*** F6 June 2013 Exam was… Post your comments ***

<cite> @charlotteo said:</cite>
I got that the impairment was disallowable: in order for bad debt relief to be claimed, 6 months atfer the DUE date must have passed. It was due in October I think and so April would have been the earliest that bad debt relief could be claimed. This was the VAT return for the ¼ ended March so bad debt relief could not yet be claimed.

Oh that’s good then as that it was I thought. Thanks for clarifying

<cite> @faranjamal said:</cite>
The nil rate band given in the question was irrelevant as it was a PET (Potentially EXEMPT Transfer)
It is only relevanf for CLTs because they are chargeable when gifted.

In the VAT Private Fuel, the full 300 was deductible, right? (as it was already scaled for the quarter)

that was the full amount inclusive of VAT….you then had to calculate VAT out of that (300 x 1/60) = £50….that’s what I did at least…

<cite> @charlotteo said:</cite>
No, the scale charge for the ¼ was inclusive of VAT. Therefore the £50 VAT element was to be added to the output VAT only, I thought?

The 300 was the amount? Damn! I thought it was the VAT, shit.
I am losing 1 mark per comment 😛

<cite> @charlotteo said:</cite>
I thought that only 2 companies were associates: I think they were Are and Can (Greenzone owned 60% and 90% I think?)
The other UK co was only 40% owned.
The other co was not a UK company – I was not sure on this though. I thought overseas branches were fine, but overseas entities were not.

Thats exactly what I thought

<cite> @charlotteo said:</cite>
I thought that only 2 companies were associates: I think they were Are and Can (Greenzone owned 60% and 90% I think?)
The other UK co was only 40% owned.
The other co was not a UK company – I was not sure on this though. I thought overseas branches were fine, but overseas entities were not.

There were 4 in the group, because the only rule is >50% shareholding. Residence status is irrelevant.
So that makes 3 associated companies + 1 the parent itself.

<cite> @atab said:</cite>
As far as I know the amount invested was lower than proceeds of both warehouses….

I really cannot recall the numbers but during the exam I found that the fist one had a low reinvestment that it doesn’t qualify for rollover relief at all, and the second one had a high re-investment.. hope someone will be able to confirm… it doesn’t matter, it is in the past! 🙂

<cite> @confused1 said:</cite>
Did anyone add FII to the corp tax question?

Yes the dividend from Be Ltd as this was only 40% shareholding so not an associate. Did you?

<cite> @confused1 said:</cite>
Did anyone add FII to the corp tax question?

Yes FII of the company in which they had 40% shareholding as it was not associated….grossed up by 100/90…

<cite> @confused1 said:</cite>
Did anyone add FII to the corp tax question?

Yes. One company was not an associated company. Therefore dividends formed part of FII.

<cite> @confused1 said:</cite>
I answered this question twice. I used FII and then I didn’t!! So I hope I get marks for the one I did. They can’t mark down for doing a question twice can they?

No ACCA don’t use negative marking

<cite> @duffielda52 said:</cite>
For the share question did any one get 2650 shares ??

Yes and it was right option according to my mentor.

<cite> @addy007 said:</cite>
Yes and it was right option according to my mentor.

if that is the case then i have completely fluked 1 mark lol