Phone: (03) 9563 4688

Email: office@aubreypaton.com.au

Address: 17D Chester Street, Oakleigh VIC 3166

Latest Accounting News
Hot Issues
300,000 SMEs utilising $20K write-off, says ATO
‘A bad thing times 10’: ATO set for new SMSF blitz
Capital Gains and Renounceable Rights
Paperwork bungles lead to $38k in payments
Australian Dietary Guidelines and healthy eating chart (PDF)
Former director liable for company’s unpaid tax liabilities
Resources on our site to help you, your family and your friends.
Super for housing measures enter Senate
No Special Circumstances to allow Excess Super Contributions
Housing tax measures progress to Parliament
AirBnb – wrong tax outcome?
Are young investors wasting their youth?
ATO sending 'more letters than ever' on income tax errors
Powerful Budgeting, cash flow and Super Tools available on our site.
Property, unit trusts in ATO's sights
Australian Dietary Guidelines and healthy eating chart (PDF)
Major Bank Levy Passed
NSW tops list as ATO reveals billions in lost super
How is your super going, ready for retirement?
Australia's leading causes of death - ABS
ATO increasing data exchange with international regulators
Illegal SMSF early access scheme leads to $6,000 fine
Our 'hardest' SMSF tasks
Uber drivers hit for 10% tax
Lack of literacy promotes unrealistic goals
Taxpayer failed to prove that payments were “loans”
New STP dates confirmed as ATO goes on compliance blitz
ATO flags compliance project for FY17/18
Items that heat up your depreciation deductions
Articles archive
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 July - September 2014
Quarter 2 April - June 2014
Quarter 1 January - March 2014
Quarter 4 October - December 2013
Quarter 3 July - September 2013
Quarter 2 April - June 2013
Quarter 1 January - March 2013
Quarter 4 October - December 2012
Quarter 3 July - September 2012
Quarter 2 April - June 2012
Quarter 1 January - March 2012
Quarter 4 October - December 2011
Quarter 3 July - September 2011
Quarter 2 April - June 2011
Quarter 1 January - March 2011
Quarter 4 October - December 2010
Quarter 3 July - September 2010
Quarter 2 April - June 2010
Quarter 1 January - March 2010
Quarter 4 October - December 2009
Quarter 3 July - September 2009
Quarter 2 April - June 2009
Quarter 1 January - March 2009
Quarter 4 October - December 2008
Quarter 3 July - September 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2008
Quarter 1 January - March 2008
Quarter 4 October - December 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2007
Quarter 1 January - March 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2006
Quarter 1 January - March 2006
Quarter 4 October - December 2005
Quarter 3 July - September 2005
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