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

I did not take the rent in calculation of property income for the 3rd office building as it is on accruals basis (would be for next period), so the total for the building came as allowable loss. Also the cost of insuarance for one of the buildings had to be proportioned as only part of the period was covered in that tax year.
Who got what in the question where the payments on account had to be made for CT? 1) one assosiated company – got 0 in last installment; 2) no assosiated companies – repayment of 1,500 was due.

Kisugem,

I ve got the same as you …. 🙂

What the Hell of F6 this yr? i also did around 80% Revision kit. when i saw paper Q1, i suprised what VAT Q is it! then went to Q2 which made me so depressed. then when Q3, i was like i can do it . but when i really did, it’s no idea to write out . why examiner so so so ? dun noe how to mention this exam paper. surely DIFFERENT 100% . wish for 50!

I think this exam was difficult and just within the rules, where were all the BIK, PPR, Income tax computation, Difficult chargeable gains, theory, business rates, 50 MOTORS CARS, A jOKE.

I hope the examiner forgot that we teach ourselves and esp for who has different teaching/learning background.

I got it very difficult & I couldn’t manage the time to entertain all questions

drunk paper i dont know what is going to be happened

Did examiner took into consideration that most of students are working and they are spending money and time. We are not asking for easy exam but we do ask for REASONABLE one.At the end we are preparing months ago and we deserve better treatment.

Thank you examiner and I hope new examiner for December sitting.

There was a lot of theory in this paper and completely different layout from past exam papers… Not happy with this paper at all…

Good thing I was drunk when I took the exam because I managed to finish it in time.;)

Anyone remember the loss reliefs… It was the 180k. I think I applied all of that on carry back loss relief against general income.. as much as I could in T=0 and T=-1 and then I limited my loss reliefs to the initial years taking advantage of the temporary extension (maximum 50k in t=-2 and t=-3) However, I also apportioned the loss relief for the short 9 month accounting period in t=-3 so that the 50k max was in fact 43750 (21/24 x 50k). I applied as much as I could and carried forward the remaining balance for the first available loss relief in the future. I had unrelieved gift aid in t=-2 of 1500 or something like that.

There was also grossing up for that dividend from the non associated foreign company. I’ve now realised that was Franked Investment Income but i stupidly put it in investment income. Ah well.

In terms of all that undisclosed capital gains crap all i remember was that there was a max penalty for deliberate and concealed error of 100% of PLR. then of course I rationed it out that if there was an unprompted disclosure there was a minimum band of 30% (or so i think). Interest accrued from the due date (Jan 31st 2010) at the interest rate of 2.75%.

For the professional ethics part I hadn’t read the following question and started talking about advising the client that he would be stupid because they could always exercise inspection and information powers and raise a discovery assessment. If I were a CCA I would certainly tell the guy that he’s a knob and to fork up the cash.

VAT wasn’t so bad was it? Flat rate was fairly simple. They gave us the input and output VAT.

As for the partnership (Q1), and the capital gains (Q3) I was quite perplexed. I thought the FA 1985 share pool was quite straightforward and the indexed rises at each operative event was not anything should have not expected. However, the fact that the damage was to be treated as a part disposal and did not have any business relief was confusing, specially with the adjustment to base cost (although that was only worth a mark). Land disposal was quite straightforward. Rollover relief was straightforward too… Indexed cost helped take some calculation out of the way. It was common sense from there.

I think all in all it was a very challenging paper, and I’d love to hear thoughts on the aforementioned comments. I was hoping for a high mark and had covered the entire syllabus but in light of the change of format I think I’d be lucky to get a pass.

@platinumkp

It was to my understanding that we apportion the £50,000 if the year of loss is less than 12 months long, in this case it wasn’t therefore the full £50,000 should have been allowed? It can be apportioned when a business ceases to trade where relief is only allowed to be carried back 36 months prior to cessation.

I think the question only asked for the PCTCT so therefore we should ignore the FII as that is only added to arrive at profits.

I could be wrong! But that was my approach

i think we shud let acca know about it…if more thn 40 percent of paper includes theory then whts the point of doing so much nemerical work in taxation …

No you have to apportion the 50000 for shorter periods, I went through the entire losses chapter after the paper and know this. You dont have to apportion it for income tax I think otherwise I really would have remembered it.

@ platinumkp
Franked investment income is actually grossed up, the net figure is mentioned as dividends not franked investment income.

The problem with the penalties for CGT was that it wasnt clear if the error was “concealed” or not so I calculated the penalties for both “delibrate but not concealed” and “delibrate and concealed”. The interest rate is 2.5% not 2.75…

There was no part disposal on the damaged asset. If all the proceeds are re-invested then the person can claim to not treat it as part disposal, it doesnt have to be a business asset.

The paper is only comprise of VAT, VAT & VAT