Forensic Accountant & Business Valuation Expert for Alaska Matters

Working With Out-of-State Counsel

Joey Friedman, CPA, P.A. is a litigation-focused forensic accounting and business valuation firm engaged by counsel in Alaska matters. The firm is based in Florida and works nationwide, handling records-based analysis remotely and traveling for deposition and trial testimony as a matter requires. Mr. Friedman has testified in state, federal and foreign courts, for plaintiffs and defendants, in civil, criminal and marital proceedings. The firm does not prepare income tax returns and does not provide tax planning services.

Divorce in Alaska is heard in the Superior Court. Federal matters are heard in the District of Alaska. Mr. Friedman is regularly engaged in matters in states across the United States, as well as in international matters, and the firm accepts Alaska engagements in state and federal proceedings alike.

Retaining a forensic accountant from outside the state is common in financial disputes, and in some matters it is preferred:

• Conflict distance. An out-of-state expert is less likely to have prior or ongoing relationships with the parties, their businesses, their banks or their other advisors — which matters more, not less, in a state with a small professional community.
• Records-based work travels. Valuation and tracing are performed on documents and data. The location of the analyst does not change what the records show, and distance is routine in Alaska matters already.
• Independence is visible. Where the parties move in the same local professional circles, distance from those circles is easier to explain to a finder of fact.

The Three Things That Decide an Alaska Case

Premarital property can be invaded, and the statute says so out loud

The starting point is ordinary enough: the court divides the parties’ property, including retirement benefits, whether joint or separate, acquired only during marriage, in a just manner and without regard to which party is at fault.

What follows is not ordinary. The court, in making the division, may invade the property — including retirement benefits — of either spouse acquired BEFORE the marriage, when the balancing of the equities between the parties requires it. In most states the argument about premarital property is about whether it belongs in the pot at all. In Alaska it is available, and the question is whether the equities call for reaching it.

That changes what is worth proving. Establishing that an asset is premarital does not end the discussion, and neither does failing to. What carries weight is the financial picture the balancing rests on: what each party holds, what each can earn, what each will be left with, and what the premarital asset actually contributes. A party relying on “I owned it before we married” as a complete answer is relying on something the statute does not provide.

An asset’s income-producing capacity is a factor in its own right

The statute requires the division to fairly allocate the economic effect of divorce, and lists the factors that decide it. Two of them are unusual and squarely financial: the time and manner of acquisition of the property in question, and the income-producing capacity of the property and the value of the property at the time of division.

Naming income-producing capacity separately from value is the part that matters. A rental building, an operating business and an equal sum of retirement savings can carry the same number on a schedule and leave their owners in entirely different positions. One produces cash and can be borrowed against; another produces cash only while someone works in it; a third produces nothing until a future date and may be taxed on the way out.

Demonstrating that is an analytical exercise, not an assertion — normalised earnings, the reliability and durability of the income, what it takes to keep producing it, and the position each award leaves its recipient in. The statute expressly asks about economic effect, so a division that balances on value alone can still be shown not to balance on the measure the statute uses.

Retirement benefits are singled out, and Alaska has an opt-in community property regime

Retirement benefits appear three separate times in the same provision — among the property divided, among what may be invaded even when acquired before the marriage, and among what a judgment may order assigned, delivered or conveyed. Where a judgment distributes benefits to an alternate payee under the named state systems, it must meet the requirements of a qualified domestic relations order.

The practical consequence is that retirement interests deserve first-class treatment rather than a line at the bottom of a schedule: what each plan actually is, what portion relates to the marriage, what a premarital portion is worth if the equities reach it, and what the benefit is worth after the tax treatment that applies on the way out.

Alaska is also unusual in allowing spouses to elect community property by agreement or trust. Where they have, the court divides that community property on a different footing, considering the nature and extent of the community property and of the separate property, among other factors. Establishing whether such an agreement or trust exists is a threshold question, because it changes which rule the case is decided under.

Personal versus enterprise goodwill

Where a business depends on one individual, part of its value may not transfer to a new owner. The firm calculates and separates the transferable value from the non-transferable value and documents the basis for each. This is a financial calculation, not a legal determination — how that split is treated is a matter for the court under Alaska law.

Forensic Accounting and Litigation Support

Income-Producing Capacity Analysis

Measuring what each asset actually produces and how durably — normalised earnings, what sustaining the income requires, and the position each proposed award leaves its recipient in — since the statute names income-producing capacity alongside value.

Equities-Balancing Evidence

Assembling the financial picture the invasion of premarital property turns on: what each party holds and earns, what each will be left with, and what the premarital asset contributes, so the balancing rests on figures rather than on characterisation.

Retirement Benefit Valuation

Identifying and valuing each retirement interest by what it actually is, separating any marital portion from a premarital one, and addressing the tax treatment that determines what a benefit is worth on the way out.

Acquisition History Reconstruction

Documenting the time and manner in which property was acquired — an express factor here — from the underlying purchase, funding and contribution records.

Business Valuation Disputes

Valuation of closely held businesses for divorce, shareholder and partnership disputes and buyouts, including the normalization questions that decide most of these cases: owner compensation, discretionary expenses, related-party transactions and customer concentration.

Hidden Asset Tracing

Following money through business accounts, related entities and personal accounts to establish what exists and where it went — common in divorce and in partnership disputes where one side controlled the books.

Economic Damages and Lost Profits

Quantifying what was lost, on a method that survives cross-examination, and identifying where an opposing calculation departs from the records it claims to rest on.

Fraud and Embezzlement Investigations

Reconstruction of what happened from the underlying records — misappropriation, fictitious vendors, payroll schemes and diversion — documented so it can be presented to a court, a board or an insurer.

Rebuttal and Opposing-Expert Review

Review of an opposing expert’s report to identify method departures, unsupported assumptions and figures the underlying records do not support — in Alaska, very often including whether a division said to be equal in value was ever tested against the economic effect the statute actually asks about.

Deposition and Trial Testimony

Expert testimony in state, federal and foreign courts, in depositions, mediations, arbitrations including AAA, and jury and non-jury trials, for plaintiffs and defendants alike.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is property I owned before the marriage safe in Alaska?

Not automatically. The court divides property acquired during the marriage, but the statute allows it to invade property acquired before the marriage, including retirement benefits, when the balancing of the equities between the parties requires it.

What does “balancing of the equities” depend on?

The statute does not define it, so it is established from the overall financial picture — what each party holds and can earn, the circumstances and necessities of each, and what each will be left with. It is answered with evidence rather than with a rule.

Does my spouse’s conduct affect the division?

The division is made without regard to which party is at fault. Conduct enters through a narrower door: the listed factors include the conduct of the parties, specifically whether there has been unreasonable depletion of marital assets.

We each get assets worth the same. Is that a fair division?

Not necessarily, and the statute gives you the argument. The division must fairly allocate the economic effect of the divorce, and the income-producing capacity of property is a listed factor alongside its value at the time of division. Two awards of equal value can differ substantially in what they actually produce.

How are retirement benefits handled?

They are named expressly, both as property to be divided and as property that may be invaded even if acquired before the marriage. Where a judgment distributes benefits to an alternate payee under the named state systems, it must satisfy the requirements of a qualified domestic relations order.

We signed a community property agreement. Does that change things?

Yes. Where property is identified as community property under such an agreement or trust, the court makes a just and equitable disposition considering the nature and extent of the community property and of the separate property, among other factors. Whether such an agreement exists is worth establishing early.

Which court hears a divorce in Alaska?

The Superior Court.

Can a Florida-based expert work on an Alaska case?

Yes, and it is common. The analysis is performed on documents and data, which does not depend on the analyst’s location, and the firm travels for deposition and trial testimony as a matter requires.

What records are needed to start?

For an income-producing-capacity question, financial statements, tax returns and the operating records of the asset rather than a valuation summary. For a premarital question, the acquisition records and the position at the date of the marriage. For retirement interests, plan documents and statements for each. Any community property agreement or trust. For a business, the general ledger in native form, bank and credit card statements and payroll records. Operating records are the item to insist on — a value can be asserted from a summary, but income-producing capacity cannot.

What credentials should a financial expert in an Alaska matter hold?

For matters that may reach a hearing, the relevant considerations are accounting credentials, experience with the specific analysis at issue, and a record of testifying. Mr. Friedman is a CPA accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) by the AICPA and a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.

Discuss an Alaska Matter

Joey Friedman is a CPA accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) by the AICPA, a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, with more than 25 years in accounting and forensic practice and an expert witness practice serving attorneys and litigants nationwide since 2014. To discuss whether the firm is the right fit for a matter — including scope, timing and whether an out-of-state expert suits the case — call 954-282-9615 or use the contact form. The firm accepts engagements in other states as well — see states served for how the analysis differs elsewhere.