Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FAE September 2012

Options
1…9192949697…126

Comments

  • Options
    #2792
    Ex 88
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭Ex 88


    So if you went for participation exemption you're wrong?


  • Options
    #2793
    Ex 88
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭Ex 88


    So if you went for participation exemption you're wrong?


  • Options
    #2794
    ferike1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭ferike1


    I hope it means you are RC.


  • Options
    #2795
    Saint Sonner
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Saint Sonner


    This is my third attempt and I think I did **** yet again! Wonder is there any point in begging in the email to say go easy on me
    cause I have done them so many times!

    If anything I'm getting worse not better! FML


  • Options
    #2796
    supernova84
    Closed Accounts Posts: 972 ✭✭✭supernova84


    Saint Sonner wrote: »
    This is my third attempt and I think I did **** yet again! Wonder is there any point in begging in the email to say go easy on me
    cause I have done them so many times!

    If anything I'm getting worse not better! FML

    Same as urself saint. Thought I did better last year if I'm honest


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2797
    EveT
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭EveT


    Did anyone else miss ethics? :-(


  • Options
    #2798
    lala1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭lala1987


    I no where suppose to no everything and write our assumptions in the exam but with time pressure etc. and the ARBITRARINESS of the writing of the papers i think there should be a day were we get a chance to argue or points and they specifically point out in a book or something where ur wrong - only way will be fair!!!!


  • Options
    #2799
    lala1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭lala1987


    EveT wrote: »
    Did anyone else miss ethics? :-(

    as in yesterday or today?


  • Options
    #2800
    BESman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 563 ✭✭✭BESman


    ucd.1985 wrote: »
    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.

    Think share sale was better because after all liabilities had been discharged from proceeds received for the asset and taxes paid on extraction there was less than the offer for the shares. The share offer seriously undervalued the business though so I argued for a higher bid.


  • Options
    #2801
    EveT
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭EveT


    lala1987 wrote: »
    EveT wrote: »
    Did anyone else miss ethics? :-(

    as in yesterday or today?
    Today...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2802
    lala1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭lala1987


    EveT wrote: »
    Today...

    crap - where was it?? like saw it yest but not today


  • Options
    #2803
    EveT
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭EveT


    lala1987 wrote: »
    EveT wrote: »
    Today...

    crap - where was it?? like saw it yest but not today

    I totally missed it, the not paying the paye to run the business apparently


  • Options
    #2804
    ferike1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭ferike1


    But what about profit on disposal of the business?

    The building was worth 15280 and was being sold for 21m that is a profit of 6m.


  • Options
    #2805
    mrduffy
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭mrduffy


    feirke I had deliberate behaviour at first but I think I put a line true it so could they still give the marks since I mentioned it ?


  • Options
    #2806
    lala1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭lala1987


    EveT wrote: »
    I totally missed it, the not paying the paye to run the business apparently

    oh well i discussed it under audit surely some markets allowed i honestly didnt think it was a separate indicator to the audit one...


  • Options
    #2807
    Szewinska
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭Szewinska


    EveT wrote: »
    I totally missed it, the not paying the paye to run the business apparently

    i threw in a corp governance issue there.

    remuneration committee, weak internal control, no HR sector really, audit committee non exec directors.

    may be bull


  • Options
    #2808
    ferike1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭ferike1


    lala1987 wrote: »
    oh well i discussed it under audit surely some markets allowed i honestly didnt think it was a separate indicator to the audit one...

    audit an ethics mesh together.


  • Options
    #2809
    BESman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 563 ✭✭✭BESman


    EveT wrote: »
    lala1987 wrote: »
    EveT wrote: »
    Today...

    crap - where was it?? like saw it yest but not today

    I totally missed it, the not paying the paye to run the business apparently

    I identified this as fraud more than ethics. There wasn't really a clear ethics indicator today was there?


  • Options
    #2810
    ferike1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭ferike1


    Very few clear indicators today. Very obtuse paper


  • Options
    #2811
    Nom-IzZ
    Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Nom-IzZ


    ferike1 wrote: »
    But what about profit on disposal of the business?

    The building was worth 15280 and was being sold for 21m that is a profit of 6m.
    But then they have a co and no assets so have to liquidate and pay off the mortgage, was better value to sell shares


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2812
    EveT
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭EveT


    Lads is it more common to fail on sufficiency or breadth/depth?


  • Options
    #2813
    supernova84
    Closed Accounts Posts: 972 ✭✭✭supernova84


    I did the 3rd case first thank fcuk because wasn't gonna look at that last. Lots of BL today. I mentioned in Sim 3 to improve their organisation structure and went on about corporate governance for a bit here because none in any other case.
    Didn't mention fraud but more about an overhaul of the bonus structure and xr396 budget should be prepared monthly instead of once a year. Threw in a bit of tax here about not paying over tax on time and could trigger revenue audit, also a bit about duties to prepare proper books. IAS 20 re subsidies. Audit risk around bonuses.

    Did sim 1 next. Took it as a finance idicator re evaluating 2 system. Change Mgt team waffle said Arnold should be the IT champion. Mentioned a few kpi's and threw in ZBB.

    Sim 2 left till last and my tax was very generic. I mentioned that they could also set up another co and lob the valuable asset in here prob wrong tho. Said should accept share sale but very scratchy. HR issue said it's best to tell them by way of letter in a positive tone and said a board meeting should be called re stakeholder concerns. Mentioned 1

    Overall very random.


  • Options
    #2814
    Cliona2012
    Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭Cliona2012


    Just thinking re: tax indicator on sim 2.
    I said the S626B partic exemp was available on both the share sale and the subsequent cap distrub on liquidation following a prop sale.
    Was i RIGHT on this???


  • Options
    #2815
    aca101
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭aca101


    Bill Williams wrote: »
    No participation exemption re Mandalay as greater part of value derived from specified assets.


    Even if they sold the company as going concern? I said that they should qualify for it if the acquirer was going to continue the trade. Feck it anyway.

    Though that it was tough paper, the volume was beyond what I would have expected, like yesterday there seemed to be a lot of appendices and additional info. Good bit tougher than previous years all in all. I suppose they have to pass around 75% of people anyway (hopefully).


  • Options
    #2816
    Szewinska
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭Szewinska


    any ias 37 for providing for the unpaid tax liabilities at yer end. i picked it up as they never paid the tax on bonuses.


  • Options
    #2817
    ferike1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭ferike1


    Szewinska wrote: »
    any ias 37 for providing for the unpaid tax liabilities at yer end. i picked it up as they never paid the tax on bonuses.

    I said that too


  • Options
    #2818
    figrolls
    Registered Users Posts: 670 ✭✭✭figrolls


    Anybody else mention that Mandalay was in breach of section 40 as was in net liability position? Just through in a quick note that they were and should call an egm within 28 days...


  • Options
    #2819
    Username2011
    Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭Username2011


    Did anyone notice that it didn't appear to be accounting for the bonus correctly as 6 months are in this year and 6 months are next year?

    I said that as they hadn't accrued for 6 months of the bonus and tax at year end an adjustment was required and posted the journal. Then said if they didn't do it last year it'd be a material error and would have to be retrospectively fixed


  • Options
    #2820
    Szewinska
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭Szewinska


    figrolls wrote: »
    Anybody else mention that Mandalay was in breach of section 40 as was in net liability position? Just through in a quick note that they were and should call an egm within 28 days...

    unbelievable call. you were clued in today


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2821
    aca101
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭aca101


    The amount of IMP over the 2 days was a bit ludicrous....even the narrative from the core case had an IT slant (software co). Seems a bit daft for an accounting qualification...I mean do they actually think we need a knowledge of IT systems more than we'll need an understanding of tax rules and reliefs once we're qualified.


Advertisement