台湾考生有本科学历但还在读双学位可以考ACCA国际会计师吗？

正确答案：

(a) Except in relation to specifically exempted companies, such as those involved in charitable work, companies are required to indicate that they are operating on the basis of limited liability. Thus private companies are required to end their names, either with the word ‘limited’ or the abbreviation ‘ltd’, and public companies must end their names with the words ‘public limited company’ or the abbreviation ‘plc’. Welsh companies may use the Welsh language equivalents (Companies Act (CA)2006 ss.58, 59 & 60).
Companies Registry maintains a register of business names, and will refuse to register any company with a name that is the same as one already on that index (CA 2006 s.66).
Certain categories of names are, subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, unacceptable per se, as follows:
(i) names which in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitute a criminal offence or are offensive (CA 2006 s.53)
(ii) names which are likely to give the impression that the company is connected with either government or local government authorities (s.54).
(iii) names which include a word or expression specified under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (s.26(2)(b)). This category requires the express approval of the Secretary of State for the use of any of the names or expressions contained on the list, and relates to areas which raise a matter of public concern in relation to their use.
Under s.67 of the Companies Act 2006 the Secretary of State has power to require a company to alter its name under the following circumstances:
(i) where it is the same as a name already on the Registrar’s index of company names.
(ii) where it is ‘too like’ a name that is on that index.
The name of a company can always be changed by a special resolution of the company so long as it continues to comply with the above requirements (s.77).

(b) The tort of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup
Margarine Co Ltd (1917) the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with
his existing dairy company. It cannot be used, however, if there is no likelihood of the public being confused, where for example the companies are conducting different businesses (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd (1907)
and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd (1984). Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use (Aerators Ltd v Tollitt (1902)).
Part 41 of the Companies Act (CA) 2006, which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985, still does not prevent one business from using the same, or a very similar, name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985, a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered (s.665 Companies Act (CA) 2006) and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as, or too like a name appearing on the registrar’s index of company names. In addition, however, a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.

(c) Under ss.69–74 of CA 2006 a new procedure has been introduced to cover situations where a company has been registered with a name
(i) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or
(ii) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant (s.69).
Section 69 can be used not just by other companies but by any person to object to a company names adjudicator if a company’s name is similar to a name in which the applicant has goodwill. There is list of circumstances raising a presumption that a name was adopted legitimately, however even then, if the objector can show that the name was registered either, to obtain money from them, or to prevent them from using the name, then they will be entitled to an order to require the company to change its name.
Under s.70 the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint company names adjudicators and their staff and to finance their activities, with one person being appointed Chief Adjudicator.
Section 71 provides the Secretary of State with power to make rules for the proceedings before a company names adjudicator.
Section 72 provides that the decision of an adjudicator and the reasons for it, are to be published within 90 days of the decision.
Section 73 provides that if an objection is upheld, then the adjudicator is to direct the company with the offending name to change its name to one that does not similarly offend. A deadline must be set for the change. If the offending name is not changed, then the adjudicator will decide a new name for the company.
Under s.74 either party may appeal to a court against the decision of the company names adjudicator. The court can either uphold or reverse the adjudicator’s decision, and may make any order that the adjudicator might have made.

正确答案：

正确答案：
(d) UK tax implications of shares in Bubble Inc
Income tax
Gloria is UK resident and is therefore subject to income tax on her worldwide income. However, because she is non-UK
domiciled, she will only be taxed on the foreign dividends she brings into the UK.
Dividends brought into the UK will be grossed up for any tax paid in Oceania. The gross amount is taxed at 10% if it falls
into the starting or basic rate band and at 321/2% if it falls into the higher rate band. The tax suffered in Oceania is available
for offset against the UK tax liability. The offset is restricted to a maximum of the UK tax on the dividend income.
Capital gains tax
Individuals are subject to capital gains tax on worldwide assets if they are resident or ordinarily resident in the UK. However,
because Gloria is non-UK domiciled and the shares are situated abroad, the gain is only taxable to the extent that the sales
proceeds are brought into the UK. Any tax suffered in Oceania in respect of the gain is available for offset against the UK
capital gains tax liability arising on the shares.
Any loss arising on the disposal of the shares would not be available for relief in the UK.
In computing a capital gain or allowable loss, a deduction is available for the incidental costs of acquisition. However, to be
allowable, such costs must be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of acquiring the asset. The fee paid to Eric
related to general investment advice and not to the acquisition of the shares and therefore, would not be deductible in
computing the gain.
Taper relief will be at non-business asset rates as Bubble Inc is an investment company.
Inheritance tax
Assets situated abroad owned by non-UK domiciled individuals are excluded property for the purposes of inheritance tax.
However, Gloria will be deemed to be UK domiciled (for the purposes of inheritance tax only) if she has been resident in the
UK for 17 out of the 20 tax years ending with the year in which the disposal occurs.
Gloria has been running a business in the UK since June 1992 and would therefore, appear to have been resident for at least
15 tax years (1992/93 to 2006/07 inclusive).
If Gloria is deemed to be UK domiciled such that the shares in Bubble Inc are not excluded property, business property relief
will not be available because Bubble Inc is an investment company.

正确答案：