FAE September 2012

Szewinska

i went with participation exemption. surely they wouldn't be that sneaky and it applied

figrolls

ferike1 wrote: »

Is that relevant?

Just says the sub must be in the EU. Says nothing about who you are selling it to.

Yeah that's what I said, also it is a trading sub as it operates a business from the premises as opposed to development land, oh well!

tomfoolery60

ferike1 wrote: »

Also when I saw the institute dude walking around all smug in his suit I wanted to deck him.

That's a bit harsh - that guys is actually really nice. I remember him from CAP2 last year and he was a big help.

I'm not so sure that IFRS 5 was an indicator on SIM 2 - there's not much in there to write about other than you are disposing it and there are accounting implications. I mean you could go on waffeling about accounting for redunancy payments and everything under the sun, etc. But I could be wrong.

BL and Management Accounting has been all over the place this year. Oh well, I hope the bar is low.

haribo12

Was there not a tax indicator in case 1 about the About the setting up the division and the reorganisation of the pipe line

Szewinska

Bill Williams wrote: »

That was horrible.

I wasn't sure whether IFRS 5 was relevant or not. It said "financial" rather than "financial reporting" so I just mentioned it in passing.

I kind of did this -

1

- Suggested a team to lead change

- Recommended the Waters software

- Critiqued the performance measures

2

- Recommeded a share sale

- Talked about implications of closure / sale

- Talked sh1te about communicating with employees and customers

- Talked about the tax implications of both options

3

- Talked about the payroll tax problem. Called it a fraud. General stuff re decrease materiality, more tests, skeptical re management stuff

- Dealt with the grants issue

- Dealt with regularising the tax thing (Code of Practice etc)

- Talked sh1te about ethics (resigning, reporting them, an adverse opinion. Kitchen sink job.

No corporate governance? Odd.

i threw in corp governance in the last sim. remuneration committee. i just threw all and sundry in here to try catch something

Username2011

Bill Williams wrote: »

That was horrible.

I wasn't sure whether IFRS 5 was relevant or not. It said "financial" rather than "financial reporting" so I just mentioned it in passing.

I kind of did this -

1

- Suggested a team to lead change

- Recommended the Waters software

- Critiqued the performance measures

2

- Recommeded a share sale

- Talked about implications of closure / sale

- Talked sh1te about communicating with employees and customers

- Talked about the tax implications of both options

3

- Talked about the payroll tax problem. Called it a fraud. General stuff re decrease materiality, more tests, skeptical re management stuff

- Dealt with the grants issue

- Dealt with regularising the tax thing (Code of Practice etc)

- Talked sh1te about ethics (resigning, reporting them, an adverse opinion. Kitchen sink job.

No corporate governance? Odd.

So just the one tax indicator then yeah?
How did u deal with the PM in sim 1 if u don't mind me asking?

ferike1

Lol I am just frustrated.

The tax this year was very little. Like what 2 indicators? Which means 1 RC is enough to pass?

Also not much finance. I mean the financial implications of sale is that FR or Finance?

cbxmurphy

My indicators as follow:
1st case:
Staff the change team, wrote some about the importance of change, director need announcement, and evaluate 3staffs, suggest Arnold lead, Paula assist and report to Betty
Appropriate performance measurement. Balance scorecard, kPI, weekly reporting and issue to consider as staff retention
System billing, PPS preferred, non financial analysis and key area for ranking.

2nd case:
Financial non financial implications. Financial includ valuation, FR such as IFRS5 and IAS 27, tax very short
Non financial the stakeholder reaction, reputation, redundancy issue

Communication strategy, director Annoucement again, set up team, deal grief, may replace them to other role

Tax, not qualify for participation exemption as investee is international. CGT for both, and others short answer

Case 3
Suggestion to company, internal control on leavers, recruit payroll staff and hR manager cover, forget mention should separate hR function from Finance, crap
Suggestion to us such as risk and procedure for fraud, segregation of duty

Adjustment as the grant need to be repaied,

Ethical issue with david intentionally exclude tax amount and approach by talk with him or by writing I management letter, suggest to unprompted qualifying disclosure and of he not agree and report to board.

ucd.1985

haribo12 wrote: »

Was there not a tax indicator in case 1 about the About the setting up the division and the reorganisation of the pipe line

Possibly could have mentioned interest as a charge.

ferike1

Bill Williams wrote: »

No participation exemption re Mandalay as greater part of value derived from specified assets.

That is sneaky and I am fscked
If I fail because of tax I will cry

mrduffy

Did anyone say the non payment of tax was an error due to going concern and he had 12 months to self correct it !

Chipped Nails

Is it just me or were those the most badly worded cases ever especially SIM 2?

ferike1

I said it was deliberate behaviour.

Acc7777

ferike1 wrote: »

That is sneaky and I am fscked
If I fail because of tax I will cry

In the same boat. Crap!

In case 3 I talked about including the bonus taxes liability in the P35 return for 2011 and said that it must be filed before 23rd Feb 2012 but now I see it says its late February 2012?! Audit payroll report says it was completed on 20th Feb? Guess that probably means that it was passed the deadline...

Also - cases very low on tax and finance - gutted if fail on one of those

Username2011

ferike1 wrote: »

Lol I am just frustrated.

The tax this year was very little. Like what 2 indicators? Which means 1 RC is enough to pass?

Also not much finance. I mean the financial implications of sale is that FR or Finance?

What were the two tax indicators

ferike1

Yeah that's what I thought too.

I think there was maybe 2 of each.

So maybe 1 RC in each will be enough. God I really hope so.

FAE_UCH

ferike1 wrote: »

Bill Williams wrote: »

No participation exemption re Mandalay as greater part of value derived from specified assets.

That is sneaky and I am fscked
If I fail because of tax I will cry

but the asset was described as buildings rather than land buildings so it's not a specified asset really is it?

tomfoolery60

ferike1 wrote: »

That is sneaky and I am fscked
If I fail because of tax I will cry

I don't think they have been sneaky. It said explicitly "no development potential". And a building does not equal land. I would be extremely surprised if participation exemption does not apply.

ferike1

Asset sale v Share sale

Sim 3

Potential tax implications of bonus non payment. (my opinion anyway, I talked about how if the revenue find out about stuff they could get fined, unprompted qualifying disclosure, it wasn't long so I am not sure if it was an indicator).

ucd.1985

tomfoolery60 wrote: »

I don't think they have been sneaky. It said explicitly "no development potential". And a building does not equal land. I would be extremely surprised if participation exemption does not apply.

I think even where participation exemption did not apply the share sale was still the better option as there was a minimal enough CGT charge where relief was not available.

Szewinska

Bill Williams wrote: »

Don't panic.

You reached the right conclusion albeit for the wrong reason. That has to be in RC territory.

I make max 2 tax indicators.

your very confident Bill Williams on this non applicability of participation exemption.

ferike1

What was the finance indicator today? I only realised there was only one yesterday.

funkymonkey9

I said to re negotiate a higher price for the shares because letting employees down was a big issue so if company transferred as going concern some employees could be kept on,told them to sell the company more explaining how valuable building was,that the latent gain would be small,stamp duty is low and the losses will be of great value to them,also said participation exemption applied but didn't say why,their reports always give out for listing conditions or writing out paragraphs of standards so I didn't,if they mark me down cos I didn't list conditions I could kill someone!last case was too vague,didn't have a clue,did a kitchen sink job on it too

EveT

Missed ethics,say am at serious risk of failing on BL

ferike1

Lol, people on the boards seem to be quite knowledgable. If you guys are struggling hopefully the average punter is struggling more and the institute will set a reasonable bar.

If people here are failing then God help the rest!

Nom-IzZ

FAE_UCH wrote: »

ferike1 wrote: »

Bill Williams wrote: »

No participation exemption re Mandalay as greater part of value derived from specified assets.

That is sneaky and I am fscked
If I fail because of tax I will cry

but the asset was described as buildings rather than land buildings so it's not a specified asset really is it?

Do they not need to own shares for ten years in order to get the participation exemption

Acc7777

Any one feel like it was a weird breakdown of indicators over the two days?

3 information management indicators and only 1 clear tax and finance indicator? WTF

ferike1

Nom-IzZ wrote: »

Do they not need to own shares for ten years in order to get the participation exemption

That has to do with clawback of CGT on the transfer of assets. I mentioned they should look out for that as the company was set up in 2003 so its 9 years.

lala1987

Bill Williams wrote: »

Land or buildings in the State are specified assets. I'm 100% sure of that. Land for tax purposes means land or buildings.

does it state is somewhere in book??? i thought specified assets were mining etc.

Szewinska

must be very few exams out there where candidates come out with such various things that they answered on in the exam