Trial testimony in a partnership or shareholder dispute presents a valuation to a fact finder who may not have seen one before. The economist explains the standard of value and why it fits the claim, walks through the normalization adjustments from the company's records, presents the approaches applied and their reconciliation, and addresses any discounts. Demonstratives should show the normalized earnings, the rate applied, and the resulting value, plus a reconciliation of the two valuations that shows how much of the gap each disagreement explains. The rebuttal of the opposing valuation should be organized by input, not by conclusion.
Checklist
Prepare a plain-language explanation of the standard of value and why it applies
Prepare boards for the normalization adjustments, the rate applied, and the value under each approach
Prepare a reconciliation board showing the gap between the two valuations by input
Rehearse the explanation of discounts applied or excluded under the standard
Confirm every board figure ties to a report schedule
Questions to ask the economist
How will you explain fair value versus fair market value to a fact finder?
How will you present the normalization adjustments so each looks like a correction rather than an opinion?
How much of the gap between the two valuations does the rate explain, and how will you show it?
How will you address a discount the opposing valuation applied and yours excluded?
Timeline
One to two preparation sessions in the week before testimony, after the reconciliation of the two valuations is complete.
Required documents
The valuation report with its schedules and reconciliation
The normalized financial statements and supporting records
Draft demonstratives
The opposing valuation report and deposition transcript
Common pitfalls
Presenting the conclusion first and the method afterward, which invites the fact finder to see the number as advocacy
Rebutting the opposing valuation by its conclusion rather than by its inputs
Leaving the standard of value unexplained, so the discount dispute has no frame
What is the most useful demonstrative in a valuation trial?
A reconciliation board that starts from one valuation, changes one input at a time to the other valuation's assumption, and shows the value after each change. It tells the fact finder which disagreements matter and lets it decide each on the evidence rather than choosing between two totals.
How does the economist explain normalization adjustments to a fact finder?
As corrections that show what the business earns for an owner, with each one tied to a record: the owner's compensation restated to what an outside manager would be paid, personal expenses removed, related-party rents put at market, and one-time items taken out. Each adjustment appears on the board with its source and its effect on earnings. Presented that way the adjustments read as method rather than opinion.
How does the economist handle a cross question about the size of the discount for lack of marketability?
By stating whether the standard of value for the claim permits the discount at all, and, if it does, the basis for the size applied and the value under the opposing figure. The reconciliation board already shows how much of the gap between the two valuations the discount explains. The economist should not defend a discount the standard excludes or abandon one it permits.
References
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (n.d.). Statement on Standards for Valuation Services (VS Section 100). AICPA & CIMA. Retrieved August 27, 2026. aicpa-cima.com
National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts. (n.d.). NACVA professional standards and ethics. Retrieved August 27, 2026. nacva.com