听说ACCA考试挺难，是真的吗？

正确答案：
(a) (i) The tax incentives immediately available
Income tax
– The investor’s income tax liability for 2008/09 will be reduced by 20% of the amount subscribed for the shares.
– Up to half of the amount invested can be treated as if paid in 2007/08 rather than 2008/09. This is subject to a
maximum carryback of ￡50,000.
This ability to carryback relief to the previous year is useful where the investor’s income in 2008/09 is insufficient
to absorb all of the relief available.
Tutorial note
There would be no change to the income tax liability of 2007/08 where an amount is treated as if paid in that year.
This ensures that such a claim does not affect payments on account under the self assessment system. Instead, the
tax refund due is calculated by reference to 2007/08 but is deducted from the next payment of tax due from the
taxpayer or is repaid to the taxpayer.
Capital gains tax deferral
– For every ￡1 invested in Vostok Ltd, an investor can defer ￡1 of capital gain and thus, potentially, 40 pence of
capital gains tax.
– The gain deferred can be in respect of the disposal of any asset.
– The shares must be subscribed for within the four year period starting one year prior to the date on which the
disposal giving rise to the gain took place.

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：
(iii) Bold plc will be making a taxable supply of services, likely to exceed the VAT threshold. It should therefore consider
registering for VAT – either immediately on a voluntary basis, or when its cumulative taxable supplies in the previous
twelve months exceed ￡60,000.
As an alternative, the new group can apply for a group VAT registration. This will simplify its VAT administration as intragroup
transactions are broadly disregarded for VAT purposes, and only one VAT return is required for the group as a
whole.
Stamp duty normally applies at 0·5% on the consideration payable in respect of transactions in shares. However, an
exemption is available in the case of a takeover, reconstruction or amalgamation where there is no real change in
ownership, i.e. the new shareholdings mirror the old shareholdings, and the transaction is for commercial purposes. The
insertion of a new holding company over an existing company, as proposed here, would qualify for this exemption.
There is no VAT on transactions in shares.

正确答案：
(b) There are several issues which have to be addressed if an international conceptual framework is to be successfully developed.
These are:
(i) Objectives
Agreement will be required as to whether financial statements are to be produced for shareholders or a wide range of
users and whether decision usefulness is the key criteria or stewardship. Additionally there is the question of whether
the objective is to provide information in making credit and investment decisions.
(ii) Qualitative Characteristics
The qualities to be sought in making decisions about financial reporting need to be determined. The decision usefulness
of financial reports is determined by these characteristics. There are issues concerning the trade-offs between relevance
and reliability. An example of this concerns the use of fair values and historical costs. It has been argued that historical
costs are more reliable although not as relevant as fair values. Additionally there is a conflict between neutrality and the
traditions of prudence or conservatism. These characteristics are constrained by materiality and benefits that justify
costs.
(iii) Definitions of the elements of financial statements
The principles behind the definition of the elements need agreement. There are issues concerning whether ‘control’
should be included in the definition of an asset or become part of the recognition criteria. Also the definition of ‘control’
is an issue particularly with financial instruments. For example, does the holder of a call option ‘control’ the underlying
asset? Some of the IASB’s standards contravene its own conceptual framework. IFRS3 requires the capitalisation of
goodwill as an asset despite the fact that it can be argued that goodwill does not meet the definition of an asset in the
Framework. IAS12 requires the recognition of deferred tax liabilities that do not meet the liability definition. Similarly
equity and liabilities need to be capable of being clearly distinguished. Certain financial instruments could either be
liabilities or equity. For example obligations settled in shares.
(iv) Recognition and De-recognition
The principles of recognition and de-recognition of assets and liabilities need reviewing. Most frameworks have
recognition criteria, but there are issues over the timing of recognition. For example, should an asset be recognised when
a value can be placed on it or when a cost has been incurred? If an asset or liability does not meet recognition criteria
when acquired or incurred, what subsequent event causes the asset or liability to be recognised? Most frameworks do
not discuss de-recognition. (The IASB’s Framework does not discuss the issue.) It can be argued that an item should be
de-recognised when it does not meet the recognition criteria, but financial instruments standards (IAS39) require other
factors to occur before financial assets can be de-recognised. Different attributes should be considered such as legal
ownership, control, risks or rewards.
(v) Measurement
More detailed discussion of the use of measurement concepts, such as historical cost, fair value, current cost, etc are
required and also more guidance on measurement techniques. Measurement concepts should address initial
measurement and subsequent measurement in the form. of revaluations, impairment and depreciation which in turn
gives rise to issues about classification of gains or losses in income or in equity.
(vi) Reporting entity
Issues have arisen over what sorts of entities should issue financial statements, and which entities should be included
in consolidated financial statements. A question arises as to whether the legal entity or the economic unit should be the
reporting unit. Complex business arrangements raise issues over what entities should be consolidated and the basis
upon which entities are consolidated. For example, should the basis of consolidation be ‘control’ and what does ‘control’
mean?
(vii) Presentation and disclosure
Financial reporting should provide information that enables users to assess the amounts, timing and uncertainty of the
entity’s future cash flows, its assets, liabilities and equity. It should provide management explanations and the limitations
of the information in the reports. Discussions as to the boundaries of presentation and disclosure are required.