Latest News

Hot Issues
spacer
Employee or independent contractor: What happens when it goes wrong?
spacer
Single Touch Payroll (STP) reporting irregularities: ATO contacting businesses
spacer
Employee entitlements, ‘wage theft’ and Fair Work: Why it’s time to be proactive
spacer
How's Australia really doing - the real figures?
spacer
Pension deeming rates cut from 1 July 2019
spacer
Audit warning sounded as ATO clamps down on dodgy claims
spacer
New ATO data-matching program – overseas movement data and HELP debt
spacer
ATO black economy strike force heads to Brisbane
spacer
Access to more resources and tools than most websites.
spacer
Tax Return Mistakes
spacer
SMSF advice appetite strong, says ASIC
spacer
Taxpayers confused by Scott Morrison’s $1,080 tax refund
spacer
Common STP set-up mistakes - ATO
spacer
Proposal to hold directors liable for GST set to pierce corporate veil
spacer
September 2019 - vital statistics for Australia
spacer
Tax Commissioner wants to turn black economy to ‘lighter shade of grey’
spacer
Changes to the Private Health Insurance Statement
spacer
Up to 9 in 10 ‘other’ expenses adjusted as ATO reveals dodgy claims
spacer
Downsizer Super Contribution
spacer
Tax payers to receive beefed up tax returns.
spacer
10 top global corporations since 1998
spacer
Catch-up Contributions
spacer
Life Insurance
spacer
Community tip-offs trigger ATO visits
spacer
Australia at a glance
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.
Article archive
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2019
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