Business Valuation Dispute: Why Owners Disagree and How to Resolve It
A business valuation dispute can look like a fight over one number. Often, the real disagreement is about what that number is supposed to represent, and which assumptions belong in the calculation.
I’ve completed more than 100 valuations and sat across the desk from hundreds of business owners. I’ve seen how quickly a gap between two opinions can become personal. A more useful first step is to slow down and find the specific issue behind the difference. It may be a disputed expense, a valuation date, or the terms of an agreement, not a disagreement about the entire business.
Identify what is actually in dispute
Before debating the final figure, clarify the purpose of the valuation. Is it being used for a potential sale, a partner buyout, an estate or tax matter, a legal proceeding, or another decision? The purpose affects what rules, documents, and standards may apply.
Then identify the disputed elements. Common areas include:
Financial records: Are the parties using the same accounting periods and source documents?
Earnings adjustments: Do they agree on owner compensation, one-time expenses, or related-party transactions?
Valuation date: Are they valuing the business as of the same date?
Method or assumptions: Are they applying different forecasts, risk assessments, or market information?
Standard of value: Does the assignment call for a specific definition, such as fair market value or a standard set by an agreement or applicable law?
The IRS’s Revenue Ruling 59-60, for example, describes factors to consider when valuing closely held stock, including the business’s financial condition, earning capacity, goodwill, and economic outlook. It does not provide a single formula that resolves every business valuation dispute.
A clear list of the disagreements gives both sides something concrete to examine. Without one, discussions can circle around two headline numbers while leaving the reasons for the difference unexplored.
Check the governing documents first
If the dispute involves co-owners, start with the operating agreement, buy-sell agreement, shareholder documents, or any other agreement that may apply. A document may set a valuation date, name a method or appraiser, define the standard of value, or lay out a process for resolving a disagreement. A court order or other legal instruction may also determine what is required.
Read the relevant clauses before commissioning another report or negotiating around a number. If an agreement specifies a process, skipping it could create additional conflict, or affect whether a valuation can be used for its intended purpose.
The meaning and effect of contract language can depend on the document and the applicable jurisdiction. When rights or legal obligations are unclear, an attorney familiar with the situation can explain how to interpret the agreement. A valuation professional can address the financial analysis, but that is not a substitute for legal advice.
Compare assumptions, not just conclusions
Two reports may reach different conclusions because they start with different inputs. Put those inputs side by side before arguing about which number is “right.”
For example, check whether the reports use the same earnings period and treatment of unusual expenses. An expense one party views as a one-time cost may be treated differently by the other. Forecasts can also diverge: one side may expect growth to continue, while the other assumes flatter results or greater risk.
Look for differences in:
Historical financial information and adjustments
Forecasts for revenue, expenses, and margins
Treatment of debt, cash, and working capital
Assumptions about risk and future performance
The valuation date and information available at that time
A practical way to organize the review is to create a shared issues list. For each item, record the assumption used by each side, the supporting document, and what would change if the assumption were resolved differently. This shifts the discussion from “your number versus mine” to questions that can be checked.
The ASA’s Business Valuation Standards address the information gathering, analysis, and reporting involved in valuation work. NACVA also publishes professional standards and valuation resources. These standards can help frame questions about the work performed; a credential or report title alone does not explain why two opinions differ.
Consider a neutral valuation professional when the gap remains
A neutral professional may help when the parties have exchanged the relevant records but remain stuck on material assumptions or analysis. The person might review both reports, address specific disputed issues, or perform a separate assignment, depending on the circumstances and any governing agreement.
Before work begins, define the scope in writing. Agree on the purpose, valuation date, standard of value, interest being considered, documents to be reviewed, and questions the professional is expected to answer. If the assignment must meet a legal, tax, lender, or contractual requirement, confirm those requirements before selecting a professional.
A useful review generally needs reliable financial statements and tax returns, details about owner compensation and unusual expenses, information about debt and assets, and relevant agreements. The expert may also need operational information or forecasts, depending on the issues in dispute.
If the disagreement is part of a partner separation, the partner buyout valuation guide provides related context. The financial question still needs to be considered alongside the agreement and the rights it establishes.
Try a structured resolution before litigation
A step-by-step process can keep a financial disagreement from turning into a broader conflict:
Exchange the key records. Make sure both sides are working from the same core financial and operational information, subject to any confidentiality or legal requirements.
List the disputed assumptions. Separate factual questions from differences in judgment.
Hold a focused review. Discuss the major issues one at a time, with supporting documents available.
Consider a mutually selected neutral. A neutral professional may be able to clarify technical issues or assess disputed assumptions.
Explore mediation if appropriate. A mediator helps parties discuss possible resolutions but does not impose a valuation or settlement. The American Arbitration Association describes mediation as a voluntary process in which a neutral third party helps the parties work toward a mutually agreeable resolution.
Mediation may be useful when direct discussions have stalled and both sides are willing to consider a negotiated outcome. It is not always required, and it does not guarantee agreement. If no resolution is reached, the next step may depend on the contract, applicable law, or the parties’ choices. Litigation may be necessary in some disputes, but it can bring additional cost, delay, and uncertainty.
If the disagreement concerns a proposed sale rather than an ownership dispute, the headline price may not tell the whole story. Terms such as working-capital adjustments, seller financing, or an earnout can affect what the seller actually receives. The guide to evaluating a business sale offer explains why those terms deserve separate attention.
Reduce the chance of another business valuation dispute
The best time to agree on a process is before there is a disagreement. Owners can review their agreements with appropriate legal and financial professionals to clarify the valuation date, standard, method, appraiser-selection process, and steps to follow if opinions differ.
Consistent recordkeeping also helps. Keep financial statements and supporting documents organized, and document the business purpose and treatment of unusual expenses, related-party arrangements, or changes in owner compensation. Clear records cannot eliminate differences of judgment, but they can make it easier to separate documented facts from assumptions.
Agree on the rules before debating the result
A business valuation dispute is easier to address when everyone knows the purpose of the valuation, the process required by any governing documents, and the assumptions behind each opinion. Start with those points, compare the evidence, and consider a neutral or mediation if direct discussion is not enough.
The goal is not to force agreement on every judgment. It is to understand what is driving the difference and resolve the issues through a process suited to the situation.
Sources
Comments