Buy-Sell Agreements Explained: Protect Your Business Before Disaster Strikes

Welcome to Tax Blueprints, a Rohr CPAs podcast. I'm Daniel Rohr, the managing shareholder of Rohr & Associates, a premier CPA firm based in California. I'm a CPA personal financial specialist and enrolled agent. I have extensive experience advising individuals and business owners with tax minimization and personal financial planning strategies.

On each episode of Tax Blueprints, I delve into the intricacies of tax laws, explain the subtleties of business tax planning, and guide individuals towards a path of financial stability. Whether you're a business owner navigating the murky waters of taxation or an individual planning for a worry-free retirement, Tax Blueprints will provide you with the tools and knowledge you need.

I hope you enjoy this episode

A client once asked me a question that I hear surprisingly often from successful business owners. "Daniel, my partner and I have been in business together for almost twenty years. We trust each other completely. We have talked about putting together a buy-sell agreement, but we have never gotten around to it.

Do we really need one?" My answer was immediate, yes. Not because I expected something bad to happen, quite the opposite. The best buy-sell agreements are written while everyone is healthy, optimistic, and getting along. Once a crisis occurs, it is usually too late to negotiate fairly. Business owners spend years planning for growth.

They think about hiring employees, attracting customers, improving profitability, lowering taxes, buying equipment, opening another location, and eventually selling the company. Yet many never spend time planning for something every multi-owner business will eventually face, the end of one owner's involvement.

That transition may be planned. An owner may retire after a successful career or leave to pursue another opportunity, or it may be sudden. An owner may die, become disabled, go through a divorce, file bankruptcy, or create a dispute that the owners cannot resolve. Without a written agreement, those situations can become emotional, expensive, and disruptive.

A spouse may suddenly inherit an ownership interest. Children who have never worked in the company may receive voting or economic rights. A disabled owner may still own half the business even though the remaining owner is doing all the work. Two equal owners may reach a deadlock with no mechanism for breaking it.

And when someone finally asks what the business is worth, each side may have a completely different answer. A buy-sell agreement is designed to address those problems before they become emergencies. Today, I'm gonna explain what a buy-sell agreement really does, the events it should cover, the difference between a cross-purchase agreement and an entity redemption, why a wait and see structure may offer valuable flexibility, how the business should be valued, and how the purchase can actually be funded.

We'll also discuss the mistakes I see most often and the framework I use when helping business owners think through the right structure. By the end of this episode, you should understand that a buy-sell agreement is not simply a document about selling a company. It is a continuity plan for the business, the owners, and the families depending upon them.Despite the name, a buy-sell agreement is not primarily about buying or selling the entire business. It is a legally binding contract that establishes the rules for an ownership transition when specified events occur. Think of it as the business equivalent of an estate plan. A will or trust directs what happens to personal assets after death.

A buy-sell agreement directs what happens to a business ownership interest when an owner dies or experiences another triggering event. A well-designed agreement answers four essential questions. First, what events trigger the agreement? Second, who has the right or the obligation to purchase the departing owner's interest?

Third, how will that ownership interest be valued? And fourth, how and when will the purchase be funded? Those four questions sound simple. In practice, they determine whether the transition is orderly or chaotic. The agreement may give the company the first opportunity to purchase the interest. It may require the remaining owners to buy it.

It may prohibit an owner from transferring shares to an outsider without first offering them to the company or the other owners. It may require purchase after death, but merely create an option after retirement. Different events may have different rules. The agreement also needs to coordinate with the company's governing documents.

For a corporation, that may include the bylaws and shareholder agreement. For an LLC, it may include the operating agreement. For a partnership, it may include the partnership agreement. The estate plan, insurance policies, employment agreements, and any prenuptial or postnuptial agreements should not contradict the buy-sell agreement.

One misconception I frequently hear is that an agreement is only needed if someone dies. Death is important, but it's only one of several events that can threaten ownership continuity. Disability, retirement, divorce, bankruptcy, voluntary departures, termination for cause, and owner deadlock may be more difficult because everyone involved is still alive and emotionally invested in the outcome Another misconception is that a generic form is enough.

The document may look complete because it contains many pages of legal language, but the real question is whether it works for this business, these owners, this entity type, and this funding plan. A buy-sell agreement should not merely describe what everyone hopes will happen. It should create a process that can still function when the owners are under stress and may no longer agree.

In my opinion, every business with more than one owner should at least have a serious conversation about a buy-sell agreement. Imagine two equal owners have built a company worth eight million dollars. One unexpectedly dies. Without an agreement, the deceased owner's fifty percent interest may pass to a spouse or children through the estate plan.

The surviving owner may suddenly find himself operating the company with someone who knows little about the business, its employees, its customers, or its long-term strategy. The surviving spouse may not want to become a business owner. She may need cash to pay living expenses, replace lost income, or diversify the family's wealth.

The surviving owner, meanwhile, may need to preserve cash for payroll and operations. Neither side is acting unreasonably. They simply have different needs. A buy-sell agreement can create a fair solution before that conflict arises. The family receives a defined path to liquidity. The surviving owner preserves control.

Employees and customers experience less uncertainty. Now imagine a different situation. One owner becomes permanently disabled at age fifty-two. The company still depends upon the owner to... the other owner to meet with clients, supervise employees, and generate revenue. Yet the disabled owner continues to own half the business.

Should profits continue to be distributed equally? Should compensation stop while ownership distributions continue? Must the business purchase the disabled owner's interest? At what value? Over what period? Those are hard questions even when the owners are close friends. They become much harder when one family is facing a health crisis and the other owner feels responsible for carrying the entire company.

A buy-sell agreement also protects against unintended owners. Most business owners are careful about whom they invite into ownership. Yet without transfer restrictions, death, divorce, bankruptcy, or an attempted sale can introduce a person the remaining owners never selected. The agreement can also preserve relationships.

Many lawsuits between business partners begin not with fraud, but with expectations that were never documented. One owner believes the business is worth ten million. The other believes it's worth six million. One expects an immediate cash payment. The other expects to pay over ten years. One believes retirement entities en-entitles an owner to force a purchase.

The other believes the owner must find an outside buyer. A good agreement replaces those assumptions with a process. Finally, a buy-sell agreement is a form of risk management. Insurance protects against a financial loss. A buy-sell agreement protects the ownership structure itself. It does not prevent death, disability, divorce, or disagreement.

It determines how the business will respond when those events occur. A buy-sell agreement is only as good as the events it anticipates. The goal is not to predict the future. It is to establish a fair process before emotion, financial pressure, or legal disputes influence a decision. Death is the, is the event most owners consider first.

If an owner dies, the agreement should state whether the purchase is mandatory, who will purchase the interest, how value will be determined, and when payment must occur. Life insurance is often used because it can provide liquidity at the exact moment it is needed, but insurance and the agreement must be coordinated.

A three million dollar policy does not solve the problem if the required purchase price is six million and nobody has planned for the difference. The owner should also understand whether the agreement's price will control for estate tax valuation. A price written into a contract does not automatically bind the IRS.

Agreements among family members and other related parties receive particular scrutiny, and the arrangement should reflect a bona fide business arrangement rather than a device for transferring value below fair market value. The practical objective is straightforward. The estate receives a fair price, and the surviving owners receive the ownership interest without destabilizing the company.

Permanent disability can be more difficult than death because the owner is still alive and may need income for decades. The agreement should define disability objectively. Does it mean the owner cannot perform his or her own occupation, any reasonable occupation, or the material duties previously performed for the company?

How long must a disability continue before a buyout is triggered? Who makes the determination? A physician, the Social Security Administration, an insurance carrier, or a panel of medical professionals? The agreement should also distinguish compensation from ownership. An owner who no longer works may stop receiving salary, but ownership rights do not automatically disappear.

If the business continues making distributions to all owners, the disabled owner may still be entitled to a share unless the interest is purchased. Disability buyout insurance can help, but the benefits may be limited, delayed, or insufficient to cover the full value. The owners may need a combination of insurance, a down payment, and an installment note.

A thoughtful disability provision protects the disabled owner without requiring the company to support an indefinite arrangement that no longer works operationally. Every owner eventually exits the business. Retirement provisions should establish how much notice is required, whether retirement at a certain age creates a mandatory purchase, and whether the departing owner may remain involved as a consultant.

The agreement should also address payment terms. A successful owner may expect to receive the full value immediately. The business may need five or ten years to fund the purchase without damaging operations. That conflict should be resolved when the agreement is created, not when retirement begins.

Retirement planning should coordinate with the broader succession plan. Will a child or key employee purchase the interest? Will the company redeem it? Will ownership percentages shift among the remaining owners? A buy-sell agreement is one part of that transition, not the entire succession plan. Divorce can indirectly change business ownership, particularly in a community property state such as California.

The non-owner spouse may claim an economic interest in the value of the business even if the entity documents prevent that spouse from participating in management. The agreement should restrict transfers and usually give the company or remaining owners a right to purchase any interest awarded or transferred to a former spouse.

The business agreement should also coordinate with mar- marital agreements and the owner's estate plans. A poorly coordinated structure can produce litigation among the owner, the former spouse, and the business. The objective is not to deprive a spouse of legitimate marital rights, it is to prevent a personal divorce from unintentionally changing who controls the company.

Another triggering event is bankruptcy and creditor problems. If an owner experiences serious financial difficulties, creditors may attempt to reach the ownership interest or the economic rights connected to it. The agreement should give the business or remaining owners an opportunity to purchase the interest before an outside party gains influence.

The pres- the precise creditor rights depend on the entity type, governing documents, and state law, so the agreement must be drafted by an attorney familiar with those rules. Planning cannot always defeat a creditor's existing rights, and last-minute transfers may create additional legal problems. The value of advanced planning is that the ownership restrictions exist before the financial crisis begins.

Sometimes an owner simply wants to leave. Priorities change, another opportunity arises, the relationship no longer works, or an owner wants liquidity while the other owners want to continue operating the company. The agreement should answer whether an owner can force the company to purchase the interest.

Some agreements create a put right, allowing the departing owner to require a purchase. Others merely give the company and remaining owners an option, leaving the departing owner responsible for finding a permitted buyer if the option is declined. The agreement should also address notice, valuation, payment terms, confidentiality, customer relationships, and any enforceable restrictions on com-competition or solicitation.

Voluntary departures frequently damage friendships because the owners never agree on the rules. A clear process allows the business relationship to end without necessarily destroying the personal relationship. Now, not every departure occurs under positive circumstances. Fraud, theft, embezzlement, a serious breach of fiduciary duty, or intentional competition with a company may justify special treatment.

Some agreements reduce the purchase price or provide less favorable payment terms when an owner is terminated for cause. Others distinguish between a good lever event and a bad lever event. These provisions require careful drafting. The definition of cause should be objective, and the process for making that determination should be clear.

Otherwise, the remaining owners may be tempted to label an ordinary disagreement as misconduct merely to obtain a lower purchase price. The agreement should deter genuine wrongdoing without creating an unfair weapon for the majority of owners. The final triggering event is deadlock. Businesses owned fifty/fifty face a unique risk.

Neither owner can make a major decision without the other. Imagine two equal owners disagree about selling the company. One wants to accept an outside offer. The other believes the business should remain independent. Or they disagree about distributions, compensation, borrowing money, admitting a new owner, or replacing a key executive.

If the governing documents require unanimous approval, the company may stop moving forward. Possible solutions include mediation, arbitration, an independent director or advisor, a rotating tiebreaker for limited issues, or a buyout mechanism. Some agreements use a shotgun provision. One owner offers a price per share, and the other owner must decide whether to buy at that price or sell at that price.

The theory is that the proposing owner will select a fair number because that owner does not know which side of the transaction will apply. That sounds elegant, but it may be unfair when one owner has greater access to capital. An owner with substantial liquidity can propose a price the other owner cannot finance, even if the price is reasonable.

Variations such as sealed, sealed bid procedures, appraisal-based buyouts, or longer financing periods may reduce that imbalance. Deadlock provisions are uncomfortable to discuss because they require owners to imagine the relationship failing. That discomfort is precisely why the discussion should happen while the relationship is still strong.

So once a triggering event happens, who buys the ownership interest? There are three primary approaches: a cross-purchase agreement, an entity redemption, and a wait and see agreement. None is universally superior. The best choice depends on the number of owners, the entity type, tax basis, insurance administration, cash flow, and the owner's long-term objectives.

In a cross-purchase agreement, the remaining owners purchase the depart-departing owner's interest directly. Assume Maria and David each own fifty percent of an S corporation. David dies, and the agreement requires Maria to purchase his shares from his estate. Maria becomes the sole shareholder, and David's estate receives the purchase price.

One important advantage is basis. Maria generally receives cost base in the shares she purchases. If she later sells the business, that additional basis may reduce her taxable gain. The structure can also keep the transaction outside the company, which may be helpful when the business has lender restrictions or limited cash.

The disadvantage is, is administrative complexity. With two owners, each may own a policy on the other. With three owners, six policies may be needed. With four owners, twelve may be needed. Different ages and health conditions can also create unequal premium costs. The owners need rules for policy ownership if an owner retires, leaving the company or sells an interest.

Transferring an existing policy can create income tax complications under the transfer for value rules, so insurance changes should be reviewed before policies are reassigned. Cross-purchase arrangements often work best with a small number of owners when basis planning is important and the owners can manage the insurance structure.

Under an entity redemption agreement, the business purchases the departing owner's interest. The administration is usually simpler. The company may own one policy on each owner, pay the premiums, receive the proceeds, and use those proceeds to redeem the deceased owner's shares. For example, if a corporation has four shareholders, the company may own four policies rather than requiring each shareholder to own policies on the other three.

The trade-off is that the remaining owners generally do not receive direct cost basis in their shares merely because the company redeems another owner. Their ownership percentage increase, but their outside basis may not increase in the same way it would through a direct cross purchase. There's also an important valuation issue when a corporation owns life insurance to fund a redemption.

In the Supreme Court's two thousand twenty-four Connelly decision, the court held that life insurance proceeds used to fund a contractual redemption increase the corporation's value for federal estate tax purposes and that that redemption obligation did not offset that value. The practical lesson is not that the entity redemptions are always wrong.

It is that the insurance valuation, estate plan, and agreement must be coordinated rather than assuming the redemption obligation automatically neutralizes the insurance proceeds. An entity redemption may still be the most practical approach, particularly when there are several owners, but the owner should understand both the administrative simplicity and the tax trade-offs.

A wait-and-see agreement preserves flexibility by postponing the final decision about who will purchase the interest until the triggering event occurs. The agreement establishes an order of priority. The company may receive the first option to purchase. If the company does not purchase all of the interest, the remaining owners receive the next option.

If neither purchases the required amount, the agreement may impose a final mandatory purchase obligation. Why is that flexibility valuable? Because circumstances change. The business may have strong cash flow when the agreement is signed and limited liquidity ten years later. One owner may have substantial personal liquidity while another does not.

Tax law may change. Insurance coverage may no longer match the company's value. A lender may restrict redemptions, or the surviving owners may prefer the basis result of a cross purchase. A wait-and-see agreement allows the advisors to evaluate those facts when the event occurs rather than locking the owners into one structure decades in advance.

It is not automatically the right answer. The agreement still needs clear deadlines, purchase obligations, and a coordinated insurance plan. Flexibility without a defined process can simply create another negotiation. But for many privately held businesses, a properly drafted wait-and-see structure offers a useful balance between certainty and adaptability.

So how should the business be valued? Valuation is often the most emotional part of an ownership transition. The departing owner or family naturally wants the highest reasonable value. The buyers need a price the company can support. If the agreement contains vague language, each side may hire an expert, and the dispute can become expensive.

There are four common approaches. The first is a fixed price. The owners agree the company is worth a specific amount and sign a certificate reflecting that value. This can work if the value is updated every year. In practice, the owners often forget. A company valued at two million when the agreement was signed may be worth fifteen million when the triggering event occurs.

An outdated fixed price can produce an obviously unfair result and invite litigation. The second approach is a formula. The agreement may make, may use book value, revenue, EBITDA, or an industry multiple. Formulas are easy to understand, but they can create a false sense of precision. EBITDA may be distorted by owner compensation, personal expenses, unusual transactions, or inconsistent accounting.

A revenue multiple may ignore profitability. Book value may substantially understate goodwill. The third approach is an appraisal. A qualified valuation professional can evaluate cash flow, industry risk, customer concentration, management death, marketability, control, comparable transactions, and current economic conditions.

The agreement should explain whether one appraiser will be selected jointly or whether each side selects an appraiser. If two appraisals differ materially, will a third appraiser be appointed? Is the final value the average, the midpoint, or the conclusion of the third appraiser? Who pays the fees? The fourth approach is a hybrid.

The owners may update an agreed value an- annually with an appraisal process applying if the certificate is too old, or the agreement may use a formula for voluntary retirement and fair market value for death. The agreement should also address whether discounts apply. Is the departing interest valued as a minority interest, or is it valued as a proportionate share of the entire company?

Will a lack of marketability discount apply? Should a bad lever provision reduce value? These decisions can change the price dramatically. For tax purposes, an agreement's price is not automatically respected merely because the owner signed it. The arrangement should be commercially reasonable, reflect a bona fide business purpose, and be comparable to terms that might be reached in an arm's length arrangement.

My preference in many substantial businesses is an independent appraisal or a hybrid structure with regular valuation updates. The cost of valuation is usually small compared with the cost of litigating an ambiguous agreement. Now, a buy-sell agreement without a realistic funding plan is often little more than a promise.

Assume a business is worth ten million and has two equal owners. If one dies, the required purchase price may be five million. Well, where will that money come from? Cash is the simplest answer, but few closely held companies maintain millions of dollars of idle cash. Using operating cash may threaten payroll, taxes, inventory, debt payments, and working capital.

Bank financing may be available, but a lender will evaluate the business immediately after the loss of a key owner. Revenue may be uncertain, customers may be nervous, and management may be disrupted. The company should not assume it can borrow the full amount on favorable terms. Installment payments are common.

The buyer may pay twenty percent at closing and finance the balance over five or ten years. That protects the company's cash flow, but it converts the departing owner or family into a creditor. The note should address interest, security, subordination to bank debt, default remedies, and whether the buyer may prepay.

A sinking fund is another option. The business sets aside money over time. This can help with a planned retirement, but it is less useful when death or disability occurs unexpectedly. Life insurance is frequently the most efficient funding source for a death buyout. The policy creates liquidity when the insurer owner dies.

Death benefits are generally excluded from federal gross income, although policy transfers, interest, and other special circumstances can change the result. The amount of insurance should be reviewed as the business grows. A policy purchased when the company was worth three million may be inadequate when the company is worth twelve.

The owner should also distinguish buy-sell insurance from key person insurance. Buy-sell insurance funds the ownership purchase. Key person insurance provides a company with cash to replace lost revenue, recruit leadership, or reasser-reassure lenders, or absorb disruption The same death can create both needs.

Using every dollar of insurance to purchase shares may leave the business without enough operating liquidity. Disability bio insurance may provide a lump sum or installments after a defined elimination period, but coverage is often more expensive and may not match the full business value. Most businesses ultimately use a combination.

Insurance provides an initial payment, cash or a line of credit covers another portion, and the remaining balance is paid through an installment note. The funding plan should be stress tested. What happens if the business value doubles but the insurance does not? What happens if two owners die close together?

What happens if the insurer delays payment? What happens if a surviving owner is uninsurable when policies need to be restructured? The legal obligation of the funding mechanism should be designed together. Most buy-sell agreements do not fail because the owner selected the wrong font or missed an obscure clause.

They fail because the agreement is ignored. The first mistake is never creating one. Owners assume they will figure things out later. Unfortunately, later often arrives after someone has died, become disabled, or the relationship has broken down. The second mistake is failing to sign the final document. I have seen owners pay attorneys to prepare agreements that remain in draft form for years.

An unsigned draft may reflect intent, but it does not provide the certainty of an executed agreement. The third mistake is allowing the agreement to become outdated. Ownership percentages change. New partners are admitted. The business grows. Insurance becomes insufficient. The original owner's age, a document drafted fifteen years ago, may no longer describe the company that exists today.

The fourth mistake is weak valuation language. A fixed price that was never updated or an undefined phrase such as fair value can produce a dispute over millions of dollars. The fifth mistake is failing to coordinate the agreement with the insurance. The wrong person owns the policy, the beneficiary is inconsistent with the purchase obligation, or the death benefit is far below the expected price.

The sixth mistake is addressing death but ignoring disability, retirement, divorce, bankruptcy, and deadlock. The seventh mistake is failing to coordinate with the entity documents, estate plans, marital agreements, and loan covenants. And the final mistake is treating the agreement as a substitute for communication.

The owner should understand the agreement while they are alive and healthy. Their spouses and key advisors should know that the agreement exists, where it is stored, and whom to contact when a triggering event occurs. I generally recommend reviewing a buy-sell agreement every three to five years, even if nothing significant has changed.

A review should occur sooner after a major increase in business value, the admission or departure of an owner, a material change in profitability, a new loan, an acquisition, a marriage or divorce, a serious health event, a change in insurance coverage, or a change in the owner's succession goals. The review does not always require rewriting the document.

Sometimes the legal structure remains appropriate, but the valuation certificate and insurance coverage need to be updated. The important point is that the agreement should reflect the business the owners have today, not the business they had when the document was originally signed. When a client sits across from me and asks how to approach a buy-sell agreement, I work through five questions.

First, who should own this business if something unexpected happens tomorrow? That question identifies the people the owners trust and the people they do not want becoming owners by accident. Second, what event should create a mandatory purchase, and what event should merely create an option? Death may justify a mandatory transaction.

A voluntary departure may call for a right of first refusal rather than forcing the business to buy. Third, how will value be determined in a way that remains fair five, ten, or twenty years from now? The owners need a method they understand, a process they will actually maintain, and a result that is defensible.

Fourth, where will the money come from? We model the insurance, cash flow, borrowing capacity, and installment terms. A purchase obligation should not jeopardize the company that is supposed to fund it. Fifth, what happens if the owners stop agreeing? The agreement needs a decision process, not merely a list of hopes.

That includes deadlock provisions, valuation procedures, timelines, and remedies if someone refuses to cooperate. I would add one final test. Assume the most inconvenient event occurs at the worst possible time. Does the plan still work? Assume the owner dies when the company is short on cash. Assume the disabled owner never returns.

Assume the surviving spouse needs immediate liquidity. Assume the owners disagree about value. Assume the insurance covers only half the price. A strong plan does not require perfect circumstances. So where do I come out on buy-sell agreements? For a multi-owner business, I view the agreement as foundational.

It's not an optional document to consider only after the company becomes large. The need begins the moment two people own a business together. The complexity should match the business. A small company with two owners may need a relatively straightforward agreement. A large company with several family branches, multiple entities, and significant insurance may require a sophisticated structure.

But every agreement should answer the same basic questions: What triggers the process? Who buys? How value is determined, and how the purchase is funded? The biggest misconception is that a buy-sell agreement is a document about selling the business. It is really a document about preserving continuity. It protects the family of the departing owner by creating a path to liquidity.

It protects the remaining owners by controlling who may own the company. It protects employees and customers by reducing uncertainty, and it protects the value created through years, sometimes decades, of work. No agreement can eliminate grief, illness, conflict, or financial pressure, but it can prevent those events from becoming an avoidable business disaster.

The best time to negotiate the agreement is when no one needs it. Everyone is healthy. Everyone trusts one another. No one knows who will be the buyer and who will be the seller. That is when the conversation is most likely to be fair. If there's one idea I would like you to remember from today's episodes, it's this: Do not wait for an ownership transition to begin planning the ownership transition.

Sit down with the other owners and work through the difficult questions now. Who should be allowed to own the business? What happens after death or disability? How will retirement work? What happens if the owners disagree? How will the company be valued? And where will the purchase money come from? Then coordinate the plan.

The attorney drafts a legal agreement. The CPA models the tax consequences and cash flow. The valuation professional helps establish a defensible value. The insurance advisory evaluates funding, and the owners make the final decisions with a clear understanding of the trade-offs. Before we close, there's another side of the buy-sell planning that deserves its own discussion, the tax consequences.

The agreement may clearly state who purchases the ownership interest and how the price will be determined, but the structure of that purchase can create dramatically different tax results. A cross purchase may create additional basis for the surviving owners. An entity redemption may be easier to administer, but may not provide the same basis benefit.

Partnerships and LLCs create separate inside and outside basis issues. Family attribution rules can change whether a redemption is treated as a sale, and when an owner dies, the interaction among estate tax value, the basis step-up, life insurance proceeds, and the purchase obligation can materially affect both the family and the surviving owners.

So in the next episode of Tax Blueprints, we are going to move beyond the legal mechanics of the agreement and focus specifically on the tax planning. We will discuss cross purchases versus entity redemptions, Sections three oh two and three eighteen, partnership basis adjustments under Section seven forty-three and seven fifty-four, the estate tax basis rules under Section ten fourteen, valuation, life insurance funding, and the mistakes that can create unnecessary tax years or even decades after the agreement is signed.

That's all for this episode of Tax Blueprints, a ROAR CPAs podcast. You can find us online at roarcpas.com/podcast. And don't forget to subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. If you enjoy the show, please consider rating or reviewing us wherever you listen. I'm your host, Daniel Rohr. Thanks for listening.