[Iniss]

Finally someone mentioned that lease question. Like I thought I was ready for IFRS 16 but then they tested the lease and non-lease components. Section B was tough and now my heart is broken

[Iniss]

Did anyone encounter issue with copy and paste function? Mine was not functioning as the CBE practice platform. Pasted exhibits appeared in a different font and size (original: Calibri size 11; pasted: Times New Roman size 10, I guessed) and did not follow normal lines, but scattered with messy spacing and layout. This took so much time to manually reformat.

I’m concerned if the examiner also see the same inconsistent font and size or it would be misprocessed into codes?? Should I message them or something

[Iniss]

Oh I see so both A and D can be committed any time and not necessarily in insolvency.
Yeah definitely an poorly drafted one. I got this from mock exam 1 in BPP revision kit.

Thanks so much for your clarification!

[Iniss]

No you’ve helped me so much for such timely clarification. I agree with you the question is so strange and there could possibly a mistake in it.

[Iniss]

Yes sir, that’s really all for the scenario and there is no explanation on this. I got this from ACCA Study Hub.
I believe the model answer “No” could be correct only before the actual laundering occurs. The question may be on the initial advice before any illegal activity has been carried out.

[Iniss]

Ian reasoned that it would be easy to mingle the illegal money with the football club’s legitimate receipts. Jet accepted the proposal, bought the club, appointed Ian as its finance director and together they passed the illegal money through the football club.

Sorry my bad, I did not cut and paste the full scenario. So at this stage, money laundering has actually taken place and the advice should now be criminal?

Thanks so much for your time!

[Iniss]

Oh okay, thank you for your explanation!

[Iniss]

Oh wow! Those tricky words, I just realised after a while coming back.
Thanks so much for your explanation!

[Iniss]

Oh ok I’m good with the fundamental presumption as in A now but not quite with D. There’s clearly evidence that intention exists because Amy has updated the website to recover the agreed price.

[Iniss]

Oh I see the revised contract. Thank you for your explanation!

[Iniss]

I thought option C should be correct as emails from Arthur and Binta are only offers. Option A mentions the emails as invitation to treat rather than the advertisement by Hedge

[Iniss]

Oh that really makes sense. Yeah in the exam, clearly correct answer should be chosen but plausible option really makes me confused.

I also found out that:
Option A only breaks the chain of causation: disrupts the direct link between defendant’s negligence and claimant’s injury but does not prevent causality wholly.
Option D involves multiple reasons but no act can be established as the cause and so no causality exists at all.

[Iniss]

I believe you too. Thanks a ton for your clarification!

[Iniss]

Okay! The kit answer also concludes the invalidity of Peppa charge and simply takes the priority to Otto charge without mentioning of the effected registration which makes me a bit confused.

[Iniss]

I assume the registration date is after court order for extension

[Iniss]

Wow! Thanks a ton. That’s a really helpful recommendation.
I’m currently not planning to work in the UK so maybe I am more open to other variants. But after some other Internet searches, I also find that the ENG variant should be easier to absorb and I will go with this variant.

Appreciatively.

[Iniss]

Total NIC payable where there was b/f trading loss. Did you guys deduct the b/f trading loss?

[Iniss]

Did anyone got IHT question where there were 4 gifts with 100k each. Was the NRB remaining 25k or 0?

[Iniss]

Yes, I went with that option as well

[Iniss]

I remember reading somewhere that those b/f overlap profits will not be examinable for this Dec sitting so really confused when seeing them. Anyways, I just simply deducted them from 9-month ended 31 Dec profit.

[Iniss]

Sorry, I have made a mistake with IHT payable which should’ve been 150,000 + 400,000 – 150,000 – 325,000 = 75,000 x 40% = 30,000. The amount transferred to his wife is still 25,000

Please help me confirming this.

[Iniss]

So for pension scheme, both rate bands are extended for higher-rate taxpayers whereas gift aid donation, the BRB is extended for higher-rate taxpayers and BRB and HRB for additional taxpayers?
But as she is a higher-rate taxpayer, her taxable income is below the HRB and increasing the HRB has little use, doesn’t it?
Please help me clarifying this.

[Iniss]

Sorry, I have made a mistake with taxable income. It should be £123,680 (£132,500-£8,820) and she’s still a higher-rate taxpayer.

[Iniss]

Thank you, I am good with A now but for C, only 1 NED has financial expertise and so the audit commitee should be competent for the period when that NED is on. However, the answer was that the commitee will not be competent for the full two-year period.

[Iniss]

Sorry but the link just redirected me to my question

[Author]

Posts