Mike Adhikari

Adhikari International, Inc.

175 Olde Half day Rd., Suite 100

Lincolnshire IL 60069

Phone: 847-438-1657

Fax: 847-438-1835

Email: info@BusinessValueXpress.com

Web: www.BusinessValueXpress.com

 

Click here to print

 

 

S Corp. vs. C Corp. Valuation

(Revised 12-20-02)

Minimal impact even after not-tax-affecting S Corp. income

 

Background:

 

Valuation of S Corp. vs. C Corp. has received focus as a result of three recent court rulings in Gross[1], Adams[2], and Heck[3].  According to these court rulings S Corp. income should not be tax-affected for valuation purposes. This is in contrast to the common practice by the valuation community of tax-affecting S Corp. income. 

 

If one were to use traditional income approach for valuation, not tax-affecting S Corp. income would cause S Corp. to be valued higher than an otherwise identical C Corp. The value difference could be significant. As an example, an S Corp. could be valued 1.66 times more than an identical C Corp. if both had the same operating income, no debt and the C Corp. tax rate was 40%.

 

However, such valuation difference between an S Corp. and an otherwise identical C Corp. is not found in the market[4]. Also, the valuation practitioners value both corporate structures essentially the same. They arrive at equal value for an S Corp. and a C Corp. by tax-affecting S Corp. income, and using traditional income approaches for valuation (tax-affecting means reducing S Corp. income by the tax liability incurred by the S shareholder). If they were to implement the above court rulings of no tax-affecting, and continue using traditional income approach for valuation they will wind up valuing S Corp. significantly higher than an otherwise identical C Corp.

 

So, the question arises, is the court decision correct? If the answer is yes, then may be the market is wrong in assigning equal values to both the corporate structures. However, market being wrong is unlikely. This leads one to the easy route of challenging the court decision. However, there is another explanation … the valuation process is flawed.

 

Below is an analysis by the author, Mike Adhikari (MBA, MSME, MSEE, CBI, CM&A), on the above subject. Adhikari has 15+ years of experience as an M&A intermediary involving transaction valuation. The analysis is backed by a new business valuation method developed by him[5].

 

Summary:

 

The court ruling that the S Corp. income should not be tax-affected is a correct decision. Also, the market is correct in valuing the S Corp. and C Corp. equal. However, the traditional income based valuation approach is inadequate.

 

A vast majority of the transactions in the real world are financially leveraged transactions[6].  Market databases reflect these leveraged transactions. Financial leverage reduces taxable income, and hence reduces the negative impact of C Corp. double taxation. In addition shareholders are generally not permitted to take distributions under financial leverage. Thus, the “cash distributed” to the shareholder under financial leverage is little or none, which tends to equalize S Corp. and C Corp. valuation.

 

When S Corp. and C Corp. are valued based on “cash distributed”, as is done here, there is minimal value difference between the two if there is financial leverage. This is true even when S income is not tax-affected. Traditional valuation methods are inadequate because they are based on “income” earned, or on generated “free cash flow ”, rather than on “cash distributed”. If there were no financial leverage (i.e. 100% equity infusion), an S Corp. would be valued significantly higher than an equivalent C Corp.   

 

Analysis:

 

Following are some comments and clarifications on topics related to S Corp. vs. C Corp. valuation.

 

1)     Value of a firm is determined based on cash flow to the investor and his expected pre-tax ROI[7] using DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) method[8]. The cash flow to the investor is the distribution from the after-tax income of the corporation[9]. Investor’s pre-tax ROI should be based on “distribution received”; it should not be based on income or free cash flow of the corporation. The word “pre-tax” means that the ROI is measured on the gross cash flow received by the investor before the investor pays shareholder level taxes on the distribution. It also implies that the investor has no other liability arising from his interest in the entity other than the shareholder level taxes on the “distribution received”.

 

2)     Some experts have argued, “How can two identical businesses with same operating income have different values, just because one is an S Corp. and the other a C Corp.?” This is entirely possible. As discussed earlier, investor’s value assessment is based on his expected pre-tax ROI. Higher the cash flow to the investor, higher the value, if pre-tax ROI expectation is the same. Such would be the case for an S Corp. over a C Corp., if the purchase is with 100% equity.

 

3)     In situations where an ownership change does not involve a third party, a business should be valued based on what an independent buyer would pay. Value to the independent buyer depends on the expected future cash flow to him ... not on prior cash flow, or prior earnings, or prior dividend policy[10]. The valuation would be high if one assumes financial leverage, and the value would be low if one assumes no financial leverage i.e. 100% equity infusion.

 

4)     Traditional income based valuation approaches use “income” earned, or generated “free cash flow” as a proxy for investor’s cash flow. As discussed earlier, this substitution is wrong … value should be based on “distribution received”, not on income or free cash flow.  Unfortunately, we have used these “wrong” measures for so long that they are accepted as the “right” approach. The debate on, to tax-affect or not to tax-affect S Corp. income, arises primarily due to the use of these “wrong” measures as a proxy to investor’s cash flow.

 

5)     If one were to value a business based on actual cash flow to the investor, valuation of an S Corp. based not tax-affecting, will be closer to that of a C Corp. under financial leverage. Financial leverage is commonly used in the market place to lower buyer’s cost of capital, which helps the buyer afford a higher price. However, the effect of the leverage is to lower the available cash for distribution. Also, with financial leverage, corporation’s taxable income is reduced, which diffuses the impact of the tax differences between the C and the S Corp. Financial leverage also consumes cash for debt service, thus further reducing the cash available for distribution. And, leverage invites dividend restrictions from lenders. All of these factors reduce available cash for distribution and are applicable to both the S Corp. and the C Corp. As a result the cash flow to the investor is basically the same regardless of the corporate structure.

 

 

Impact of financial leverage on S Corp. vs. C Corp. valuation

 

Following is a valuation analysis of XYZ Inc. XYZ is valued 4 different ways. The two variables making up 4 combinations are corporate structure and financial leverage.

 

In Scenario-A, XYZ is being acquired without financial leverage. In Scenario-B, XYZ is being acquired with financial leverage. In both the scenarios XYZ is valued as if it were an S Corp. and a C Corp. The analysis is based purchasing 100% of the stock of XYZ. It is also assumed that the buyer will be able to sell XYZ at exit for the same purchase price multiple that he paid at purchase.

 

In the example, XYZ has sales of 5000 and an EBITDA[11] of 500. It has no growth, and no debt. 100% of the earnings are distributed as dividend if they are not required in the operation. In the S Corp. analysis company distributes cash to cover shareholder taxes, and any excess distribution is grossed up back to the pre-tax level for calculating shareholder’s pre-tax ROI. Table – 2 provides more details of XYZ Inc.

 

Scenario-A has no financial leverage, does not require profits to be reinvested and has no tax benefits resulting from such things as depreciation. Fixed assets are eliminated in Scenario-A to avoid the impact of depreciation on valuation. These assumptions permit distribution of 100% of the earnings. Scenario-A is generally not observed in real life, but it is used here to show the set of assumptions required for an S Corp. to be valued 1.66 times more than an otherwise identical C Corp.

 

Scenario-B is a more realistic scenario.  Assets are leveraged to reduce overall cost of capital, tax benefits of depreciation are captured, and profits are reinvested for such things as capital expenditures. Scenario-B also assumes that acquisition financing is available as long as the cash flow can support it.

 

The valuation multiples in Table – 1 are derived by applying DCF method to buyer’s cash flow, and using 25% pre-tax ROI. An important distinction is that the DCF is applied to Buyer’s cash flow, not to XYZ’s cash flow. Buyer’s cash flow is calculated after servicing debt, after funding working capital[12], after funding capital expenditures, and after paying taxes. Each value is derived to simultaneously satisfy the objectives of a willing buyer and a willing seller[13]. So the value is the maximum that the seller can get and the one the buyer can afford, given the parameters of Table – 2. Valuation details (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow and ROI calculations) are provided in Table – 3, 4, 5, and 6.

 

Table –1

Valuation Multiples to achieve 25% pre-tax ROI

                                               

 

Scenario-A, No Financial Leverage: As shown in Table –1, under no financial leverage, buyer can afford to pay no more than a 4x EBITDA multiple for XYZ if it is an S Corp to achieve a 25% pre-tax ROI (S Corp. income is not-tax affected). In this scenario there is no financial leverage, and no growth, and hence the full purchase is funded through equity. He invests 2000 (4 times 500) and gets all of the EBITDA of 500 each year for 5 years as dividend. At exit he gets 2000, the same amount as the purchase price.

 

However, if XYZ is a C Corp., under no financial leverage, buyer can afford to pay no more than a 2.4x EBITDA multiple for XYZ to achieve a 25% pre-tax ROI. He invests 1200 (2.4 times 500) and gets only 300 each year for 5 years as dividend. (C Corp. pays 200 in taxes, so the amount available for distribution is not 500, but 300). At exit he gets 1200, the same amount as the purchase price.

 

If the buyer were to pay for a C Corp. XYZ, the same price he can afford to pay for an S Corp. XYZ, i.e. a multiple of 4, his pre-tax ROI would drop to 15%. (In this case buyer’s cash flow would be an investment of 2000, distribution of 300 for 5 years and exit at 2000).

 

The above analysis clearly shows that, under the scenario of no financial leverage, the S Corp is valued higher than the C Corp. where the criterion for valuation is that the investor gets the same pre-tax ROI. The S Corp. is valued at a 4 multiple and the C Corp. is valued at a 2.4 multiple of EBITDA. The S Corp. value is 1.66 times more than an otherwise identical C Corp.

 

The exact relationship of an S Corp. vs. a C Corp. valuation, in case of no financial leverage, no growth, no reinvestment and if all earnings are distributed to the shareholder, is

 

V_s = V_c / (1-t_c)             V_s is the value of an S Corp.

V_c is the value of a C Corp.

                                                t_c is C Corp. tax rate

 

It is also worth noting that the S Corp. multiple is equal to 1/r, where r is buyer’s expected pre-tax ROI. And the value of a C Corp. is (1-t_c)/r. One should not apply a multiple of 1/r to the C Corp.

 

            EBITDA Multiple for an S Corp.      = 1 / r              r is buyer’s expected pre-tax ROI

            EBITDA Multiple for an S Corp.      = (1- t_c) / r       

 

Scenario-B, With Financial Leverage: As shown in Table –1, with financial leverage, buyer can afford to pay no more than 4.5x EBITDA multiple if XYZ is an S Corp. to achieve a pre-tax ROI of 25% (S Corp. income is not tax-affected). However, if XYZ is a C Corp. he can afford to pay no more than 4.2x EBITDA multiple to achieve a pre-tax ROI of 25%.  Buyer’s cash flow is calculated after considering the interest cost of the debt, the debt service, and the capital expenditure. (Details of the actual financials are shown in Table – 3,4,5,6. This valuation is derived using the valuation software developed by the author[14]).

 

Under financial leverage, and without tax-affecting S Corp. income, the price differential between an S Corp. and a C Corp. is a multiple of 4.5 vs. 4.2 i.e. S Corp. valuation is 1.07 times more than an otherwise identical C Corp. The S vs. C valuation spread is only 7% under financial leverage and 66% without financial leverage. This spread would further narrow if lender restriction of no dividend distribution were implemented. (Note: In the analysis here S Corp. income is not tax-affected. In addition, the analysis makes adjustment at exit for S retained earnings, which are tax free to the shareholder.)

 

 

The following observations are worth noting:

 

1)     Valuation with financial leverage is higher than w/o financial leverage. This is true for both the S and the C Corp. This is a result of reduction of overall cost of capital with financial leverage. For S Corp. financial leverage raises the valuation from 4.0 to 4.5. For C Corp. financial leverage raises the valuation from 2.4 to 4.2.

 

2)     Financial leverage impacts C Corp. valuation more than S Corp. valuation. This is a result of tax savings from interest cost deduction. These tax savings are more in a C Corp. than in an S Corp.

 

3)     Financial leverage significantly reduces equity infusion while increasing the valuation. In the example here, the equity infusion w/o leverage is 2000 (for S Corp.) and 1200 (for C Corp.). The equity infusion under financial leverage drops to 642 (for S Corp.) and 513 (for C Corp.).

 

Final comments: Court decision of not tax-affecting S Corp. income is a correct one. Market that values both the S Corp. and the C Corp. more or less equal is also correct. The reason for differential valuation of an S Corp. and an otherwise identical C Corp. is current valuation methods. The formulas and methods used today to transform income and/or cash flow to value are not applicable under financial leverage, which happens to exist in most all transactions. When one calculates the actual cash flow to the buyer under financial leverage, there is no material difference between an S Corp. and a C Corp. valuation, even when S Corp. income is not tax-affected. 

 

 

Table – 2

 

XYZ Corp

 

                                    Scenario A                             Scenario B

Sales                                      5000                                       same

EBITDA                                  500                                         same

A/R                                          500                                         same

Inventory                                 400                                         same

A/P                                          300                                         same

Existing Debt                         0                                              same

Growth                                    0                                              same

Growth Working Capital       0                                              same

Dividend Distribution            100% of available cash same 

            Buyer Synergy                       None                                       same

            C Corp Tax Fed+State         40%                                        same

            S Corp. Tax State                 0%                                          same

            S Shareholder Tax                40%                                        same

            Deal Structure                       Stock                                      same

            Payment                                 All cash                                   same

            Buyer’s Pre-tax ROI              25%                                        same

            Exit Multiple                           = Purchase Multiple              same

           S Distribution              Grossed up in excess           same

                                                            of taxes                                  

 

           

Fixed Assets Book Value    0                                              250

            Fixed Assets FMV                0                                              500

            Depreciation                          N/A                                          5 years

            Capital Expenditure              0                                              10% of EBITDA

            Financing                               None                                       Yes (see below)

 

            Financing

            A/R revolver               80% of A/R at 10% interest

            Inventory revolver       40% of inventory at 10% interest

            Term Loan                 80% of FMV of fixed assets, 5 years at 10% interest

            Capital Exp. Loan     75% of cost, 5 year at 10% interest

            Cash Flow Loan        Available as needed, 5 years at 10% interest

                                                (In small deals seller steps in if cash flow lending is not available)

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2002 by Adhikari International, Inc. All rights reserved. Text, graphics, and HTML code are protected by U.S. and International Copyright laws, and may not be copied, reprinted, published, translated, hosted, or otherwise distributed by any means without explicit permission.