ACCA考过之后还要交年费吗？不交会怎样？

正确答案：
(c) Tax implications of there being a loan from Flores Ltd to Banda
Flores Ltd should have paid tax to HMRC equal to 25% of the loan, i.e. ￡5,250. The tax should have been paid on the
company’s normal due date for corporation tax in respect of the accounting period in which the loan was made, i.e. 1 April
following the end of the accounting period.
The tax is due because Flores Ltd is a close company that has made a loan to a participator and that loan is not in the ordinary
course of the company’s business.
HMRC will repay the tax when the loan is either repaid or written off.
Flores Ltd should have included the loan on Banda’s Form. P11D in order to report it to HMRC.
Banda should have paid income tax on an annual benefit equal to 5% of the amount of loan outstanding during each tax
year. Accordingly, for each full year for which the loan was outstanding, Banda should have paid income tax of ￡231
(￡21,000 x 5% x 22%).
Interest and penalties may be charged in respect of the tax underpaid by both Flores Ltd and Banda and in respect of the
incorrect returns made to HMRC
Willingness to act for Banda
We would not wish to be associated with a client who has engaged in deliberate tax evasion as this poses a threat to the
fundamental principles of integrity and professional behaviour. Accordingly, we should refuse to act for Banda unless she is
willing to disclose the details regarding the loan to HMRC and pay the ensuing tax liabilities. Even if full disclosure is made,
we should consider whether the loan was deliberately hidden from HMRC or Banda’s previous tax adviser.
In addition, companies are prohibited from making loans to directors under the Companies Act. We should advise Banda to
seek legal advice on her own position and that of Flores Ltd.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Andrew may be able to take advantage of tax reliefs under the enterprise investment scheme (EIS) provided the
necessary conditions are met. The conditions that have to be satisfied before full relief is available fall into three areas,
and broadly require that a ‘qualifying individual’ subscribes for ‘eligible shares’ in a ‘qualifying company’.
‘Qualifying Individual’
To be a qualifying individual, Andrew must not be connected with the EIS company. This means that he should not be
an employee (or, at the time the shares are issued, a director) or have an interest in (i.e. control) 30% or more of the
capital of the company. These conditions need to be satisfied throughout the period beginning two years before the share
issue and three years after the ‘relevant date’. Where the relevant date is defined as the later of the date the shares were
issued and the date on which the company commenced trading.
Andrew does not intend to become an employee (or director) of Scalar Limited, but he needs to exercise caution as to
how many shares he subscribes for. If only three investors subscribe for 100% of the shares, each will hold 33% of the
share capital. This exceeds the 30% limit and will mean that EIS relief (other than deferral relief) will not be available.
Therefore, Andrew and the other two investors should ensure not only that the potential fourth investor is recruited, but
that s/he subscribes for sufficient shares, such that none of them will hold 30% or more of the issued share capital, as
only then will they all attain qualifying individual status.
‘Eligible shares’
Qualifying shares need to be new ordinary shares which are subscribed for in cash and fully paid up at the time of issue.
The shares must not be redeemable for at least three years from the relevant date, and not carry any preferential rights
to dividends. On the basis of the information provided, the shares of Scalar Limited would qualify as eligible shares.
‘Qualifying Company’
The company must be unquoted, not controlled by another company, and engaged in qualifying business activities. The
latter requires that the company engage in a trading activity, which is carried on wholly or mainly in the UK, throughout
the three years following the relevant date. While certain trading activities, such as dealing in shares or trading in land,
are excluded, the manufacturing trade Scalar Limited proposes to carry on will qualify.
However, it is also necessary for at least 80% of the money raised to be used for the qualifying business activity within
12 months of the relevant date and the remaining 20% to be so used within the following 12 months. Andrew and the
other investors will thus have to ensure that Scalar Limited has not raised more funds than it is able to employ in the
business within the appropriate time periods.
Reliefs available:
Andrew can claim income tax relief at 20% income tax relief on the amount invested up to a maximum of ￡200,000
in any one tax year. The relief is given in the form. of a tax reducing allowance, which can reduce the investor’s income
tax liability to nil, but cannot be used to generate a tax refund. If the investment is made prior to 6 October in the tax
year, then 50% of the amount invested (up to a maximum of ￡25,000) can be treated as having been made in the
previous tax year.
Any capital gains arising on the sale of EIS shares will be fully exempt from capital gains tax provided that income tax
relief was given on the investment when made and has not been withdrawn. If the EIS shares are disposed of at a loss,
capital losses are still allowable, but reduced by the amount of any EIS relief attributable to the shares disposed of.
In addition, gains from the disposal of other assets can be deferred against the base cost of EIS shares acquired within
one year before and three years after their disposal. Such gains will, thus, not normally become chargeable until the EIS
shares themselves are disposed of. Further, for deferral relief to be available, it is not necessary for the investment to
qualify for EIS income tax relief, i.e. deferral is available even where the investor is not a qualifying individual. Thus,
Andrew could still defer the gain arising on the disposal of the residential property lease made in order to raise part of
the funds for his EIS investment, even if no fourth investor were to be found and his shareholding were to exceed 30%
of the issued share capital of Scalar Limited. Does not require the existence of income tax relief in order to be claimed.
Withdrawal of relief:
Any EIS relief claimed by Andrew will be withdrawn (partially or fully) if, within three year of the relevant date:
(1) he disposes of the shares;
(2) he receives value from the company;
(3) he ceases to be a qualifying individual; or
(4) Scalar Limited ceases to be a qualifying company.
With regard to receiving value from the company, the definition excludes dividends which do not exceed a normal rate
of return, but does include the repayment of any loans made to the company before the shares were issued, the provision
of benefits and the purchase of assets from the company at an undervalue. In this regard, Andrew and the other
subscribers should ensure that the ￡50,000 they are to invest in Scalar Limited as loan capital is appropriately timed
and structured relative to the issue of the EIS shares.

正确答案：
(ii) Quality of service is the totality of features and characteristics of the service package that bear upon its ability to satisfy
client needs. To some extent the number of complaints and the need to provide non-chargeable consultations associated
with the remedying of those complaints is indicative of a service quality problem that must be addressed. Hence this
problem needs to be investigated at the earliest opportunity. Assuming consultants could have otherwise undertaken
chargeable work, the revenue foregone as a consequence of the remedial consultations relating to commercial work
amounted to (180 x ￡1500) = ￡27,000. Client complaints received by HLP during the year amounted to 1·24% of
consultations undertaken by commercial advisors whereas none were budgeted. In contrast, competitor MAS received
135 complaints which coincided with the number of non-chargeable consultations undertaken by them. This may
indicate that MAS operate a policy of a remedial consultation in respect of all complaints received from clients.
With regard to the number of on-time consultations, HLP only achieved an on-time consultation percentage of 94·4%
which is far inferior to that of 99% achieved by competitor MAS. Also, HLP re-scheduled the appointment times of
1,620 (3%) of its total consultations whereas competitor MAS only re-scheduled 0·5% of its consultation times. The
percentage number of successful consultations provided by HLP and MAS was 85% and 95% respectively which
indicates that competitor MAS possesses a superior skills-base to that of HLP.
The most alarming statistic lies in the fact that HLP was subject to three successful legal actions for negligence. This
may not only account for the 150% increase in the cost of professional indemnity insurance premiums but may also
result in a loss of client confidence and precipitate a considerable fall in future levels of business should the claims
become much publicised.