• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.195-216
• /
• 2013

This Study investigates evaluation policies for goodwill under the current tax law and suggests improvements as follows. First, even though not appear on the financial statements of acquiree at the date of acquisition, the current corporate tax raw regulates that firms need to estimate purchased goodwill including acquisition amount and additionally recognizable intangible property right with no distinction. According to this rule, purchased goodwill from business combination under the current tax raw has a drawback in overestimating. So, there is need of further improvement on the current related purchased goodwill regime to distinguish additionally recognized intangible property right from purchased goodwill. Second, in the consideration of internally generated goodwill, suggested in the current inheritance and gift tax act as a supplementary evaluation technique, the estimated value of goodwill may contain some bias, since the current regulation uniformly applies to all the companies with no industry characteristics. This may particularly become problematic while computing abnormal earnings, uniformly applying the 10% normal return to all the companies since the normal return is not likely to reflect industry characteristics and thus the computed abnormal earnings may be biased. Therefore, there is need to revise the current regulation relating to the normal return, to convert from the existing 10% rule to the industry average rate of return method.

• Korean Business Review
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2004

Since revision of Korean GAAP on the merge transaction in 1999, the few studies on the problems of the GAAP or on the inconsistency of GAAP and regarding tax regulations have been performed. The objective of this study is to understand the present state of the merge transactions, to find out the problems on the regarding GAAP and tax regulations, and to suggest the method to improve them. Among the 69 merge transactions of the listed and registered companies for the recent 3 years, 67 merge transactions are reported as the purchase transactions and 2 transactions as the pooling of interest. And 11 transactions occurred between parents and subsidiaries. I investigate the sufficiency of the foot disclosures on the merge transactions, I find out that the disclosure on the amortization of the negative goodwill are not sufficient, and several transactions are not recorded in conformity with GAAP. This paper indicates the problems on the GAAP as follows: the complicated and irrational method of amortization of the negative goodwill, the valuation of the stocks acquired before the merge, the inconsistent adjustments to purchase consideration contingent on future events, and the valuation of the merge between the parents and subsidiaries. And the problems on the tax regulations are as follows: tax deferment of the income from merge valuation, the ambiguous definitions of the fair value, and stock dividend of the income from merge valuation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.83-153
• /
• 2015

As our economy grows and the number of aircraft increase, the number of civil execution against aircraft cases are likely to increase as well in the future. The purpose of this article is to present the legal theory on the civil execution against aircrafts by drawing on the legal theory on the civil execution against vessels which constitute a relatively large number of cases thus observed. The provisions of the civil execution against immovables or vessel, shall basically apply mutatis mutandis to the civil execution against aircraft or light aircraft. The civil execution against ultra-light flying devices or a foreign aircraft shall be executed in conformity with the civil execution against movables. There are a compulsory auction, an auction to execute a security right to aircraft, and an auction under the right of retention, etc. in the civil execution against an aircraft. A compulsory execution against an aircraft means an execution carried out by a creditor against a debtor's aircraft to obtain satisfaction of claims for the purpose of payment of money. The court of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the airport of stoppage or storage of such aircraft at the time of seizure. The forums of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be exclusive forums. When a court has rendered an order on commencing an auction, it shall order an execution officer to receive a certificate of the aircraft's registration and other documents as required for its operation, and to submit them to the court. A court may revoke the procedures for a compulsory auction when an execution officer fails to obtain a transfer of the aircraft's registration certificate, etc. and the location of the aircraft is not evident, not later than an elapse of 2 months from the date on which an order on commencing an auction has been rendered. In the case where it is deemed that there exists a business-related need or other based on proper reasoning, the court may permit the aircraft's operation, upon the motion submitted by the debtor. In this case, there shall be a consent from the creditor, the highest bidder, the next highest bidder and successful bidder. A court may, upon a motion submitted by the creditor, make the dispositions required for observing and preserving the aircraft. When a debtor has submitted the documents under subparagraph 2 or 4 of the Article 49 of the Civil Execution Act, and furnished the guarantee equivalent to the claims of the execution creditors and the creditors demanding a distribution and to the costs for execution, before a declaration of bid, the court shall, upon request, revoke other procedures than those for distribution. The provisions of a obligatory auction against vessel or aircraft and an auction to execute a security right to real estate or vessel, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. In an auction to execute the security right to aircraft case, an executive title is not necessary. An executory exemplification is not necessary in an application for an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. A court should examine the existence of security right and claim secured. No order on commencing an auction procedure shall be issued with non-existence or invalidity of the security right and absence or extinguishment of the claim secured. Furthermore, these prohibitions are the reason of a decision on non-permit for sale, the court overlooked these prohibitions, and the decision on a permit for sale became final and conclusive, the successful bidder who paid the price and registered of ownership could not acquire ownership of the aircraft sold. A court may render a ruling to put plural aircrafts up for a blanket auction, only when they are in restraint and related matter (Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3688 dated on August 22, 2001). A righter of retention on aircraft may file a request for an auction against the aircraft. The provisions of an auction to execute a security right to aircraft shall apply mutatis mutandis to the formal auction. Airport facility fee and an aircraft are not in restraint and related matter, so an airport management corporation does not hold the right of retention on the aircraft (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29291 decided on April 10, 2014). In an auction in accordance with the right of retention, all encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) on the sold aircraft shall be extinguished by a sale under the legal conditions for sale. Not only creditors who have claims for preferential payment but also general creditors could demand for distribution. The precedence of the claim of the right of retention on aircraft and that of general creditor's claims are equal.