Token Seed Round Valuation: What Founders Need to Know Before Granting Tokens
Author: Redwood Valuation Content Team
Published: July 3, 2026
Restricted token grants to founders and employees at the seed stage come with a hard deadline: when restricted tokens are transferred subject to vesting, the 83(b) election window opens on the transfer date and closes 30 days later. In many seed-stage grants, the grant date and transfer date are the same, but the transfer date is what matters for the election. Other structures, including restricted token units (RTUs), token options, and immediately vested unrestricted grants, follow different timing rules, as shown in the compensation structures table below. The token seed round valuation needs to be in place before you sign the grant agreements, not after. Just as important, it is not a 409A stock valuation. The IRS has not extended the Section 409A safe-harbor valuation methods to token valuations. They are different instruments for different purposes and conflating them creates compliance risks in both directions.
A token seed round valuation serves three distinct purposes: it supports founder and employee token grant documentation under IRC Section 83, provides a defensible reference price for Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT) or Simple Agreement for Future Equity (SAFE)-plus-warrant negotiations, and gives follow-on investors a credible independent baseline for due diligence. At the seed stage, the valuation question is not whether your token has value. It is whether you can document that value in a way the IRS, your advisors, and your investors can understand and evaluate.
What a Token Valuation Is (and Why It Matters at Seed Stage)
Before going further we should address a point of terminology. A coin is a native digital asset that lives on its own blockchain. A token is a non-native digital asset that resides on an existing blockchain, such as an ERC-20 token created by a smart contract on Ethereum. Cryptocurrency is the broader category covering both. These terms are not interchangeable. This article focuses on the valuation of tokens issued by seed-stage companies on existing distributed ledger infrastructure.
A token valuation is a documented fair market value opinion on a pre-token generation event (pre-TGE) token that is prepared by an independent appraiser with significant relevant experience in business valuation and digital-asset analysis and tied to a specific effective date. Founders often assume the valuation is optional or that a cap table note and a round price are sufficient. But in practice those assumptions usually don’t hold up for three reasons.
First, if you’re granting actual tokens to founders, employees, or service providers before TGE, those grants are property transfers under federal tax law and the tax consequences depend on the fair market value at transfer. Other structures, such as RTUs or standard token options, follow different timing rules because the token may not be transferred at grant. Second, your SAFT or SAFE-plus-warrant structure has a negotiated price. That price is a deal term, which is not the same thing as an independently documented fair market value. Third, follow-on investors conducting Series A due diligence will ask how your prior token grants were priced. Undocumented seed-round grants can become a diligence flag later, even if no one focused on them during the seed round.
An independent token valuation addresses all three of these issues at once. A self-prepared estimate by a party with a financial interest in a lower number is much harder to defend in an IRS examination or a follow-on due diligence process. A properly documented valuation does not eliminate risk, but it gives the company, the service provider, and later investors a defensible record of how the grant-date or transfer-date value was determined.
Tokens Are Property: The IRS Foundation
Under IRS Notice 2014-21, virtual currency is property for federal income tax purposes. General tax rules applicable to property transactions apply. This means that every time a token changes hands, whether through a sale, a grant to an employee, or a staking reward, there may be a tax event. Subsequent IRS guidance has addressed discrete crypto questions, including Rev. Rul. 2023-14 on staking rewards, but has not created a safe harbor or prescribed valuation methodology for pre-TGE tokens.
No IRS-prescribed methodology exists for pre-TGE token valuations. The IRS has not established a required method for valuing a token that does not yet trade, and it has not created a token-specific safe harbor comparable to the protection available for certain 409A stock valuations. In practice, valuation professionals draw on general property-valuation principles, business-valuation methods, the AICPA’s nonauthoritative digital-assets practice aid, and published practitioner guidance from firms with active crypto valuation practices. Those sources can support the analysis, but they do not carry the IRS-sanctioned safe-harbor protection founders may be used to seeing in the 409A context.
In our practice, founders are frequently surprised that there is no analogue to the 409A safe harbor framework here. With equity compensation, practitioners can draw on long-standing closely held stock valuation principles, including Rev. Rul. 59-60, along with Section 409A regulations that provide a defined safe-harbor framework in certain circumstances. With pre-TGE tokens, the practitioner is working without that same net.
Three Triggers for a Seed-Stage Token Valuation
The triggering events for a seed-stage token valuation fall into three categories. Each requires a documented fair market value opinion for a different reason and on a different timeline.
Employee Token Grants and the IRC 83 Clock
IRC Section 83 governs the tax treatment of property, including tokens, transferred to an employee or service provider in connection with services. The basic rule: the property is taxable as ordinary income when it vests, at whatever fair market value applies on the vesting date.
The 83(b) election changes that timeline. A founder or employee who receives restricted tokens subject to vesting can elect to recognize ordinary income at the transfer date, using the transfer-date fair market value, rather than at each vesting date. If the token appreciates significantly by vesting, that can be a substantial tax advantage: they pay ordinary income tax once at the lower transfer-date value, and later appreciation may become capital gain.
Key points:
The 83(b) election must be filed within 30 days of the date the tokens are transferred. Not from TGE. Not from the vesting date. In many restricted-token grants, the grant date and transfer date are the same, but the transfer of property is what starts the clock.
The recipient should also provide a copy of the election to the company or other service recipient. The IRS has made Form 15620 available through an online filing process, but the availability of electronic filing does not change the 30-day deadline or the copy-to-company requirement. The filing mechanics are strict enough that founders and employees should confirm the procedure with tax counsel rather than treating the election as a routine formality.
The election is treated as irrevocable in practice. Narrow IRS-consent revocation exists under Treas. Reg. §1.83-2(f) in cases of mistake of fact, but it should not be relied on for planning. If the token declines in value after filing, the ordinary income tax already paid at transfer generally cannot be recovered, though a later disposition may generate a capital loss.
The 30-day window is statutory. §301.9100 relief is generally not available for statutory elections like §83(b), and practitioners do not plan around it.
The valuation should be completed before, or at least concurrent with, the token transfer. The 83(b) window is short, and a valuation that arrives on day 31 is documentation for a deadline that has already passed. The better planning sequence is simple: finish the valuation first, then sign the grant documents and make sure recipients are prepared to file any 83(b) elections on time.
One precision note: 83(b) applies to restricted tokens, meaning actual tokens transferred subject to a vesting schedule. It does not apply at a standard token option grant. It may apply at the early exercise of unvested token options, if tokens are actually transferred, with the 30-day window running from that transfer date.
SAFT and SAFE-Plus-Warrant Pricing
SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens): the investor pays cash now and receives tokens at TGE. The SAFT is generally treated as a securities offering. The valuation cap, meaning the maximum fully diluted valuation at which the SAFT converts to tokens, and the discount rate are the key pricing parameters. Both are deal terms. Neither is an independent FMV determination.
In recent seed-stage token fundraising, SAFE-plus-token-warrant structures have become common as well. In that structure, the equity SAFE and the token warrant are separate components: the SAFE governs the equity investment, while the warrant gives the investor a right to acquire tokens if and when the token is issued.
Across these structures, the negotiated deal price and an independent fair market value are different things. The valuation cap in your SAFT or the exercise terms in a token warrant may be important investor terms. What the IRS and your next lead investor may want is something different: an independent, documented opinion on what the token or token right was worth on the relevant date.
Investor Due Diligence for Follow-On Rounds
An independent valuation at seed stage isn't primarily for the seed round. It's insurance for the Series A conversation.
Series A and Series B investors conduct due diligence on prior token pricing as a routine step. If founders issued tokens to themselves and early employees at prices they set internally, follow-on investors will ask why there is no independent documentation. That question, unanswered, creates diligence risk. It may not kill a raise by itself, but it can slow the process, create additional tax and legal review, and raise questions about governance at exactly the wrong time.
How Valuation Firms Approach Pre-TGE Tokens
Because no IRS-prescribed methodology governs pre-TGE token valuations, practitioners usually start with the same broad approaches used for other difficult-to-price assets: market, income, and cost. They then consider whether a separate marketability adjustment is appropriate based on the token’s characteristics, restrictions, stage of development, and available data. None of these methods is required or IRS-sanctioned, and in many engagements, the strongest analysis uses more than one approach.
Comparable Transaction Analysis
This method benchmarks the subject token's implied FDV (fully diluted valuation) against recently closed SAFT and private-round transactions for comparable projects. Practitioners pull data from Messari, Crunchbase, public SAFT disclosures, and OTC secondary pricing where available.
The limitations are real. Comparables are often confidential or incomplete. Crypto project comparability is highly subjective: two DeFi projects in the same sector may have fundamentally different tokenomics, team strength, and technology differentiation. Reported trading and volume data also need to be screened carefully because crypto markets have had documented issues with non-arm’s-length activity, wash trading, and thin liquidity.
This method works best when multiple comparable private-round transactions in the same sub-sector are available and recently closed.
Discounted Cash Flow
A DCF is appropriate only where the token gives the holder a legal or economic claim on identifiable cash flows: protocol fees, revenue share, staking or validator economics. Most seed-stage tokens don't meet this criterion before TGE.
An income approach may be relevant where token holders have identifiable economic inflows from protocol fees or staking. It isn't relevant where network revenue flows to the protocol treasury rather than to token holders. Applying DCF to a governance token with no fee-sharing mechanism is a methodology mismatch, not a conservative estimate.
Network Value Methodologies
Network Value to Transactions (NVT), proposed by analyst Willy Woo in 2017, and Metcalfe's Law-based approaches are supplemental supporting evidence, not standalone fair value methods. Pre-TGE, with no live transaction data, these are most useful for analogizing to a comparable live network with measurable activity.
Use them to corroborate, not to anchor.
DLOM: The Marketability Adjustment Founders Often Miss
Once a base value is established under one or more valuation approaches, the appraiser has to decide whether a separate Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) is appropriate. A DLOM reflects the economic effect of restrictions or illiquidity that a hypothetical willing buyer would consider when pricing the token. It should not be applied mechanically. A separate DLOM is appropriate only to the extent the base valuation method has not already captured the economic effect of illiquidity or transfer restrictions. In some pre-TGE engagements, comparable transactions, financing terms, or other calibration inputs may already reflect some of that illiquidity. Adding a further discount without analyzing overlap can double-count the same economic constraint.
Pre-TGE tokens often raise marketability issues for two reasons. First, there may be no live trading market. Second, vesting, lock-ups, or transfer restrictions may prevent the holder from selling even after a market develops. Both facts can matter, but the relative weight depends on the token’s terms, the expected time to liquidity, and the valuation method used to establish the base value.
One common way practitioners estimate DLOM is through a put-option pricing model. The logic is that the discount can be estimated by reference to the cost of protection against price declines during the restriction period. These models are useful because they force the appraiser to document key inputs, including volatility, time to liquidity, and the restriction period, rather than selecting a discount by feel.
Model selection matters because crypto volatility can be much higher than the volatility assumptions used in many traditional private-company DLOM analyses. A standard Black-Scholes put model may produce results that are difficult to support at very high volatility levels. For that reason, some practitioners use average-strike or sequential-input put-option models, including Ghaidarov-style models, as a supplement or alternative. The important point is not that one model always wins. The important point is that the selected model, volatility input, time-to-liquidity assumption, and restriction period must be documented and tied to the facts of the token.
As an industry illustration rather than a safe harbor, DLOM outputs for seed-stage crypto tokens can vary widely based on vesting schedule, volatility inputs, expected time to liquidity, transferability, and the strength of the base valuation evidence. The practitioner should document the specific inputs and model-selection rationale rather than relying on a generic discount range.
Factors that may support a higher marketability adjustment include a longer expected time to liquidity, enforceable transfer restrictions, vesting or lock-up terms, limited paths to secondary sale, and token mechanics that would make a hypothetical buyer demand a discount. Broader project risks, regulatory uncertainty, or uncertainty about token classification may still affect value, but the appraiser should be careful about where those risks enter the analysis so they are not counted twice.
One distinction matters here: a DLOM used in a tax fair market value analysis is not the same as a blockage discount in financial reporting. Under ASC 820-10-35-36B, blockage factors and position-size discounts are prohibited in fair value measurement. ASC 820-10-35-44 reinforces the related “price times quantity” concept for Level 1 measurements. In a tax valuation, marketability restrictions may be relevant if a hypothetical buyer would price the token on that basis. But the appraiser still needs to distinguish between restrictions that affect the asset or the transferred property itself and facts that are specific only to the current holder or the size of the holder’s position.
The DLOM is not just a bookkeeping detail, but it also should not be treated as a plug figure. A pre-TGE token that will vest over three years may not be the same economic asset as a freely tradeable token at the same underlying price. The valuation needs to explain that difference, show how it was measured, and avoid counting the same risk twice.
Token Compensation Structures: Why Your Choice Matters
Founders issuing tokens to employees or co-founders have multiple compensation structures available. Each has a different tax treatment, a different relationship to the 83(b) election, and a different connection to the token valuation.
Before choosing a structure, founders should separate two questions. First, is the company transferring actual tokens now, or only promising future delivery? Second, is the goal to allow earlier income recognition through an 83(b) election, or to defer taxation until the employee actually receives value? Those two questions drive much of the tax treatment in the table below.
| Structure | Description | 83(b) Eligible? | Key Tax Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restricted Tokens | Actual tokens transferred with a vesting schedule | Yes, if filed within 30 days of transfer | Taxed at vesting on full value if no 83(b) election is filed |
| Unrestricted Tokens | Tokens immediately vested at transfer | N/A; immediately taxable | Ordinary income at transfer on full value |
| Restricted Token Units (RTUs) | Contractual promise to deliver tokens at a future date | No, because no property is transferred at grant | Ordinary income when tokens are delivered or otherwise made available; deferral terms may also raise 409A issues |
| Token Options | Right to acquire tokens at a set exercise price | No at standard grant; possible at early exercise of unvested options if tokens are actually transferred | 409A treatment is uncertain and should be reviewed by counsel; if 409A applies and the option is noncompliant, the service provider may face accelerated income inclusion, a 20% additional tax, and interest |
If the token is worth $10 at grant and $500 when the tokens are delivered, the employee may owe ordinary income tax based on the $500 value under an RTU structure. An RTU is a promise, not a token. No property transfer has occurred at grant. Because nothing has been transferred, there is nothing to file an 83(b) election on. That may be the right structure in some cases, but it is not the same tax outcome as a restricted-token grant.
Token options are not 83(b) eligible at a standard option grant. They may become eligible at early exercise of unvested options, if tokens are actually transferred, at which point the 30-day window runs from that transfer date.
The IRS has not issued specific guidance on when token options are subject to IRC Section 409A. Industry practice treats them as potentially subject to 409A, and counsel should review the structure before grants are made. If 409A applies and the arrangement is noncompliant, the service provider may face accelerated income inclusion, a 20% additional income tax under IRC 409A(a)(1)(B)(i)(II), and interest. That tax burden falls on the service provider, not the company, although the company may have withholding and reporting obligations.
Choosing the right structure before granting anything isn't a formality. It determines which tax outcomes are available to your team.
Tax Fair Market Value vs. ASC 820 Fair Value
Using one standard where the other applies can create a compliance problem, even if both numbers are professionally defensible. The fair market value used in an 83(b) election and the ASC 820 fair value used in financial reporting are defined under different frameworks, serve different purposes, and can produce different numbers.
Tax FMV for IRC 83 and 83(b) purposes is a fair-market-value analysis under tax principles, not an ASC 820 exit-price measurement. The familiar formulation is the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and willing seller, neither under compulsion and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. In the tax context, restrictions and lack of marketability may affect value when a hypothetical buyer and seller would price the property on that basis. The important point is that those adjustments must be supported by the facts and should not be confused with ASC 820’s separate financial-reporting rules.
ASC 820 fair value, for financial reporting, is the price to sell the asset in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It operates on a three-level hierarchy: Level 1 uses quoted prices in active markets for identical assets, Level 2 uses other observable inputs, and Level 3 uses unobservable, model-based inputs. Pre-TGE tokens held by investors are often Level 3 assets, requiring more disclosure, more judgment, and more auditor scrutiny.
ASC 820-10-35-36B prohibits blockage factors and position-size discounts in fair value measurement, regardless of how large the holder’s position is. ASC 820-10-35-44 reinforces the related “price times quantity” concept for Level 1 measurements. Restrictions require a separate analysis. A restriction embedded in the asset’s terms, transferability, protocol mechanics, or legal rights may affect the valuation technique or inputs if market participants would price the asset on that basis. A holder-specific restriction, including some contractual sale restrictions, generally should not be treated the same way.
ASU 2023-08 / ASC 350-60, effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024, requires in-scope crypto assets to be measured at fair value under ASC 820 with changes recognized through net income. The six scope criteria include a carve-out that matters for issuers: tokens created or issued by the reporting entity or its related parties are not in scope. A startup carrying its own issued tokens does not apply ASC 350-60 to those holdings.
An 83(b) appraisal and an ASC 820 Level 3 valuation for the same token on the same date can produce different numbers, and both can be correct, because they answer different questions.
Securities Law: When a Token Offering Might Be a Securities Transaction
Token offerings at the seed stage frequently draw securities-law analysis. The current Commission-level interpretation, SEC Release Nos. 33-11412 and 34-105020, issued March 17, 2026 and effective March 23, 2026, provides a taxonomy for crypto assets and applies federal securities-law analysis to transactions involving those assets. A seed-stage offering with a white paper, investor materials, and a founding team promising future development is the pattern that most often attracts securities scrutiny under Howey.
The Howey test asks whether there is: (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of profits, and (4) from the essential managerial efforts of others. Securities analysis under Howey attaches to the offer, sale, or transaction, not to the asset label. A token sale may be treated as a securities transaction if purchasers invest money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation that profits will come from the issuer’s, promoter’s, or developer’s essential efforts. The analysis is transaction-by-transaction, not an asset-level classification.
A seed round is a direct institutional-style transaction. Under the current Howey analysis, a seed-stage token offering to investors who expect profit from the founding team's efforts is the pattern most likely to attract securities scrutiny.
SAFT structures are generally designed and documented as securities offerings. Courts have also been skeptical of attempts to use the SAFT structure to separate the investment contract from the expected token distribution when the economic reality is a single fundraising scheme. In SEC v. Telegram, for example, the Southern District of New York analyzed the purchase agreements and anticipated token distribution together. In our practice, SAFE-plus-token-warrant structures are now common in seed-stage token fundraising, but the structure does not eliminate the need for securities-law analysis.
SEC v. Ripple Labs (S.D.N.Y., July 2023) is a useful illustration of the transaction-by-transaction principle. The district court distinguished among different categories of XRP transactions, treating institutional direct sales differently from certain programmatic open-market sales. The broader legal effect and procedural status of Ripple should be confirmed with legal counsel current to the transaction date, but the practical lesson for founders is straightforward: securities analysis turns on the transaction, the purchaser expectations, and the surrounding facts, not simply the token’s label.
How Long Is a Token Valuation Good For?
Usually, not very long. This is one of the practical differences between a token valuation and a 409A stock option valuation.
Under Section 409A, a stock valuation generally supports the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for grants made within 12 months of the valuation date, absent intervening material events. A token valuation has no comparable regulatory presumption. Industry practice often treats a pre-TGE token valuation as reliable for approximately 30 days, or until a material event, whichever comes first. Token markets can move by double-digit percentages in a matter of days. In practice, valuations dated materially beyond the typical 30-day window (for example, 90 days or more before the transfer date) often require updating before use, particularly if token economics, market conditions, or project milestones have changed. The appropriate window remains a facts-and-circumstances judgment, not a regulatory safe harbor.
Material events that may require a fresh valuation include a completed TGE or exchange listing, a major protocol upgrade, a significant financing round, and major team or strategy changes.
There is no IRS-sanctioned validity window for a pre-TGE token valuation. The 30-day industry convention reflects the volatility of crypto markets and the absence of a comparable regulatory framework. Frame it as practice convention, not a rule. The IRS has not established a safe harbor validity window for token valuations. Do not read the 30-day convention into IRS guidance that does not exist.
Conclusion
Token seed round valuation touches tax, securities, and financial-reporting rules, along with multiple compensation structures and two different definitions of value. The compliance burden falls on founders and their legal and tax advisors before TGE, not after. Resolving documentation gaps during Series A due diligence is materially more expensive than addressing them at the seed stage.
The 83(b) election window is 30 days from the transfer date, with no practical extension available in ordinary planning. At seed stage, the cost of a proper token valuation is small compared to the cost of an IRS challenge, a failed diligence process, or an 83(b) election that cannot be filed because the window has already closed.
Redwood works with seed-stage companies preparing to issue founder or employee tokens. The engagement window matters: the valuation should be in place before the grant agreements are signed. If you are planning token grants in the next 30 to 60 days and do not have an independent appraisal scheduled, that is the conversation to start first.
Frequently Asked Questions
What triggers the need for a token valuation in a seed round?
Three events commonly trigger the need: (1) restricted token grants to employees or founders under IRC Section 83, where a documented FMV supports the grant-date or transfer-date tax reporting and any 83(b) election; (2) SAFT or SAFE-plus-warrant agreements, where independent valuation supports the reference price and investor credibility; and (3) investor due diligence for follow-on rounds, which often requires evidence that prior token grants were properly priced. Any one of these may be enough to warrant engaging an independent appraiser.
Can I do a self-prepared token valuation?
You can prepare your own analysis. But a valuation prepared by a party with a financial interest in a lower number is harder to defend in an IRS examination. An independent appraiser with relevant experience carries more evidentiary weight, and the documentation package, including methodology, comparables, any marketability adjustment, and effective date, is closer to what an auditor or follow-on investor will expect. For high-stakes grants, the price of a proper appraisal is small compared to the cost of a successful IRS challenge.
How long is a token valuation valid?
Industry practice often treats a pre-TGE token valuation as reliable for approximately 30 days, or until a material event, such as TGE, exchange listing, major financing, or significant team or strategy changes, whichever comes first. This is a practice convention, not an IRS rule. The IRS has not established a safe harbor validity window for token valuations. The 30-day convention reflects crypto market volatility and the practical reality that a valuation from three months ago may bear little relationship to current market conditions.
Is my SAFT a securities offering?
SAFTs are generally structured as securities offerings and should be reviewed by securities counsel. Courts have been skeptical of arguments that the SAFT form alone removes the expected token distribution from securities-law analysis. The valuation cap and discount rate built into your SAFT are deal terms. They are not a securities-compliance determination, and they do not substitute for a defensible independent FMV.
What happens if I miss the 83(b) election deadline?
The 30-day window is statutory and runs from the transfer of the restricted property. §301.9100 relief is generally not available for statutory elections like §83(b), and practitioners do not plan around it. If you miss the deadline, restricted token grants are generally taxed as they vest, at the fair market value on each vesting date. If the token has appreciated significantly by vesting, the employee or founder may owe ordinary income tax on a much higher value. The ordinary income tax paid under a timely election generally cannot be recovered after the fact simply because the token later declines.
What is DLOM and why does it apply to my tokens?
A Discount for Lack of Marketability reflects the economic effect of illiquidity or transfer restrictions. A pre-TGE token may raise marketability issues because there is no live market, because vesting or lock-up terms prevent transfer, or both. Whether a separate DLOM applies depends on the facts and on whether illiquidity has already been reflected in the base valuation. Practitioners may use option-pricing models, including average-strike or Ghaidarov-style models for high-volatility assets, but the model and inputs need to be documented rather than treated as a rule of thumb.
How is tax FMV different from ASC 820 fair value?
They are different standards. Tax FMV for IRC 83 and 83(b) elections uses a willing-buyer/willing-seller framework under tax principles, and restrictions or lack of marketability may affect value when a hypothetical buyer and seller would price the property on that basis. ASC 820 fair value is an exit price between market participants and explicitly prohibits blockage or position-size discounts at every hierarchy level. Both standards can be applied to the same token on the same date and produce legitimately different numbers because they answer different questions.
When should I get the valuation done relative to my grant or transfer date?
Before you sign the grant agreements, or at the latest concurrent with signing if the transfer will occur at signing. The 83(b) election window opens when the restricted tokens are transferred and closes 30 days later. A valuation that is not ready until after the grants are signed creates pressure on the 30-day window. If you transfer tokens before the valuation is complete, you are relying on the appraiser to finish in time. That is a planning risk, not a methodology problem.
About Redwood Valuation
Redwood Valuation is a credentialed valuation firm specializing in complex business and asset valuations for startups, fund managers, and litigation support. Our team holds American Society of Appraisers (ASA), Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), and Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) credentials and has completed thousands of valuations since 2007. Our engagements include audit-defense support if the valuation is examined by the IRS or an auditor, with scope and terms defined in the engagement letter. Contact us to discuss your valuation needs.