Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Oh wow! Those tricky words, I just realised after a while coming back.
Thanks so much for your explanation!Oh ok I’m good with the fundamental presumption as in A now but not quite with D. There’s clearly evidence that intention exists because Amy has updated the website to recover the agreed price.
I thought option C should be correct as emails from Arthur and Binta are only offers. Option A mentions the emails as invitation to treat rather than the advertisement by Hedge
Oh that really makes sense. Yeah in the exam, clearly correct answer should be chosen but plausible option really makes me confused.
I also found out that:
Option A only breaks the chain of causation: disrupts the direct link between defendant’s negligence and claimant’s injury but does not prevent causality wholly.
Option D involves multiple reasons but no act can be established as the cause and so no causality exists at all.Okay! The kit answer also concludes the invalidity of Peppa charge and simply takes the priority to Otto charge without mentioning of the effected registration which makes me a bit confused.
Wow! Thanks a ton. That’s a really helpful recommendation.
I’m currently not planning to work in the UK so maybe I am more open to other variants. But after some other Internet searches, I also find that the ENG variant should be easier to absorb and I will go with this variant.Appreciatively.
Total NIC payable where there was b/f trading loss. Did you guys deduct the b/f trading loss?
Did anyone got IHT question where there were 4 gifts with 100k each. Was the NRB remaining 25k or 0?
I remember reading somewhere that those b/f overlap profits will not be examinable for this Dec sitting so really confused when seeing them. Anyways, I just simply deducted them from 9-month ended 31 Dec profit.
Sorry, I have made a mistake with IHT payable which should’ve been 150,000 + 400,000 – 150,000 – 325,000 = 75,000 x 40% = 30,000. The amount transferred to his wife is still 25,000
Please help me confirming this.
So for pension scheme, both rate bands are extended for higher-rate taxpayers whereas gift aid donation, the BRB is extended for higher-rate taxpayers and BRB and HRB for additional taxpayers?
But as she is a higher-rate taxpayer, her taxable income is below the HRB and increasing the HRB has little use, doesn’t it?
Please help me clarifying this.Sorry, I have made a mistake with taxable income. It should be £123,680 (£132,500-£8,820) and she’s still a higher-rate taxpayer.
Thank you, I am good with A now but for C, only 1 NED has financial expertise and so the audit commitee should be competent for the period when that NED is on. However, the answer was that the commitee will not be competent for the full two-year period.
Thanks for your response,
I mean material misstatements can be tested using other substantive procedures such as analytical procedures instead of tests of details. But here, statement 1 was that they must be subject to tests of details.
Could you please clarify this?The following information is available for Chad Co:
Current annual earnings $13,840,000
Forecast annual earnings $15,140,000
Listed companies similar to Chad Co have an earnings yield of 8.2%.Chad Co also has in issue loan notes with a nominal value of $100 each. Interest on the loan notes is 6% per year, payable annually. The loan notes will be redeemed in eight years’ time at a 5% premium to nominal value. The before-tax cost of debt of the company is 7% per year.
Chad Co has no other debt in issue.For option D, I think only EPS would increase with total earnings staying the same or even lower since the company would have to spend some on purchasing them back.