考完税务师，还有必要考ACCA吗？

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：

(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：
(c) (i) Relocation costs
Direct assistance
Messier Ltd can bear the cost of certain qualifying relocation costs of Galileo up to a maximum of ￡8,000 without
increasing his UK income tax liability. Qualifying costs include the legal, professional and other fees in relation to the
purchase of a house, the costs of travelling to the UK and the cost of transporting his belongings. The costs must be
incurred before the end of the tax year following the year of the relocation, i.e. by 5 April 2010.
Assistance in the form. of a loan
Messier Ltd can provide Galileo with an interest-free loan of up to ￡5,000 without giving rise to any UK income tax.