2020年ACCA选修模块课程介绍

正确答案：

The Company Directors Disqualification Act (CDDA) 1986 was introduced to control individuals who persistently abused the various privileges that accompany incorporation, most particularly the privilege of limited liability. The Act applies to more than just directors and the court may make an order preventing any person (without leave of the court) from being:
(i) a director of a company;
(ii) a liquidator or administrator of a company;
(iii) a receiver or manager of a company’s property; or
(iv) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned with or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company.
The CDDA 1986 identifies three distinct categories of conduct, which may, and in some circumstances must, lead the court to disqualify certain persons from being involved in the management of companies.
(a) General misconduct in connection with companies
This first category involves the following:
(i) A conviction for an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management or liquidation of a company or with the receivership or management of a company’s property (s.2 of the CDDA 1986). The maximum period for disqualification under s.2 is five years where the order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction, and 15 years in any other case.

(ii) Persistent breaches of companies legislation in relation to provisions which require any return, account or other document to be filed with, or notice of any matter to be given to, the registrar (s.3 of the CDDA 1986). Section 3 provides that a person is conclusively proved to be persistently in default where it is shown that, in the five years ending with the date of the application, he has been adjudged guilty of three or more defaults (s.3(2) of the CDDA 1986). This is without prejudice to proof of persistent default in any other manner. The maximum period of disqualification under this section is five years.
(iii) Fraud in connection with winding up (s.4 of the CDDA 1986). A court may make a disqualification order if, in the course of the winding up of a company, it appears that a person:
(1) has been guilty of an offence for which he is liable under s.993 of the CA 2006, that is, that he has knowingly been a party to the carrying on of the business of the company either with the intention of defrauding the company’s creditors or any other person or for any other fraudulent purpose; or
(2) has otherwise been guilty, while an officer or liquidator of the company or receiver or manager of the property of the company, of any fraud in relation to the company or of any breach of his duty as such officer, liquidator, receiver or manager (s.4(1)(b) of the CDDA 1986).
The maximum period of disqualification under this category is 15 years.(b) Disqualification for unfitness
The second category covers:
(i) disqualification of directors of companies which have become insolvent, who are found by the court to be unfit to be directors (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Under s. 6, the minimum period of disqualification is two years, up to a maximum of 15 years;
(ii) disqualification after investigation of a company under Pt XIV of the CA 1985 (it should be noted that this part of the previous Act still sets out the procedures for company investigations) (s.8 of the CDDA 1986). Once again, the maximum period of disqualification is 15 years.
Schedule 1 to the CDDA 1986 sets out certain particulars to which the court is to have regard in deciding whether a person’s conduct as a director makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. In addition, the courts have given indications as to what sort of behaviour will render a person liable to be considered unfit to act as a company director. Thus, in Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd (1988), it was stated that:
‘Ordinary commercial misjudgment is in itself not sufficient to justify disqualification. In the normal case, the conduct complained of must display a lack of commercial probity, although . . . in an extreme case of gross negligence or total incompetence, disqualification could be appropriate.’

(c) Other cases for disqualification
This third category relates to:
(i) participation in fraudulent or wrongful trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986 (s.10 of the CDDA 1986);
(ii) undischarged bankrupts acting as directors (s.11 of the CDDA 1986); and
(iii) failure to pay under a county court administration order (s.12 of the CDDA 1986).
For the purposes of most of the CDDA 1986, the court has discretion to make a disqualification order. Where, however, a person has been found to be an unfit director of an insolvent company, the court has a duty to make a disqualification order (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Anyone who acts in contravention of a disqualification order is liable:
(i) to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine, on conviction on indictment; or
(ii) to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, on conviction summarily (s.13 of the CDDA 1986).

正确答案：
(ii) Consignment inventory
■ Agree terms of sale to dealers to confirm the ‘principal – agent’ relationship between Pavia and dealers.
■ Inspect proforma invoices for vehicles sent on consignment to dealers to confirm number of vehicles with dealers
at the year end.
■ Obtain direct confirmation from dealers of vehicles unsold at the year end.
■ Physically inspect vehicles sold on consignment before the year end that are returned unsold by dealers after the
year end (if any) for evidence of impairment.
■ Perform. cutoff tests on sales to dealers/trade receivables/vehicle inventory.
■ If goods on consignment are treated as inventory agree their unit costs to be the same as for other vehicles in
inventory.

正确答案：
(ii) Exercising of share options
The share option is not part of an approved scheme, and will not therefore enjoy the benefits of such a scheme. There
are three events with tax consequences – grant, exercise and sale.
Grant. If shares or options over shares are sold or granted at less than market value, an income tax charge can arise on
the difference between the price paid and the market value. [Weight v Salmon]. In addition, if options can be exercised
more than 10 years after the date of the grant, an employment income charge can arise. This is based on the market
value at the date of grant less the grant and exercise priced.
In Henry’s case, the options were issued with an exercise price equal to the then market value, and cannot be exercised
more than 10 years from the grant. No income tax charge therefore arises on grant.
Exercise. On exercise, the individual pays the agreed amount in return for a number of shares in the company. The price
paid is compared with the open market value at that time, and if less, the difference is charged to income tax. National
insurance also applies, and the company has to pay Class 1 NIC. If the company and shareholder agree, the national
insurance can be passed onto the individual, and the liability becomes a deductible expense in calculating the income
tax charge.
In Henry’s case on exercise, the difference between market value (￡14) and the price paid (￡1) per share will be taxed
as income. Therefore, ￡130,000 (10,000 x (￡14 – ￡1)) will be taxed as income. In addition, national insurance will
be chargeable on the company at 12·8% (￡16,640) and on Henry at the rate of 1% (￡1,300).
Sale. The base cost of the shares is taken to be the market value at the time of exercise. On the sale of the shares, any
gain or loss arising falls under the capital gains tax rules, and CGT will be payable on any gain. Business asset taper
relief will be available as the company is an unquoted trading company, but the relief will only run from the time that
the share options are exercised – i.e. from the time when the shares were acquired.
In Henry’s case, the sale of the shares will immediately follow the exercise of the option (6 days later). The sale proceeds
and the market value at the time of exercise are likely to be similar; thus little to no gain is likely to arise.