Monday, March 2, 2026

Buying/Selling a Business- Nuts and Bolts


This office often consults with clients regarding the sale of a business, typically in settlement of an estate.   The following is general information that can aid a client or a client's family in understanding the process and available options. 

I.  Corporations/Limited Liability Companies

Most business sales/purchases of corporations or companies (limited liability companies) are either executed through an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) or a full equity/stock acquisition (also called a stock purchase, share purchase, or equity purchase). They differ fundamentally in what is being bought, how ownership and risk transfer, tax treatment, complexity, and continuity of operations.

A.  Core Distinction:  Asset Purchase vs. Full Acquisition
  • Asset purchase: The buyer acquires specific assets (and typically only specifically assumed liabilities, if any) of the target business under an Asset Purchase Agreement. The seller’s legal entity continues to exist afterward and retains any excluded assets, liabilities, and the sale proceeds.  This seller's legal entity is typically either terminated or repurposed immediately after the sale. 
  • Full acquisition (stock/equity purchase): The buyer acquires all (or substantially all) of the ownership interests (shares of a corporation or units/membership interests of an LLC) from the owners. The buyer takes ownership of the entire legal entity itself, including all its assets and all its liabilities (known and unknown).
Side-by-Side Comparison
Aspect
Asset Purchase
     Full Equity/Stock Acquisition   
What is transferred


Selected assets (equipment, IP, inventory, contracts, goodwill, etc.) and only agreed liabilities
Entire ownership of the legal entity (and therefore everything it owns and owes)
Seller’s entity after closing
Continues to exist; holds retained assets/liabilities and sale proceeds
Transferred to buyer; seller(s) exit ownership
Liability exposure
Limited: buyer assumes only liabilities expressly listed in the APA
Broad: buyer inherits all historical and contingent liabilities
Tax treatment (buyer)
Often favorable: step-up in tax basis of assets to fair market value; ability to amortize goodwill (typically over 15 years  in the U.S.)
Usually less favorable: carryover (historical) tax basis; no automatic step-up (unless special elections such as IRC §338(h)(10) or similar are available and elected)
Tax treatment (seller)
Often less favorable: potential ordinary income on certain assets; possible double taxation for C-corporations (entity-level tax + shareholder tax)
Often more favorable: typically capital gains treatment at the owner level; single level of tax in many cases
Contracts, licenses & permits
Usually require individual assignment and third-party consents; non-assignable items may not transfer
Generally continue automatically with the entity (subject to change-of-control clauses)
Employees & benefits
Often treated as new hires by the buyer; benefit plans usually do not transfer and must be recreated
Continuity—employees remain with the same employer; plans generally stay in place
Complexity & process
More complex and time-consuming: asset-by-asset transfers, title changes, consents, possible sales/use taxes
Simpler transfer of ownership interests; fewer mechanical steps
Business continuity
Potential disruption; buyer may need to re-establish relationships and re-title assets
High continuity; operations, contracts, and identity of the business remain largely intact
Typical preference
Preferred by buyers (liability control + tax benefits)
Preferred by sellers (tax efficiency + cleaner exit)
B.  Key Advantages and Disadvantages
Asset Purchase

  • Buyer Advantages:
    • Ability to cherry-pick desirable assets and leave unwanted liabilities behind.
    • Tax step-up and amortization benefits that can improve after-tax cash flow.
    • Reduced risk of unknown historical claims (e.g., environmental, employment, tax, or product liability).

  • Buyer Disadvantages / Seller Advantages:

    • Administrative burden and cost of transferring individual assets and obtaining consents.
    • Risk that key contracts, licenses, or customer relationships cannot be assigned.
    • Potential sales tax or transfer taxes on assets.
    • Seller (especially a C-corp) may demand a higher price to compensate for less favorable tax treatment.

Full Equity Acquisition:

  •  Buyer Advantages:

    • Operational and contractual continuity with minimal disruption.
    • Simpler mechanics and often faster closing once diligence is complete.
    • Avoids the need to retitle assets or renegotiate every contract.

  • Buyer disadvantages:

    • Full assumption of all liabilities, including contingent and unknown ones.
    • No automatic tax basis step-up (unless a special election is available and agreed).
    • Greater due-diligence burden because the entire historical risk profile transfers.
C.  Practical Considerations

  • Buyers commonly prefer asset deals when the target has significant contingent risks, when only part of the business is desired, or when maximizing tax benefits is a priority.
  • Sellers commonly prefer equity deals for tax efficiency, simplicity, and a complete exit.
  • Deal structure is heavily negotiated and influenced by the target’s entity type (C-corp, S-corp, LLC/partnership), the presence of minority owners, regulatory licenses, and tax elections that can sometimes make a stock deal taxed more like an asset deal (or vice versa).
  • In both cases, the definitive agreement (APA or Stock/Equity Purchase Agreement) will contain detailed representations, warranties, indemnities, purchase-price adjustments, and closing conditions that allocate risk between the parties.
In short: an asset purchase lets the buyer acquire the business operations selectively while leaving the legal shell (and many risks) behind; a full equity acquisition transfers the entire legal entity and everything that comes with it. The choice is driven primarily by risk allocation, tax consequences, and the desire for operational continuity. Legal, tax, and accounting advice specific to the jurisdiction and parties is essential for any actual transaction.

II.  Sole Proprietorship

A sole proprietorship has
no separate legal entity. The business and the owner are legally the same "person." There are no shares, units, or ownership interests that can be transferred independently of the individual.

  • A true “full acquisition”/equity or stock purchase is not possible. You cannot buy the “company” itself because none exists as a distinct legal person.
  • Virtually every acquisition of a sole proprietorship is structured as an asset purchase. The buyer buys specific assets (equipment, inventory, customer lists, goodwill, intellectual property, etc.) directly from the individual owner.
  • Liabilities stay with the seller personally unless the buyer expressly assumes them in the agreement. The buyer generally does not inherit unknown personal liabilities of the sole proprietor simply by buying assets.
  • Tax treatment follows the sale of individual assets (ordinary income on inventory/depreciation recapture, capital gain treatment on other items, allocation of purchase price under the residual method). The IRS generally treats the sale of a business as the sale of its individual assets.
  • Continuity issues (contracts, licenses, employees) still arise and often require third-party consents or new agreements, just as in a corporate asset deal.
In short, the classic “asset vs. stock” choice largely disappears; the deal is almost always an asset purchase.III.  Partnership: General Partnership, Limited Partnership, LLP, etc.

Partnerships are entities, so both structures remain available, but with different mechanics and tax rules than corporations:

  • Purchase of Partnership Interests:  This is the equity equivalent of a stock purchase.  The buyer acquires ownership interests from the partners. This can transfer the entire entity. Tax treatment is more complex than a corporate stock sale. Gain on “hot assets” (unrealized receivables and inventory) is often ordinary income rather than pure capital gain. A §754 election can allow the buyer a step-up in the inside basis of partnership assets. Buying 100% of the interests is sometimes treated, for the buyer, similarly to an asset purchase under certain IRS rulings.
  • Asset purchase: The partnership sells selected assets (and may or may not distribute the proceeds or liquidate). Liability exposure for the buyer is limited to what is assumed, similar to a corporate asset deal. Tax consequences flow through to the partners.
  • Liability Exposure:  Liability after sale depends largely on the type of partnership.  In a general partnership, partners typically have unlimited personal liability; buying interests can expose the buyer to that history unless carefully structured. Limited partnerships and LLPs offer more protection.
  • Continuity:   Continuity of contracts, licenses, and employees is generally better with an interest purchase (the entity continues), but change-of-control or consent provisions can still apply.  In other words, continuity depends upon the partnership agreement, the specific relationship/contract at issue, and the terms of the sale. 
Overall, the buyer preference for asset deals (liability control + basis step-up) and the seller preference for equity deals still exist, but partnership tax rules (especially hot assets and basis adjustments) add extra complexity that does not apply to pure corporate stock sales.IV.  Online Self-Help / Informational ResourcesThere are free, non-commercial or government-affiliated educational materials and checklists that can help buyers and sellers understand the process and protect themselves through better due diligence and awareness. They are not, however, substitutes for professional legal, tax, or accounting advice.
  • IRS (tax-focused, highly authoritative):

    • Sale of a Business:  The IRS "Sale of a Business" overview page explains that a business sale is generally treated as the sale of individual assets, with links to relevant forms and rules.
    • Sales and Other Dispositions of Assets: IRS Publication 544 covers allocation of purchase price, residual method, and capital vs. ordinary treatment of gain/loss.
    • Partnerships: Publication 541 provides specific rules for sales of partnership interests.

  • SCORE:   SCORE is a nonprofit organization and resource partner of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Its network of more than 10,000 volunteer mentors provides free, expert business mentoring, education and resources to entrepreneurs.  Among these are articles and webinars covering:

    • Buying and Selling a Business:  Numerous articles and webinars, some state-specific, educate business owners and prospective buyers.

    • Due Diligence:  SCORE offers checklists for buying or selling a business (covers financials, assets, contracts, legal standing, employees, etc.).
    • Information Gathering: “Questions to Ask When Buying or Selling an Existing Business” checklist.
    • Loans and Financing:  SCORE provides information and checklists regarding obtaining business loans. 
    • Valuation: Articles and checklists on the due-diligence and valuation process.

  • SBA and SBDCs:  The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and related Small Business Development Centers offer:
    • Guidance: General guidance on managing and transferring businesses, including the need for a formal sales agreement that specifies assets or ownership interests.
    • Resources: Various free checklists from SBDCs (e.g., business buyer’s checklists that explicitly ask whether the deal is an asset or stock/interest purchase and what liabilities will be assumed).
  • Other: Practical informational aids can be acquired from:
    • Business Centers:  Free due-diligence checklists are published by university-affiliated or state small-business centers that walk through financial review, physical assets, contracts, UCC filings, licenses, and employee issues.

These materials equip clients to ask better questions, prepare stronger due-diligence requests, and recognize major red flags before signing anything. Because entity type, state law, and tax elections vary widely, the resources themselves repeatedly note that professional advice remains essential for the actual transaction documents and tax planning.

Thursday, February 19, 2026

A Victory for Seniors: Court Lets Elder Abuse Claim Against Wells Fargo Move Forward


In a decision that offers real hope to families fighting elder financial exploitation, a federal district court in California has allowed an 87-year-old woman’s lawsuit against Wells Fargo to proceed, ruling that she adequately alleged the bank assisted in a massive scam by ignoring clear red flags its own employees were trained to spot. The case, Atkins v. Wells Fargo National Association (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025), is a powerful reminder that banks can be held accountable when they fail to protect vulnerable customers from fraud, even when the scammer impersonates the bank itself.

For readers of the Aging-in-Place Planning and Elderlaw Blog, this ruling is good news: It opens a meaningful avenue of recovery for seniors and families when financial institutions drop the ball, and it may push banks to strengthen fraud prevention, something we’ve long advocated for in articles like “2025 ABA Survey on State Elder Financial Exploitation Laws: Balancing Protection with Autonomy for Seniors Aging in Place.” The Facts: A Classic Scam Meets a Bank’s Failure to Act
Lavonne Atkins, 87, suffered from hearing loss and cognitive decline. In July 2024, her computer screen flashed a blue warning: her identity had been stolen. A man named “Mike Dawson” called, claiming to be from Wells Fargo, and convinced her that her accounts were at risk. He sent an “official” letter authorizing himself to act on her behalf.
Over the next weeks, Lavonne made multiple large cash withdrawals, $17,000 in one day across branches, then eight more trips pulling $30,000 each time, totaling $257,000 in cash she handed to young men outside her apartment. Later, she transferred $425,000 from Charles Schwab to Wells Fargo at the scammer’s direction. One teller, suspecting fraud, limited a withdrawal to $5,000, but most others processed the full amounts despite red flags the bank trained them to recognize: an elderly person making sudden, large cash requests inconsistent with her history, talking on the phone during transactions, and giving dubious explanations.
In August 2024, Lavonne tried to buy a $99,000 bank draft. That time, employees contacted law enforcement, who intercepted the check and returned it, showing the bank could act when it chose to.  Lavonne sued Wells Fargo in May 2025 under California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act and unfair competition law. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss, arguing it had no actual knowledge of the scam and didn’t assist the fraud.The Court’s Ruling: Banks Can Be Liable for Ignoring Red Flags
The court denied the motion to dismiss, allowing both claims to proceed. Key holdings:
  • Financial Elder Abuse: California law holds liable anyone who “assists” in taking an elder’s property when they knew or should have known the conduct was harmful. Lavonne alleged multiple red flags (large, sudden cash withdrawals inconsistent with her history, phone use during transactions, dubious reasons), flags Wells Fargo employees were trained to spot. One teller’s refusal to process the full amount showed the bank could recognize fraud. The court ruled these allegations sufficient to plead actual knowledge of the scam.
  • Unfair Conduct: The claim survived because it was based on the same facts as the elder abuse claim; Wells Fargo’s processing of suspicious withdrawals caused Lavonne’s $257,000 loss while generating overdraft fees for the bank.
The decision is positive and practical: It gives victims and families a real path to hold banks accountable when they ignore obvious fraud indicators.Why This Case Matters for Seniors and Families
Elder financial abuse costs seniors billions yearly; the FTC reports $3.4 billion in losses in 2024 alone, with many cases involving impersonation scams like Lavonne’s. Banks often claim “we didn’t know,” but this ruling says: If you’re trained to spot red flags and still process suspicious transactions, you may be liable.
For aging-in-place families, this is empowering:
  • Accountability: Negligent banks can be sued for facilitating fraud, potentially recovering losses.
  • Incentive for Change: If cases like Atkins proliferate, banks may push harder for “Hold Laws” (temporary holds on suspicious transactions), a reform we’ve discussed in our article about the 2025 ABA Survey on State Elder Financial Exploitation Laws, which shows growing support for such prophylactic measures, with 18 states already authorizing short-term holds on suspected fraud.
  • Stronger Protection: Families can now point to this case when demanding banks freeze suspicious activity.
Practical Steps: How to Protect Yourself and Your Loved Ones
  1. Trusts for Asset Protection: Revocable trusts keep assets private and harder to access fraudulently; MAPTs shield funds while qualifying for HCBS.
  2. Add Trusted Contacts: Every bank account that is not in a trust should have a family member as a “trusted contact” (required under SEC rules since 2018). Banks must notify them if fraud is suspected.
  3. Request Transaction Holds: Ask your bank to flag unusual activity (large cash withdrawals, new payees) and require verbal confirmation.
  4. Use Fraud Alerts: Set up alerts for transactions over $1,000 or out-of-pattern activity.
  5. SDM & Powers of Attorney: Name supporters in an SDM agreement or durable GDPOA to monitor accounts and intervene early.
Conclusion: A Step Toward AccountabilityAtkins v. Wells Fargo is a victory for seniors: Banks can be held responsible when they ignore trained red flags. While this article has provided a thorough overview of the case and practical steps, it is by no means comprehensive. Laws and bank policies evolve rapidly. Readers must remain vigilant and consult elder law attorneys when evaluating risks. By combining awareness with planning, including trusts, families can safeguard independence and thrive while aging in place. For support, consult a professional.  Your security depends on proactive engagement.