Single expert vs party-appointed expert.

Side by side

The duty is the same either way

This is the part most often misunderstood. A party-appointed valuer is not an advocate. Under the expert witness codes that apply in Australian courts, the expert’s paramount duty is to the court, not to the party paying the fee, and the report must state the facts and assumptions relied on, the reasoning, and any matter that materially qualifies the opinion. A valuer who shades a figure toward the instructing party’s interest is not being a good advocate; they are breaching the code, and it is usually visible in the comparable selection.

When a single expert is the right call

Where the property is a standard residential asset, the parties are not far apart on the facts, and the cost of two reports is disproportionate to the amount in dispute — which describes most family law matters. It is faster, it removes the risk of two credible reports at a distance the court then has to split, and courts generally encourage it. The trade-off is real: once the single expert has reported, a party who disagrees can ask questions or seek leave for further evidence, but cannot simply produce a competing valuation as of right.

When party-appointed is worth the money

Where the asset is complex enough that method genuinely matters — a going-concern commercial property, a development site with a planning argument, a rural holding with water entitlements — two experts test each other’s assumptions in a way one cannot. It is also the right structure where the dispute is about a historical date and the available evidence is thin enough to support more than one reasonable view. In tax disputes the amount at stake often justifies it on its own.

What can go wrong

The most expensive error is engaging a valuer as a party-appointed expert without telling them it is for court. A report written for a tax file does not contain the declaration, the statement of facts and assumptions, the reasoning or the code acknowledgement a court requires, and it cannot be retrofitted credibly — the amendments themselves become a line of cross-examination. The second error is instructing on a question the valuer cannot answer: an expert can value a property at a date, but cannot determine which date the law requires. That is for the lawyers, and a brief that asks the valuer to choose is a brief that produces a vulnerable report.

Questions we are asked about this

Sources

• Market valuation for tax purposes — Australian Taxation Office
• Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 — Consolidated Act, AustLII
• Australian Property Institute — Professional Practice Standards and the CPV designation

General information about how valuations are used for tax purposes. Not tax advice and not legal advice. Your accountant, tax agent or solicitor should confirm which provision applies to your circumstances.

Keep reading