logo
spacer
spacer

 eWombat Search 
>
spacer spacer spacer
Latest Accounting News
Hot Issues
Federal Budget 2018 - Overview
Your Budget
4 components of our 2018 Federal Budget
Resources to help understand and implement Single Touch Payroll (STP)
New rules capture SMSFs trading big with cryptocurrency
New passive income test for lower corporate tax rate
Tools to help you manage your financial position are available on our site.
‘A simple mistake can attract our attention’: ATO reminder about FBT slips-ups
Australia by numbers – Update
Beware residency rules if moving overseas
Meaningful tax reform in high demand
Working holidaymakers and tax returns
Single Touch Payroll – 1 April 2018 Action
Property investors on notice after ATO spots false claims
ATO issues update on cryptocurrency compliance traps
Australia's vital statistics
Accountants spy elder abuse spike as mortgage stress sets in
Tax office releases fresh guidance on SMSFs
Labor's tax plans could favour the rich, analysis shows
FBT Reminder – Odometer Reading
Our website is really our digital office.
‘Substantiation will be a key focus’: ATO drums in tax time 2018 hit list
Super changes: $1.6 million transfer balance cap and death benefit pensions
Payroll, compliance issues top dodgy practices in Aussie business
Employee travel expense deductions
The Goldilocks effect - Economic and market update 4Q 17
Tax assessments confirmed for undisclosed business income
Super returns on the up despite clients’ hesitation
Australia. All you need to know to be the expert.
Business confidence hits 5-month high: NAB
Articles archive
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