ACCA对于会计职业生涯有帮助吗？

正确答案：
(c) IFRS 3 Business combinations does not allow goodwill to be revalued upwards.

正确答案：
(d) Stuart is not making use of his nil rate band, as all assets are transferred, exempt from inheritance tax (IHT), to Rebecca (as
spouse) on death. He should consider altering his will to transfer an amount equivalent to the nil rate band to his son, Sam.
If Stuart dies before altering his will, Rebecca can elect to make a Deed of Variation in favour of Sam instead. This will have
the same effect as the above.
Care should be taken in determining which assets are subject to this legacy. The Omega plc shares should not be transferred
to Sam as they currently attract 50% BPR. Instead, assets not subject to any reliefs (such as the insurance payout or cash
deposits) should be used instead. By doing this, IHT of ￡105,200 (￡263,000 x 40%) could be saved on the ultimate death
of Rebecca.
It is too late for Stuart to make use of potentially exempt transfers (PETs) as no relief is obtained until three years have passed,
and full relief only occurs seven years after making the gifts. The same would also apply to Rebecca if she were to die on 1
March 2008. However, as she is currently in good health, she may decide to make lifetime gifts, although she should also
not gift the Omega plc shares for the reasons stated above as any gift other than of the entire holding will result in the loss
of BPR on the remainder.
Both individuals should make use of their annual exemptions (￡3,000 per person per year). The annual exemptions not used
up in the previous year can be used in this current year. This would give a saving of ￡2,400 each (3,000 x 2 x 40%).
Exemptions for items such as small gifts (￡250 per donee per year) are also available.
Gifts out of normal income should also be considered. After making such gifts, the individual should be left with sufficient
income to maintain their usual standard of living. To obtain the exemption, it is usually necessary to demonstrate general
evidence of a prior commitment to make the gifts, or a settled pattern of expenditure.
While there are no details of income, both Stuart and Rebecca are wealthy in their own right, and are likely to earn reasonable
sums from their investments. They should therefore be able to satisfy the conditions on that basis.
If Rebecca were to make substantial lifetime gifts, the donees would be advised to consider taking out insurance policies on
Rebecca’s life to cover the potential tax liabilities that may arise on any PETs in the event of her early death.
Tutorial note: the answer has assumed that the shares could be bought for ￡2·10, their value for IHT.

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.