Forum Replies Created
- Posts
What difference the fall in value makes for IHT paid on the PET of the property? Its taken at MV when is gifted,isnt it?
I adjusted for NRB but partially because of the previous gifts it was not fully avaible.Hi! DId anyone get the question with the vintage car vs Rental property? In my opinion IHT was equal on both, how did you calculate it?
I think the ethical issue would be that AI is not compansionate, does not have moral. For example – if your pet is very sick – AI will just give you the result, while vets will be more delicate.
After 24h all exams are sent to ACCA. By then you will see the status as attempted.
AMN-Irl, I had the other option of the exam so I am not sure what exactly was the question but when there are extraordinary situations partner can stay for another year after the 7 has passed, and then additionally for 5 more but it needed special permission.
I also thought at first that I should keep the PPE. But then I realized that the building was given to the old shareholders in exchange for their 60%. So I assumed that they took it and left, it wasn’t like sale to the subsidiary. Also, as @phunguyen290699 said, the balance wasn’t balancing if I don’t remove it.
Did your assets=liability+equity at the end?Yes, there are 2 or maybe 3 versions of each exam. It’s not the same for everyone.
Paula, I adjusted for what you said, also I removed the equity of the subsidiary as it was added.
For the PPE it was said that it wasn’t classified as held for sale at the reporting date. Even if it met the criteria, if it wasn’t classified as held for sale, it cannot be adjusted back. So I added it as FV of 18.4 (I think). Carrying amount after depreciation for 3 years was 18.5. So I included adjustment at acquisition for -0.1. Then afterwards I recognized impairment loss for the cost of sale of 0.2. I assumed it had to be impaired because it was sold much below its carrying amount (impariment indicator).
Also, I removed the building that was paid as consideration for the new 60%Fair value is defined from market perspective, it doesn’t matter how the owner is planning to use the asset. If someone from the market is prepared to pay more for it, then this should be the FV. So I think it had to be adjusted. Please check question Columbia if you have the kit. I think the situation there is similar and they adjust for it.
In regards to the 10% initial equity holding, I adjusted for it in OCE, not in RE. I think it should be revalued first to FV as it’s held through FVOCI and then disposed. What do you think is the correct approach?
On1 January 20X6 Laudium purchased 30 million of the 40 million equity shares of Hennops and gained control of Hennops. Goodwill has been determined at $36 million but it now appears errors were made. The following information needs to be considered.
The purchase consideration was one equity share in Laudium(nominal value of $1) for every two shares acquired in Hennops. On 1 January 20X6 the fair value of an equity share in Laudiumwas $1.20. The issue of the shares had been recorded at their nominal value.Then there are number of correction to the FV of net assets which result in correct goodwill of 37.3m
The NCI at FV is given an it is said to be correct – 24m
In the study note it says:
“The election has to be made within two years of the end of the accounting period in which the asset is disposed of outside the group.”
We had the losses for the previous 2 years so if election is made then it should be fully relieved I guess.
I got that question, however I am still unsure how to be treated. Did you relieve also for past years?
Mzabbas wrote:Section A and B were an absolute nightmare for me. Disappointing as I felt pretty good about section C questions
I feel the same! Section C seemed not so hard compared to A/B and I was expecting the opposite.
