Case Law Integration × Eric Jordan 25 Factors — Business Valuation in Canada
A litigation-ready FMV approach to business valuation in Canada, integrating tangible and intangible assets using the Eric Jordan Value-First methodology and Five Senses Inspection Reports.
Fee Range: $1,500 - $15,000 · Basic Average: $3,500
877 355 8004 | pindotca@gmail.com
Overview — Case Law & Valuation Evolution in Canada
The Undeniable Proof (Integrating All Elements)
Don't Estimate. Prove Your Value.
We deliver Fair Market Value (FMV) for business valuation in Canada that is legally undeniable.
Methodology: We use the proprietary Eric Jordan 25 Factors and Five Senses Inspection Reports to verify and integrate intangibles (goodwill, synergy, reputation) with physical assets.
Legal Defense: We then build an irrefutable legal case by precisely correlating your situation against our 43 foundational case law examples — and expanding that research to find the 10–20+ specific precedents needed to make your valuation near impossible to defeat.
The court will see proof, not just an opinion. Call us now to make your case unassailable.
Case Law
Organized by category with jurisdiction, year, and core issue/relevance.
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placer Dome Inc v Commissioner of State Revenue (WA) | Aus (HCA) | 2018 | Scope of “goodwill” for stamp duty |
| FCT v Murry | Aus (HCA) | 1998 | Goodwill / customer connections (taxi business) |
| Manitoba Fisheries Ltd v The Queen | Can (SCC) | 1979 | Going-concern goodwill as compensable interest |
| Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd v Canada | Can (SCC) | 2013 | Embedded obligations and FMV |
| HMRC v Denning | UK | 2022 | Reputation ties (valuation context) |
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| County of Orange v Orange County Assessment Appeals Bd. | US (CA) | 1993 | Exclude intangible value from property tax base |
| T-Mobile USA, Inc v Utah State Tax Commission | US (UT) | 2011 | Treatment of intangibles in property tax (telecom) |
| People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Presidio Performing Arts Foundation | US (CA) | 2016 | Relocation benefits / noneconomic components |
| City of Vista v Fielder | US (CA) | 1996 | Leasehold / compensation issues in taking |
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kimball Laundry Co v United States | US (SCOTUS) | 1949 | Going-concern value in temporary takings |
| Diggon-Hibben Ltd v The King | Can (SCC) | 1949 | Business disruption / compensation principles |
| Olympic & Georgia Partners, LLC v County of Los Angeles | US (CA) | 2023/2025 | Hotel assessment; subsidies/enterprise assets as intangibles |
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canada v Cameco Corporation | Can (FCA) | 2020 | Intercompany contracts / risk allocation |
| Canada v GlaxoSmithKline Inc. | Can (SCC) | 2012 | Arm’s-length price; brand/IP context |
| General Electric Capital Canada Inc. v The Queen | Can (FCA) | 2010 | Guarantee fee; parental support/intangibles |
| MEGlobal Canada ULC v The King | Can (TCC) | 2025 | Transfer-pricing litigation (jurisdictional ruling) |
| Newark Morning Ledger Co v United States | US (SCOTUS) | 1993 | Customer relationships as amortizable assets |
| Rocksprings Val Verde Wind, LLC v Val Verde Cty. Appraisal Dist. | US (TX) | 2024 | Wind project valuation; intangible components |
| HMRC v BlackRock Holdco 5 LLC | UK (UKSC) | 2022 | “Unallowable purpose”; holdco/group intangibles |
| Facebook, Inc. & Subsidiaries v Commissioner | US (Tax Ct) | 2025 | Transfer-pricing / valuation of IP rights |
| Martin Ice Cream Co. v Commissioner | US (Tax Ct) | 1998 | Personal vs corporate goodwill; tax treatment |
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States v Cartwright | US (SCOTUS) | 1973 | Willing buyer / willing seller standard |
| Estate of Andrews v Commissioner | US (Tax Ct) | 1982 | FMV of closely-held shares; discounts/goodwill |
| Friesen v Canada | Can (SCC) | 1995 | FMV notion: informed parties / no compulsion |
| Wallace R. Brunelle v Minister of National Revenue | Can | 1977 | Valuation consistency / bias reduction |
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| IRC v Crossman | UK (HL) | 1937 | Restrictions/rights in FMV of shares |
| Attorney-General of Ceylon v Mackie | UK (PC) | 1952 | Valuation of rights/interests |
| Salvesen’s Trustees v IRC | UK | 1930 | Trustee share valuation principles |
| Scottish Insurance Corp Ltd v Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd | UK (HL) | 1949 | Corporate share uplift / merger context |
| Andrews v Gas Meter Co | UK | 1884 | Early authority on share rights/valuation |
| Byers v Saudi National Bank | UK (UKSC) | 2023 | Recent UKSC decision with share-valuation aspects |
| Weinberger v UOP, Inc. | US (Del. Sup. Ct) | 1983 | Appraisal/fair value in freeze-out merger |
| Joy v North | US (2d Cir.) | 1982 | Corporate governance; valuation implications |
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| TransAlta Corporation v The Queen | Can (FCA) | 2012 | Energy intangibles / contractual value |
| Gifford v Canada | Can (SCC) | 2004 | Goodwill considerations in tax FMV |
| United States v General Motors Corp. | US (SCOTUS) | 1945 | Business disruption compensation |
| Waters v Welsh Development Agency | UK (HL) | 2004 | Development scheme impacts on value |
| Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW | Aus | 2020 | Landfill operational goodwill |
| McKesson Canada Corp v The Queen | Can (FCA) | 2013 | Pharma intangibles in pricing |
| City of Los Angeles v Decorative Carpets, Inc. | US (CA) | 1972 | Leasehold goodwill aspects |
| Richard Villar RN (Reading) LLP v HMRC | UK (FTT) | 2019 | Healthcare reputation / personal vs business goodwill |
| Century Services Inc v Canada (Attorney General) | Can (SCC) | 2010 | Insolvency principles affecting valuation |
| Toronto (City) v Goldlist Properties Inc. | Can (ON) | 2011 | Development rights as intangibles |
| City of San Diego v D.R. Horton San Diego Holdings Co. | US (CA) | 2017 | Real estate synergies / valuation |
| City of Los Angeles v Acropolis Investment Co. | US (CA) | 2012 | Investment goodwill considerations |
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bostick v Bostick | US (SC, Sup. Ct) | 2024 | Personal vs enterprise goodwill (published) |
| Clampitt v Clampitt | US (SC, Ct. App.) | 2023 | Non-precedential; personal vs enterprise goodwill |
| Sneed v Johnston | US (NC, Ct. App.) | 2024 | Treatment of goodwill in professional practice |
| Hartline v Hartline | US (TN, Ct. App.) | 2014 | Allocation of goodwill in divorce/business valuation |
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| In re Prince | US (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) | 1991 | Goodwill in insolvency (personal vs enterprise) |
| Estate of Adell v Commissioner | US (Tax Ct) | 2014 | Estate/business value; personal goodwill |
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Core Issue / Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States v Winstar Corp. | US (SCOTUS) | 1996 | Supervisory goodwill; regulatory change impacts |
Case Law by Category
Land & Buildings
Intangibles: goodwill, location reputation, customer/tenant relationships.
Uplifts: land premiums, going-concern continuity, site-specific operational value.
Apply: Adjust FMV to reflect integrated value — not physicals alone.
Equipment & Leasehold Improvements
Intangibles: operational goodwill, brand-like synergies, relocation cost avoidance.
Apply: Link uplift to continuity of productive use and operating efficiency.
Expropriation & Eminent Domain
Intangibles: going-concern value, licenses, subsidies, franchise elements.
Apply: Compensation reflects holistic enterprise value, not just replacement cost.
Transfer Pricing & Enterprise Valuation
Intangibles: IP, intercompany contracts, brand equity, customer relationships.
Apply: Adjust FMV for cross-border functional realities and centralized intangibles.
Eric Jordan “Value-First” — Comparison
Hourly Value
$1250 USD/hr (Jordan) vs $750/hr (Conventional)
Accuracy / Uplift
+50–60% average uplift vs standard uplift
Intangible Coverage
Comprehensive (all 25 factors) vs partial/indirect
Prerequisite Expertise
10+ yrs owner/operator vs accounting-focused
Why This Method Is Superior
- Legal alignment: Directly incorporates FMV-related precedents into applied business valuation in Canada.
- Systematic intangible integration: Goodwill, human capital, brand, retention, and synergies (often 90%+ of enterprise value) are valued consistently.
- Experience-based foundation: Operator fluency bridges financial metrics with business reality.
- Litigation-ready defensibility: Case citations + Five Senses reports support FMV in audits, negotiations, and court.