1. Profile photo of emereole says

    With regards this tutorial, why is it that no tax benefit is associated with the asset in the year it is disposed? I would have expected a tax benefit of 570 *0.25*0.25 (balance at end of year 4 x charge for year 5 x tax effect of charge for year 5). Please assist!

      • Profile photo of John Moffat says

        No – the only tax effect when a non-current asset is sold is the tax on the balancing charge or allowance (as is in the lecture).

        (Ignore this bit if it confuses, but the point is that you are allowed to get a total tax saving of 25% (the tax rate) of the total drop in value of the asset – in this case it drops in value by 800 (1800 cost less 1000 sale proceeds) and so the total tax saving will be 25% x 800 = 200. However, year by year you get the saving on a reducing balance basis, and then in the final year there is the balancing charge or allowance which makes the overall total tax saving equal to the 200. If you add up all the tax benefits over the years, then it does come to a total of 200 (subject to roundings))

      • Profile photo of emereole says

        Thanks. I get this. What I don’t understand is why there was no capital allowance in the year of disposal. Is the disposal presumed to occur at the start of the year? If so should we not do away with revenues and costs in the year of disposal? The calculation of the balancing charge clearly assumes there is no capital allowance in the year of disposal and I want to understand why this assumption is made. I hope clarifies my question.

      • Profile photo of John Moffat says

        The rule for the capital allowance calculation is that it is 25% reducing year for every year except the final year. In the final year there is either a balancing allowance or a balancing charge depending on the amount of the sale proceeds. It has nothing to do with when the asset is sold during the year.
        (A balancing allowance is a capital allowance, a balancing charge is simply a negative allowance)

        (That is the rule, although in fact even if it was allowed to have 25% in the final year it would end up with the same result – all that would happen is that the balancing charge or allowance would change, but the net result would be exactly the same )

  2. Profile photo of christopheryaheya says

    Hi Sir,

    Consider this. $US/Sterling
    Spot 1.9456-1.9210
    3 Months Forward 1.9066-1.9120
    1 year Forward 1.8901-1.8945

    Borrowing Investing
    Sterling up to 6 months 5.5% 4.2%
    Dollar up to 6 months 4.0% 2.0%

    We need to pay $1,150,000 in 5 months time, What will be the interest rate for borrow an equivalent pound now for.

      • Profile photo of christopheryaheya says

        I actually mean the interest rate for borrowing pounds, The interest rate of 5.5% is for up to 6 months, Which according to the answer was 0.08333 which I don’t know how they got it.

      • Profile photo of John Moffat says

        Either you have misread the answer or there is a typing error.

        The interest rate for depositing dollars for 5 months is 5/12 x 2% which equals 0.833% (or 0.00833).
        The interest rate for borrowing pounds is 5/12 x 5.5% which is 2.29% (or 0.0229)

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      I guess you are clear as to how the real cash flows have been calculated – these are the cash flows ignoring inflation. (If you are not clear about any of them then do post again).

      The nominal cash flows are the actual cash flows – i.e. taking account of the inflation (which in the UK is 2.5% per annum.

      So…….the first cash flow is $52,000 in real terms, but this is received 2 years after the start of the project and so we need to add on 2 years inflation. 52,000 x (1.025^2) = 54,633
      Similarly, the second cash flow is 490,000 in real terms, but is received at time 3 and so we need three years inflation at 2.5% per annum. 490,000 x (1.025^3) = 527676

      And so on :-)

  3. Profile photo of tinashe says

    @toobaalvi in as close to a lay man explanation as i can, i understand or treat so i understand working capital to mean its like pettycash. ie you already have taxable income from your sales, and you are told you need to have a buffer cash set aside for incidentals and is readily availed towards the project hence you would have already paid the tax for the same money when you received it as revenue etc. or from the source you raised it with.

    The Tutor will answer both of us with a better answer, it just helps me to think of it that way!

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      To be honest it does not matter how you think about it provided that you accept that there will be no tax implications, and that (unless you are told otherwise) you will get it all back at the end of the project.

      (Although it is not really petty cash – it is money to finance extra receivables and extra inventory. These would not affect the tax liability, and at the end of the project you no longer need to finance extra receivables etc and so you get the money back :-) )

  4. Profile photo of tinashe says

    @Cara you meant for Accounting rate of return, thats when you need taxable profit and all. However the Tutor will correct me if iam wrong, it seems P4 (atleast from what i have covered to date assumes that to be carry forward knowledge hence it does not cover that revision, but that does not mean its irrelevant to do it .

    2. I also wanted to make an observation on the 20% Fixed Overheads, that statement can be confusing in the exam, i know by now we understand irrelevant vis a vis relevant costs in decision making, and that it then means whether this project is embarked on or not the company will still pay the $1000,000. But once the question says ‘should be absorbed ‘ it tends to imply they arise because of the project and could have been avoided etc. (thats the confusion to watch out for)

    The other one is for tax (Payed immediately or one year later ! the later one implies we add for the above example another year 6! as for the (Current prices of inflation! this information are a must to watch out for in the exam!) especially during the reading hours highlight them and scribble what effect they should have e.g whether you start the inflation in year 1 or after year 1.

    Otherwise it would indeed be a welcome gift to get such a straight forward question in an exam setting!

  5. Profile photo of tinashe says

    @Cara i remember thats what my lecture also said for F9 i think then we used to get instances where we had to do an accounting rate of return or something, The syllabus i have covered for P4 i havent seen it touched as a method to use in evaluating investments, In any case when explained we have been mostly made aware of its shortcomings as a basis for appraisal method for a projects. as compared to NPV and IRR.

    Admin, I missed the part on why we are not using the 20% Fixed Overheads, i do remember from my previous study though that certain costs are irrelevant in decision making because whether you take on the project or not you still incur them. So is the same logic applied here?!

    2. I will practice more examples i have noticed if ever we get an easy question like this one we would be lucky in the exam as the examiner seems to enjoy confusing us by throwing in all concepts in one question esp the compulsory section. Sometimes i really feel, what is important is really not the numbers but understanding the concept enough to apply it in real life situations. As this type of questions can just take too much of the exam time! in future the answer sheets should have the templates in advance! Whew.

  6. avatar says

    may i know the timing we should start to claim capital allowance?
    from my understanding, if we incurred capital expenditure in year 0, we should claim capital allowance in year 1 unless the question state otherwise. But, should i apply the same concept if first year allowance is given in the question?

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      time 0 is not a year – it is a point in time.

      If you watch the lecture it makes it clear (and if necessary watch the relevant F9 lectures).

      However, in P4 do not worry too much about the timing – it depends on assumptions (as does so much of P4). If you state your assumptions then you will get the marks (provided obviously that they are sensible assumptions :-) )

  7. avatar says

    helo sir,

    can we tear out the formula sheet, the present value table and the annuity table during the exam time, so that its earsier for us to see the rate and save up time,no need to flip the question booklet many times.


  8. avatar says

    Hello Sir,

    thank you for this lecture , again very well explained :-) I have one question in relation to NPV. I just looked in my notes from F9, and my lecturer then ask us in calculation of NPV first include capital allowances in calculation of taxable profit than calculate and deduct tax and than add capital allowances back. So the tax effect is at the end the same as in NPV which you presented. I remember that my lecturer justified this approach because taxable profit which include capital allowances was needed in the calculation of something else, and well I don’t remember now where did we use it. Could you please tell me where we we can use such a profit, and if it will be used in the calculation in P4

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      For F9 it does not matter which way you deal with the capital allowances. The answer will be the same whichever way.
      For P4, the same usually applies. The only thing at P4 is that in one question it was the case that if there was a taxable loss, then it was made clear that you could not offset it against other profits (and therefore not simply get a tax saving) but that the losses were carried forward.
      However, to be honest it is best you leave worries about that until P4 – for F9 it does not matter which way you do it. Whichever way you find the easiest to remember :-)

  9. avatar says

    In the NPV (e.g 1) question we inflated the sales and costs at different inflation rates, which essentially mean that we considered the nominal cash flows. In that case, aren’t we supposed to consider the nominal rate as well which is the real rate inflated at the general inflation?

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      @Ruzz Su, Yes – certainly.

      However, the nominal cost of capital is the actual cost of capital. Since all the question says is that the cost of capital is 10% we must assume that it is the actual (i.e. nominal) cost of capital. We would always assume this unless we were specifically told the ‘real’ cost of capital.

      (Additionally, since the question does not give the general rate of inflation, the again we have to assume that the cost of capital given is the actual WACC i.e. the nominal rate.)

  10. Profile photo of John Moffat says

    Fixed overheads are only relevant if the total fixed overheads for the company increase.

    If the questions simply says that some of the overheads are allocated to the project, it does not mean that the total expenditure changes.

    (The point is that for profit purposes a company change split the overheads between projects any way that they want to, but again, the total cash flow for the company only changes if the total fixed overhead bill changes.)

Leave a Reply