Financial Analysis

Optimizing the “Offer in Compromise” Via Professionally Prepared Projections and Business Valuations

Background

As tax professionals, the ability to provide our clients with a “do over” as it pertains to their tax obligation can be one of the most helpful tools that can be provided. Obviously, this forgiveness or restructuring of one’s tax obligation requires the tax professional and their client to confront a litany of hurdles.

The Offer in Compromise (“OIC”) program was created by the IRS to allow taxpayers to settle their outstanding debt with the IRS for a lower, agreed-upon amount than what was originally owed. The idea behind the program is that many taxpayers cannot pay their tax liability without creating a significant financial hardship. The burden of proof to demonstrate one’s inability to meet their tax obligations rests on the taxpayer. Perhaps more so in this area where the taxpayer is seeking forgiveness or a restructuring on the tax obligation. To obtain this forgiveness, the IRS wants to know why you believe you will not be able to pay off the entire balance - the IRS isn’t going to take just any reason. Justification for the OIC does not include a recession, loss of a client, or poor record keeping. Nevertheless, the IRS has considered disability, substance abuse problems, huge balance amounts, dependent care, limited income potential as a result of advanced age, or serious health matters as good reasons. On average, over the past few years, the IRS accepted approximately $200,000,000 per year in OIC.

The acceptance of the OIC generally can be classified within three domains, these being:

  • Doubt as to liability. A taxpayer meets this requirement only if an effective difference as to the existence or amount due by the taxpayer

  • Doubt as to collectability exists. For example, where the taxpayer’s assets and income are less than the full amount of the tax liability. This is especially germane with distressed entities

  • Despite there being no doubt that the tax obligation exists, and the obligation amounts are known, and OIC may be accepted if by compelling said payment (in full as current required before the OIC) would either create a significant economic hardship or would be unfair and inequitable because of extraordinary conditions.

Obviously, many taxpayers may wish to have their tax obligations “erased or restructured.” However, it is a challenging process that requires justification, time, the experience of the right tax professionals, determining the amount that can be paid within the agreed upon time, and solid validation for the OIC amount. On average the OIC process, excluding appeals, has taken 4 – 6 months. Many of your clients will want to opt for the OIC route simply because it is the only option that lowers the total value of the tax owed. It is also for this reason that this method is the most advertised settlement option by tax resolution companies and accounting firms. The Latin adage is most appropriate - ‘Caveat Emptor’ (‘let the buyer beware’).

Probability of Obtaining an OIC and How to Increase that Opportunity

The role of the professional tax advisor is critical in the OIC process, perhaps more so than virtually any other area of negotiations or presentations with the IRS. Over the past few years, on average, only 30% of the OIC were accepted by the IRS. However, when the taxpayer works with a team of professionals, this acceptance rate has been increased by 70%. These statistics are based on the over 70,000 OIC applied for to the IRS. The following chart illustrates the increase in the number of OIC accepted by the IRS:

Line chart showing IRS Offer in Compromise acceptance rates from 1999–2021. Rates fell from about 32% in 1999 to a low near 17% in 2003, climbed to over 40% between 2013 and 2018, then declined to about 31% by 2021.

This article addresses how to geometrically improve our client’s probability of having the OIC accepted on terms which are fair to all parties. The opportunity for having a successful OIC, that is fair to all parties, is a function of several critical components. These being:

  • Communications

  • Accurate information

  • Professional prepared financial forecast/projections

  • Business Valuation.

Communications

With regards to the OIC, the tax professional needs to be candid with their client which includes, but is not limited to, managing their expectations as to the amounts, the costs of this process, and the timing. For example, even if the OIC is “awarded,” the taxpayer needs to understand that they will be under IRS scrutiny to ensure the assumptions made to derive the restructure amount have not been materially altered.

The candid communications are not only with your client but with the IRS. Eliminate any surprises – be frank, prompt, professional, and ensure the data provided is accurate and supportive. The most common mistakes are to apply for an OIC that is totally unrealistic (too low) and not supportable.

Accurate Information

This component to a successful OIC process may appear to be too obvious, even to the most novice reader. Too often the embarrassing situation is needing to amend the process due to new information. This not only forces the process to “restart,” but one loses credibility as to the over information, amounts and ability of the client to manage their financing.

Many of the taxpayers are in this very predicament because they do not have the basic financial controls in place and information available. More times than not the client will not have audited financial statements with reconciling schedules for all the transactions in question. The tax preparer must recreate the financial periods based upon limited data years after the events in question.

Spend the time and prepare a detailed set of documents with each applicable account/transaction reconciled and documented. For those areas that have gaps in support – document said gaps and advise the IRS representative accordingly.

Professional Prepared Financial Forecast/Projections

Before outlining the financial projections, allow me to summarize the importance of this process. The OIC is based upon the taxpayer’s ability to pay based upon the current economic environment and their future revenue stream(s). The preliminary amount that the IRS will pay is a function of two basic economic factors, these being:

  • What is the ability of the taxpayer to be able to pay over the next year or two? In other words, the financial projections of the taxpayer, PLUS:

  • The adjusted net value of their current economic situation. This will

    be presented in more detail below.

A financial projection is a forecast of future revenues and expenses. Typically, the projection will account for internal or historical data and will include a prediction of external market factors. In general, you will need to develop both short- and mid-term financial projections. At a minimum, the financial projections should include:

  • A sales forecast, generally, for a three-year period

  • List all the associated expenses required to generate said sales

  • Identify and quantify all the Capital Expenditures required to support the revenue stream

  • Develop a cash-flow statement

  • Develop an Income Statement projections

  • Develop a Balance Sheet

  • Breakeven analysis

Use the historical financial results as a basis. Include the overall market and the results of your competitors. Document the differentiators associated with the taxpayer.

My recommendation to eliminate seasonality and provide comparability is to have the first three years monthly, summarized into quarterly and annual results. Detailed supporting document is a prerequisite for the OIC. OIC applicants are generally put through a demanding financial analysis before the application is approved.

The above preparation by a professional should not be considered onerous. A taxpayer and all entities should have a financial plan in place. After all, this is just rudimentary financial forethought. The adage is “failing to plan is a plan for failure.”

On your projections, be as accurate as possible even if you must present best- and worst-case scenarios. For if the IRS accepts the taxpayer’s OIC, the IRS expects that the taxpayer will have no further delinquencies and will fully comply with the tax laws. If the taxpayer doesn’t fulfill their obligations by the terms and conditions of the OIC, the IRS could classify the OIC as in default. Recall that for the accepted OIC, the terms and conditions generally include a requirement that the taxpayer timely file all tax returns and timely payments of all taxes for 5 years. When an OIC is declared to be in default, the agreement is no longer in effect and the IRS may then collect the amounts originally owed (less payments made), plus interest and penalties.

In summary, ensure that the projections are achievable, and that the taxpayer can fulfill their obligations. If an unforeseen material issue arises, notify the IRS and have a plan on how the taxpayer is going to mitigate this exposure. Again, as stated above, no surprises to the IRS.

Business Valuation

This stage of the OIC process – the Business Valuation - is the “Achilles Heel” for most non-individual applications for the OIC. Recall, the OIC financial basis is driven by the ability to pay in the future (Projections) and the current economic environment (a Business Valuation). The IRS has not only defined the requisite requirements of an IRS valuator, but the IRS is most specific on the methodology and processes germane to business valuations to be submitted to the IRS.

A business valuation is a complex process, especially when addressing atypical business environments — distressed entities and the IRS. The IRS requires that the business valuator be a “Qualified Appraiser.” The regulations state a “Qualified Appraiser” is one who has earned an appraisal designation from a professional appraisal organization, has the appropriate education and experience, and performs appraisals on a regular basis.

Since 1959, the IRS (IRS Revenue Ruling 59-60) has created the expectations for its valuation requirements. In summary these being:

  • The nature of the business and its history

  • The book value of the company stock and its financial condition

  • The dividend paying ability of the firm

  • The presence of goodwill and other intangible assets

  • Sales of company stock, sizes of stock blocks to be valued

  • Market price of stock of companies in the same line of business whose stock trades freely on the open market

The tax authorities are typically interested in the business cash flow outlook. So, a realistic earnings forecast is useful both for your income-based business valuation as well as meeting the level of transparency expected of a well thought out business appraisal. However, as described below this is easier said than done.

Why is the Business Valuation so much more Complex for the OIC?

  • Attestation. The IRS requires that the valuation be formally certified by the business valuator. Furthermore, the business valuator for the IRS engagements must state that their opinion is not based to limit one’s tax payment but is a true reflection of the value of the business. Any offense to this certification carries severe professional penalties and liabilities. There are many business valuation firms that do not work with the IRS requirements due to this risk plus those listed below.

In addition, although all business valuations require proper document and supporting documentation, generally, the business valuations for the IRS are at the extreme end of the spectrum as it relates to documentation and supporting documentation. As you are aware, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer and the taxpayer is requesting a significant restructuring of a debt that is owed.

  • Going Concern. This is the #1 challenge associated with a business valuation associated with an entity that has significant tax obligations. In non-accounting terms: can this entity survive in the long-term given the overall obligations in comparison to its ability to pay? By definition of the OIC the entity’s unable to address its financial/tax obligations, when there is a significant likelihood that an entity will not survive the immediate future (next few years), traditional valuation models may yield an over-optimistic estimate of value.

  • Valuation Methodologies. Generally, a business valuation weighs three methods of valuing the entity:

    • Market Base – what is the value of their competitors in the market?

      However, with the tax obligation outstanding and its inability to pay, this

      does not allow for a meaningful valuation comparison to their competitors

    • Income Method (commonly referred to as the Discounted Cash Flow) – this

      approach measures how much net income can be generated over the long-

      term life of the entity at a discounted rate based upon risks. This method

      also presents its own challenges with the OIC process. First, as described

      above, does the entity have a long-term opportunity – is it a “going

      concern?” Secondly, the risks associated with an entity in arrears to its tax

      obligation plus its inability to pay such obligations yields an extremely

      high-risk factor. This quantified risk factor can be so high that this income

      method will not yield meaningful results

    • Asset Method – what are the value of the underlying assets of the entity

      less its liabilities/obligations. Remember for the IRS purposes, generally -

      the valuator can reduce the valuation by the tax obligation in full. For the

      sake of simplicity, let us assume that we can determine all the assets both

      tangible and intangible (including goodwill and Intellectual Properties).

      The challenge in the asset method of valuating the assets in such an entity

      are what premise does one value these assets?

    • Fair market value (FMV) is the price that property would sell for on

      the open market. It is the price that would be agreed on between a

      willing buyer and a willing seller, with neither being required to act,

      and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts.

    • The fair value as the “the price that would be received to sell an

      asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between

      market participants at the measurement date.”

    • The orderly liquidation value (“OLV”) is typically included in an

      appraisal of hard tangible assets (i.e., equipment). It is an estimate

      of the gross amount that the tangible assets would earn in an

      auction-style liquidation with the seller needing to sell the assets on

      an “as-is, where-is” basis.

    • Forced Liquidation Value (“FLV”) is the values expected to be

      produced if the company or machinery and equipment had to be

      disposed of much more quickly. For example – what if the assets

      must be sold within 90 days. This would significantly diminish the

      value of the assets in comparison to the OLV.

When selecting a Qualified Appraiser, ensure that the firm has significant experience in dealing with distressed or challenged entities. The core facts are so different and require a totally different set of parameters. Secondly, ensure that the Qualified Appraiser has had experience in being an expert witness so that they can explain their methodology, procedures and working papers.

  • Risk of the entity – The foundation of the business valuation is based upon the ability to generate revenue and its correlated risks. As briefly described above, the risks associated with materially outstanding tax obligations as it pertains to the entity’s survivability generates a risk (discounted rate) so high that the associated results are too often skewed to be beneficial or reflective of the true economic value of the entity.

  • The format and components required by the IRS in the OIC environment are atypical. Therefore, experience in dealing with distressed entities, understanding of the tax code, ability to communicate the results as an expert witness and knowledge of the business valuation methodologies are prerequisites that a Qualified Appraisers needs to assist you, the tax professional, in optimizing your client’s chances of obtaining the OIC.

Mythic of the OIC Amounts

Although the IRS has numerous guidelines on how to determine the OIC amount if accepted, there are no “fast and set” calculations to derive the OIC amounts and/or payment schedules. There is no doubt that the criteria is based upon the ability to pay in the future (projections) + the valuation of the net assets. But it is the combination of the aforementioned factors that determine the amounts involved.

The reality is success with an OIC is based on a full understanding of the IRS investigative process into ability to pay coupled with the net value of the assets in question. It is not a one size fits all situation; the amount of one person’s settlement has no bearing on the success of another’s. The IRS does not have a set percentage of settlement to the amount owed.

An Offer in Compromise does not affect your credit. Credit services have no idea that you have filed an offer or are seeking relief. The key is that your offer is accepted. Once the offer is accepted and paid, any tax lien should be released.

Use Industry Valuation Multiples at your Own Perils

Using a simple multiple, such as a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio or an enterprise value-to-EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) multiple, to determine the value of a business can be tempting due to its apparent simplicity.

The simple multiples are based upon a national average for a specific industry. Is your company average? Are your future opportunities “average”? Is the management average? Is your risk average? A singular change in one of these factors will generate a materially difference result.

Assume that two companies have approximately same revenue and earnings and are in a similar market. Could one extrapolate and state that the businesses are of the same value. This would be a critical error. At a minimum one has to examine customers, vendors, international opportunities, and most importantly, the human capital.

Think of a valuation as a congolmeration of both unique internal and external factors associated with the Company.

However, several challenges come with relying solely on multiples for business valuation:

  • Limited Scope: Multiples often provide a simplified view of a company’s value by focusing on a single financial metric, such as earnings or EBITDA. This narrow perspective may fail to capture the nuances of the business’s operations, growth prospects, industry dynamics, and risk factors, leading to an incomplete assessment of its true worth.

  • Variability Across Industries: Different industries have distinct operating models, growth trajectories, and risk profiles, which can significantly impact valuation multiples. Using a uniform multiple across diverse industries may overlook industry-specific factors and distort the valuation analysis. For instance, technology companies typically command higher multiples due to their growth potential, whereas mature industries may trade at lower multiples despite stable earnings.

  • Cyclicality and Market Conditions: Multiples are influenced by macroeconomic factors, market sentiment, and business cycles. During economic downturns or periods of uncertainty, multiples may contract as investors discount future earnings projections and demand higher returns to compensate for increased risk. Conversely, favorable economic conditions and robust market sentiment can inflate multiples, potentially leading to overvaluation.

  • Accounting and Financial Reporting Differences: Variations in accounting policies, financial reporting standards, and non-recurring items can distort financial metrics used in multiples calculation. Differences in depreciation methods, treatment of extraordinary expenses, and adjustments for non-operating items may affect comparability across companies and undermine the accuracy of multiples-based valuation.

  • Lack of Context: Multiples-based valuation lacks the qualitative context necessary for a comprehensive assessment of a company’s value. Factors such as management quality, competitive positioning, brand equity, intellectual property, and regulatory environment play a significant role in determining a company’s intrinsic worth but are often overlooked in multiples analysis.

  • Ignoring Growth and Risk Factors: Multiples-based valuation tends to focus on historical financial performance and overlooks future growth potential and risk factors. Companies with high growth prospects or disruptive innovations may justify higher valuation multiples despite modest current earnings. Conversely, companies facing industry headwinds or competitive threats may trade at lower multiples, reflecting heightened risk perceptions.

  • Market Distortions and Behavioral Biases: Market inefficiencies, investor sentiment, and behavioral biases can distort multiples and lead to mispricing. Herd mentality, speculative bubbles, and irrational exuberance can inflate multiples beyond fundamental justification, resulting in asset bubbles and eventual corrections.

In conclusion, while multiples-based valuation provides a convenient framework for comparing companies and assessing relative value, it is not without limitations and challenges. To mitigate these challenges, valuation practitioners should complement multiples analysis with other valuation methodologies, such as discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, comparable transactions analysis, and qualitative assessments. By incorporating multiple perspectives and considering the unique characteristics of each business, stakeholders can arrive at a more robust and informed estimate of the company’s intrinsic value.

The Role of a Business Valuator in Product Liability

It stands to reason that product liability actions are quite complex, and establishing legal fault and economic loss often requires the assistance and testimony of experts. Aside from the legal perspective, product liability includes elements of finance, business valuations, forensics, determination of economic losses, accounting, economics, management, and other disciplines. It is the job of a valuation expert to measure economic loss. Doing so requires a thorough examination, including a careful analysis of pertinent operational, financial, industrial, and economic data. A valuation expert’s responsibility is to measure the value by which all parties are made “whole” after the event.

Not all valuation professionals are created equal. Every economic loss profile is unique and therefore requires an experienced and knowledgeable professional to give an independent, well-reasoned, and well-supported opinion.

At Lakelet Advisory Group (LAG), our experts are highly experienced and credentialed. We offer both valuation and forensic accounting services, enabling us to ensure we have the best information available and can deliver the most accurate measure of economic loss based on that information. Our team has the ability to examine large amounts of complicated data in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and report solid conclusions supported by careful analyses.

Narrative: ESOP vs. “Normal” Company Valuation Outcomes

While ESOP-owned companies and non-ESOP companies are generally valued under the same fair market value (FMV) standard, the resulting conclusions can differ materially due to structural, economic, and regulatory factors inherent to ESOP transactions.

 

In a conventional valuation context, the hypothetical buyer universe includes both strategic acquirers and financial sponsors, and therefore implicitly reflects the highest and best use of the business. Strategic buyers, in particular, may incorporate expected synergies—such as cost savings, revenue enhancement, or market consolidation—which can support premium valuation multiples. Private equity buyers, while not paying for synergies to the same degree, often utilize optimized leverage structures to enhance returns, supporting competitive pricing.

 

In contrast, an ESOP transaction is fundamentally different. The buyer is not a market participant in the traditional sense, but rather a trust acting on behalf of employees, subject to ERISA fiduciary obligations. As such, the ESOP must pay no more than adequate consideration, interpreted as fair market value under a prudent and defensible process. This eliminates the influence of strategic synergies and constrains the valuation to what a financial buyer with limited leverage capacity can support.

 

Additionally, ESOP-owned companies introduce unique economic considerations that directly affect value. One of the most significant is the repurchase obligation, which requires the company to buy back shares from departing employees. This obligation functions as a long-term cash flow claim, effectively reducing the free cash flow available to service debt or distribute value, and therefore placing downward pressure on valuation.

 

Conversely, ESOP structures—particularly S-corporation ESOPs—benefit from a substantial tax advantage, as the ESOP-owned portion of the company is generally exempt from federal income tax. This increases after-tax cash flow and, in theory, enhances value. However, in practice, this benefit is often only partially capitalized in valuation due to fiduciary conservatism and ongoing regulatory scrutiny.

 

Further differences arise in the treatment of control and marketability. Although ESOPs frequently acquire controlling interests, the absence of a liquid external market for shares necessitates consideration of a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM). At the same time, any control premium must be carefully justified and is often tempered or offset by the lack of liquidity.

 

Finally, ESOP valuations are influenced by a heightened emphasis on defensibility. Given the potential for Department of Labor (DOL) review and litigation, valuation assumptions—such as projections, discount rates, and terminal values—tend to be more conservative, further contributing to differences in outcome relative to a typical market-based valuation.

 

Taken together, these factors generally result in ESOP valuations that are lower than strategic transaction values and often comparable to or modestly below private equity valuations, depending on the specific facts and circumstances.

 

 

Illustrative Valuation Comparison

Assumptions:

●      EBITDA: $10.0 million

●      Identical underlying business across scenarios

Summary Insight

The divergence in valuation outcomes is best understood as a function of buyer-specific constraints and structural economics, rather than differences in underlying business performance.

 

In effect, a traditional valuation reflects what the business could command in a competitive market, whereas an ESOP valuation reflects what a fiduciary-bound, financially constrained buyer can prudently pay, given regulatory obligations and long-term sustainability considerations.

The Hidden Dangers of Relying Solely on Business Valuation Multiples

Business valuation multiples—like EV/EBITDA, P/E, and Price/Sales—are among the most used tools in finance. They’re quick, easy to communicate, and widely accepted. But while these metrics can offer a useful snapshot, relying solely on them is not only simplistic—it can be dangerously misleading. In valuation, shortcuts are costly. Multiples can guide you, but if you rely on them alone, you’re flying blind.

They Ignore Company-Specific Risks

Valuation multiples assume a level of comparability that rarely holds true in practice. Each company faces its own unique risk profile, including:

  • Customer concentration

  • Competitive positioning

  • Geographic exposure

  • Legal and regulatory environments

  • Operational resilience

For instance, two companies might trade at similar multiples, yet one could be exposed to a single volatile market while the other has a diversified global footprint. Multiples alone can’t capture these nuances, which can materially impact long-term value.

No Assessment of Management Quality

One of the most overlooked flaws in using only multiples is their complete disregard for management—arguably one of the most critical value drivers in any business.

Strong leadership can be the difference between a company that scales efficiently and one that burns through capital. Strategic clarity, executional discipline, capital allocation, and culture all start at the top. Yet valuation multiples assign zero quantified value to the team steering the ship.

Whether you’re investing in a startup or acquiring a mature business, failing to assess management is a major blind spot.

They Reflect Market Sentiment, Not Intrinsic Value

Because multiples are typically derived from publicly traded peers, they’re inherently reflective of market sentiment—which can be volatile, biased, or outright irrational.

Valuing a private company based on inflated public comps during a bull run, for example, could result in overpaying by a wide margin. Multiples reflect what the market is currently willing to pay, not what a business is fundamentally worth.

They Assume Peers Are Truly Comparable

Even within the same industry, companies can vary drastically in terms of:

  • Scale

  • Growth rates

  • Profitability

  • Vendor relationships

  • Capital intensity

  • Customer base

Applying an average sector multiple to a business without deeply understanding these differences can lead to mispricing. True comparability requires more than a shared NAICS code.

They Overlook Capital Structure and Cash Flow Nuances

Metrics like EV/EBITDA ignore critical elements such as:

  • Capital expenditures

  • Changes in working capital

  • Tax structures

  • Debt levels

Two businesses may have identical EBITDA figures, but vastly different free cash flow profiles. Similarly, a highly leveraged firm may appear attractively priced on an EV basis, while hiding significant balance sheet risk.

They Strip Away Strategic and Narrative Context

Multiples reduce complex businesses to simple math. But valuation is more than arithmetic—it’s strategy, story, and judgment. A company’s future prospects, positioning, vision, and innovation pipeline can’t be expressed in a single number.

Conclusion: Use Multiples, But Don’t Be Blinded by Them

Multiples are useful—fast and standardized—but they are no substitute for real analysis. They ignore management quality, gloss over risk, and fail to capture what makes each business unique. For a credible, defensible valuation, multiples should be just one piece of a broader toolkit that includes:

  • Discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis

  • Scenario modeling

  • Strategic due diligence

  • Management and operational assessments