Forum Replies Created
- Posts
order of preference
consolidated balance sheet
consolidated cash flow
consolidated profit or loss (hate these)having just been on a revision course for P2 – the thing i am still struggling with, as seems to be common in a lot of exams, is the wording the examiner uses when asking something.
rather than asking “what are the ethical issues around manipulation of accounts and the reasons that manipulation may be done” he had asked it in a really strange way, with no mention of the word “manipulation” and instead used a different phrase.
if i understood what was being asked then i would stand half a chance, but sometimes he makes it really difficult and wordy. 6 sentances and half a page to ask something which could have been typed in 2 lines.
@ashween1 said:
1st attempt in December 2016, I got 47.
2nd attempt in March 2017, I got 47 again.
Can anyone advise if a review is recommended??not really. i was told that if you score 49% then they have already marked it, marked it again and then potentially checked for a 3rd time to see if they can find you an extra 1%.
if you have got 47% then i think it is safe to say there is no way they will find you an extra 3% 🙁
finally passed with my 3rd attempt with 76% soo happy with that.
i walked out and thought “yeah, it wasn’t *that* bad this time” – but you never can tell.
i went from 44% and 40% to 76% 🙂
Q1 was hard, but wasn’t as hard as in the past. Mentioned there wasn’t a degrouping charge in either option (as sold the company after 6 years).
i also said that even if there was a degrouping charge, it will probably be covered by the SSE as a trading comp selling shares in a trading comp who owned the shares for 12 months out of 24 months – so should be covered.
Said the loss couldn’t be relieved by the group as it was a pre entry loss and there was a MCINOCOT there (the group wanted to change the business dramticaly)
Worked out some form of rollover relief and option a came out slightly better. But the strategy a and b were tricky and hard to understand exactly I thought.
Said that pearl would be classed as a resident uk company from now on, because although they were incorporated abroad, their financial managers were moving to the uk, and the uk would now be the place of strategic decision making etc.
Said that they should consider exmepting the profits of an over seas branch IF they pay a low corp tax % AND they are profitable – which was the case (otherwise double tax relief would have been capped at 12%, rather than the 20% of the UK)Q2 where they showed you the death estate computation was quite nice – she needed to add back in personal items and the chatels in the house, the NRB of £325k was too high, needed to reduce it due to GCT’s in the previous 7 years, I said the shares in the company would have qualified for BPR relief so they would be exempt etc.
Then I told her to sell the necklace and the painting as there would be no CGT on them (one was exempt anyway as cost and proceeds under £6k)
Then said if she was prepared to pay a few hundred pound, she could sell the land and use her loss against the gain of the land and for the sake of a small amount she would have another £20k of proceeds from the land (or what ever the land was worth, can’t remember)Q4 – wasn’t too bad, got a bit stuck further on in the question, but basically said the husband should gift the land to his wife so that she could then sell the land, for the same gain, and then she could use her trading loss against the capital gain, as she had no income that year.
Or she could roll back and use against last year, but that’s her options as she wasn’t ceasing to trade etc.Q5 – had about 10 mins on this as massively overran elsewhere – mentioned badges of trade, did some rough, crude calculation of the cost of the employee, which I think is probably wrong, said the employer would be cheaper to employ as she can deduct it from her profits and then pay less corp tax on it etc.
Annoyingly the newly released hybrid paper doesn’t include any of the December questions.
So, regarding question 1 from December, did anyone mention anything about incorporation relief?
I have been going out my mind trying to decide if we needed to or not.
As far as I can remember, incorp relief is just used to reduce down the CGT liability isn’t it? So did we need to work that out or not?
now the answers are available – could someone please try and explain Q1 part a i) to me?
it’s only 3 marks, but it is really bugging me – even looking at the answers i don’t understand what it is trying to show me!
i hope they re-release it with Q1 from December in, as i really want to see where i went wrong/how to do it properly.
i don’t suppose it will help much, as i can’t see a massive 35mark question about incorporation relief coming up again any time soon….
The trouble is, it’s hard to go over old exam papers as they are all out of date now, with different thresholds and limits and rules etc.
It’s impossible to use them properly now unless they are re written to use with the new rules 🙁
The annoying thing is now with all the changes, the practice and revision kit, all the notes and all the previous years papers become out of date over night.
My tutor uodated the past 3 years papers to bring them in line with the 2016 requirements for my June sitting, but unless he does that again then they are all outdated and can’t be used.
So frustrating.
Passed with 57% first time – and passed without having taken P2 previously, which everyone advised against.
How the hell anyone passed that is beyond me. Failed with 39, which is about 15% more than I thought I would get
This is the wording from a requirement in question 2:
“Calculate the additional tax and national insurance contributions due, as reduced by any corporation tax savings…”
What on earth does that even mean?
it’s all about money for acca it would seem – the more that fail the more resit and have to pay another £116 to have a go.
this paper couldn’t have been any worse. it was a shocker
my main annoyance is that fact that despite lots of hard work, working through plenty of old exam papers and mock exams etc, i could have studied for another 6 months and i wouldn’t have been in a position to understand those bulls**t questions they were asking.
and the worse thing is – even when the model answers are released it will be as part of the March/June hybrid paper, so question one (which threw me completely) might not even be debriefed.
it has left a sour taste in my mouth, and i am now thinking about switching from P6 to either P4 or P5 – especially now any further attempts at P6 will be FY2015.
anyone else thinking about switching, or going to stick with?
the examiner has completely mugged us off here.
sure, there will be a few people who sat it and scored 90% plus, but it seems the majority of people thought it was horrific.
Did anyone else say that a degrouping charge wasn’t needed in question 2 as the Zorro building had been sold to A Ltd – which wasn’t the company being sold
DG only occurs when the sale of the shares of a company happen within 6 years of receiving an asset – which doesn’t apply to company A.
That was the most horrific exam I have ever sat.
I attempted the past 5 papers, a course exam, a mock paper and a variety of questions from the revision kit, and it didn’t help at all.
A 20 mark question on vat? F**k me!!
I sat staring at the requirement of question 1 part A for 10 mins. I couldn’t actually work out what they were even asking for. It was so confusing.
The degrouping charge was a mess.
Marriage exemption would have been nice, but they weren’t married. It was completely terrible.
That was the most horrific exam I have ever sat.
I attempted the past 5 papers, a course exam, a mock paper and a variety of questions from the revision kit, and it didn’t help at all.
A 20 mark question on vat?!
I sat staring at the requirement of question 1 part A for 10 mins. I couldn’t actually work out what they were even asking for. It was so confusing.
The degrouping charge was a mess.
Marriage exemption would have been nice, but they weren’t married. It was completely terrible.
The paper was horrific.
Had no relevance Or links to any of the past papers or course exams I did. Utterly shocking.
I didn’t even understand the requirement of Q1 part A.
It didn’t ask specifically for ratio analysis/analytical procedures, but the fact it was asking about them in the next requirement I just assumed that they might want to see them, so laid them out first and then the ROMM to follow.
If I get zero marks for the analytical procedures then I am in massive trouble.
Apparently bananas are banned from exam halls as people have been caught writing answers inside the skin and looking at them during the exam.
Thought it was a fairly straightforward exam (except question 5) but VERY time pressured. Spent too long on question 1, as after 50 mins I still had to talk about why analytical procs were needed in the planning phase etc. Ran out of time at the end.
I did the UK variant and took a guess that they wanted analytical procedures carried out (ratio analysis) before going on to speak about audit risks.
Some of them I could spot and knew what to do, some I didn’t have a clue.
I noticed that goodwill hadn’t been impaired yet operating expenses had increased a lot, which would suggest there was an impairment.
Said it wasn’t very cash rich, had negative current ratios and quick ratios (meaning they might struggle to pay bills as they fall due), I said the effective tax for each year was different.
Question 2 was ok – first part better than the second part. Part a was just to appraise how badly (essentially) the audit seemed to have been (big Piece of PPE not checked in person. Being told there was no need to check it or do any further work. Audit partner signing off having had a “quick look through” etc).
Question 3 on forensic investigation seemed OK, but struggled to think of enough procedures and evidence to gain (interview suspects, check cctv for meetings, request meeting with banks, talk to staff, trace the amounts in the bank accounts for myself, find out who the other nom executive was that signed off on the “other bank account” etc).
Question 4 looked horrible, so did question 5.
Had a stab at part 1 as it was essentially a summing up exercise from a technical article I had just read. I know what I wanted to say, but I fear it all came out as bollocks.
Part b for 14 marks was my massive down fall – didn’t really have a clue and lost a lot of marks here.
I said that even though the loan wasn’t material, the fact it was an exec meant it was material by nature and had to be disclosed.The redeployment of the business abroad I didn’t have a clue, just said a disclosure was needed.
