Fifteen questions that expose whether a valuer's report will hold up.

Choosing a business valuer means testing four things before signing: valuation-specific credentials and litigation experience, which APES 225 engagement type they will provide, independence from every party involved, and whether their work has previously held up in the forum you need it for. Prismi sets out fifteen questions to ask, plus the answers that should disqualify a candidate on the spot.

Why the choice of valuer matters more than the choice of report

Most people shopping for a business valuation compare price and turnaround time. Those are the least useful variables to compare, because a cheap, fast report that cannot survive the scrutiny it was commissioned for costs more than the fee saved — in a denied Div 152 concession, a rejected court report, or a deal that stalls because the buyer's accountant will not rely on the number. The report is only as strong as the process and the person behind it. Before you engage a valuer, work through the questions below. A valuer who answers them plainly, with specifics, is worth paying for. A valuer who deflects, generalises, or gets defensive is telling you something about the report you are about to receive.

Credentials and experience

Start by testing whether the valuer's credentials match the standard the report needs to meet — a general accounting qualification is not the same as valuation-specific expertise under APES 225 and IVS 104.

• ·1. What is your business valuation-specific accreditation, not just your general accounting qualification? A CA or CPA designation demonstrates general competence; it says nothing about valuation specialisation on its own. Ask whether they hold a valuation-specific credential or demonstrable specialisation recognised by their professional body, and how many valuation engagements (not audits, not tax returns) they complete in a year.
• ·2. Have you given evidence in court or responded to an ATO review on a valuation you prepared? Litigation and review experience reveals whether a valuer has actually had their reasoning tested by an adversarial party, as opposed to only ever writing reports that nobody challenged.
• ·3. Who signs the report, and what are their named qualifications? A report should carry the name and qualifications of the person professionally responsible for the conclusion — not an unnamed 'our valuation team'. Ask specifically who reviews and signs, and what their qualifications are.
• ·4. Has your work in this industry or for this purpose been reviewed or challenged before, and what happened? Sector experience and prior review outcomes are fair questions. A valuer who has never had a report questioned may simply have never worked on a matter with real scrutiny attached.

Engagement type and independence

Two questions decide whether a report will carry weight anywhere it is tested: which APES 225 engagement type the valuer is proposing, and whether they are genuinely independent of every party to the matter.

• ·5. Will this be a valuation engagement or a calculation engagement under APES 225? These are not interchangeable. A valuation engagement lets the valuer select the methodology and reach an independent conclusion of value. A calculation engagement applies methods agreed in advance with the client and produces a calculated value that the report itself must flag as not a conclusion of value. A calculation engagement is cheaper, faster, and carries materially less weight if the ATO, a court, or a counterparty questions the number. Ask which one you are being quoted, and make sure it matches your purpose — a family law or Div 152 concession matter generally needs a full valuation engagement, not a calculation.
• ·6. Have you, or has your firm, done any prior work for the other side or a related party to this matter? Prior audit, tax, advisory or valuation work for a counterparty — a departing shareholder, the other party in a family law matter, a related entity in a Division 7A transaction — is a conflict that should be disclosed before engagement, not discovered afterward. A valuer who has advised the other side, or who has an ongoing commercial relationship with a related entity, cannot be independent of the matter even if they believe they can.
• ·7. Is any part of your fee contingent on the value you conclude? This should be a hard no. A fee structure that rewards a higher (or lower) number compromises the entire premise of an independent valuation, and it is one of the first things the ATO or a court tests when a valuation is challenged. If the answer is anything other than an unambiguous no, walk away.
• ·8. Will you accept a target figure I want the report to land on? A valuer should refuse this outright. If a candidate is willing to discuss what number would work for you before they have done the analysis, the report is not independent and will not be treated as such by anyone reviewing it.

Purpose-fit: has this valuer's work survived the forum you need it for

A valuation prepared for one purpose does not automatically transfer to another. A report built for an internal buy-sell discussion is not the same document a court or the ATO expects to see, even if the underlying business and numbers are identical. Ask the valuer directly: have you prepared reports for this specific forum before, and do you understand what that forum expects?

• ·For ATO purposes — has the valuer prepared reports with the ATO's market valuation guidance in mind: replicable methodology, contemporaneous evidence, documented working papers, and a conclusion within a supportable range? No valuer can promise ATO acceptance — there is no such thing as ATO pre-approval — but the process should visibly target that standard.
• ·For court or family law purposes — has the valuer acted as a single expert or shadow expert before, and do they understand the duty a single expert owes to the court rather than to either party? Litigation experience under cross-examination is a genuinely different skill from preparing a compliance valuation that nobody contests.
• ·For a transaction — has the valuer's work been relied upon by a bank, an incoming shareholder, or a buyer's due diligence team, and did it hold up through that process without being materially revised?

Deliverables, timeline, information and fees

Beyond credentials and independence, confirm what the report will actually contain, what it will cost, and what happens if the engagement grows beyond its original scope.

• ·9. What exactly will the report contain — a conclusion of value with methodology reasoning, or a shorter summary? Ask to see a sample report (with client details redacted) so you know what you are actually paying for before you sign.
• ·10. What information will you need from me, and what happens if some of it isn't available? A valuer who cannot tell you the document list up front has not scoped the engagement properly. A valuer who says missing documents will simply be worked around, with no discussion of how that affects the supportable range, is understating the impact of thin evidence.
• ·11. What is the realistic turnaround, from when the information is complete rather than from today? Turnaround should be quoted from the document completeness check, not from first contact — a vague date that ignores how much of the file is missing is not a real timeline.
• ·12. Is the fee fixed at engagement, and does it change if the matter turns out to be more complex than expected? Ask what triggers a fee variation (additional entities, additional valuation dates, expanded scope) and get it in writing before you start.
• ·13. Will you retain the working file, and for how long? A valuation that might be reviewed years later — a CGT event assessed on audit, a Division 7A matter, an estate — needs a valuer who keeps the evidence behind the report, not just the report itself.
• ·14. Do you provide tax or legal advice as part of this engagement? A valuer should say no. Valuation and tax or legal advice are different professional services, and a valuer who blurs the line is either overstepping their competence or has not thought carefully about scope.
• ·15. What happens if we disagree with the conclusion? A credible valuer will explain that the methodology and evidence drive the conclusion, that they will discuss the reasoning with you, and that they will not change the number to suit a preference. If they suggest the conclusion is negotiable, the report was never independent.

Red-flag answers that should end the conversation

Some answers are disqualifying on their own, regardless of how the rest of the conversation goes.

• ·"We can work with whatever number you need" or any willingness to discuss a target value before the analysis is done
• ·A fee structure with any component tied to the concluded value
• ·"Don't worry, this will be ATO-approved" — there is no such thing as ATO pre-approval, and a valuer claiming it either doesn't understand the guidance or is overselling
• ·No clear answer on whether the engagement is a valuation or a calculation under APES 225
• ·Refusal or reluctance to disclose prior work for a related party or counterparty
• ·No named, qualified person taking responsibility for the report — only a firm name
• ·A guarantee that the report will be accepted by the ATO, a court, or a bank — no independent valuer can guarantee an outcome, only a defensible process
• ·Reluctance to show a sample report or explain what the deliverable will actually contain

Which Prismi engagement fits once you've chosen a valuer

Once you're satisfied a valuer meets the standard above, the engagement tier should match the purpose and the stakes, not just the budget. Essential (from $1,495 + GST, 10–14 business days) suits straightforward single-entity matters where a concise, supportable valuation engagement report is sufficient. Comprehensive (from $3,995 + GST, 15–25 business days) is the standard recommendation for most tax-purpose and transaction matters — multiple methodologies tested, the supportable range documented, and the reasoning behind the concluded position set out in full. The Defensible Valuation File (from $8,995 + GST, 25–35 business days) is built for matters where review, dispute or litigation is a realistic prospect, with the deepest evidence trail behind every input. The Valuation Range & Scenario Review (from $12,995 + GST, 30–45 business days) suits complex, adviser-led matters where the value needs to be stress-tested across scenarios rather than concluded at a single point. Retrospective valuation dates attract a $495 surcharge per historical date, additional entities are $750 each, and rush delivery is +30% of the base fee, subject to capacity. Every Prismi report is a valuation engagement (not a calculation) unless a limited scope is specifically agreed and disclosed, fees are fixed at engagement and never contingent on the outcome, and we will say so and decline the engagement if a target value is requested.