Achieving Amicable Settlements and Possible Reconciliations : The Role of Forensic Accountants in Equitable Distributions

Ojo, Marianne and DiGabriele, Jim (2013): Achieving Amicable Settlements and Possible Reconciliations : The Role of Forensic Accountants in Equitable Distributions.

Abstract

This book is focussed on investigating how a proper implementation of forensic accounting tools could serve as a means and channel whereby such techniques as valuations, equitable distribution and evidence could be employed in avoiding unnecessary break ups and emotional breakdowns. Through the exploration of options which are available to marital couples considering separation or divorce during periods of crises, the book aims to emphasise the theme that a break from the relationship may be the step required to avert a break-up. The role of forensic accounting in facilitating an amicable process during such a break - which could result in the possible restoration of relationships involved during such crucial stage also constitutes a recurring theme of the book.

It is a well known fact that financial problems constitute the source of break-downs in many relationships. Whilst other factors may contribute to failures in relationships and whilst some couples may have finalised their intentions and require very little assistance in getting through such painstaking processes, others may have their decisions influenced by court procedures, counselling sessions and the proper application of equitable distribution procedures – such equitable distribution procedure being considered a preferred technique in resolving marital asset distributions than the community property concept.

Further this book highlights factors which need to be taken into consideration – not only in averting unnecessary break-ups, but also in facilitating harmonious and amicable settlements which may eventually pave the way for reconciliation, as well as restoration of broken down relationships. Whilst planning of marital asset distribution should not constitute the focus of any marriage, planning when the need arises may serve not only as a channel whereby a relationship can be restored eventually, but as a temporary means of weathering the storms during the difficult times in the relationship.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: equitable distribution; marital reconciliation; forensic accounting; valuations
• Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E3 - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E3 - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles > E32 - Business Fluctuations ; Cycles; K - Law and Economics > K2 - Regulation and Business Law; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M4 - Accounting and Auditing

References

Astrachan, J.H. and Shanker, M.C. (2003). “Family Businesses Contribution of the U.S. Economy: A Closer Look.” Family Business Review.

Beatty, R. P. Riffe, S. M. and Thompson R.(1999). The method of comparables and tax court valuations of private firms: An empirical investigation. Accounting Horizons. September. Volume 13, Issue 3.

Bosland, C. (1963). Tax Valuation by Compromise. The Tax Law Review. Volume 19. Pages 77-89.

Cercone, L. J., Jr. (2002). Uniform standards for business valuations. The CPA Journal. Volume 72, No 2.

Englebrecht, T. (1979). A Reply, Analysis and Extension of a Closer Statistical Look at Tax Court Compromise. Taxes. September. Pages 607-614

Englebrecht, T. and Davidson D. (1977). A Statistical Look at Tax Court Compromise in Estate and Gift Tax Valuation of Closely Held Stock. Taxes.

Englebrecht, T. and Leeson, C. (1978). Valuation of Closely Held Stock. The Tax Executive.

Feger, D. (1988). Missouri Supreme Court States Preference for Market Approach When Valuing Professional Goodwill. Business Valuation Review. Pages 147-159.

Fishman J. and O'Rourke, B. (1998).Value: More Than a Superficial Understanding Is Required. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Volume 15, Issue 11

LeClair, M. (1990). Valuing the closely held corporation: The validity and performance of established valuation procedures. Accounting Horizons. September. Pages 31-42.

Martin, S. (1972). Factors the IRS and Court are using Today in Valuing Closely Held Companies. The Journal of Taxation. February.

Pratt, S. (2003). Legal and Court Case Update. Business Valuation Update. October. Volume 9 Number 10.

Reilly, R. (2003). Professional guidance on valuation from IRS publications. Valuation Strategies. Volume 6, Issue 3.

Vuotto, Jr. C., Maier, S. and Brogowski, T.(2002). The Standard of Value Enigma: Brown v. Brown. The New Jersey Law Journal. August.

Weiss, D. (1987). Valuation of Closely Held Stocks-A Recent Decision. The CPA Journal.

Wietzke, R. (2002). The CPA Litigation Service CounselorCommon Errors in Business Valuation Reports Revisited. April 2002.