- This topic has 134 replies, 61 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
I agree entirely with you – as far as I know the fair value of the contingent liability should be included with the Net Asset calculations (both at acquisition and reporting dates). The question said it was “disclosed” previously at $5 (i.e. not recognised in the Accounts but shown as a Note in the Accounts). But then it had a fair value of €1m…
Besides I am not quite sure I understood paragraph 3 of email sent from Cardine, and what message is he trying to convey???
@joevassallo said:
I agree entirely with you – as far as I know the fair value of the contingent liability should be included with the Net Asset calculations (both at acquisition and reporting dates). The question said it was “disclosed” previously at $5 (i.e. not recognised in the Accounts but shown as a Note in the Accounts). But then it had a fair value of €1m…Besides I am not quite sure I understood paragraph 3 of email sent from Cardine, and what message is he trying to convey???
Joe – Paragraph three (3) is sharing an experience I’ve in an interview. The job was for a finance manger based in southern side of USA; it’s for a number of contract projects the the organization will under go with partnership with local and overseas organization – UN, world bank etc. They ask a question which relate to the new IFRS 15; I answer making specific reference to the changes that will take effect January 2016 – they ridicule me.
It’s obvious that they were not aware of pending changes as it relate to contract – I did not get the job. I wrote to them – sending to the head of finance extract from the new procedure and how we should treat revenue and expense in a contractual agreement. Some people are not comfortable when people they look-down on has more information than they do. We do NOT do this on this NOBLE forum – we’re the best; OT set the pace and we MUST continue to share opinion – this is a tool for professional development.
I love all the response – its challenges bring result in knowledge acquired. Hold your points and stand for what you know. Even if you’re ridicule – it’s your right to state facts and express your opinion!!!!!!!!!!! Peace, love and blessing on ALL colleagues – exam success!!!!!!! Happy holiday(s) for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!Continue with preparation – March/June 2016, we’ll reap the fruit from our labour – goooooooooood things!!!
Regards,
@sharique123 said:
Kindly reply.
I will be really thankful.
The next exam session of March 2016 will be a mix of March 2016 and June 2016 session.
Is my undrestanding correct ?Hi Colleague;
If you read the ACCA policy – new exam and the recent past paper being published, you’ld have agreed: ACCA replicates aspects of September in the December exam; therefore the past paper for the early secession was not available.
The comment this forum confirm – P2 question #2 was from the September sitting; therefore, it wised move to redo the questions with help from your notes. We should not be depending on whether questions will be repeated; but know the syllabus to answer ALL questions correctly – equivalent to pass mark achieve. I presumed – March is the first print and June will carry aspect of March; Therefore – March/June
Past papers read: September/December and I believe after reading the policy it is March/June. This makes it easier for one to succeed at resit – if you worked the questions following the exam – June or December. The two new secession papers will be TOP secret – multiply choice questions answer will of the past – see policy on site.
Regards,
Whether it was an operating or finance lease isn’t really relevant… Discussing it was the key. There are indicators for and against, if you identify and discuss them all, you’ll only drop one mark for an indirect conclusion!
not true… and even if it was, 6 words wouldn’t get you 6 marks!
see this article:
https://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/student/exam-support-resources/fundamentals-exams-study-resources/f7/technical-articles/How-to-account-for-property.htmlquote:
In determining whether the land element is an operating or a finance lease, an important consideration is that land normally has an indefinite economic life, which makes most of the land elements operating leases.However, this is not always the case. Land elements can be classified as a finance lease if significant risks and re wards associated with the land during the lease period would have been transferred from the lessor to the lessee despite there being no transfer of title. For example, consider a 999-year lease of land and buildings. In this situation, significant risks and rewards associated with the land during the lease term would have been transferred to the lessee despite there being no transfer of title.
IFRS 3 removes the “probable” criteria in acquisition recognition, and so contingencies are recognised at fair value:
The requirements for recognition of contingent consideration have been
amended. Contingent consideration now has to be recognised at fair value
even if payment is not deemed to be probable at the date of the acquisition.from this article:
https://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/pdf/sa_feb09_holt.pdfFor the P2 Int paper, Question 3 regarding the contract for Oil of £10m I think. Did anyone else recognize that this should be a intangible asset as per IAS 38? Just was not sure how 7-8 marks was to come from just IFRS 9.
In Q2, there are factors which also point to the fact that the Lease may not be Finance Lease such as:
* The lease was not for the whole useful economic life of the asset
* The lease will not transfer substantially all of the risks and rewards of ownership of the asset to the lessee.
* Lessee will have not lease the asset for the secondary period.
*And some other issues@amimarissa: The exam result will be announced on 18th Jan 16. So it is highly probable that they will publish the answer 1 week ealier.
- The topic ‘*** P2 December 2015 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***’ is closed to new replies.