TXJune ’10 Exams POLL – Paper F6 was … Post your comments here

Partnership ..and no income tax !!! the vat was good but the marks was worth nothing ..it was a tough paper …I wish all you guys the best

I was so confident on getting above 80 before I sat for the exam. Everything went shattered upon opening the question paper. It was damn different from the one's in the exam kit of Kaplan and from the previous question papers! VAT was almost everywhere. My head was on a spin with the Motor cars even though I was so thorough with Capital allowances! I am so upset! David has let us all down :(

Hey Guys...
What was ur answer to the question where it says Cost of the building was £160,000 and insurance paid £36,000 but repairs made for £ 41,000. One amazing word is deferred gain. It says the deferred gain relief is to be claimed. WTH is that?

You defer the gain to a future period. It's a fancy way of saying rollover or holdover. If you understand the theory of it. Say you reduce the base cost and in the future you get the same proceeds, you will not be taxed today but will be taxed when you finally rid of the asset for that portion that was attributable to relief. Therefore, you "defer" the gain to a future period.

In this case, it was a damage to property which would be eligible for deferment if the proceeds are reinvested within 12 months from the date of disposal.

Does anyone know if the ACCA uses the Angoff method to assess examinations? If so, the fact that everyone feels a little disappointed with the toughness of this paper will be comforting.

To give you a little background:

"To be legally defensible in the USA and meet the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, a cutscore cannot be arbitrarily determined, it must be empirically justified. For example, the organization cannot merely decide that the cutscore will be 70% correct. Instead, a study is conducted to determine what score best differentiates the classifications of examinees, such as competent vs. incompetent."

- I'd assume the same holds true in the United Kingdom.

"The Angoff approach is very widely used. This method requires the assembly of a group of subject matter experts, who are asked to evaluate each item and estimate the proportion of minimally competent examinees that would correctly answer the item. The ratings are averaged across raters for each item and then summed to obtain a panel-recommended raw cutscore. This cutscore then represents the score which the panel estimates a minimally competent candidate would get."

this was one of my best paper prep.......I was very confident.....but...I dint know wat examiner wants.

@platinumkp I do know that other boards such as CIE in UK use the Angoff but I don't think ACCA uses it, their more focused on marks grrrrrrrrr!!!!

It was more of a theory paper than usuall tax.. Irony is we weren't required to calculate tax in TAX paper :p over all paper sucked BIG TIME :P

I thought that in this case there was a capital loss of £ 133000 ( 36000 - 169000)

@platinumkp said:
You defer the gain to a future period. It's a fancy way of saying rollover or holdover. If you understand the theory of it. Say you reduce the base cost and in the future you get the same proceeds, you will not be taxed today but will be taxed when you finally rid of the asset for that portion that was attributable to relief. Therefore, you "defer" the gain to a future period.

In this case, it was a damage to property which would be eligible for deferment if the proceeds are reinvested within 12 months from the date of disposal.

I truly fink the examiner give us the P6 paper and vise versa.. zats weirdest paper ive seen... lets hope the examiner pity us and not b 2 strcict wgile correcting the papers

i am looking forward to see that `drunk` examiner mark the papers while `drunk` as he made it . This is the only way that sounds reasonable to get us all a pass mark.......Those guys out here who think that examiner gave us a P6 paper instead of F6 i am with you.... Believe it or not but it is a well off possibility...Any ways fingers crossed for the 50 marks..... :)

Guy's,
I too thought this was a tough paper. However, everyone is having a go at the examiner and I don't know why. There is no set format to this exam. Everything on that paper was in the sylabus. Every examiners comments posted on the ACCA's website say do not question spot. If the exam carried on the format of the previous years everyone would get at least 15 marks that have been on every paper.

These are my last 2 F level exams and maybe I'm fortunate because I have come across this before. F7 changed the format when I sat it and F9 last year was very strange. But these are professional exams. What you have to do, is not panic, take a deep breath and focus on breaking the question down and getting the easy marks.

yes the paper was strange, but that question 1 was actually pretty fair when you got into it.

I was hoping for a large score on this based on previous papers (as I'm going for the degree) I still hope to get a good score but probably not as good as if i sat the exam last year. that is my major gripe, that success can be determined by which paper you sit.

However, question spotting is a way to fail. All the ACCA will say is a well prepared student can pass the exam. Breaking the paper down, if you had revised the relevant parts you could pass:

Q1) Partnership and VAT (calculating trading profit is part of the income tax calculation is it not?)
Q2) Corporation Tax (PCTCT calculation)
Q3) capital gains (all on syllabus and pretty straigtforward apart from the shares, but at BPP we did study this)
Q4) Tax evasion (not a major topic but one even an unprpared student could have had a decent go at surely)
Q5) Penalties (Again not a major topic but c'mon it is most definately on the sylabus)

From what I'm hearing the reason people didn't like this paper is that they didn't revise all the sylabus - major reason for failure - check the previous examiners comments. one of the main reason people fail is by not revising all the sylabus.

Never expect anything in an ACCA exam. they are testing knowledge, application and the ability to think on your feet. if we freaked at the format that's our fault not ACCA's.


If it wasn't tough we wouldn't appreciate when we pass (and we all will)

Good luck everyone

Paper is easy, but presentation & requirement of the paper is very toughg / lenghty.

2 platinumkp
yes you were right... repairs of £ 41,000 is kept as it is. but Cost of the building is reduced by holdover relief which is £ 36,000 and new Cost is gonna be £ 124,000.
BUT it's already gone.... I treated the difference as a loss.
Thanks anyway..

It was a different trend. that exam was a bitch!

@owensn

I don't think you're understanding the point. If you read back you will see that the majority of these comments didn't say it WASN'T on the syllabus, but TOO MUCH of the syllabus was tested in the same paper. And if you read back you will also find that majority of these students WERE prepared and completed all or most of the revision kit, and went into the exam with a target of at least 80% or more.

It's not just what was on the paper, the format was poorly presented and therefore made the paper time consuming. It consisted of a combination of topics in 1 question that had never been put together before. Also there was a lot of theory and again takes up time on the paper. Why bother doing the practice and revision kit only to find that the real exam is nothing like any of what we have just practiced? Isn't the purpose of these past practice questions to prepare us for the exam? To prepare us of the topics, the timing and the FORMAT of the paper. We are not complaining because we were "question spotting" as you put it, it's that we weren't given enough time for the amount of knowledge required.

If the examiner wants to make a change to the format and make it more difficult, he should do it gradually over the years and not make it one big change in 1 sitting because it's unfair and would shock people's confidence during examination. If it was a small change or more time was given, I probably wouldn't mind but the whole trend of the F6 has been flipped upside down like never seen before, how can you say that's reasonable?

Q-1 is all about the mixture of VAT ,NIC, Partnership and Q-2 is very different
Q-3 and Q-4 is a strange..and Q-5 is just easy marks.
how can be examiner make such a non-professional paper..?
all the things are mix u with each other.
its very unethical paper...
coz ACCA is a professional body and
teach us about ethics...
if they want to do so....then examiner should make article in student accountant magazine.

@sanjarbek

Holdover relief is a business relief and is not available for an asset that is not used in business.

The Damaged asset had all the proceeds reinvested. Therefore there was no loss and no gain. The base cost of the asset was then in fact 169,000 - 35,000 + 41,000 = 175,000. At least in my opinion.

"Restlessness is discontent and discontent is the first necessity of progress. Show me a thoroughly satisfied man and I'll show you a failure"

- Thomas A. Edison.

ive said it before, too many people doing the exam, they want to fail people and make it deliberately hard.

just look at previous years pass rates, last year it was 61% the highest in the F series, and recently pass rates of above 50% are common, much higher than the other F series - so maybe they are lowering the bar so less people pass and less get qualified.


Im sure it was deliberately made harder and to put us off, and by making it quite different to previous years exams, im sure they knew they would catch a lot of people out. For me, I spent a lot of time studying for this, and I am very disappointed they would treat people in this way - but that's statistics for ya!

im so glad im not the only one who thought. where's income tax question? i soo messd i did so much revision, it did my head-in. i prob did about 80 questions from the BBP rev kit, i wana soo cry. i hope we all pass.

The paper was truly awful....I had hoped to get in 80's....but now i m thinking that even if i get in 50's i will consider myself very luck!!:(

@acltang72 said:
@owensn

I don't think you're understanding the point. If you read back you will see that the majority of these comments didn't say it WASN'T on the syllabus, but TOO MUCH of the syllabus was tested in the same paper. And if you read back you will also find that majority of these students WERE prepared and completed all or most of the revision kit, and went into the exam with a target of at least 80% or more.

It's not just what was on the paper, the format was poorly presented and therefore made the paper time consuming. It consisted of a combination of topics in 1 question that had never been put together before. Also there was a lot of theory and again takes up time on the paper. Why bother doing the practice and revision kit only to find that the real exam is nothing like any of what we have just practiced? Isn't the purpose of these past practice questions to prepare us for the exam? To prepare us of the topics, the timing and the FORMAT of the paper. We are not complaining because we were "question spotting" as you put it, it's that we weren't given enough time for the amount of knowledge required.

If the examiner wants to make a change to the format and make it more difficult, he should do it gradually over the years and not make it one big change in 1 sitting because it's unfair and would shock people's confidence during examination. If it was a small change or more time was given, I probably wouldn't mind but the whole trend of the F6 has been flipped upside down like never seen before, how can you say that's reasonable?

I haven't missed the point, I did the exam too. I thought it was a tough paper but still finished with 15 mins to go. Q3, Q4 and Q5 were the same as previous years. Q3 gains, Q4 and Q5 anything off the sylabus. (Maybe more discursive then recent years but the examiner has never said that this wouldn't be the case)

Q1 contained an adjustment for capital allowances (this was on previous papers in Q1) and a calculation of trading profits (this was on previous papers in Q1) national insurance contributions (on previous papers in Q1) VAT (on previous papers in Q1) the only difference was thast there was no income tax calculation including personal allowances (Max 3-6 marks)
Yes it looked different, but in essance it was the same apart from the marks for calculating the income tax (these 3 marks were in question 2 and represented easy marks)

I know people found it tough, and I agree previous papers were probably easier - that's because we all thought this paper would be the same as the previous ones.

The examiner has obviously thought the exam is becoming stale and compared to other papers the pass rate is very high (so maybe he was right.) But this exam still covered all the areas that were covered previously (just asked differently)and did include some easy marks - and some tough ones.

Tell me anything that was asked that was unfair because nothing on that paper was something none of us hadn't encountered before. Tough yes, but these are professional exams. If questions are asked regarding peripheral areas of the sylabus that may be unfair, but changing the format is par for the course and people should not expect each exam to be the same.

From what I'm hearing people thought this was going to be an easy 80 marks or so (maybe people didn't study as hard for this as other exams becasue they thought it would be easy)

Maybe the examiner thought this also. My experience tells me, you never know what mark you are going to get. The exam is over wait until August for the results - I'm sure you'll be surprised.

my opinion the same ..the exam was so difficult..hope to get the 50 marks :(

@owensn

I concur. I studied hard to try to get a high mark but that was a benefit for me because I didn't try to game the exam and looked at the syllabus in detail, reflecting on my abilities and identifying weak areas for improvement. But that being said, I doubt I will get a high mark and will be immensely satisfied with four magical letters come August, even if it is marginal.

If the four letters don't turn out to be so magical, I will blame nobody but myself and will learn from this experience... There's no such thing as a free lunch.

it was more than disaster, I hoped for a really good mark over 70% but I am afraid I have failed, there was tooooo much theory, and exercises were absolutely different from the general exam types... when I opened the exam book I thought I am in some other exam...it is really unfair.

TOUGHEST PAPER OF ALL TIMES

@owensn

Nope you still missed the point. Read my post carefully. It wasn't the content i was talking about, it was the QUANTITY of the content.

I am still trying to recover from the exam ...really hoping for 50% the motor cars had me going

@acltang72 said:
@owensn

Nope you still missed the point. Read my post carefully. It wasn't the content i was talking about, it was the QUANTITY of the content.

I do get the poinjt but again I disagree. Read my post, I finished with 15 mins to spare. Poor time management is again another failing of students listed by the examiners. Working methodically through the paper is a vital exam skill. Exam technique is just as vital as subject knowledge. If you didn't have time to finish the paper, then this is down to you, not the examiner. Sorry

DAVID HARWARD PREPARED THE EXAME,THINKING THAT EVERY 1 PASS F6 VERY EASILY.......BUT NOT THIS TIME......LOLZ........PAPER WAS VERY TOUGH