FAE 2017

Clare2007

I went for a two party swap for the first indicator, anyone else think it was a two party swap??

s15r330

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Did you get everything attempted?.

I didn't get time to review the second part of the testing on the acquisition the provision bit what was that about anyway it read so difficult I stuck in a quick few generic procedures. Only had one issue for the audit report at the end too.

My head was sore afterwards.

Did you notice in the SIM 2 the audit senior retired? Wtf haha...

I feel like retiring after that

What are people saying for the cassi survey?

MrSzyslak

That's what I was thinking haha

Well what did you think of the audit specifically ha? Testing on the acquisition was terrible wasn't it especially second part on provision? My head was fried my that stage.

There was no straight forward indicator on one auditing standard that are riddled throughout the cases workbook. Like use of an audit expert, or internal audit, or service organisation or something along them lines or ethics. Very controls, procedures based. Time was a big issue for people I'd say.

I honestly don't know how I did. I'm trying to think how it will be marked.

For Casi report mentioning about the lease in core. Not sure yet for audit going to it now quickly. It's important to fill it in.

Anyway on the way to Dublin for a session then flying out tomorrow for a long overdue holiday :-). I am sick of cases and folders and chairs and desks ha..

Beer time :-)

Lyra Fangs

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Did you get everything attempted?.

I didn't get time to review the second part of the testing on the acquisition the provision bit what was that about anyway it read so difficult I stuck in a quick few generic procedures. Only had one issue for the audit report at the end too.

My head was sore afterwards.

Did you notice in the SIM 2 the audit senior retired? Wtf haha...

I got to take a stab at everything but definitely don't feel like I did myself justice. So much rushing just to get through things didn't leave much room for actually thinking.

I had two issues with the AR being the inclusion of the legal/accounting fees in the Goodwill Cal and the LOS around the deferred consideration.

And haha I didn't even think about a retired senior at the time, feel like the exams are so badly worded.

John.burke

Clare2007 wrote: »

I went for a two party swap for the first indicator, anyone else think it was a two party swap??

I don't think so purely because it was financing trade rather than an existing trade . Then again that's just guestwork

Faecanditate

AtticusFinch86 wrote: »

I sat the APM today. It was by far the hardest exam of the week. It examined financial services and the "disaster relief" charity sectors i.e. no traditional business. I spent 40 minutes at least on the NPV and still didn't get it finished even though I was working at a reasonable speed. I'm kicking myself about the "business case for Ireland" indicator as I gave what I would have thought was a strong response but I completely forgot to put in any drawbacks of selecting Ireland.

Other than that, I attempted everything and gave, for the most part, what I think were solid responses so it should get enough to get me over the bar. It was a very tricky exam though, probably as hard as anything I've come across in the past papers.

The NPV was a joke. Far too time consuming with too many basic calcs. We know how to do basic maths. No need to have overdone it. They could have picked a shorter more technical one I thought. The bond was random too. I do think though that these two caught people the most so hopefully the CASSI report reflects this. Timing was brutal I thought. Rest of the paper was OK.

MrSzyslak

Lyra Fangs wrote:

I had two issues with the AR being the inclusion of the legal/accounting fees in the Goodwill Cal and the LOS around the deferred consideration.

Had LOS but not other.

So we need 18 to pass ?

I must have got C in AUP, Fraud. Then after that not sure as you said rushing through.
How good of attempt do you need for RC you think haha

satnavadays

Found that audit exam to be tough. Did anyone put contingent liability for the second issue in the audit report?

gorillafrier

Clare2007 wrote: »

I went for a two party swap for the first indicator, anyone else think it was a two party swap??

Fairly sure it was a 3 party swap, key point was that he wanted to retain 100% ownership personally of both trades. Would probably be able to get competent with a 2 party swap. Indicator one on sim 2 was very time consuming. Fair paper overall imo

Clare2007

Yea I thought it was a bit unclear whether it was a two party swap or a three party swap. Fingers crossed they will accept either.

jbeador

Thanks AtticusFinch and anyone else who threw up their notes, came in handy.

Good luck everyone with results.

John.burke

Aye the reorganization was very unclear. Although, can you explain why either 2 party/3 party swap was even an option ? The financing trade was a new trade without an undertaking hence was it not "share for share" rather than "share for undertaking "? Something for the Cassi report me thinks

Lyra Fangs

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Had LOS but not other.

So we need 18 to pass ?

I must have got C in AUP, Fraud. Then after that not sure as you said rushing through.
How good of attempt do you need for RC you think haha

Well I passed the mocks, got 20. I made a decent stab at most indicators but there were a few I had no clue and just did what I could and I still got bc in the majority of them. So I don't think getting overall bc would be that tricky. I hated the aup indicator, mentioned isrs 4400 copied the report from the book and mentioned a few pre engagement procedures and made up a coupe of actual tests to do hoping that's enough for bc

MrSzyslak

Lyra Fangs wrote:

Well I passed the mocks, got 20. I made a decent stab at most indicators but there were a few I had no clue and just did what I could and I still got bc in the majority of them. So I don't think getting overall bc would be that tricky. I hated the aup indicator, mentioned isrs 4400 copied the report from the book and mentioned a few pre engagement procedures and made up a coupe of actual tests to do hoping that's enough for bc

I didn't do mocks. Can't believe you passed mocks man? Were you surprised when you got20?

I'd say we both passed did we haha. I made a fairly good and logical attempt at everything.

Bar indicator 7 & 8 I got about half done. Page each but not waffle

Deilginis_1

Tax paper was grand overall . Thought Sim1 was much easier than Sim2. My understanding of the indicators were:

Sim 1
1. Share for undertaking 3 party swap - finance wasn't a new trade - and your man wanted to retain 100% ownership so was just a standard separation of trade . Stamp duty relief available but Vat relief not (?) as finance company was carrying out VAT exempt activities
2. Advantages of a HoldCo with emphasis on participation exemption
3. Transborder relief - a little tricky as wasn't too sure what year or even the amounts involved so was very general
4. Advantage of VAT group which was essentially saving 23k per year I think

Sim2
1. Retirement Relief / Transfers to a spouse / CAT business relief . Very time consuming
2. Establishing a trust for grandson. Was this a life interest trust? Found this tricky - would be very surprised I got BC
3. Pension indicator . Seemed ok - was covered in the book.
4. Capital allowances on intangible assets - patents

Mrgo

Deilginis_1 wrote: »

Tax paper was grand overall . Thought Sim1 was much easier than Sim2. My understanding of the indicators were:

Sim 1
1. Share for undertaking 3 party swap - finance wasn't a new trade - and your man wanted to retain 100% ownership so was just a standard separation of trade . Stamp duty relief available but Vat relief not (?) as finance company was carrying out VAT exempt activities
2. Advantages of a HoldCo with emphasis on participation exemption
3. Transborder relief - a little tricky as wasn't too sure what year or even the amounts involved so was very general
4. Advantage of VAT group which was essentially saving 23k per year I think

Sim2
1. Retirement Relief / Transfers to a spouse / CAT business relief . Very time consuming
2. Establishing a trust for grandson. Was this a life interest trust? Found this tricky - would be very surprised I got BC
3. Pension indicator . Seemed ok - was covered in the book.
4. Capital allowances on intangible assets - patents

I answered all like the above - Sim 2 Ind 4 may have been the Knowledge Development Box, hoping that they wanted the IA thing and the KDB, and the IA part will get myself BC!

Deilginis_1

Knowledge Development Box would make sense actually . Just Capital allowances may have been too straight forward looking back. Hopefully CA alone would get BC

Mrgo wrote: »

I answered all like the above - Sim 2 Ind 4 may have been the Knowledge Development Box, hoping that they wanted the IA thing and the KDB and the IA part will get myself BC!

Lyra Fangs

MrSzyslak wrote: »

I didn't do mocks. Can't believe you passed mocks man? Were you surprised when you got20?

I'd say we both passed did we haha. I made a fairly good and logical attempt at everything.

Bar indicator 7 & 8 I got about half done. Page each but not waffle

Have to say I found the mocks very useful for timing, getting used to exam pressure and most importantly it tells me how bad my folders are. Though tbf I only had my interim folder with me.

I wasn't crazy surprised about passing the audit mock because we had just done interim so at lot of the stuff was fresh, the indicators I struggled with was the 2nd half of the course.

What annoyed me most was how easy it was to miss out on competent. Like you could miss a reference or misread something and no matter how good the rest of your answer was you were always getting bc.

Hopefully we both passed, if it's marked like the mocks I'd say we did enough!

John.burke

Mrgo wrote: »

I answered all like the above - Sim 2 Ind 4 may have been the Knowledge Development Box, hoping that they wanted the IA thing and the KDB and the IA part will get myself BC!

Never considered KDB- good shout!
Indicator 1 - I ignored RR but feel I nailed BPR, does that lose C do you reckon?

John.burke

Deilginis_1 wrote: »

Knowledge Development Box would make sense actually . Just Capital allowances may have been too straight forward looking back. Hopefully CA alone would get BC

Here's hoping. I feel to achieve C in tax, it's more a case of identifying the correct relief/exemption and following , just avoiding a fundamental error in your advice

Mrgo

John.burke wrote: »

Never considered KDB- good shout!
Indicator 1 - I ignored RR but feel I nailed BPR, does that lose C do you reckon?

Going by the grey box requirements under previous exam solutions I would say yes. They usually go like .... Candidate deals with of CGT,CAT and SD, makes a reasonable attempt at calculations and mentions both RR and BPR.

For BC you'd be hoping for an "OR" in the correction requirements, given the time pressure of this indicator I'd be hoping this will be the case.

John.burke

How, if atal, does the HC grade come into play in both core and elective ?

Lou88

Overall thought tax elective was fair enough. Some grey areas though. Would it have made a big difference to go with 2 party swap over a 3 party swap?

I also went with the view that it was the Knowledge Development Box that they were looking for but now wondering whether the patent suggested was a qualifying asset?

John.burke

Lou88 wrote: »

Overall thought tax elective was fair enough. Some grey areas though. Would it have made a big difference to go with 2 party swap over a 3 party swap?

I also went with the view that it was the Knowledge Development Box that they were looking for but now wondering whether the patent suggested was a qualifying asset?

hard to say, I reckon 2 party swap is still getting BC though as its easily resolvable into a 3 party swap I.e. Not a fundamental error

How did you treat the trust and vat questions? These appear pretty black or white. I.e. Either C or NC

cobo

Would 2/3 points for each heading be enough to get the C for the Pestel analysis?

John.burke

Aye, anything more would be overkill! best of luck!

Lou88

Mrgo wrote: »

I answered all like the above - Sim 2 Ind 4 may have been the Knowledge Development Box, hoping that they wanted the IA thing and the KDB, and the IA part will get myself BC!

Same as above except I suggested a 2 party swap-does that mean the shareholder still effectively owned the company or is a 3 party definitely required do you think?

I also suggested kdb and not s291a but thinking whether the patent mentioned in the SIM actually qualifies or not for Kdb? The SIM said to mention any relief so I'd imagine they wanted one relief.

Mrgo

Lou88 wrote: »

Same as above except I suggested a 2 party swap-does that mean the shareholder still effectively owned the company or is a 3 party definitely required do you think?

I also suggested kdb and not s291a but thinking whether the patent mentioned in the SIM actually qualifies or not for Kdb? The SIM said to mention any relief so I'd imagine they wanted one relief.

For the swap the question goes "He will set up a new company MFL to undertake the financing trade and the new company will also be 100% owned by Terry" the last bit was what I took as the steer to 3 party "100% owned by Terry".
My interpretation would be that a two party swap is not technically given him ownership, his ownership will be indirect.

I thought Sim 1 had a logical flow, you first start talking about 3 party swaps and that they won't be a group for all the usual craic and then you are led into Ind 2 and start on about the benefit of a holding group, then onto Ind 4 which is related to Ind 1, they (again my take on things) want you to highlight that even though a legal group isn't formed from the 3 party they will still be able to form a group for VAT purposes due to their close economic links.

Sim 2 Ind 4 is up in the air for me, Could be a 100% IA or a 100% KDB or a bit of both!

Lou88

Mrgo wrote: »

For the swap the question goes "He will set up a new company MFL to undertake the financing trade and the new company will also be 100% owned by Terry" the last bit was what I took as the steer to 3 party "100% owned by Terry".
My interpretation would be that a two party swap is not technically given him ownership, his ownership will be indirect.

I thought Sim 1 had a logical flow, you first start talking about 3 party swaps and that they won't be a group for all the usual craic and then you are led into Ind 2 and start on about the benefit of a holding group, then onto Ind 4 which is related to Ind 1, they (again my take on things) want you to highlight that even though a legal group isn't formed from the 3 party they will still be able to form a group for VAT purposes due to their close economic links.

Sim 2 Ind 4 is up in the air for me, Could be a 100% IA or a 100% KDB or a bit of both!

Yes I would agree it probably is a three party swap on that basis.. I just thought as he was the only shareholder of MCL that it was pretty much the same outcome with either swap u chose but that's probably not the case. Yes I agree the final indicator was very vague in terms of the information given so could be either way. For the pension indicator, do you think you just had to explain how to access the fund itself and that it wasn't necessary to talk about termination payments etc. ?

John.burke

Lou88 wrote: »

Yes I would agree it probably is a three party swap on that basis.. I just thought as he was the only shareholder of MCL that it was pretty much the same outcome with either swap u chose but that's probably not the case. Yes I agree the final indicator was very vague in terms of the information given so could be either way. For the pension indicator, do you think you just had to explain how to access the fund itself and that it wasn't necessary to talk about termination payments etc. ?

I'd imagine a discussion on termination payments would be required to achieve C.

Lou88

John.burke wrote: »

I'd imagine a discussion on termination payments would be required to achieve C.

I'm not sure was that required though as the SIM didn't ask how can he extract cash for his retirement..it specifically stated how can he get access to his pension fund.

John.burke

Lou88 wrote: »

I'm not sure was that required though as the SIM didn't ask how can he extract cash for his retirement..it specifically stated how can he get access to his pension fund.

Again, I agree, but at the same time there is an opportunity for the client to extract circa 30000 tax free today given the excess cash balance within the co.

Some of these issues were very grey and subject to interpretation so stated assumptions were key I think

mrduffy

AtticusFinch86 wrote: »

I sat the APM today. It was by far the hardest exam of the week. It examined financial services and the "disaster relief" charity sectors i.e. no traditional business. I spent 40 minutes at least on the NPV and still didn't get it finished even though I was working at a reasonable speed. I'm kicking myself about the "business case for Ireland" indicator as I gave what I would have thought was a strong response but I completely forgot to put in any drawbacks of selecting Ireland.

Other than that, I attempted everything and gave, for the most part, what I think were solid responses so it should get enough to get me over the bar. It was a very tricky exam though, probably as hard as anything I've come across in the past papers.

Thanks for the notes.

I spent a lot of time on Apm first sim. Then I had to rush sim 2. I did not get time to do different options in the end. Was not sure about calculation part. I came out of that exam crying it was a Nightmare with all the parts to each question. I don't really know how to answer questions cause I only had time for 1 sentence conclusions if lucky for each indicator

BMW22

I didn't get the pension indicator attempted only like 3 lines. Do you think that cause me to fail?
Did people talk about gift transfers during life and on death as he wasn't sure which was best way to go?

mrduffy

Hi I wish someone could tell me I failed now not in 8 weeks I believe I failed.

Thinking about the exam is giving me constant head ache

What is happening me. Why do I feel unwell

MrSzyslak

mrduffy wrote:

What is happening me. Why do I feel unwell

Need to chill out Dude. Really nothing you can do now. If not you'll 100% get them next time in January. There very difficult exams and sounds like you did your best and you will surprise yourself.

I was away on holidays an had some kind of acid put on my face and hands and mugged during an night out. Spend an night in hospital in Eastern Europe. No lasting damage thank god but very scary, really put things in perspective with the exams.

27th October will fly in, best of luck to everyone!!!

Daisymoo91

Do you know what is the criteria for the january repeats?! Not everyone can repeat in January I heard?

jus_tin4

Daisymoo91 wrote: »

Do you know what is the criteria for the january repeats?! Not everyone can repeat in January I heard?

If there was it would be pretty pointless having it as a repeat so id imagine this isn't true!

MrSzyslak

Daisymoo91 wrote:

Do you know what is the criteria for the january repeats?! Not everyone can repeat in January I heard?

There's guidelines giving, I seen a decision grid somewhere I can't place now but wouldn't imagine anything is set in stone you're paying at the end of the day and using one of your 3 attempts. You discuss it with your firm also to get the go ahead obviously.

Daisymoo91

Ya I saw the grid ages ago went looking for it today and couldn't find it. Thought I was imagining it 🙈

Almostthere_17

Congrats everyone who made it through the exam!!!!

QQ

Long story short; I failed last year and was due to repeat Aug 17. Due to personal reasons I had to defer.

I know you do not really want to talk about it - but is there definitely a sitting in Jan18?

I have looked on the website but cannot see it anywhere. Hoping someone can please help here before I email CAI myself.

What a long haul! This better be worth it in the end

I guess another option would be to try the APM route.

I hate audit - even though I work in audit. Audit all day come home to study more audit... is wrecking my life lol.

Any feedback on APM?

BMW22

I assume there is repeats in January 2018 but one thing to consider if there's not a lot of people sitting them, it may affect pass rates. I repeated in Jan 17 for the elective and failed again! Got 1 in sufficiency each time. This is 3rd time lucky for me...fingers crossed

Almostthere_17

BMW22 wrote: »

I assume there is repeats in January 2018 but one thing to consider if there's not a lot of people sitting them, it may affect pass rates. I repeated in Jan 17 for the elective and failed again! Got 1 in sufficiency each time. This is 3rd time lucky for me...fingers crossed

Fair point..... might be best to wait until next year.

I failed 3 times..... so i'm hoping 4th time i'll get it.

Hence the dilemma about APM.

mrduffy

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Need to chill out Dude. Really nothing you can do now. If not you'll 100% get them next time in January. There very difficult exams and sounds like you did your best and you will surprise yourself.

I was away on holidays an had some kind of acid put on my face and hands and mugged during an night out. Spend an night in hospital in Eastern Europe. No lasting damage thank god but very scary, really put things in perspective with the exams.

27th October will fly in, best of luck to everyone!!!

HI I am sorry to hear about your bad experience on holidays . But I am more stressed now after the exam. I don't know why. well 57 days to go

Apm again

Was there any difficulty getting a 4th attempt? Last Friday was my 3rd attempt.

mrduffy

When does the cassi report come out?

jus_tin4

Lyra Fangs wrote: »

There are criteria for January repeats, unfortunately not everyone who fails in Aug will get to sit the exams again in Jan 18. You have to be within a certain threshold to repeat.

How do you know this? I have searched the whole website and i can't seem to find anything about repeats really other than they exist and that recommend one day leave

BMW22

I repeated in January 2017, its not criteria its guidance to help students decide whether they should repeat or not.
From what I can remember its like a chart bringing you to a YES/NO Scenario - should I repeat?

Like how many of the super six you failed - if more than one, you might not consider repeating it?
Was it core and elective or one/the other? - i.e. both exams might be a challenge to repeat with so little time between results and repeats.
did you think you were honestly prepared for it or not? i.e. would you have enough time between results and January to be confident of passing the next time?

Lyra Fangs

BMW22 wrote: »

I repeated in January 2017, its not criteria its guidance to help students decide whether they should repeat or not.
From what I can remember its like a chart bringing you to a YES/NO Scenario - should I repeat?

Like how many of the super six you failed - if more than one, you might not consider repeating it?
Was it core and elective or one/the other? - i.e. both exams might be a challenge to repeat with so little time between results and repeats.
did you think you were honestly prepared for it or not? i.e. would you have enough time between results and January to be confident of passing the next time?

Someone I know who was in the position to repeat said there was a threshold to be allowed to resit. I've also heard about this threshold from a number of other people. Maybe they misinterpreted the guidance you are referring to?

I'm going to take what you say as the actual truth, which is a massive relief. The idea of having to wait till next Autumn because I didn't meet the criteria was daunting.

BMW22

Have you asked chartered about it? I'm just speaking from my experience unless anything has changed. It might be best to email and get an official answer from them just to make sure and put your mind at ease