FAE September 2014

20 Times 20 Times

House of Wolves wrote: »

Also think Paul highlighted shareholders disputes as a good topic not yet examined on CG in one of the online lectures.

Paul has mentioned a lot of crap ! He is bound to hit something ! Throw enough mud at the wall - Something will stick .

Dellboy2007

Little Pea wrote: »

Paul has mentioned a lot of crap ! He is bound to hit something ! Throw enough mud at the wall - Something will stick .

It's like when your kids come home from school and constantly harp on about what their teacher said. Wait a minute, I don't have kids, what are all these children doing in my house.

TheDoctor

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

It's like when your kids come home from school and constantly harp on about what their teacher said. Wait a minute, I don't have kids, what are all these children doing in my house.

Tell me about it

myshirt

TheDoctor wrote: »

Tell me about it

Involved in a few hit and runs lads?

Abbey14

Hi, few of us met up for a study group today and came away with the following unanswered questions:

- In tax, has there been a change in relation to the general provisions? Is it only specific provisions that are allowable for tax?

- Also there was one case (not sure which one) where there was a hidden indicator that, while the report was only requested by one director it had to be addressed to the other directors. But came across another case today where one director asked you to write a memo specifically to her and it was considered okay to do this?

Thanks.

PhilipLuke

Abbey14 wrote: »

Hi, few of us met up for a study group today and came away with the following unanswered questions:

- In tax, has there been a change in relation to the general provisions? Is it only specific provisions that are allowable for tax?

- Also there was one case (not sure which one) where there was a hidden indicator that, while the report was only requested by one director it had to be addressed to the other directors. But came across another case today where one director asked you to write a memo specifically to her and it was considered okay to do this?

Thanks.

Yes on the tax, although those public accountants would probably forget to add it back

And the case where they address both Directors, they are joint managing directors

Abbey14

Perfect Thanks

acastudent

Seriously I don't know how people pass both core and elective . Have been doing cases since June then technical stuff , now cases again and don't feel any near to be ready in fact I feel so tired and exhausted and there's absolute nada stays in my head at this point .

littlemiss123

acastudent wrote: »

Seriously I don't know how people pass both core and elective . Have been doing cases since June then technical stuff , now cases again and don't feel any near to be ready in fact I feel so tired and exhausted and there's absolute nada stays in my head at this point .

You're definitely not the only one!! Chin up, it's nearly over!

Mark1916

acastudent wrote: »

Seriously I don't know how people pass both core and elective . Have been doing cases since June then technical stuff , now cases again and don't feel any near to be ready in fact I feel so tired and exhausted and there's absolute nada stays in my head at this point .

Have a lie in tomorrow morning get yourself a nice breakfast and start fresh tomorrow afternoon! Everyone needs a day off now and again to refresh the batteries!

m1ck007

Are people just putting a file together for tax with the notes all referenced or what? Think im gonna read all the case solutions to get a feel for how to answer them instead of wasting half a day attempting one. Any one else approached it like this? Gonna get stuck into fr on friday after i finish my tax file tomorrow, do a few cases for core and elective in between and hope for the best.... then benamaldena for nine nights on the 7th lol

heathcliff101

Has anyone gone to the trouble of photocopying the self study book, or is there a soft copy version on CAI website that I can't see?

LOccitane

Just finished the final STEPS Comp case; Defcon - The case is riddled with Ethics and I feel a really nasty indicator in there on the advice regarding the MBO. On first reading I would have instead launched into advice in that regard.

Not to mention the calculations on the contract options.

Let's just hope the actual Final exam is nothing like that...

In terms of the Final. Any predictions?

I'm still sticking with a Group context.. It will allow the examination of Tax, Audit, Fin Rep and MA areas that have not been asked before..

Three weeks from tomorrow evening and it will all be over in any case...!

PhilipLuke

m1ck007 wrote: »

Are people just putting a file together for tax with the notes all referenced or what? Think im gonna read all the case solutions to get a feel for how to answer them instead of wasting half a day attempting one. Any one else approached it like this? Gonna get stuck into fr on friday after i finish my tax file tomorrow, do a few cases for core and elective in between and hope for the best.... then benamaldena for nine nights on the 7th lol

I read the case, note down the taxes and reliefs applicable and make bullet points, then read the solution to see if I have hit everything

No point in spending all day doing out the solution, you only wear yourself out

PhilipLuke

I am doing the 2011 Comp and I missed the tax indicator, is that an automatic red?

Abbey14

Hi,

To be audit exempt do you have to meet all 3 or jut 2 of the following:

- Balance sheet total - 4.4m
- Turnover - 8.8m
- Average employees - 50.

As a general rule is it all 3 to be a small company (so for audit exempt, corp gov purposes etc)

Christy Kearny's notes say must meet all 3 and the CAI lecture notes says you only have to meet 2.

Thanks.

Aidodub87

Abbey14 wrote: »

Hi,

To be audit exempt do you have to meet all 3 or jut 2 of the following:

- Balance sheet total - 4.4m
- Turnover - 8.8m
- Average employees - 50.

As a general rule is it all 3 to be a small company (so for audit exempt, corp gov purposes etc)

Christy Kearny's notes say must meet all 3 and the CAI lecture notes says you only have to meet 2.

Thanks.

It's 2.

PhilipLuke

Aidodub87 wrote: »

It's 2.

External Audit & Assurance book

Quote: In order to be exempt a company must meet all three criteria and the directors must satisfy themselves that the conditions are met in respect of current and previous financial years.

Miller1990

PhilipLuke wrote: »

External Audit & Assurance book

Quote: In order to be exempt a company must meet all three criteria and the directors must satisfy themselves that the conditions are met in respect of current and previous financial years.

There is a difference between a company being 'audit exempt' and a 'small entity'.

There is more criteria than just these three for a company to be audit exempt. Look it up on the CRO website, I can't post links.

autumnbelle

I think it's all three, if the bad debts allowed for tax are only specific bad debts and in the case if we had general and specific what would be the affect on defered tax?

PhilipLuke

Miller1990 wrote: »

There is a difference between a company being 'audit exempt' and a 'small entity'.

There is more criteria than just these three for a company to be audit exempt. Look it up on the CRO website, I can't post links.

Basically those are the rules for a private company in the ROI, if over the threshold on any of the three then you must perform an audit

Other reasons:

Company limited by gaurantee
public company
parent or subsidiary undertaking

and if filing a late return

littlemiss123

autumnbelle wrote: »

I think it's all three, if the bad debts allowed for tax are only specific bad debts and in the case if we had general and specific what would be the affect on defered tax?

I'm gonna say a deferred tax asset to the value of general provision * 12.5%.

Deferred tax is my achilles heel though, so I could be completely wrong. I probably am completely wrong.

PhilipLuke

littlemiss123 wrote: »

I'm gonna say a deferred tax asset to the value of general provision * 12.5%.

Deferred tax is my achilles heel though, so I could be completely wrong. I probably am completely wrong.

It is just an addback in the tax comp!! Pretty sure it has no effect on deferred tax!! Just like personal items added back would have no impact

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong

littlemiss123

PhilipLuke wrote: »

It is just an addback in the tax comp!! Pretty sure it has no effect on deferred tax!! Just like personal items added back would have no impact

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong

Not gonna correct you cos I don't have a clue really! I'll take your word for it, it does sound right!

PhilipLuke

littlemiss123 wrote: »

Not gonna correct you cos I don't have a clue really! I'll take your word for it, it does sound right!

I think that deferred tax is just accounted for on differences in timing of cashflow between the company and revenue.

A general provision is not a cash flow so no deferred tax implication

autumnbelle

Anyone got any notes on deferred tax - I could do with a for dummies simple version of when you do or don't need to think of it

backtothebooks

PhilipLuke wrote: »

I think that deferred tax is just accounted for on differences in timing of cashflow between the company and revenue.

A general provision is not a cash flow so no deferred tax implication

You're wrong mate....the general provision gives rise to a DT asset

biddyboo

lads, hate to be a scab but could someone please attach the blackwater case days up (questions and solutions). need as much bl as poss. thanks in advance for your co-operation.

PhilipLuke

backtothebooks wrote: »

You're wrong mate....the general provision gives rise to a DT asset

You sure?

House of Wolves

biddyboo wrote: »

lads, hate to be a scab but could someone please attach the blackwater case days up (questions and solutions). need as much bl as poss. thanks in advance for your co-operation.

Part 1 of blackwater

House of Wolves

Part 2

backtothebooks

PhilipLuke wrote: »

You sure?

Yep, positive.

suref

General provisions aren't allowed under ifrs so there will be no deferred tax

PhilipLuke

suref wrote: »

General provisions aren't allowed under ifrs so there will be no deferred tax

Can anyone clarify this?? for certain!!

PhilipLuke

suref wrote: »

General provisions aren't allowed under ifrs so there will be no deferred tax

I agree, there cannot be a deferred tax asset

George Huxley 1983

A debt is a financial asset under IAS 39. As said, general provisions are not allowable under IFRS. An impairment of financial assets such as debts however are allowed either specifically or over a collection of debts (if I remember correctly).

Gunners100

PhilipLuke wrote: »

Can anyone clarify this?? for certain!!

General provisions aren't allowed to be included in the FS under ifrs so there should be not deferred tax as the provision would be an error in the first place.

If there was a general provision in the accounts there would be a deductible tempory difference and under normal circumstances a deferred tax asset would arise - however like I said the provision shouldn't be there in the first place as IFRS doesn't allow it.

iwishihadaname

Today I did the 2011 paper, and for the first time in 2 and a half months, actually passed a case.

I would like to thank my mam for providing all those much needed cups of tea, my sis for listening to all my moaning about impending doom on the 2nd of September, and my bf for telling me to JFDI xoxo

LOccitane

With regard to Bad Debt Provisions and the Deferred Tax implications...

See Page 247 of the Integrated Self Case Study Pack - O' Reilly Mortgages:

''As outlined above, the bad debt provisions are tax deductible and therefore there is no deferred tax impact''.

Also - where is a General Provision disallowed under IAS 39? It's standard for large IFRS reporting entities to have both general and specific ''provisions for credit losses on trade receivables''.

I'm not sure that I agree entirely with the wording in the ORM Case - but in any case there appears to be no DT impact arising thereon.

PhilipLuke

iwishihadaname wrote: »

Today I did the 2011 paper, and for the first time in 2 and a half months, actually passed a case.

I would like to thank my mam for providing all those much needed cups of tea, my sis for listening to all my moaning about impending doom on the 2nd of September, and my bf for telling me to JFDI xoxo

I did the comp, missed the tax indicator though

ASOT2012

LOccitane wrote: »

Also - where is a General Provision disallowed under IAS 39? It's standard for large IFRS reporting entities to have both general and specific ''provisions for credit losses on trade receivables''.

I'm not sure that I agree entirely with the wording in the ORM Case - but in any case there appears to be no DT impact arising thereon.

General provision not allowed

IAS 39 states that:

“A financial asset or a group of financial assets is impaired and impairment losses are incurred if, and only if, there is objective evidence of impairment as a result of one or more events that occurred after the initial recognition of the asset (a ‘loss event’) and that loss event (or events) has an impact on the estimated future cash flows of the financial asset or group of financial assets that can be reliably estimated.”
As such, impairment loss should be recognized when, subsequent to the initial recognition of the receivable, an event has happened which causes the receivable to be impaired. General provision provided according to age of the outstanding is no longer allowed. A financial asset should be impaired if, and only if, there is objective evidence of impairment.

Philip1988

Has anybody an index done up for the IMP book?

LOccitane

ASOT2012 wrote: »

General provision not allowed

IAS 39 states that:

“A financial asset or a group of financial assets is impaired and impairment losses are incurred if, and only if, there is objective evidence of impairment as a result of one or more events that occurred after the initial recognition of the asset (a ‘loss event’) and that loss event (or events) has an impact on the estimated future cash flows of the financial asset or group of financial assets that can be reliably estimated.”
As such, impairment loss should be recognized when, subsequent to the initial recognition of the receivable, an event has happened which causes the receivable to be impaired. General provision provided according to age of the outstanding is no longer allowed. A financial asset should be impaired if, and only if, there is objective evidence of impairment.

Thanks for the extract from IAS 39. Interesting in that the basis for computation of a provision for credit losses on Trade Receivables at a divisional level for an IFRS Reporting Group is still often based on an aging profile in my experience...

So, in the context of the Deferred Tax issue, the solution is saying that both General/Specific provisions are deductible. No DT issue arises?

suref

From what I understand if you're dealing under Irish/uk gaap there may be a deferred tax asset from general bad debt provision but that won't be applicable under ifrs as it's not recognised in the accounts. There may be an issue of a reporting subsidiary reporting in local gaap and the consolidated stats making a consolidated adjustment for this to bring in line with ifrs but doubt it

zizo

Does anybody have the 2012 sims mock paper and solution?

FAE_APM

Hi guys - repeat offender back for another bashing with this exam.

As if I was not already aggrieved enough, with only 3 weeks to go, I decided to check the "Rules of Engagement". Seems to be some significant changes in the 13/14 Competency Statement compared to my 12/13 one...not good.

Can any kind soul put up the 13/14 Planning & Delivery Schedule for me? I think here will be some over lap on some class notes but if anyone is able to post the notes from the student centre that would be great. Alternatively if anyone can post wee Joes email (assuming he took the class the year).

Any assistance is much appreciated. I will try reward the helper

m1ck007

Does anyone really have a clue about tax issues of reconstruction??

cian twomey

hey guys brain was a bit fried today so gonna take the rest of the day off, just wondering what hours you guys are putting in and if you plan on having any days off over the next 2- 2.5 weeks or would it be better just to try and keep going?

laser08

In devere does anyone know where the 3200 figure is coming from in the calculation of roce?

LOccitane

laser08 wrote: »

In devere does anyone know where the 3200 figure is coming from in the calculation of roce?

I think it is an uplift in Capital Employed to reflect the EUR 3.2 Million valuation that Peter has placed on the remaining four equal sized units as per the Question narrative. Presumably this valuation is not currently reflected in the Book Values.

But I certainly didn't add it in when doing the Case cold and I'm still not 100% on why it's added in either.