[mr n]

so in coeden case , the tax shielding on profits effect is substantially less as a result of reduction in debt amount and is outweighed by the higher cost equity leading to an increase in wacc? is that rgt?

[mr n]

thx john

[mr n]

thxx john 🙂

[mr n]

oh yesss 🙂 thanks mike 🙂

[mr n]

so what u saying in case one is.. in a question the intstallation fee would be given or hints given as to its amount..so then recognise only the portion of the sale of the goods..n the installation portion recognised upon installation or by stage of its completion..so in summary the question will hint as to the proportion of the fee that relates to installation right and recognise that by reference to the stage of completion of the installation?

am i right please?

[mr n]

thxx John..:)

[mr n]

thxx john..:)

[mr n]

Cheers, thxx..seriously u should write your own book…u r always accurate, clear and concise..

[mr n]

thxx sir, so like in 1st case multiple votg means for eg someone with a few shares can have a lot more vote than they deserve and impede the takeover so that one vote one rule principle is implemented to prevent such practice?

2. so overall all the rules kind of prevent unfair or illicit tactics that prevent takeovers esp through management implementg measures that caters only their own interest to the detriment of the co as a whole and of shareholders..in other words these rules kind of favor takeovers from happeng under fair and square conditions, right?

[mr n]

thxx ok but we still need to know the curves and limitations of the theories right?..will work it out soon 🙂

[mr n]

1. spot on :)…thank you for the precision..it is all clear…so in summary all the calculated data eg revenue, cost etc are in cf terms, reaching CF before depreciation, i deduct the depreciation as the usual way to get the taxable cf, i apply the tax but after, here i don’t add back because adding the dep back would be cancelled anway, so to be practical don’t add back?

2. that depreciation it says in the answer it was calculated on the revalued amount, so its like the realisable value becomes that revalued amount?

[mr n]

thxx sir..all clear…nw i just realised it was same in f7. just made some confusion ..all clear 🙂

[mr n]

thxxx loads sir all clear..u even replied why he decided to show it seperately this time out.

I got one more question, a very simple one but i am confused.

case 1 cost of say plant and machinery 1000000, s.line method at 10% rv 200,000..4 yrs life
so tax allowable dep= 100,000 …in 4th yr nbv=700,000 then deduct rv 200000= 500,000 balancg allowance, right?

case 2,my issue is if questin said s.line method but life say 5 yrs..it seems to me i have seen in a questin that the tax allowable dep takes into account the 200,000 rv that (1000000-200000)/4, rgt?

so my question is why in case one we dnt need to deduct rv when its given in % and when given in yrs we deduct the rv to cal the tallow depreciation…back in f7 i recall both cases we must deduct that rvalue to calculate depreciation, if ever i made a mistake in my above statements please correct me, i hpe its not a silly question

[mr n]

hi me.. i can’t access the kaplan tips as u said..can u please copy n paste them if u got them please

[mr n]

hi are those the kaplan tips for dec 2014? Don’t know if they are reliable ..do you have other tuition providers tips..?are they out yet plz?

[mr n]

thanks sir

[mr n]

thx sir it is clear and it is clear that i shouldn’t be usg that as a substantive procedure for compleness of payables. Can creditors circularisation be considered as a substantive procedure ?

[mr n]

Thanks sir, it is all clear now..i got a question regarding substantive procedures/tests on accounts payables please, “check whether last year’s closing balances have been properly brought forward this yr”..could that confirm completeness of payables or sumthing wrong with my wording please

[mr n]

ok thanks sir, i will go for self int threat n include familiarity threat could also arise into bracket

[mr n]

hi p.patel please if u did receive the answers to ther and penn could you plz send them to me by mail and if u gt course exams 2 answers also plz..

[mr n]

To Amanda/ Anyone on this forum post:

Hi Amanda or anyone can you please send me answers to course exam 1 and 2 both please . thank you loads in advance.

email: sharmanilesh655@gmail.com

[mr n]

i got it except for what u said in bracket..so if i do not pass f6 n f9..i have to take them again +f8 if i wana take p2..so basically i have to show the system that am attemptg to complete the level 2 so that i can tick p2 as well?

[mr n]

Thanks sir..it is all clear now..Following ur previous advise..I am working only exam kit questions and i got a query on 1 ques on Inheritance tax pg 30 qu 28 Artem bpp kit ..the tax implications i got are 1250 and 17400..ans book says 1250 which am happy but for the 2nd one it says 18650. I DONT AGREE because IHT being calculated on a cumulative basis i believe therefore that the 18650-1250=17400 should be the second tax implication..I am being vfussy about it because this is lifetime transfer and that figure is gona appear as tax already paid on death transfer…please back me up and verfity the question when you are free..thank u in advance

[mr n]

Ok sir..(staff loan woff 200,loan woff to supplier and loan to customer recovered r irrevelant) I got add back 300 to net profit : tdebt woff 500 is tax allow, decrease in provision is taxable -200 and trade debt recovered is taxable -400 which gives me a taxable fig of -100 overall but 200 was allowed in ploss account.hence i add back 300 the net profit to adjust..i just want to confirm the answer with you please?ok i will henceforth use book only

[mr n]

Dear Ansi or anyone..do u have the lsbf tips for f4 english exams pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Author]

Posts