Scott Hilsen is also one of the featured speakers at the GSCPA Forensic & Accounting Conference on September 16, 2011. Click here to view and/or download the conference brochure.

Justin Daniels is an attorney with Wagner, Johnston & Rosenthal, P.C. His corporate practice consists of representing businesses and business owners in all aspects of their operations from structuring new ventures, advising on acquisitions and divestitures and reviewing and negotiating key vendor, franchise, employment and customer contracts. He has specific expertise representing clients in the manufacturing, technology, professional services, consulting and retail industries.

1. Statutory procedure for calculating child support was properly used and the trial court found that a “downward deviation in the Husband’s support amount” would not be in the best interests of the minor  child,
2. The child support award reflected the financial resources of both parents and there was no evidence the child was deprived by the Wife’s lack of support payments to the Husband while the child was in his custody,
3. Mandatory drug testing was appropriate because “there was evidence that Husband had ingested drugs during the child’s lifetime.”

The Wife did not dispute the child support award; however, she appealed the award of shared joint physical custody based on 33 alleged errors she claimed the trial court made.  The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented by the wife was incorrect, baseless, or submitted too late to be considered and confirmed the trial court’s award of shared joint physical custody.

Note that we are not attorneys and not qualified to give legal advice. Nothing in this article should be construed as giving legal advice. The purpose of our articles is to educate and inform, alerting our readers to possible issues of interest to them. Please consult your attorney for advice specific to your individual situation if you think these issues may apply to you.

On November 22, 2010, Georgia’s Supreme Court’s ruling on separate property remained consistent with Lerch and Coe in Miller v. Miller.  In Miller, the husband claimed the trial court erred in the distribution of the marital home and an Amelia Island lot because the source of funds used to purchase these properties was not considered.  According to the husband, both properties were purchased with proceeds from the sale of his premarital residence.   The trial court determined both the marital home and the Amelia Island lot were subject to equitable distribution for the following reasons:

1. The premarital residence was title in both parties names and listed both parties as sellers;
2. Proceeds from the sale of the premarital property was placed in the parties’ joint operating account;
3. The new residence was conveyed to both parties when purchased;
4. The parties borrowed against the marital residence to purchase the Amelia Island lot.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s determination.

Miller v. Miller also shined some light on another major divorce issue, personal and enterprise  goodwill in a medical practice.  The husband challenged the trial court’s valuation of his medical practice, where the wife’s expert used a combination of the asset, market, and income approach to determine the value.  According to the husband, all methods used to value the business were inappropriate for the following reasons:

1. Market approach – market for solo medical practices was nonexistent;
2. Asset approach – salary was close to the earnings of someone in his profession which left very little to no excess earnings to capitalize;
3. Income approach – earnings were capitalized which counted his income twice by awarding part of the business in equitable distribution and using that same income for support awards.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings stating the valuation of the husband’s medical practice was appropriate for the following reasons:

1. All three methods of valuing goodwill were considered;
2. Market approach – wife’s expert utilized two national databases to justify use;
3. Asset approach – paying a normal salary did not mean excess earnings were nonexistent;
4. Income approach – wife’s expert considered the business’ S corporation designation, excluded annual income representing reasonable compensation for services, and capitalized actual past earnings instead of estimating future earnings based upon a future growth rate.

Note that we are not attorneys and not qualified to give legal advice.  Nothing in this article should be construed as giving legal advice.  The purpose of our articles is to educate and inform, alerting our readers to possible issues of interest to them.  Please consult your attorney for advice specific to your individual situation if you think these issues may apply to you.

Ernest A. Almonte, former Rhode Island Auditor General and immediate past chairman of the AICPA, will be this year’s conference keynote speaker. Mr. Almonte is an internationally-known expert on fraud and government finance.

“Anyone who has experienced one of Ernie’s presentations wants to come back again,” said Don Berecz, the center’s director and a former FBI Special Agent. “He’s a compelling speaker with great insight into ethics, core values and the importance of the work accomplished by investigators, fraud examiners and forensic accountants.”

The conference will have more than 35 speakers discussing a variety of “colorful” and cutting-edge topics:

• Red Collar Crime: Murder Happens will demonstrate that fraud investigations many times spill over into conventional crimes.
• Fraud in the Year 2030 will examine growing trends in white collar crime.
• Women are not immune from the temptations of fraud, resulting in “pink collar crime.”
• Cybercrime, Money Laundering, and the Ukraine will feature the FBI cybercrime agent investigating the case of alleged Ukrainian money mules.
• CSI Savannah: Preparing Your Expert for the Next Generation of Jurors will educate attorneys about working with a new generation of jurors.
• Four sessions on risk management are scheduled to help businesses assess, prevent and manage fraud-related issues.

Speakers include current and former FBI special agents, federal prosecutors, fraud investigators, forensic accountants, attorneys, consultants, analysts, technology executives, educators and researchers.

“It would be hard to imagine a more thorough – and interesting – array of forensic accounting topics and speakers,” says PKM Managing Partner Phil Moore. “We’ve gotten great feedback in past years, and this year’s agenda is stronger than ever. Plus, it’s being held in Savannah, one of the most beautiful cities in the country, which is an additional incentive.”

While the event primarily targets professionals who are Certified Fraud Examiners (CFE) and Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF), many others have attended in past years to earn continuing education credits. Attendees include a wide array of professionals involved in internal auditing, information systems, public accounting,  taxation, litigation support, government investigations, law enforcement, regulation, law,  business,  higher education and journalism. The conference offers up to 20 hours of continuing professional education.

Conference landing page at:
http://www.pkm.com/fraudconference/information.php

Speakers (including Laurie Dyke, Investigative Accounting Group)  listed at:
http://www.pkm.com/fraudconference/speakerList2011.php