- This topic has 63 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
- Posts
@piggy93 said:
Yes.. But the question ask for provision. I think his answer is right…..?Mdaa.. 🙂 I am not sure but in respects of oil operations I guess it muyst be without interest rate. Very interesting :))))
@tatiaaaaaaa said:
Also, Can you share your results about consolidation statements?MCQ-s and Q3 are my hopes for reaching 50 points. But I am not sure. Anyway, today I have started reading theory book of F7. For June exams 😀
In addition, this was my first ACCA exam and I like the way you are sharing your experience and results. It is very useful 🙂
Thanks all 🙂 🙂
You know what, maybe I’ll do question 2/3 and share them here. Don’t even want to see Q1 again.
I read the question 17 again and again and it says provision in its SOFP.
If we consider that finance costs appears in PL, we had to calculate only capitalized cost..
…?@riskyguy said:
You know what, maybe I’ll do question 2/3 and share them here. Don’t even want to see Q1 again.Unfortunately, I have not even touchd to Q1 😀
Also time was out.
@piggy93 said:
Your concept is correct! When we purchase an asset and some environment cost will be incurred we will capitalise the environment cost
Example:
Year 0, Asset 500 Environment cost 100 incur in Year 2. Cost of capital 10%.
Dr Asset (500+100/1.1^2) 583
Cr Bank 500
Cr Provision 83End of year 0,
Dr Finance cost (83*0.1) 8
Cr Provision 8Sooo..?
What do you think, B or C?
@tatiaaaaaaa said:
Unfortunately, I have not even touchd to Q1 😀Also time was out.
I left it for the end. But I did attempt it though because there are easy marks in every question, so no question should be left unattempted. Would be happy with 5-6 marks from Q1. 🙂
@piggy93 said:
I think you misunderstand the about provision? It is liability, not asset...and, the TOTAL PROVISION will be Sum of them… Correct yeah I understand. 🙁
@riskyguy said:
18 Which of the following is NOT an indicator of impairment under IAS 36 Impairment of Assets?A Advances in the technological environment in which an asset is employed have an adverse impact on its future use
B An increase in interest rates which increases the discount rate an entity uses
C The carrying amount of an entity’s net assets is lower than the entity’s number of shares in issue multiplied by its share price
D The estimated net realisable value of inventory has been reduced due to fire damage although this value is greater than its carrying amountThose who were saying that the answer for Q18 is D, were right n were wrong as well. Their reasoning was that NRV is greater than CV so its not impaired. Their reasoning is wrong but their answer correct.
IAS 36 does not deal with inventory, IAS 2 does. That is why option D is correct.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 10
- ☆
The answer to Q18 is C.
The key is that the carrying amount of a CGU’s net assets is lower than its market capitalisation means that it is not an indication of impairment.
Damage caused by fire is an indication of impairment as the NRV may be reduced lower than its carrying amount.
We are talking about indication of impairment, i.e. an event that triggers an impairment review, rather than an impairment loss occurring.
Therefore, D is still an indication of impairment, but upon testing, there is no impairment loss.
I hope both of you’re right. In the exam I also chose C, so I hope this turns out to be correct. My friends were whining about how tricky the MCQS were and I didn’t agree, now I realize how wrong I was.
@piggy93 said:
When r u going to do Q2&3?? 😀Question 2
https://opentuition.com/topic/question-2-f7-exam-solution-attempt/Do share your views.
You’re correct with this answer but I am a little confused as to why this wouldn’t come under the valuation of its carrying amount as with assets held for sale?
Held for sale valuation = lower of carrying amount & fair value less costs
Carrying amount $26m
Fair value less costs $36.8mThe text agrees with you response being $36.8m however it’s not clear to me why it’s not ‘held for sale’ if they decided to sell on 1 Apr 20X4?
WOuld really appreciate anoyone who can give me clarity 🙂
@riskyguy said:
14 As at 30 September 2013 Dune’s property in its statement of financial position was:
Property at cost (useful life 15 years) $45 million
Accumulated depreciation $6 millionOn 1 April 2014, Dune decided to sell the property. The property is being marketed by a property agent at a price of $42 million, which was considered a reasonably achievable price at that date. The expected costs to sell have been agreed at $1 million. Recent market transactions suggest that actual selling prices achieved for this type of property
in the current market conditions are 10% less than the price at which they are marketed.At 30 September 2014 the property has not been sold.
At what amount should the property be reported in Dune’s statement of financial position as at 30 September
2014?A $36 million
B $37·5 million
C $36·8 million
D $42 millionOption C ( could be wrong though )
Dep to 1 April 2014= 45000/15=3000×6/12=1500
45000 – 3000 acc dep – 1500 = 40500 CV37800 = 42000*0.90
(1000) = cost to sell
36800
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.