OpenTuition.com Free resources for accountancy students
Free ACCA lectures and course notes | ACCA AAT FIA resources and forums | ACCA Global Community
ACCA F7 lectures Download F7 notes
May 22, 2015 at 12:05 pm
Mike, could you please also explain, why in answer in FV of SNA @doa stands:
Ret earnings b/F 1500
Ret earnings 6 months 1000
Shouldn’t it be 3500 and 500 respectively?
May 22, 2015 at 9:43 am
I have a question regarding mini exercises.
I don’t understand, from where comes addition 2000 in the line:
Ret earnings 6 months (21000+2000)/2
So 21000/2 is RE from 1 Oct 2008 till 1 Apt 2009, and what is 2000?
October 9, 2014 at 2:38 pm
Pls sir, how did you come about the 9 receivables. Am confused over there. Thank you sir
November 7, 2014 at 7:13 pm
90% of the dividend proposed by the subsidiary (£10,000)
September 30, 2014 at 10:09 am
Thank you Sir Mike.
September 30, 2014 at 12:24 pm
September 24, 2014 at 9:04 am
Dear Mike Sir
I have a doubt in associates calculations.
Investment in Associate
Cost of investment xxx
+ % sh. of post-acq reserves xxx
(-) Impairment (xx)
By doing that working what should I understand? I get confused because cost of investment is an expense and share of post-acq reserves is income, so how can it be added i.e., expense + income? I know I am wrong,but I don’t know how to think it the right way.
Cash-in-transit is another difficult area. Cash-in-transit has to be reduced from receivables and cash is to be increased. By doing this it means that cash is assumed to have been received and therefore cash increases and receivables reduced. Am I right?
After the above adjustment is made, a certain other amount is reduced from current asset and current liability as intra-group? Why is this done? Also is intra-group and inter-company the same?
Please help me Sir.
September 24, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Cost of investment is NOT an expense. It’s the purchase of an asset – Dr Asset Cr Cash
Share of post-acq retained – you say it’s a credit. What’s the other entry – the debit? If you can’t work it out, let me know.
Cash in transit – a difficult area? Why? “By doing this it means that cash is assumed to have been received and therefore cash increases and receivables reduced. Am I right?” Yes
“After the above adjustment is made, a certain other amount is reduced from current asset and current liability as intra-group? Why is this done?” Because after we’ve made the adjusting entry for errors, cash and goods in transit, the two accounts (typically receivable in parent and payable in subsidiary) should now be equal and opposite.
But when we consolidate, we add the receivables to the receivables, we add the payables to the payables.
And if we haven’t cancelled the intra-group balances, then we shall be showing within total receivables an amount receivable from ourselves and which is included within total payables. And we cannot show “ourselves” owing “ourselves” money. That’s why we cancel.
“Intra-group” and “inter-company” are the same in this context. If it’s a quote from me – I was careless – I should have been consistent with the expression “intra-group”
September 28, 2014 at 9:53 am
Thank you Sir Mike. But
“Share of post-acq retained – you say it’s a credit. What’s the other entry – the debit? If you can’t work it out, let me know.” Is Bank supposed to debited?
September 28, 2014 at 4:54 pm
Debit investment in associate, credit consolidated retained earnings
May 17, 2014 at 11:37 pm
May 17, 2014 at 10:31 pm
I don’t understand where does the 9 come from in the dividend part?
March 28, 2014 at 5:43 pm
Hi Sir, may i asked if it wasn’t a proposed dividend but actual dividend paid out in cash before consolidation date, do we still eliminate the dividend expense in the subsidiary with the dividend income in the parent company? Eg. like intercompany sales and purchases.
Meaning the double entry will be:
Cr Retained Earning (Dividend Income)
Dr Retained Earning (Dividend Expense)
Am I understanding this correctly?
March 28, 2014 at 6:08 pm
In the parent’s OWN figures, the dividend income from the subsidiary will be shown within investment income.
Similarly, the dividend paid by the subsidiary will be shown in the subsidiary’s own statement of changes in equity
On consolidation, the income from the subsidiary will be omitted
So far as the subsidiary’s figures are concerned, we consolidate this year’s subsidiary PROFIT AFTER TAX ie before the deduction for the subsidiary’s this year dividend
In summary, I think your solution is incorrect!
March 29, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Sir, may i asked how will you account for the double entry for elimination of the dividend paid out if we are only adjusting the parent’s investment income in consolidated income statement?
Sorry but i am still not very clear with it.
March 29, 2014 at 6:24 pm
Dividends paid do not appear in the income statement
We consolidate the subsidiay’s profit after tax in the consolidated income statement.
In the balance sheet, we consolidate our share of the subsidiary’s post acquisition RETAINED earnings ie net of the subsidiary’s dividend payments.
There really isn’t a debit and a credit involved – it’s a “consolidation adjustment”
So the ignoring of the intra-group dividend received is not achieved by “debitting” anything at all
Is this not explained in the video lecture? I’m sure that I cannot have given any indication about debitting nor crediting any accounts when eliminating the dividend income from the subsidiary
September 5, 2013 at 3:44 am
Should Retained Earnings be 4500 instead of 600?
December 27, 2013 at 12:53 pm
No, the answer is correct. Calculate the retained earnings brought forward and you’ll see that that’s 600, as per the answer
September 4, 2013 at 4:13 am
Q2 – PYOTR & SUZANNA
Should the 4 months of retained earnings be 82.5*4/12 = 27.5m instead of 4.5m as per answer!?
December 27, 2013 at 12:55 pm
No, you seem to be time apportioning the accumulated retained earnings from when the company was vreated. Surely we should only time apportion this years fgure. That’s why Mike always shows the figure brought forward and then the time apportioned this yearfigure
September 3, 2013 at 4:32 am
Again, this is what I was hoping the answer to be!
Dr SofCI tax (current) 4.5
Cr Current Liabilities 4.5
Dr Deferred tax 2.8
Cr SofCI tax (deferred) 2.8
September 3, 2013 at 4:28 am
This is what I was hoping the answer to be!
Dr SofCI tax (current) 18.7
Cr Current Liabilities 18.7
Dr SofCI tax (deferred) 10.00
Cr Deferred Liabilities 10.00
September 2, 2013 at 4:38 am
6 NON CURRENT ASSETS
Should we also have:
Dr Finance Costs 1248
Cr OUFL a/c 1248
(15600 @ 8% = 1248)
September 2, 2013 at 11:39 am
No. We do need to credit the line which states “Finance lease payment (paid on 31 March 2010)” with 6,000 and debit Finance Costs – finance lease interest with 1,248 and debit Obligations Under Finance Lease Account with 4,752
September 2, 2013 at 2:38 am
6 NON CURRENT ASSETS
Any particular reason as to why 20million was only amortised and not 26million?
September 2, 2013 at 11:29 am
I don’t see where you have got the figure 26 million! However, I believe that you are asking why we do not amortise the expenditure on the new project which started on 1 October, 2008.
The 1,400,000 is pure research and is correctly written off to cost of sales. Then 3 months x 800,000 (2,400,000) is development expenditure, but there’s no certainty of project viability so the 2,400,000 is again correctly expensed to cost of sales. Then 6 months x 800,000 (4,800,000) is spent after confirming viability. However, IF you had read the question carefully, you would have seen that the question states “The project is still in development at 30 September, 2009″
Now, to get back to F3 level, the concept of depreciation / amortisation is to match the expense of writing off an asset against the revenues which those assets have helped to generate. And because this project is still in development, then it has not yet started to help in revenue generation. And that’s why we don’t amortise it!
September 1, 2013 at 3:29 am
2 INTRA-GROUP PUP
Why in all the examples involving an Associate Company that the changes are made to the Associate even though on some occasions it is the seller and on other occasions it is the buyer?
September 2, 2013 at 10:52 am
If you listen to the video lectures, that point is explained. The simple answer is ….it’s the easier way to deal with the problem of eliminating the group’s share of the pup which arises when a parent sells to an associate or an associate sells to the parent
August 31, 2013 at 1:19 pm
6 NON CURRENT ASSETS
Do we assume land has not changed in value?
Assuming no change in value of land, then buildings have increased by 6000 in value.
Therefore, should we DR Buildings 6000 instead of DR Buildings accumulated depreciation?!
Also, should the investment adjustment be 1016 instead of 1000?
August 31, 2013 at 7:41 pm
A revaluation of an asset which is being depreciated should firstly be debited to accumulated depreciation and only after nullifying the Accumulated Depreciation Account should there be the surplus debited to the asset account.
As for the Investments at fair value, it does appear that you may have spotted a typographical error which NO-ONE else has discovered. If you check the ACCA website and find the Dexon question (probably June 2009) hopefully you’ll find that the investments value should be 12,500 and not 12,700
August 31, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Value @ 1 April 2008 20 (land) 165 (building)
Therefore shouldn’t it be?
Dr Dep 11
Cr Acc Dep 11
Dr Build 6
Cr Rev Res 6
August 31, 2013 at 12:03 pm
6 NON CURRENT ASSETS
Should we also see an adjustment for plant?
Dr Depreciation (128-32)*18/12*12.5% 18,000
Cr Acc. Depreciation 18,000
August 31, 2013 at 7:43 pm
August 31, 2013 at 7:58 pm
“Trial balance extracts for year ended 30 September 2008″
“Accumulated depreciation to 31 March 2007″?!?!
August 31, 2013 at 8:08 pm
You’ve done it again! It looks like another typographical error – unspotted by anyone for 4 years! It surely should be 30 September 2007 and not 31 March 2007. Again, check out the ACCA website, past F7 exams, probably December 2008, question 2 – called Llama
August 30, 2013 at 5:42 pm
MINI – EXERCISE
6 NON CURRENT ASSETS
Should the depreciation expense be 4000 instead of 5000?
August 30, 2013 at 7:35 pm
No, I don’t think so. 175,000 / 35 year’s useful life = 5,000 par annum
There should be (good practice, but not a requirement) an annual transfer (through Statement of Changes in Equity) of an amount representing the “excess” depreciation caused as a result of the revaluation. That transfer will be deducted from Revaluation Reserve to Retained Earnings. In the Kala example, that transfer would be 1,000 each year so maybe that’s where you’re finding your 4,000 figure
If not, or if you’re still not happy, let me know
August 31, 2013 at 7:02 am
So we being prudent here? if this was the opposite then it would be taken as a one time hit in the SOCI? As ithe revaluation is positive then it is gradually released into Retained Earnings. Therefore for the remaining 35 years, assuming all stays constant, we would continue to DR Retained Earnings with 1000 and CR SOCI with 1000?
August 31, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Er, no! The annual transfer will be to CREDIT Retained Earnings and Debit Revaluation Reserve
If it were a revaluation downwards (normally called an impairment!) that WILL be a one-time hit to the Statement of Income
August 31, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Ooops! Got my Dr and Cr wrong way round!
August 31, 2013 at 8:50 pm
Sorry wgk – not only did you get your debits and credits the wrong way round. You also got the Accounts wrong. For example, where does “Credit Statement of Comprehensive Income” fit into the answer?
August 31, 2013 at 9:07 pm
Where does “Credit Statement of Comprehensive Income” come from?
The model answer states:
Dr Revaluation reserve 1000
Cr S of Comp Inc 1000
August 13, 2013 at 3:38 pm
U made this chapter soooooo easy! Thanks. Gotta meet u one day Mike… To say THANK YOU
August 13, 2013 at 6:59 pm
I’m already looking forward to that meeting
January 22, 2013 at 7:03 am
At 02:49, why was 50,000 deducted? Would we not deduct the ownership % i.e. 50,000*90%???? Please help.
January 22, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Have you understood ANYTHING from the previous 3 chapters and particularly how we calculate goodwill on acquisition?
Can I ask you to look at this again and, if you still have a problem, post your question on the “Ask the tutor” bit of the F7 forum and I’ll get back to you
November 17, 2012 at 4:08 pm
I do not understand the figure 9 in receivables and retained earnings could someone please elaborate, thank you.
November 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm
@ai1989, I know for a fact it is dividend receivable but where does it come from?
November 17, 2012 at 5:00 pm
@ai1989, What about 90% of Kristina’s dividend?
November 18, 2012 at 6:47 pm
@MikeLittle, OH oh I got it since laimonas has acquired 90% shares in kristina, he would get 90% of 10,000 dividend proposed by kristina…… right and btw I have been listening to F4 and F7 lectures and they seem like a lifeline thank you very much mike.
September 3, 2012 at 4:56 pm
You are the best tutor for f7. It is clear and understandable.Thanks for your efforts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
OpenTuition.com is dedicated to providing all accountancy students throughout the world with the resources they need to study for the major … Learn more
Please log in to get the most from OpenTuition, registration is free!