When one spouse owns a company, divorce-related property liquidation can become significantly more complex than the division of a house, vehicle or bank account. A privately held company may have substantial economic value even when its registered share capital is relatively low, its annual accounts show limited profit, or the company has never formally distributed dividends.

This creates one of the most important questions in high-value matrimonial property disputes in Turkey:

How should the value of a company owned by one spouse be calculated when the matrimonial property regime is liquidated?

Under Turkish law, the answer does not simply depend on the company’s registered capital or accounting book value. The acquisition date of the shares, the source of the acquisition funds, the company’s economic position when the matrimonial property regime ended, undistributed profits, investments made with company earnings, transfers before divorce and the actual market value of the business may all become relevant.

The Turkish Court of Cassation has increasingly emphasised that company valuation in matrimonial property cases requires a genuine economic valuation rather than a mechanical balance-sheet calculation.

This article explains the legal and practical framework for valuing a spouse-owned company during the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime under Turkish law.

1. The First Question Is Not the Company’s Value: It Is Whether the Shares Are Acquired Property

Before asking how much a company is worth, the court must first determine the legal character of the spouse’s shares.

Under the statutory regime of participation in acquired property, assets obtained for consideration during the matrimonial property regime are generally classified as acquired property.

Therefore, if a spouse established a company or acquired shares in an existing company during the marriage using income earned during the marriage, the shares will normally fall within the acquired property regime.

Turkish law also contains an important evidentiary presumption: unless the contrary is proven, property belonging to a spouse is presumed to constitute acquired property.

This becomes particularly important in company disputes.

For example, assume that:

• the spouses married in 2010;
• the husband acquired 60% of the shares in a company in 2015;
• divorce proceedings were initiated in 2026; and
• the husband argues that the money used to purchase the shares came from his family.

The fact that he claims the shares were purchased with personal property does not automatically establish their personal-property character.

The spouse relying on this defence must prove the personal source of the acquisition.

The Court of Cassation has similarly held that where company shares were acquired during the period in which the participation in acquired property regime applied, they are presumed to be acquired property unless the spouse claiming otherwise proves their personal-property character.

The distinction can dramatically change the outcome of the case.

2. When Can Company Shares Be Personal Property?

Shares may nevertheless constitute personal property in several situations.

Typical examples include shares:

• owned before the matrimonial property regime began;
• acquired through inheritance;
• received as a gift;
• acquired entirely with funds proven to constitute personal property; or
• replacing another personal asset.

Consider a spouse who inherited TRY 5 million from a parent and then used that money to acquire company shares.

If the source of the purchase price can be adequately demonstrated, the shares may retain a personal-property character.

However, the analysis does not necessarily end there.

Even where the company shares themselves are personal property, income generated by those shares during the matrimonial property regime may still constitute acquired property.

This distinction is extremely important in litigation involving family businesses established before marriage.

3. A Company Owned Before Marriage May Still Generate a Substantial Matrimonial Claim

A frequent misunderstanding is:

“I established the company before marriage, so my spouse cannot claim anything related to the business.”

That conclusion can be incorrect.

A company share owned before marriage may indeed constitute personal property. However, under the Turkish Civil Code, income derived from personal property is generally classified as acquired property unless the spouses have validly agreed otherwise.

Accordingly, the following must be investigated separately:

The ownership of the shares and the income generated from those shares.

The Court of Cassation has specifically addressed this issue.

Where the company itself or the shares are personal property, the other spouse does not automatically obtain a participation claim over the original company interest. Nevertheless, dividends and other income generated by that company during the matrimonial property regime may constitute acquired property.

Even more importantly, the analysis cannot stop merely because no dividend was formally distributed.

The courts may investigate:

• whether the company generated profits;
• whether dividends were distributed to the shareholder spouse;
• whether the distributed dividends still existed when the property regime ended;
• whether the money was converted into another investment;
• whether profits were retained within the company; and
• whether retained profits were reinvested into the business.

The Court of Cassation has expressly required such an investigation in disputes involving spouse-owned companies.

This makes retained earnings one of the most important areas of forensic examination in matrimonial property litigation.

4. What Date Is Used for Company Valuation?

Company valuation in Turkish matrimonial property law involves an important distinction between two dates:

The date on which the matrimonial property regime ends

and

The date on which the asset is economically valued for liquidation.

In divorce cases, the matrimonial property regime generally terminates on the date the divorce action is filed.

The company must therefore be considered according to its condition on that date.

This means that the court should examine factors such as:

• the spouse’s shareholding percentage;
• company assets;
• business activities;
• production capacity;
• contracts;
• liabilities;
• machinery;
• customer portfolio;
• market position; and
• commercial structure

as they existed when the matrimonial property regime ended.

However, according to Court of Cassation practice, assets subject to liquidation are generally calculated using their market value at the time of liquidation, which in practice is regarded as a date close to the court’s decision.

The Court of Cassation summarises this principle by requiring assets to be valued according to their condition when the property regime ended but their market value at the liquidation date.

This distinction is particularly important where litigation lasts several years.

5. Why Registered Capital Is Not the Company’s Real Value

One of the most common mistakes in company-related matrimonial disputes is to treat the company’s registered capital as its economic value.

Consider the following company:

Registered capital: TRY 1,000,000.

However, the company also has:

• valuable real estate;
• machinery;
• long-term customers;
• significant annual turnover;
• valuable distribution agreements;
• a recognised trademark;
• substantial cash flow;
• retained earnings;
• export contracts; and
• strong growth prospects.

The company may realistically be worth TRY 100 million even though its registered capital is only TRY 1 million.

Therefore:

Registered capital ≠ company value.

The same applies to simple accounting equity.

A company’s balance sheet may be an important starting point, but it is not necessarily the correct measure of its market value.

The Court of Cassation has criticised company valuations based solely on equity movements or paid-in capital and has required a much broader economic examination.

This principle can completely change the financial result of a matrimonial property case.

6. What Does the Court of Cassation Require When Valuing a Company?

Court of Cassation case law provides unusually detailed guidance on the factors that should be considered in company valuations.

Among other matters, the valuation may require examination of:

• general economic conditions;
• the sector in which the company operates;
• the size and growth rate of that sector;
• the company’s position within the sector;
• market share;
• asset structure;
• capital structure;
• technology used by the business;
• machinery and production facilities;
• research and development activities;
• ability to market its goods or services;
• growth potential;
• current sales;
• expected future sales;
• profitability;
• future earnings;
• cash-flow expectations;
• financial condition;
• dividend policy;
• expected capital expenditure;
• business strategy;
• competitive position;
• customer portfolio;
• organisational structure;
• management;
• expected future cash flows; and
• general supply-and-demand conditions.

The Court of Cassation has even referred to five-to-ten-year projections of sales, earnings, cash flows and financial performance when assessing company value.

This demonstrates a fundamental point:

Matrimonial company valuation is a corporate finance exercise, not merely an accounting exercise.

7. The Three Main Company Valuation Approaches

In practice, expert valuers may use one or more recognised company valuation methods.

No single formula will necessarily be appropriate for every business.

7.1 Asset-Based Valuation

Under an asset-based method, the company’s assets and liabilities are examined to determine its adjusted net asset value.

A simplified calculation may be expressed as:

Fair Market Value of Assets – Actual Liabilities = Adjusted Net Asset Value

However, accounting figures may need to be corrected.

For example, company accounts may show real estate purchased ten years earlier at historical cost.

If a factory appearing in the accounts at TRY 8 million is currently worth TRY 80 million, relying purely on accounting figures could dramatically understate the value of the company.

The valuer may therefore need to examine the current market values of:

• real estate;
• machinery;
• vehicles;
• inventory;
• financial investments;
• intellectual property;
• subsidiaries;
• receivables; and
• other assets.

Liabilities must then be analysed to determine whether they are genuine and economically attributable to the company.

8. Income-Based Valuation and Discounted Cash Flow

For an operating business, particularly one with predictable earnings, the Discounted Cash Flow — DCF — method may be highly relevant.

The basic question is:

How much are the company’s expected future cash flows worth today?

A valuer normally analyses projected future cash flows and discounts them according to the company’s financial and commercial risk.

A simplified conceptual formula is:

Enterprise Value = Present Value of Future Free Cash Flows + Terminal Value

Financial debt and other relevant adjustments may then be applied to move from enterprise value to equity value.

The importance of future cash flows is consistent with the Court of Cassation’s approach to company valuation, which expressly refers to future sales, earnings, financial condition and expected cash flows.

This method is particularly useful where the company:

• has significant commercial goodwill;
• owns few tangible assets;
• provides professional or technological services;
• operates through long-term contracts;
• generates stable recurring revenue; or
• has strong growth potential.

A business may own very little real estate or machinery but still be highly valuable because of its ability to generate future cash.

9. Market Multiple Valuation

Another common method involves comparing the company with comparable companies or market transactions.

Depending on the industry, experts may analyse multiples such as:

• EV/EBITDA;
• EV/Revenue;
• Price/Earnings;
• Price/Book Value; or
• industry-specific operating multiples.

For example, if comparable businesses in the same industry are generally valued at six times EBITDA and the company has normalised EBITDA of TRY 20 million, a starting enterprise valuation might be approximately TRY 120 million.

The calculation would then require adjustments for:

• financial debt;
• cash;
• non-operating assets;
• extraordinary liabilities;
• related-party balances; and
• other company-specific factors.

This method should not be mechanically applied. Comparable companies must genuinely be comparable in terms of size, geography, risk, profitability and business model.

10. A Proper Valuation Often Requires More Than One Method

In a significant matrimonial property case, the most reliable approach may involve comparing several methods.

For example:

Adjusted Net Asset Value: TRY 95 million
DCF Value: TRY 135 million
Market Multiple Value: TRY 125 million

The expert should explain:

• why each methodology was selected;
• what assumptions were used;
• whether particular methods deserve greater weight;
• whether the financial statements require normalisation; and
• how the final valuation was reached.

A report that simply states:

“The company’s equity is TRY 20 million; therefore the company is worth TRY 20 million”

may be vulnerable to serious objection.

11. Company Value Is Not Automatically the Amount Payable to the Other Spouse

Another critical distinction must be made.

Even after the company’s value is determined, the claimant spouse does not automatically receive half of the company.

The calculation normally concerns a monetary matrimonial property claim.

Suppose:

Company equity value: TRY 100 million.

Defendant spouse’s shareholding: 70%.

Value attributable to the spouse’s shares:

TRY 100 million × 70% = TRY 70 million.

If the entire shareholding qualifies as acquired property and no deductible liabilities, equalisation items or other adjustments exist, that value enters the acquired-property calculation.

The participation receivable is then calculated under the statutory liquidation framework.

Therefore, lawyers should distinguish between:

1. the value of the entire company;
2. the value of the spouse’s shareholding;
3. the net acquired-property value; and
4. the claimant’s participation receivable.

These are four different concepts.

12. The Shareholding Percentage Must Be Investigated Carefully

The spouse may not necessarily own 100% of the company.

Therefore, the company’s shareholder history should be examined.

Counsel should investigate:

• the company’s incorporation documents;
• subsequent share transfers;
• capital increases;
• capital decreases;
• share transfers to relatives;
• changes in shareholding percentages;
• privileged shares;
• voting rights; and
• shareholder agreements where obtainable.

A 30% interest in a TRY 200 million company does not automatically have the same economic characteristics as owning 100% of that business.

Control rights, transfer restrictions and the actual rights attached to the shares may therefore become relevant to valuation.

13. Capital Increases During Marriage Require Special Attention

Capital increases can materially affect matrimonial property claims.

Assume that a spouse owned 100% of a company before marriage.

At that time, the company was worth TRY 2 million.

During the marriage:

• the company generated significant profits;
• profits were not distributed;
• the profits were transferred to reserves;
• capital increases were made;
• new machinery was purchased;
• new branches were opened; and
• the company eventually became worth TRY 100 million.

It would be overly simplistic to conclude:

“The shares existed before marriage, therefore nothing connected with the company’s growth can be considered.”

Instead, counsel should examine the economic source of the company’s increase in value.

Among the most important questions are:

Was growth financed through retained profits generated during the matrimonial regime?

Were profits that could otherwise have been distributed to the shareholder spouse retained within the business?

Were capital increases funded from acquired property?

Was personal property converted or mixed with acquired property?

These questions may materially affect the final liquidation calculation.

14. Undistributed Profit Is One of the Most Important Hidden Issues

Company-owner spouses often control whether profits are distributed.

This may create a potential manipulation problem.

Consider a company that generates TRY 20 million profit annually.

The shareholder spouse could decide not to distribute dividends for several years before divorce.

If the analysis were limited to money transferred into the spouse’s personal bank account, the company-owner spouse could effectively determine the matrimonial asset base simply by controlling the timing of distributions.

Court of Cassation jurisprudence attempts to address this problem.

The courts should investigate not only whether dividends were formally paid but also whether profits were retained and reinvested into the company.

Therefore, company resolutions stating that “no dividend was distributed” should never automatically end the inquiry.

15. Retained Earnings Must Be Traced

The company’s financial records should be examined to determine what happened to accumulated profits.

Possible destinations include:

• retained earnings;
• legal reserves;
• capital increases;
• acquisition of machinery;
• acquisition of real estate;
• acquisition of vehicles;
• investment portfolios;
• subsidiaries;
• expansion of production capacity;
• repayment of company debt; or
• transfers to related parties.

This tracing exercise can be decisive.

The practical question is not merely:

Was a dividend declared?

The better question is:

What happened economically to the profits generated during the marriage?

16. Shareholder Current Accounts Can Reveal Hidden Wealth

One of the most important accounting areas in a spouse-owned company is the relationship between the shareholder and the company.

Counsel should carefully examine shareholder/current-account transactions.

In Turkish accounting practice, particular attention may be given to accounts involving:

• receivables from shareholders;
• payables to shareholders;
• loans;
• advances;
• related-party transactions; and
• payments made personally for or by the shareholder.

A spouse may appear to receive a relatively modest salary while the company:

• pays personal expenses;
• provides a vehicle;
• pays accommodation costs;
• transfers funds through shareholder accounts;
• finances related companies; or
• records amounts as loans.

These transactions can provide an entirely different picture of the shareholder spouse’s economic benefit from the company.

17. Salary and Dividend Should Not Be Confused

Where the shareholder spouse actively works for the company, several different types of financial benefits may exist.

These may include:

• salary;
• board fees;
• management compensation;
• bonuses;
• dividends;
• shareholder loans;
• expense reimbursements; and
• benefits in kind.

These items should not be merged into a single category without analysis.

Salary and employment-related earnings obtained during the property regime generally have an acquired-property character.

Dividend income may similarly constitute acquired property.

Meanwhile, shareholder receivables or loans may represent separate assets that need to be identified and valued.

18. Hidden or Artificial Company Debts Should Be Challenged

Company valuation is based on net economic value.

Consequently, liabilities matter.

But this creates another opportunity for manipulation.

Immediately before or during divorce proceedings, a controlling shareholder may attempt to reduce the apparent value of the business by creating or increasing:

• shareholder debts;
• related-party debts;
• consulting expenses;
• management fees;
• fictitious supplier debts;
• unusual provisions;
• loans to related companies; or
• extraordinary expenses.

For this reason, a matrimonial property lawyer should never accept the balance-sheet liability figure at face value.

Experts should determine whether liabilities are:

• genuine;
• documented;
• commercially reasonable;
• attributable to the relevant period; and
• actually enforceable.

19. Related-Party Transactions Are a Major Red Flag

Transactions involving relatives or companies controlled by relatives deserve particular scrutiny.

Common examples include:

• selling company property to a sibling;
• transferring shares to a parent;
• licensing a trademark to another family-controlled company;
• transferring profitable customers;
• moving employees to a newly established company;
• selling machinery below market price;
• making interest-free loans to related parties; or
• transferring business operations shortly before divorce.

A profitable company may therefore appear to have lost value even though the economic business has simply been relocated elsewhere.

In such circumstances, counsel should investigate both company valuation and the rules concerning assets transferred with the intention of reducing the other spouse’s participation claim.

Under Article 229 of the Turkish Civil Code, certain transfers may be added back into the liquidation calculation where statutory conditions are satisfied. The Court of Cassation has recognised that transfers intended to reduce the other spouse’s participation receivable can be treated as though the relevant value remained within the estate for liquidation purposes.

20. A New Company Established Shortly Before Divorce Should Be Investigated

Another practical scenario occurs where the shareholder spouse establishes a second company before divorce.

The original company may suddenly begin to lose:

• customers;
• employees;
• suppliers;
• licences;
• inventory;
• intellectual property;
• contracts; or
• revenue.

Meanwhile, the newly established business begins performing the same commercial activity.

Such a case should not be treated merely as a valuation problem.

It may involve deliberate value migration.

Counsel should compare:

• customer lists;
• invoices;
• employees;
• company addresses;
• directors;
• shareholders;
• websites;
• trademarks;
• telephone numbers;
• suppliers; and
• bank transactions

between the companies.

21. Goodwill, Brand Value and Customer Relationships Matter

A company’s value may significantly exceed its tangible assets.

Consider a software company.

It may have:

• TRY 2 million in equipment;
• no real estate;
• limited inventory;

but millions of lira in recurring subscription revenue.

Similarly, a manufacturing company may possess:

• established distribution channels;
• recognised trademarks;
• exclusive dealership rights;
• customer relationships;
• licences;
• know-how; and
• long-term supply agreements.

These commercial advantages can create substantial enterprise value.

A valuation restricted to cash, inventory and machinery may therefore substantially underestimate the company’s real economic worth.

22. Extraordinary Expenses Should Be Normalised

Privately held companies are often managed differently from listed corporations.

A controlling shareholder may determine:

• his or her own salary;
• company vehicle expenditures;
• family employment;
• office rent paid to relatives;
• consultancy fees;
• travel expenses; and
• discretionary expenses.

When determining sustainable profitability, valuation experts may need to normalise such expenses.

For example, if the owner receives an economically excessive management salary of TRY 10 million per year while a market salary for the same position would be TRY 3 million, the company’s reported profitability may be artificially reduced.

A valuation expert should consider whether adjustments are required to determine normalised earnings.

23. Tax Value Is Not Necessarily Market Value

Another common defence is:

“The company was valued at only this amount in its tax declarations.”

Tax accounting and matrimonial property valuation serve different purposes.

Historical cost, tax depreciation, statutory reserves and accounting classifications do not necessarily indicate the amount for which a company could economically be transferred in the market.

Accordingly, financial statements and tax returns are critical evidence, but they should ordinarily constitute the starting material for valuation rather than the final answer.

24. What Documents Should Be Requested in Litigation?

A strong company-valuation case is usually won through documentary evidence long before the expert prepares the final report.

Depending on the circumstances, counsel should consider requesting at least:

Corporate Documents

• trade registry records;
• articles of association;
• shareholder records;
• share-transfer documents;
• capital increase documents;
• general assembly resolutions;
• board resolutions;
• signature circulars and authorised representatives.

Accounting Records

• statutory books;
• general ledgers;
• trial balances;
• balance sheets;
• income statements;
• cash-flow information;
• detailed account movements;
• retained earnings accounts;
• reserve accounts;
• shareholder current accounts.

Tax Records

• corporate income tax returns;
• relevant tax declarations;
• financial statements submitted to the tax authority;
• electronic invoice records where relevant.

Banking Records

• company bank accounts;
• shareholder-related transfers;
• loan accounts;
• foreign currency accounts;
• securities and investment accounts.

Commercial Evidence

• major customer contracts;
• dealership agreements;
• franchise arrangements;
• licence agreements;
• major supplier agreements;
• order books;
• intellectual property rights;
• trademarks;
• patents;
• real-estate holdings;
• machinery lists.

The exact requests should be tailored to the company’s sector and structure.

25. One Accountant May Not Be Enough

Valuing a significant company may require a multidisciplinary expert panel.

Depending on the business, the court may need expertise from:

• certified public accountants;
• corporate finance specialists;
• valuation professionals;
• financial analysts;
• real-estate valuers;
• machinery engineers;
• intellectual property specialists; or
• industry experts.

A financial accountant may be highly competent in determining what appears in the company’s books but may not necessarily be qualified to determine the market value of a complex operating business.

This distinction should be raised when objecting to an inadequate expert report.

26. How Should Lawyers Challenge an Inadequate Expert Report?

An objection should not merely state:

“The valuation is too low.”

A persuasive objection should identify methodological defects.

For example:

The report relies solely on book equity.

No income-based valuation was conducted.

No comparable-company analysis was performed.

The company’s real estate was valued at historical cost.

Retained earnings were ignored.

Shareholder current accounts were not examined.

Related-party transactions were not investigated.

The company’s customer portfolio was ignored.

Future cash flow was not analysed.

No assessment of sector growth was conducted.

The valuation date is incorrect.

The company’s condition at the date the matrimonial property regime ended was not identified.

The shareholder spouse’s exact ownership percentage was incorrectly calculated.

Post-separation transactions were improperly included or excluded.

These objections directly address the valuation framework recognised in Court of Cassation jurisprudence.

27. Practical Example: Company Established During Marriage

Assume that:

• the spouses married in 2012;
• the husband established Company X in 2015;
• he owns 80% of the shares;
• the divorce action was filed in 2025;
• the company had registered capital of TRY 2 million;
• its book equity was TRY 30 million.

A basic accountant might therefore suggest that the husband’s share is:

TRY 30 million × 80% = TRY 24 million.

However, a proper valuation reveals:

• market value of company real estate: TRY 40 million;
• normalised annual EBITDA: TRY 18 million;
• valuable customer contracts;
• substantial export operations;
• strong future cash flow;
• limited bank debt.

Following a comprehensive valuation, Company X is found to have an equity value of TRY 120 million.

The husband’s 80% interest is therefore economically worth approximately:

TRY 96 million.

Subject to the classification of the shares, relevant debts, equalisation rules and the complete matrimonial estate, this value may be included in calculating the participation receivable.

The difference between a TRY 24 million accounting approach and a TRY 96 million economic valuation illustrates why methodology can determine the outcome of the entire case.

28. Practical Example: Company Established Before Marriage

Consider a different scenario.

The wife established Company Y in 2005.

The parties married in 2015.

Company Y was therefore originally personal property.

During the marriage, however:

• the company produced substantial profits;
• very limited dividends were distributed;
• approximately TRY 25 million in profits were retained;
• retained profits financed new branches and machinery;
• the business grew significantly.

The husband’s lawyer should not simply demand half of the entire company.

Instead, the correct investigation should focus on questions such as:

1. What income did the company generate during the matrimonial property regime?
2. What dividends became attributable to the shareholder spouse?
3. Were distributions made?
4. If distributed, did those assets exist when the property regime terminated?
5. If not distributed, were profits reinvested into the company?
6. What was the real value reached by those amounts?
7. Did acquired-property funds finance any capital increases?

This approach is much more legally defensible than simply arguing that half of the company belongs to the other spouse.

29. Beware of the “The Company Made No Profit” Defence

A company may report little or no accounting profit while simultaneously:

• acquiring real estate;
• purchasing machinery;
• lending money to related companies;
• accumulating inventory;
• repaying debt;
• increasing shareholder benefits;
• transferring resources to affiliates; or
• rapidly expanding its business.

Therefore:

No accounting profit does not necessarily mean no economic value.

The Court of Cassation has previously found an assessment inadequate where companies were treated as irrelevant merely because they had reported losses and their value had effectively been assessed through an insufficient equity-based approach.

A proper valuation must distinguish between:

profit,
cash flow,
asset accumulation, and
enterprise value.

30. The Critical Timing Risk: Value Manipulation Before Divorce

Company-owner divorce cases often involve an information imbalance.

The shareholder spouse normally controls:

• the company’s accountant;
• banking access;
• contracts;
• general assembly decisions;
• dividend declarations;
• related-party transactions;
• employment decisions; and
• the timing of major investments.

As marital problems become serious, this creates the possibility of deliberately reducing the apparent company value.

Warning signs include:

• sudden dividend policy changes;
• abnormal increases in debt;
• transfers to relatives;
• rapid disposal of valuable assets;
• new related companies;
• unexplained management expenses;
• shareholder withdrawals;
• customer migration;
• unusual capital transactions;
• shareholder percentage changes shortly before divorce.

Where these indications exist, the litigation strategy should move beyond standard matrimonial accounting and toward forensic financial investigation.

31. A Practical Litigation Strategy for the Non-Owner Spouse

For counsel representing the spouse who does not control the company, a structured approach can be particularly effective.

Step 1 — Determine the matrimonial property period

Identify precisely when the applicable regime began and ended.

Step 2 — Establish the acquisition history

Determine:

• when the company was incorporated;
• when the shares were acquired;
• how the purchase price was paid;
• how share percentages subsequently changed.

Step 3 — Challenge personal-property allegations

Require documentary proof of claims involving:

• inheritance;
• gifts;
• premarital funds;
• family loans;
• replacement property.

Step 4 — Obtain complete corporate records

Do not rely solely on documents voluntarily produced by the shareholder spouse.

Step 5 — Trace profits

Investigate dividends, retained earnings, reserves and reinvestment.

Step 6 — Analyse related-party dealings

Follow money leaving the company.

Step 7 — Determine true company value

Request a professional valuation applying appropriate corporate-finance methodology.

Step 8 — Analyse suspicious transfers

Consider whether dispositions fall within the rules on values to be added back into the matrimonial property calculation.

Step 9 — Calculate the shareholder’s actual interest

Apply the spouse’s correct shareholding percentage to the relevant company equity value.

Step 10 — Incorporate the result into the matrimonial liquidation

Only after these stages should the final participation receivable be calculated.

32. Strategy for the Company-Owner Spouse

The shareholder spouse also requires a carefully documented defence.

Where the shares genuinely constitute personal property, the strongest defence is usually based on evidence rather than a general assertion that:

“The company belongs to me.”

Relevant evidence may include:

• incorporation records predating marriage;
• inheritance documentation;
• gift documentation;
• bank records showing the source of the acquisition price;
• records tracing replacement property;
• contemporaneous shareholder documentation.

The company owner should also distinguish genuine business growth from matrimonial income.

Particular care should be taken to demonstrate:

• legitimate business debts;
• normal commercial investments;
• arm’s-length related-party transactions;
• genuine reasons for retaining profits;
• post-separation capital contributions;
• changes resulting from post-separation labour or investment.

Artificial restructuring immediately before divorce can significantly weaken credibility.

33. The Most Important Principle: Value the Business, Not the Number Written in the Balance Sheet

In high-value matrimonial property cases involving companies, the central mistake is treating accounting figures as equivalent to economic reality.

A balance sheet may tell the court:

what is recorded.

A proper corporate valuation attempts to determine:

what the business is actually worth.

The Court of Cassation’s approach reflects this distinction.

Company valuation may require consideration of market position, sector growth, assets, financial structure, technology, customer relationships, management, profitability, planned investments and future cash flows rather than merely paid-in capital or nominal book equity.

Conclusion: In Matrimonial Property Cases, Company Valuation Can Determine the Entire Case

When one spouse owns a business, matrimonial property liquidation should rarely be approached as a routine accounting exercise.

The correct legal analysis requires several separate questions:

When were the shares acquired?

Were they acquired with personal or acquired property?

What percentage of the company did the spouse own when the matrimonial property regime ended?

What was the economic condition of the company at that date?

What is the legally relevant market value for liquidation?

Were profits distributed or retained?

Were retained profits reinvested?

Were there suspicious share or asset transfers before divorce?

Did related-party transactions artificially reduce company value?

Does the expert report calculate true market value or merely repeat accounting figures?

For the non-owner spouse, failure to investigate these issues can result in a participation claim being calculated at only a fraction of its genuine value.

For the company-owner spouse, failure to document the personal-property origin of shares, genuine corporate liabilities and legitimate business transactions can produce the opposite result.

The decisive issue is therefore often not simply who owns the company on paper, but what economic value is legally attributable to the spouse’s shareholding within the matrimonial property regime.

In complex cases, the combination of matrimonial property law, corporate law, forensic accounting and professional business valuation can transform the financial outcome of the litigation.