Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@alaina1987 said:
Question 1 was ok… but what did everyone adjust for roll over relief?? I took out the purchase for patents.. I don’t remember learning this but it was the only intangible asset in the list.Also did anyone use the may to Oct17 index number instead of the index number used in the question?
I didn’t expect pensions to come up???? was not told this and a new area on EMI.. never heard of this!
Question 5: The Inheritance tax question and CGT got abit complex.. but seemed ok.
For Q1 rollover relief, I did the same and removed the intangible assets because I assumed the proceeds should be re-invested in a like for like asset.
I also used the May 98-Oct 17(?) index as this relates to the date the asset became available to sell as part of the agreement.
I was hoping EMI wouldn’t come up but then I remember seeing it as an exam tip. I scribbled something about it being tax free but was limited to so many shares. Didn’t remember the details.
All in all a very challenging exam. Best of luck everyone!
After 8 weeks self study, 2 days revision and no time for much question practice, I am happy that I was able to complete 95% of the exam. Plus I had to re-learn F6 from 2011.
So i’ll be happy with whatever mark I get. Pass or fail.
I remembered the professional marks right at the end and then scribbled in a heading in the top space of the answer page. Not sure if that will score any marks. Miracles can happen.
@hoangduchung1903 said:
About Question 1 (c), it was not actually a NOCLAR I think, more like a litigation case made against the client by an environmental pressure group.I finished about 85-90% of the paper. hope that what I wrote would be enough for a pass.
There’s various business risks to talk about in Q1 but due to time pressure I only wrote about 5 risks.
Question 5 was quite easy. How were you all comment on the adequacy of the evidence obtained in part (a) (i) ? I didn’t have much idea to write. But part (a) (ii) and (b) was indeed gifts.
What’s the matter with the impairment of receivables did you write? I only calculate materiality and talked about evidence. Totally forgot the impairment rules for receivables in IFRS9 to comment on the matters.
I wasnt familiar with the IFRS9 so tried to use my own experience.
For the impairment of Receivables I noticed that the company’s policy was to impair residential receivables balances if they weren’t paid after 90 days which seemed to be correct as the residential receivables days had grown over the year indicating more bad debt.
However company policy for business receivables was to impair when the customer switched to another energy supplier. However, this doesn’t mean the outstanding balance wouldn’t he paid. So no need to impair. Also the business receivables days had reduced/improved over the year. So I suggested the company apply the same policy as per residential customers.
This was a huge curve ball. When I don’t know something, I just find the answer from life experience and then hope for the best!
Kevin – I said something along the same lines for Q3. It seems Itrus may have taken out debt finance and used most of their cash to pay off their large payables balances. This massively improved payables days from something like 231 to 35.
I summarised by saying they may have spent 2016 trying to get into a better financial position which would set them up for a better 2017.
As the others said…very fair paper. Would be surprised if I failed.