer
LRBAs, guarantees in need of review after property market falls
spacer
Victorian Property Valuation Cycle
spacer
Australia - toward EOFY 2019
spacer
Australian Taxation Office (ATO) expects 200,000 to miss out on refunds by failing to lodge
spacer
Biggest personal tax cuts in a decade a priority for Government
spacer
Government rules out GST changes following ATO report
spacer
ATO issues warning after ‘unprecedented’ spike in impersonation scams
spacer
Crypto transactions in ATO sights with new data-matching program
spacer
Government to establish $2 billion fund for small business lending
spacer
Small business corporate tax rates Bill is now law
spacer
ATO to double rental deduction audits to 4,500
spacer
ATO set to issue excess super contribution determinations
spacer
How's Australia going as we approach the election?
spacer
Single Touch Payroll (STP) is compulsory for all small businesses.
spacer
Federal Budget 2019 - Overview
spacer
How the 2019 Federal Budget affects you
spacer
FBT Reminder – Odometer Reading
spacer
‘Big awareness push’ underway as STP deadline approaches
spacer
GST collection on overseas goods at 300% of forecasts
spacer
The problem with getting to 53 years of age.
Article archive
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2019
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2019
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2018
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2018
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 of, 2015 archive
spacer
Individual Tax Returns – Medical Expenses 2015
spacer
Resources on our site to help you and your family.
spacer
Retirement Planning becoming more difficult
spacer
Salary and Superannuation after the death of an employee
spacer
Ambiguity in Shareholder Agreements - what you need to know
spacer
Five reasons the RBA will likely cut rates again
spacer
Consistency between Income Tax and Business Activity Statements (BAS)
spacer
Tax Time Checklist - Individual - 2015
spacer
Tax Time Checklist - Company Trust or Partnerships - 2015
spacer
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

 

© O'Brien and Partners 2011 - All Rights Reserved | 91 Station Street, Malvern VIC 3144 | Tel: 03 9509 3911 | Fax: 03 9509 3922