Stress-test the valuation before you rely on it, negotiate against it or dispute it.

Oliver Group reviews the report against accepted methodology and ATO market valuation guidance, identifies specific defects, and states whether the concluded value sits within a supportable range.

When a second opinion is worth commissioning

A business valuation second opinion is worth commissioning in one of three situations: you are being asked to rely on a valuation prepared for someone else (a purchase price, a buyout figure, a family settlement number); you are negotiating against a valuation the other side commissioned; or the ATO has questioned a value and the existing report is the evidence on file. In each case the practical question is the same: does the report in front of you actually support its conclusion? A structured review answers that question in a fraction of the time and cost of a fresh valuation, and often tells you something a fresh valuation cannot: exactly where the existing report is strong, and exactly where it is exposed.

First question: what report are you actually holding?

A valuation engagement requires the valuer to select the methods appropriate to the circumstances and form their own opinion of value. A limited scope valuation engagement restricts the procedures or information relied on: and the report must disclose how. A calculation engagement simply applies methods and assumptions agreed with the client, with no opinion that the result is appropriate. Many documents presented as 'valuations' in disputes and negotiations are calculation engagements, or appraisals prepared under no standard at all, the practitioner never opined on value. Establishing what the report actually is, and what its own terms say it can and cannot be used for, is the first step of every review. A calculation engagement cannot do the work of a valuation engagement in an ATO objection or a courtroom.

The defect checklist we work through

A second opinion tests the report against a fixed checklist rather than a general impression, so every finding can be pointed to on the page.

• ·Engagement type and stated scope versus how the report is being used ( classification)
• ·Basis of value: market value and Spencer v Commonwealth (1907), or a different basis (fair value under a shareholders' agreement, value to the owner) applied without saying so
• ·Earnings multiples asserted without comparable transaction evidence, or drawn from listed-company data with no size or marketability adjustment
• ·Add-back inflation: normalisation of owner remuneration, rent or one-off costs with no invoices, contracts or market-salary evidence behind it
• ·Comparable transactions that are stale, from a different industry or size band, or pre-date a structural change in the market
• ·Single-method reliance with no cross-check, or accepted methods rejected without reasons
• ·Discounts and premia (DLOM, DLOC, control) asserted at round numbers with no analysis of the specific interest
• ·Hindsight in retrospective valuations: reliance on information not reasonably available at the valuation date
• ·Missing independence statement, undisclosed limitations, or a fee arrangement contingent on the outcome

When a critique is enough: and when it is not

A review concludes with one of three findings. If the report is sound, we say so: that has real value, because you can rely on it or stop fighting it. If the report has specific, correctable defects, a written critique is usually sufficient for negotiation: it identifies what the concluded value would look like with the defects corrected, without us issuing a competing opinion. If the defects are structural, wrong basis of value, wrong engagement type for the purpose, or an evidence base that cannot support any conclusion, a critique alone will not carry an objection or a court process, and we will tell you a full independent valuation is required. We will not stretch a review to do a valuation's job.

Using the review in objections, disputes and renegotiation

In an ATO objection, a review serves two purposes: it tests whether your own report will withstand scrutiny before you rely on it, and it identifies the specific weaknesses in a valuation the ATO has relied on or commissioned. In a dispute or buyout negotiation, a defect-by-defect critique of the other side's report often shifts the number without the cost and delay of duelling full valuations. In a price renegotiation, an acquisition, an earn-out, a unit redemption, the review gives your adviser specific, evidence-based grounds rather than a bare assertion that the number is wrong. We prepare the review; your accountant or lawyer runs the objection or negotiation. Oliver Group is not a registered tax agent and does not provide tax or legal advice.

Review, not advocacy

Reviewing another practitioner's work carries ethical obligations, and we take them seriously. We do not act as an advocate: our fees are fixed at engagement and never contingent on the outcome, and if the report we review is sound we will say so, even where that is not the answer you hoped for. If you ask us to find defects the evidence does not show, we will say so and decline the engagement on those terms. That independence is exactly what makes the review useful, a critique from a hired gun persuades no one.

Which package fits a review

Oliver Group's fees are set by the annual turnover of the business: a Small Business Valuation is $1,495 + GST for turnover under $2 million, a Medium Business Valuation is $2,495 + GST for turnover between $2 million and $10 million, and a Large Business Valuation is $3,495 + GST for turnover over $10 million. Small-business reports are delivered in 2 business days and medium-business reports in 3 business days; the delivery date for a Large Business Valuation is agreed before commencement. Delivery time starts once payment and all required information have been received. Retrospective valuation dates are +$495 each and additional entities are +$795 each. The fee is fixed in writing before work begins and never depends on the concluded value.