[heezay]

Hi Shunmas Beeablo

As a point of discussion in ref to your answer. The research I am doing does not match what you have said as I am also now finding that within the England and Wales which uses a common law system, contained within it is civil law and criminal law?? Which makes me think that there are 3 different legal systems (Common, Civil and Sharia) and not as you described(criminal, civil and sharia) as a point of discussion, correct me if am wrong I would like to know.

Then contained with them are (Criminal law and Civil Law)

I will provide you the reference of my research:

States England and Wales using a “Common Law system”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law

And then contained within that “Common Law system” is then the diferent types of law (Criminal and Civil)
https://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Thejudicialsystem/DG_4003097

[heezay]

Thanks Shunmas Beeablo

I am yet still confused matching it up with the books as the 3 systems you define is different to what is defined in the BPP text books, they define 3 systems as being Common, Civil and Sharia. Types of of law being Criminal and Civil Law. From what you explain above seem to show 4 different system?? Civil, Criminal, Sharia and Common.

I am understanding the definition but not understanding how 3 different “systems” and the “types of law” connect up with each other

[heezay]

@ansi said:
Dear Heezay,

I strongly recommend you to opt for global one.
Not only it is easier and more interesting then UK law, but it also gives you a wider knowledge of law around the world.

Plus , the amount of cases is significantly less. You might even not need to mention any cases at all.

I studied and attempted Global one myself this sitting and many of my friends who choosed UK law, envied me.

So opt for Global and enjoy your studies!

ansi

Cheers ansi for replying, but what about recognition wise in relation to potential employers, do they favour one over the other or are they in equal terms, as I plan to work in UK when I first complete to gain experience and then plan to move abroad, but at the same time I do not want to be at an disadvantage whilst am here in the UK for doing the Global Variant. I cant seem to see anywhere anyone talking about these variants and choices etc??

[heezay]

No one can help?

[heezay]

Hiya everyone. Just been reading everybody’s notes on the subject of F3 exams out of interest as I sat my exams this week. I have to admit I personally myself wasnt so confident on F3 as I was on F2, found F3 very difficult compared to the style of questions in the revision kit and stupid me, thinking I was sitting F2 went in completely unprepared and no revision of F3 to find out I was actually sitting F3 and not F2 and would cost me to change the date so in the end just sat it. Having no accountancy background nor any qualifications, not even GCSE’s, going down the MSER route was the only option I had, due to work commitments the only chance I got to fully revise was the last 2 weeks for both F2 and F3 so I have to be honest as I did think I failed really badly on F3 as I wasnt confident on any of the questions in the exam. Never sat a exam nor studied since 8-9 years ago since GCSE’s, so when I opened my eyes and seen 73% Pass, I jumped up with joy thinking I did better than I give myself credit for.

[heezay]

@mahdiniaacc said:
please pay attention to this clue that the new value of 1,000,000 is the asset’s value in the revaluation date, it means that this value is not the asset’s value for whole its life ( 50 years ) this value is just for 40 years remaining life, it means that the asset had a value for the business more than 1,000,000.
in fact, this asset is expected to has a value of 1,000,000 for the next 40 years of its life but what about its first 10 years of life ? yes, we used it in the last 10 years up to 160,000 and we will use it later up to 1,000,000, therefor we will totally have 1,160,000 expense.

please feel free to keep on this topic if you need
good luck

You have definetly come the closest to understanding what my issue is here and clarified one point that 1,160,000 is actually expensed and 160,000 is not recovered at any point. If this is the case this brings me to another point which I will list out.

1 – If this is the case, (for example a start up company) when making their decisions (in times of rising prices) on policies to set in place does this not force them to prevent the idea of revaluation to show a true reflection of their assets as this is likely to cause an additional expense which can be avoided by not revaluing? Surely in times of rising prices including a revaluation every year, can create a gradually accumilating additional expense, which might and likely to put off companies revaluing? As profits are likely to be stated higher?

2 – Is it and how would it be fair to have charged the business more than what the asset is worth?

3 – Working the opposite way, a reduction of 60% in the assets original valuation would create an income?

4 – The only fairest method that comes to my mind would be.
Valuation or Revaluation – Depreciation to date = Outstanding amount to be depreciated/”divided” by the number of years remaining. This way no additional expense or income is being created at any point and at any given time only the assets value will ever be absorbed?

But of course according to books I understand this way of thinking is completly wrong. Can not seem to justify it in my head??

[heezay]

Just to clarify people this is not a question about how to do depreciation, I know how to do it.My question is abit more in depth if you’d like. Let me put it in another way that may help understand.

Cost : 800,000
Depreciation: 2% p.a @ 10 years
800,000/50 = 16000 x 10 years = 160,000

“Now up until 10 years can you see we have already expensed 160,000”

Revaluation: 1,000,000
Depreciation:
1,000,000/40 = 25000 x 40 = 1,000,000

Now remember here we have also expensed another 1,000,000 over 40 years,

Now this is my question if an asset value remained constant at 1,000,000 till the end of life, in total 1,160,000 would have been expensed because of the revaluation and not the value of 1,000,000, so what happened to the 160,000 we expensed? Do we get it back when its sold or something?

10 years depreciation @ 800,000/50 x 10 = 160,000
40 years depreciation @ 1,000,000/40 x 40 = 1,000,000

Sorry if this is more confusing, its just a specific question in my head I do not understand as more than the value of the asset would have been expensed in total??

[Author]

Posts