The best-placed person is the worst choice
It feels logical: your accountant knows the accounts, the history, the industry. Why pay someone else? Because in a valuation for the ATO or the Family Court, their greatest strength — the relationship — is precisely what disqualifies them.
Three conflicts they can’t escape
The advocacy conflict. Your accountant acts for you. They’re paid by you, retained by you, and want to keep you as a client. However professional they are, a number that hurts you hurts them.
The self-review conflict. A valuation interrogates the financial statements — normalising owner salaries, questioning related-party transactions, testing addbacks. Your accountant prepared those statements. They’d be marking their own homework.
The duty conflict. In family law, an expert’s overriding duty is to the court, not the client. An accountant with an ongoing engagement to one party can’t credibly claim that independence — and the other side’s lawyers will say so, loudly.
The moment the other party — or the Commissioner — can ask “and how long have they acted for you?”, the valuation is compromised. Not because the work is wrong, but because the independence is gone.
What the ATO and the court expect
The ATO’s market valuation guidelines call for a qualified, objective valuer using an appropriate methodology, documented well enough for another expert to replicate — especially where parties aren’t at arm’s length. In family law, valuations are routinely delivered by a single independent expert precisely to remove partisan numbers from the room. A conflicted report risks being discounted, rejected, or torn apart in cross-examination.
Keep your accountant — add a valuer
This isn’t a criticism of accountants. Yours plays a vital role: assembling records, explaining the business, briefing the valuer. But the valuation itself must come from someone with no relationship to protect and no history with the numbers.
