Forum Replies Created
- Posts
40000 is the number of shares that the Craig has obtained but the money that he paid for them is determined from the balance sheet “Shares in subsidiary” which is 80000.
If 2200 hours were used by permanent then the remaining hours were used by temporary staff. In overall it should take 650*1.5+750*2=2475 hours but only 2200 is present remaining part 275 were used by temporary but two times inefficient that is 275*2=550
@marcin060482 said:
sorry i was not clear. How do you know that ACTUAL rate paid to temporary workers was 14$? their std rate was 18$14$ was standard rate of Permanent staff
It doesn’t matter I calculate the overall labor costs of a company and compare it with budgeted figures.
You ask a question and answer to it? It is given in the question…
“Also how do you now actual rate that temporary staff was paid for? Temp staff rate was 18$”
@marcin060482 said:
why you took 2200 to your calculations, when it said clearly that permanent labour was fully efficient? there was no variance on 2200 hours. Also how do you now actual rate that temporary staff was paid for? Temp staff rate was 18$Well done!!!
labor rate variance:
Actual price 2200*14+550*18=40700
Standard price (2200+550)*14= 38500
Difference 2200(A)Efficiency
Actual hours 2200+550=2750
Standard hours 650*1,5+750*2=2475
275*14=3850 (A)TOTAL 6050(A)
@suso7 said:
labour rate variance
650*1.5+750*2=2475 hours should take
2475-2200=275
275*2*(18-14)=2200(A)
labour efficiency extra 275*14=3850(A)
in total 6050(A)
Did anyone do like this?For example the question 38 in bpp revision kit. Why they don’t flex the fixed costs?
ThanksActions are those that you can choose and depend on you. It is your choice to follow one or another action. But circumstances occur out of your control. You can not choose them
Are chargeable gains are considered as relevant earnings for loss set off reasons? And how they are considered? After annual allowance? Or before?
Yes 05/06 no way to relieve the losses. I got the same result for the FII,
Regarding the inheritance issue we should ask the tutor. Because the transfer of assets on death are exempt disposals no gains are calculated. But what will be the cost? If we take the original one then the same thing happens.Both the cost of land and leveling happened at the same time April as I remember. So I applied the indexation allowance to both of them.
For sole trader I first time hear that chargeable gains are also included in loss calculation. In all 3 years I relived the loss only to the trading income so that not all PA was wasted.
In the 1 st questions problems were with PAYE 8 marks for noting simply rotting those 2 pages. Didn’t answered at all,
2nd question I had 2 associates, so will divide to 3..
In FII only the dividend from Second company was taken
Expensive motor car has restricted 3000 WDA.
On VAT didn’t answered the last part that asks about when VAT invoice should be issued and period?3rd question as lordoflords7 said when land is inherited the cost will be the same or the market value, I don’t know?
In the gift relief case it says no holdover relief is possible, so I took the whole gain. In the company case 21% was used as I remember…4 question ended in both cases that when remuneration is increased it is more beneficial to both company and the employee.
5 question – Stuck a bit…Don’t remember was it a company or individual?
@boscobosco said:
Pretty sure the auditors were ok with GC assumption.Thanks for clearing up the above opinion/report distinction. Very confusing. I’ve lost marks there.
If so then 2 marks can be expected…As 4 marks will be granted to those who stated as in ISA 570 paragraph 19:)
@boscobosco said:
Question said that management made appropriate disclosures, and auditor is happy that going concern assumption is ok, but material uncertainty exists. So, UNMODIFIED REPORT with emphasis of matter is the answer.ISA 570
Going Concern Assumption Inappropriate (Ref: Para. A26)
21. If, in the auditor’s judgment, the entity will not be able to continue as a going concern, the
auditor shall express an adverse opinion if the financial statements have been prepared on a
going concern basis, regardless of whether or not appropriate disclosure has been made.Maybe the guestion said that going concern is inappropriate?
@gagsingh said:
I think the wording throughout the exam was difficult to work out what exactly was required by the examiner…possibly due to the fact that it was a new examiner!Still not sure about the last part of question 4, i thought the situation was that the company has included a going concern disclosure, but while the auditor agrees with this he believes there is material uncertainty to the effect that the going concern does not exsist (ie, the auditor feels the company cannot continue to trade for the forseeable future).
SO…the going concern disclosure would say that the directors DO beleive the company can continue to trade for the forseeable future, but the auditor does not…so i would say this needs to be either an adverse audit report or a disclaimer of opinion depending on if the uncertainty is due to mis-statement or the inability to obtain sufficient audit evidence.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks
Gag
Are you sure that question was saying so?
“there is material uncertainty to the effect that the going concern does not exsist”
I don’t remember that question said that going concern does not exist…..Any one remembers? If so the question is straightforward…Regarding the question what are the elements of assurance engagements…Every body stated the types of assurance services: review, agreed upon procedures and etc
Maybe the answer is Intended users, responsibile party, practitioner, criteria, subject matter…? I took this from the definition of assurance engagement…