2012年12月ACCA考试F6考试考官报告2
2012年12月ACCA考试F6考试考官报告2
本文由高顿ACCA整理发布，转载请注明出处
Question Two
This 30-mark question was based on Clueless Ltd. The managing director of the company had prepared a corporation tax computation for the year ended 31 March 2012 that contained a significant number of errors.The question also included aspects of corporation tax self-assessment, together with the valued added tax (VAT) marks for this paper.
Part (a) for 16 marks required the preparation of a corrected version of Clueless Ltd’s corporation tax computation for the year ended 31 March 2012. This included the adjustment of trading profits, a detailed capital allowances computation, an appreciation of which dividends are included as franked investment income, and the ability to calculate a corporation tax liability where marginal relief is applicable. This section was generally very well answered. The only aspect that consistently caused problems was the loan interest with very few candidates appreciating that this is assessed on a receivable basis.
Part (b) was for a total of 4 marks. The first requirement for 1 mark was to state the date by which Clueless Ltd’s self-assessment corporation tax return for the year ended 31 March 2012 should be filed. The second requirement for 3 marks was to explain the options available to Clueless Ltd regarding the production of accounts and tax computations in the inline eXtensible Business Reporting Language iXBRL format. It was surprising that only a few candidates were aware of the filing date for a self-assessment corporation tax return, with far too many candidates giving a 31 January date. Despite being covered in the Finance Act 2011 article, hardly any candidates were able to provide relevant details regarding the production of accounts and computations using iXBRL.
Part (c) for a total of 10 marks dealt with various VAT issues. The first requirement for 6 marks required an explanation as to why Clueless Ltd was entitled to use both the VAT cash accounting scheme and the VAT annual accounting scheme, and why it would probably be beneficial for the company to use both schemes. It was necessary to make use of the information provided in the question. The second requirement for 4 marks involved the planned purchase of some new machinery. It was necessary to explain when and how Clueless Ltd would have to account for VAT in respect of the new machinery if it was purchased from (1) a supplier situated outside the European Union, or (2) a VAT registered supplier situated elsewhere within the European Union. The first requirement was reasonably well answered, although candidates had a tendency to write everything they knew about the two schemes rather than tailoring their answers to the information given in
the question. The second requirement caused more problems, and there was little appreciation that the two alternatives would effectively leave Clueless Ltd in the same overall financial position.
Question Three
This 15-mark question covered relief for capital losses and Acebook Ltd, a company that had sold various assets during the year ended 31 December 2011.Part (a) for 3 marks required an explanation as to how limited companies can obtain relief for capital losses.Although there were many perfect answers to this section, a number of candidates discussed trading losses,explained that capital losses could be utilised in a similar manner to trading losses, covered the rules for individuals rather than companies, or discussed groups - despite being told not to do so.
Part (b) for 12 marks required a calculati on of Acebook Ltd’s chargeable gains for the year ended 31 December 2011. The company had sold (1) its entire shareholding of ordinary shares in Oogle plc (the calculation involved a bonus issue, a rights issue and indexation), (2) three acres of land (this was a part disposal, and it was also necessary to apportion enhancement expenditure), and (3) an investment property that was destroyed in a fire with insurance proceeds being received (the insurance proceeds were not fully reinvested so there was an immediate chargeable gain). This section was generally very well answered, and there were many high scoring answers. One common mistake with the ordinary shares was to index the share pool prior to the bonus issue. Despite being told that the entire shareholding was disposed of, some candidates complicated the calculation by making a part disposal. Many candidates wasted time by calculating the CGT liability (often for an individual rather than a company) despite being instructed to just calculate chargeable gains.
Question Four
This 15-mark question involved Sophia Wong, a self-employed lawyer, who was considering incorporating her business on 6 April 2011. Figures were given for Sophia’s total income tax liability and NICs if she were to continue to trade on a self-employed basis, and the taxable total profits of the new limited company would be the same as her forecast profit if she were to remain self-employed.
Part (a) was for a total of 11 marks, and required advice as to whether or not there would be an overall saving of tax and NIC for the tax year 2011-12 if Sophia incorporated her business on 6 April 2011. The first requirement for 6 marks was on the basis that Sophia withdrew all of the profits from the new company as director’s remuneration. T he amount of gross director’s remuneration, after allowing for employer’s class 1 NIC, was given. The second requirement for 5 marks was on the basis that Sophia withdrew all of the profits
from the new company as dividends. The amount of net dividends, after allowing for corporation tax, was given. For both alternatives, it was necessary to calculate the corporation tax liability (if any) of the new limited company for the year ended 5 April 2012, the income tax payable by Sophia, and the class 1 NIC (if any) payable by Sophia and the new company. This question as a whole was very badly answered, often as a result of being attempted last with inadequate time remaining. Many students did not seem to notice that they had been given some of the information (em ployer’s NIC when withdrawing profits as director’s remuneration, and corporation tax when withdrawing profits as dividends) and wasted time trying to calculate the figures themselves. As regards withdrawing profits as director’s remuneration, very few can didates appreciated that there would be no taxable profit and hence no corporation tax liability. As regards withdrawing profits as dividends, far too many candidates did not appreciate that no NIC would be payable. Some candidates even attempted to answer this section with just one calculation combining the director’s remuneration and dividend, and very few marks were available with this approach.
Part (b) for a total of 4 marks covered the CGT aspects of Sophia incorporating her business. The only chargeable
asset of the business was goodwill with a nil cost. Sophia made no other disposals during 2011-12, and had unused capital losses brought forward. The first requirement for 2 marks required a statement of the CGT consequences if Sophia transferred her business to a new limited company on 6 April 2011 in exchange for ordinary shares. The second requirement for 2 marks required an explanation as to why it would be beneficial if the consideration for the transfer of Sophia’s business instead consisted o f ?50,000 in cash and ?100,000 in ?1 ordinary shares. This arrangement meant that Sophia’s brought forward capital losses and her annual exempt amount for 2011-12 would be fully utilised, so
that ?50,000 of the consideration was taken tax free. As regards the first requirement, very few candidates appreciated that there was no CGT liability. With the second requirement, even the candidates who correctly calculated the chargeable gain did not then appreciate that this would exactly use the available capital losses and annual exempt amount.
更多ACCA资讯请关注高顿ACCA官网：https://www.wendangku.net/doc/6811666824.html,