Who can value a business in Australia?

In Australia, anyone can call themselves a business valuer — the title is not protected. What separates a supportable valuation from an opinion is credentials and process: a CA Business Valuation Specialist, CPA, RICS Registered Valuer or CFA charterholder working under APES 225, with documented methodology and evidence. Courts and the ATO assess qualifications, independence and reasoning, not the title. Prismi reports are senior-reviewer signed, with a ten-year working file.

Anyone can legally call themselves a business valuer

In Australia there is no licence, registration or statutory qualification required to value a business. "Business valuer" is not a protected title — unlike real property, where certification schemes and, in some states, licensing regimes apply, anyone can print the words on a website and start issuing reports. The practical consequence for buyers of valuation services is a market that spans a very wide quality range: accredited specialists at one end, broker estimates and online calculators at the other, with no gatekeeper at the door. The question is therefore never "is this person allowed to value my business" — everyone is. The question is whether the report will carry weight with the audience who will actually read it: the ATO, a court, a bank, a co-owner's lawyer, or a purchaser's due diligence team.

The credentials that carry weight

Because the title is unprotected, credentials do the work that licensing does in other professions. Four matter in the Australian market, and they are not interchangeable — each signals a different training pathway and a different set of professional obligations.

• ·CA Business Valuation Specialist (CA ANZ) — the accreditation aimed most directly at business valuation, held by chartered accountants who have completed specialist valuation education and demonstrated relevant experience. A common sign-off on tax-purpose and dispute valuation reports in Australia.
• ·CPA (CPA Australia) — a professional accountancy credential rather than a valuation-specific one. CPA members performing valuation services are bound by APES 225, which imposes scope, documentation and independence obligations regardless of any specialist accreditation.
• ·RICS Registered Valuer — an international designation governed by the RICS Red Book, which incorporates International Valuation Standards. More common on property, plant and infrastructure work, but relevant where an engagement spans business value and real assets.
• ·CFA charterholder — rigorous training in securities and corporate valuation, common in transaction and financial-reporting contexts. Not bound by APES 225 unless the holder is also a member of an Australian professional accounting body.

Which credential courts and the ATO expect for which purpose

The ATO's market valuation guidance does not prescribe a credential. It expects the valuation to be undertaken by a person with qualifications, experience and independence appropriate to the asset and the purpose — and a report carries more weight where competence and independence are evident on its face. For tax-purpose work — small business CGT concession claims under Div 152, restructures under Subdiv 328-G, market value substitution under s 116-30, Division 7A transactions — the CA Business Valuation Specialist accreditation is the specialist credential most directly aligned to the work. Courts likewise prescribe no qualification: the requirement is specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience, plus compliance with the applicable expert witness code of conduct, and in family law matters the parties commonly appoint a single expert jointly. Prismi prepares independent valuations only — we are not a registered tax agent, and how a valuation is applied to a tax or legal position is a matter for the client's accountant or lawyer.

How APES 225 and the expert-witness codes bind the work

APES 225 Valuation Services binds members of the Australian professional accounting bodies whenever they perform a valuation. It requires the valuer to define the scope and purpose, identify the basis of value, classify the engagement — a valuation engagement, a limited scope valuation engagement or a calculation engagement, each carrying a different level of work — document the analysis, and disclose independence. A valuer who is not a member of a professional accounting body is not bound by APES 225 at all, which is worth checking before engaging, because the standard is what forces the documentation discipline a reviewed valuation depends on. Expert-witness codes operate separately: they attach to the role, not the profession. Anyone giving valuation evidence in the Federal Court, the family courts or a state Supreme Court owes a paramount duty to the court, must confine opinions to their expertise, and must disclose the assumptions and materials relied on. Credentials get a valuer in the door; the standards and codes govern what happens after.

Ten questions to ask before you engage anyone

• ·What valuation credential do you hold, and who accredits it — CA ANZ Business Valuation Specialist, CPA, RICS, CFA?
• ·Will this be conducted as a valuation engagement under APES 225 — and if not, what standard governs the work?
• ·Who signs the report, and are their qualifications stated on its face?
• ·What basis of value will you adopt — market value under IVS 104, or another basis — and why?
• ·Which methodologies will you test, and will the report explain why others were rejected?
• ·Is your fee fixed at engagement, or contingent on the number you conclude?
• ·Have your reports been used for this purpose before — ATO review, family law, a Div 152 claim — and how did they hold up?
• ·Will the report include an independence statement disclosing any relationship with the parties?
• ·How long do you retain the working file, and can it support a response if the valuation is questioned years later?
• ·If the evidence does not support the value I am hoping for, what will you do?

What the sign-off on the report should look like

Because no regulator screens who values businesses, the report has to carry its own proof. A supportable report is signed by a named senior reviewer whose qualifications are stated on the face of the document, includes an independence statement disclosing any prior relationship with the parties, discloses the fee basis — fixed at engagement, never contingent on the outcome, because a contingent fee compromises independence and reviewers know it — and is backed by a working file retained long enough to answer questions years later. This is how Prismi is structured: every report is senior-reviewer signed, the working file is retained for ten years, and where a client asks for a target number, the evidence determines the position — we will say so and decline the engagement on those terms. None of this is marketing. It is the structural substitute for the licensing regime that business valuation does not have.

Matching the engagement tier to the scrutiny ahead

Vetting the valuer is half the decision; scoping the engagement is the other half. Essential (from $1,495 + GST, 10–14 business days) suits single-entity matters with limited external scrutiny, where a concise supportable report is sufficient. Comprehensive (from $3,995 + GST, 15–25 business days) is the working default for tax-purpose valuations — Div 152 concession claims, restructures, related-party transfers — where multiple methodologies and fuller evidence documentation are expected if the file is ever reviewed. The Defensible Valuation File (from $8,995 + GST, 25–35 business days) is built for matters where scrutiny is likely rather than merely possible — disputes, high-value concession claims, positions the other side or the ATO has an incentive to test — with the working file itself prepared to be examined. Where advisers need the full supportable range with scenario positions, the Valuation Range & Scenario Review is the premium engagement. Retrospective valuation dates carry a $495 surcharge per historical date, and additional entities are $750 each.