[craighughes88]

@granal03 said:
Anyone doing Question 2?

The deferred tax part C bit, did anyone write about the company appearing to struggle continue its trading operations and therefore a deferred tax asset couldnt be recognised becase you cant right off tax losses when there isnt an underlying asset?

Also question 2 part A did people just write that it was a lease and so you recognise a right of of use asset ?

Was confused by the loan being paid in preference shares, I wrote essentially their model changed because they were no longer just receiving cash flows, thye were exchanging financial assets for one another. Also what they did was essentially purchase a hedge, where they exchanged the loss on the loan for pref shares that could triple in value covering the loss?

I did mate , said that you need to have evidence of likely future incomes in order to recognise the deferred tax asset.

With the ifrs9 stuff I said they are valuing it 3 times the offered amount which had no interest in effect trying to cover the fact they have a big impairment, also they can not go away from amortized cost now as once you decide that’s it so they should impair the value and measure at amortized cost.

I feel like I’ve written a load of good points but also made some cock ups like saying the investment property had to go on current assets (confused with held for sale)

But hopefully the examiner isn’t too harsh I think generally there is no negative marking so should still get the figure marks for investment property

[craighughes88]

Ah yes the part in Q2 about the defered tax – added a few lines of waffle in there about the potentially hyper inflationary environment of the sub and the possibility of valuing it in dollars which could stop the huge operating losses, and the massive gain being mainly down to FX rates.

[craighughes88]

Yes good point, I’ve read there is no negative marking on p2 , probably how I managed to get 39 on previous failure when I felt like I had about 20.

So there is likely many ways to get the marks with reasonable knowledge applied

[craighughes88]

@nathan488 said:
I got this from IAS 37 guidelines:

A constructive obligation arises if past practice creates a valid expectation on the part of a third party, for example, a retail store that has a long-standing policy of allowing customers to return merchandise within, say, a 30-day period. [IAS 37.10]

Using this, I don’t believe there is a constructive obligation since there was no past occurrence, were just told they’re “willing” to settle it in case

I’d go with the lawyer saying it’s not probable and thus no provision

This is what I mean though, these questions are so subjective

Exactly, they are willing but that don’t mean anything , they may just be crazy and uninformed and offering 7m when there is no need.

[craighughes88]

@mumbaikar said:
I wrote about leases however here ppl are writing abt financial and operational leases which i think is relevant for the lessor. Because we were paying rents it means we are the lessee hence type of lease remains irrelevant

Surely it is relevant as a lesee a finance lease goes on the balance sheet as a right of use asset? and the asset decreases as we pay rents yet the operating lease is just expensed ?

Therefore i also raised ethical points surrounding them trying to increase assets by recognising intangible assets where it should just be expensed as a lease

But who knows could be completely wrong I am no P2 expert lol

[craighughes88]

I wrote no provision as there is no legal or constructive obligation, the lawyer said they may not have to pay so points towards no obligation but I am not sure this is right.

[craighughes88]

Anyone do Q2 ? The one with the company storing the gas.

They must have been leasing that building but trying to recognise gas storage as an intangible asset. But unsure about this one.

[craighughes88]

@mumbaikar said:
There shouldnt be any gain/loss on disposal because the parent still owns plymouth only the shareholders are changing. No change in control

I think I definitely did something wrong with the disposal I even looked after the exam still no idea
Heads fried

Maybe not a gain on disposal but a change in equity
I put the 9m through W5 so who knows

Hopefully scrape 20 on the Q1A

[craighughes88]

Overall i thought the examiner was quite kind to us for the final P2 and will be gutted if I failed on such a friendly paper

[craighughes88]

180 was the SC
10% was 18
2/3 was 12
12*4 =48 for fv of consideration

However I messed up the nci and just uses 10% of 390 (n.a. at reporting date)

To give a gain on disposal of 9

48-39 =9

Section 2 and 3 seemed to both have leases? One operating and one finance? These were tricky as the lease in Q3 was for the entirety of the useful life but the lessor retained legal right

The other one was the gas contract for storage now my view was they were leasing the building as it was fixed payments at regular intervals may be completely wrong but I hope I get some credit , they clearly shouldn’t be capitalising as intangible asset

Seemed to be lots of ethics too , one of the companies valuing the shares of the company they loaned to far too high in order to increase assets , also they wanted to go away from amortized cost when their business model prescribed it under ifrs9 which was dodgy

Hope i get enough credit for the bits I did as I know as always with this exam there will always be mistakes, feel like I did much better than my previous attempt which gave me a 39 (march18)

[Author]

Posts