Work Samples
See what the study explains.
Start with an illustrative preview of the current Tier 1 deliverable for CPAs and business valuators. Then review the historical marital-dissolution report to see the writing and analysis from a concluded engagement.
The current preview is fictional and uses placeholders throughout. It contains no actual client facts, market benchmarks or compensation opinion.
Fictional illustration · Current Tier 1 format
A compensation input your CPA or valuator can trace.
Illustration only, not an opinion or a client case. The bracketed fields below show the questions and evidence a report would address. They are intentionally unfilled. No conclusion, compensation amount, benchmark, source selection or adjustment is asserted.
1. Conclusion first, with its scope
Fictional assignment: Reasonable compensation for [subject executive] at [fictional closely held business], for [reference period], to support [CPA’s or valuator’s stated purpose].
Conclusion structure: “For [defined role and period], our compensation conclusion is [amount or range], expressed as [specified compensation measure]. It rests on [principal evidence and reasoning] and is subject to [material assumptions and limitations].”
No amount or conclusion has been developed for this illustration. The advisor determines how an actual compensation opinion is used in the broader tax or valuation matter.
2. Match duties to roles before selecting comparisons
A title alone may not describe a hybrid owner-manager role. Document the work performed and the basis for any allocation; do not automatically add full-time salaries for each function.
| Function to examine | Evidence to review | Report field |
|---|---|---|
| General management | [Duties, authority, business scale and relevant records] | [Selected comparator and reasons for fit] |
| Client development | [Activities, responsibilities and time-allocation evidence] | [Comparator; any weight and its basis] |
| Operations oversight | [Supervisory scope, qualifications and actual work] | [Comparator; overlap excluded or explained] |
3. Identify sources, dates and compensation measures
| Source / record | Date to record | Use and limitation |
|---|---|---|
| [Published survey: provider, title, edition and table] | [Data effective date; publication and access dates] | [Role, geography, industry, size, compensation measure and selected statistic; comparison limits] |
| [Job-duty record and executive interview] | [Period covered; record or interview date] | [Actual responsibilities, qualifications and time allocation; corroboration needed] |
| [Financial statements, tax returns and supporting records] | [Reporting period and document date] | [Relevant financial context; completeness and reconciliation limits] |
4. Explain adjustments and professional judgment
Show [unadjusted comparison], [adjustment or weighting, if any], [supporting rationale] and [effect on the conclusion]. Address relevant differences in role scope, business scale, geography, period and compensation measure. Distinguish data-based calculations from qualitative judgment; explain why a comparison or method is unsuitable when it is not used.
5. Make limitations and appendices easy to find
Identify [missing or unverified records], [reliance on supplied information], [survey coverage or date limitations], [material assumptions] and [sensitivity to those assumptions]. Append the methodology, source references and supporting analysis needed to understand the conclusion. Methods, including an independent investor analysis where relevant, depend on the actual facts and scope.
This preview illustrates report organization only. Current Tier 1 covers one subject executive’s study and report; additional roles are quoted separately. It excludes legal or tax advice, business valuation, audit and attest services, and opinions outside compensation. It does not include the additional Tier 2 preparation work or testimony.
Historical marital-dissolution engagement.
This abridged, sanitized report illustrates the analytical structure and writing from a concluded engagement. Supporting exhibits and source records are not included in the public version. Client identities and confidential details have been removed or generalized.
From a hybrid role to a documented opinion.
The historical sample separates a hybrid executive role into six functional positions, prices those functions against identified market data, and discusses qualitative factors and industry commission practices. It also explains why an income-based analysis was not applied.
A clear conclusion
The report states its conclusion in plain language up front, then explains the analysis supporting it.
A two-stage framework
Quantitative market pricing is followed by qualitative factor review, with the relationship between the two made clear.
Identified market data
The sample identifies the market-data provider and selected compensation figures. The public version omits the underlying data extracts and source exhibits, so it is not sufficient to independently reproduce every comparison.
This sample reflects the facts and scope of a concluded engagement, including its discussion of post-separation income. It illustrates prior work; it does not expand Datum’s current fixed-fee scope. Current studies exclude legal or tax advice and opinions outside compensation.
Methodology walkthrough for CPAs and business valuators
What to look for in a compensation study.
This guide explains the sample’s analytical structure. It is not a separate CPA client case, a tax opinion, or a promise that the same methods or conclusions apply to another executive.
Define the role and period
Look at how responsibilities and source records establish the question. For your matter, we confirm the subject executive, relevant period and actual work before choosing compensation comparisons.
Trace the comparisons
Review the published survey sources, role matches and compensation measures. A new study documents the comparisons appropriate to its own facts and explains the basis for professional judgment.
Separate the conclusion from its use
Read the opinion and its supporting analysis together. Datum provides the compensation input; your counsel, tax advisor or valuator determines how to use it in the broader matter.
Choose the deliverables you need: Tier 1 provides the defined study and written report. Tier 2 adds the listed litigation-readiness work. Actual testimony is separately billed and scoped through Grahall; see the Studies page for complete terms.
Need a study for your matter?
Tell us the subject role, period at issue, and question the study needs to address. You will receive a response within one business day.