Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA FR Exams › 2011June Q1 note iii
- This topic has 13 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by MikeLittle.
- AuthorPosts
- February 12, 2016 at 1:15 pm #300148
Hi sir,
Does note iii belongs to intra-purchase? If it does, i just wonder the reason why it is not deducted from cost of sales like note ii-4million. Thanks in advance.February 12, 2016 at 1:28 pm #300150Hi sir,
I am also confused about note ii, I just wonder the reason why the transferring does not make revenue & cost of sales decrease 4m by contrast with note iii.Thanks in advance.February 12, 2016 at 2:01 pm #300153Hi sir,
Is total comprehensive income attributable to owners of the parent =111600+2500-700+1000-400? I just wonder the reason why we do not calculate loss like this 400@6/12@75%, gain like this 1000@75%.February 12, 2016 at 2:34 pm #300158Hi sir,
consolidated retained earnings=profit after tax (parent company)+retained earnings (parent co’s beginning …). I just wonder why it does not include Subsidiary’s retained earnings .February 12, 2016 at 3:37 pm #300178Note (iii) IS an intra-group sale / purchase
In answer to your first question, note (ii) $4 million has NOT been deducted from cost of sales because this is not part of intra-group trading and was included neither in Prodigal’s revenue nor in Sentinel’s cost of sales
and
note (iii) $40 million HAS been deducted from cost of sales as you’ll see if you look in working W(i) in the printed solution and has also been deducted in arriving at consolidated revenue
February 12, 2016 at 3:39 pm #300179In answer to your second question, the intra-group transfer of an asset has been included neither as revenue by Prodigal nor as expense by Sentinel
February 12, 2016 at 4:35 pm #300188We haven’t treated any other expense (nor profit) like that, have we? Why are you suddenly concentrating only on Prodigal’s share of this gain and this loss?
February 12, 2016 at 4:38 pm #300189“I just wonder why it does not include Subsidiary’s retained earnings .” – personally, I wonder why it should!
the subsidiary was purchased part way through this year so the whole of the retained earnings brought forward in the subsidiary are pre-acquisition
The figure at the start of the working for consolidated retained earnings is Prodigal’s own brought forward and then, added to that, we have the consolidated figure for this year
Is that ok?
February 12, 2016 at 4:39 pm #300190Hi sir,
I got it, I am so careless.February 12, 2016 at 4:41 pm #300191I cannot disagree, sorry 🙁
February 12, 2016 at 4:44 pm #300192Hi sir,
One of my classmates told me where I went wrong and we settled the Q1:)February 12, 2016 at 4:56 pm #300195So you’re saying that the rest of my responses are redundant?
That’s no problem, thanks for letting me know 🙂
February 12, 2016 at 5:00 pm #300196Dear sir,
I just do not want to waste your precious time, I do not dare to say the rest of your responses are redundant. My English is not good, hoping you understand.:)February 12, 2016 at 5:06 pm #300198Like I said – it’s not a problem. And answering questions (to help with ACCA and other accounting examinations) is what we set out to do when John mooted the idea
If we hadn’t wanted to do it ….. we wouldn’t have signed up for it!
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.