FAE 2017

Clare2007 · 25-08-2017 04:31PM

I went for a two party swap for the first indicator, anyone else think it was a two party swap??

s15r330 · 25-08-2017 04:37PM

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Did you get everything attempted?.

I didn't get time to review the second part of the testing on the acquisition the provision bit what was that about anyway it read so difficult I stuck in a quick few generic procedures. Only had one issue for the audit report at the end too.

My head was sore afterwards.

Did you notice in the SIM 2 the audit senior retired? Wtf haha...

I feel like retiring after that

What are people saying for the cassi survey?

MrSzyslak · 25-08-2017 05:04PM

That's what I was thinking haha

Well what did you think of the audit specifically ha? Testing on the acquisition was terrible wasn't it especially second part on provision? My head was fried my that stage.

There was no straight forward indicator on one auditing standard that are riddled throughout the cases workbook. Like use of an audit expert, or internal audit, or service organisation or something along them lines or ethics. Very controls, procedures based. Time was a big issue for people I'd say.

I honestly don't know how I did. I'm trying to think how it will be marked.

For Casi report mentioning about the lease in core. Not sure yet for audit going to it now quickly. It's important to fill it in.

Anyway on the way to Dublin for a session then flying out tomorrow for a long overdue holiday :-). I am sick of cases and folders and chairs and desks ha..

Beer time :-)

Lyra Fangs · 25-08-2017 05:10PM

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Did you get everything attempted?.

I didn't get time to review the second part of the testing on the acquisition the provision bit what was that about anyway it read so difficult I stuck in a quick few generic procedures. Only had one issue for the audit report at the end too.

My head was sore afterwards.

Did you notice in the SIM 2 the audit senior retired? Wtf haha...

I got to take a stab at everything but definitely don't feel like I did myself justice. So much rushing just to get through things didn't leave much room for actually thinking.

I had two issues with the AR being the inclusion of the legal/accounting fees in the Goodwill Cal and the LOS around the deferred consideration.

And haha I didn't even think about a retired senior at the time, feel like the exams are so badly worded.

John.burke · 25-08-2017 05:15PM

Clare2007 wrote: »

I went for a two party swap for the first indicator, anyone else think it was a two party swap??

I don't think so purely because it was financing trade rather than an existing trade . Then again that's just guestwork

Faecanditate · 25-08-2017 05:21PM

AtticusFinch86 wrote: »

I sat the APM today. It was by far the hardest exam of the week. It examined financial services and the "disaster relief" charity sectors i.e. no traditional business. I spent 40 minutes at least on the NPV and still didn't get it finished even though I was working at a reasonable speed. I'm kicking myself about the "business case for Ireland" indicator as I gave what I would have thought was a strong response but I completely forgot to put in any drawbacks of selecting Ireland.

Other than that, I attempted everything and gave, for the most part, what I think were solid responses so it should get enough to get me over the bar. It was a very tricky exam though, probably as hard as anything I've come across in the past papers.

The NPV was a joke. Far too time consuming with too many basic calcs. We know how to do basic maths. No need to have overdone it. They could have picked a shorter more technical one I thought. The bond was random too. I do think though that these two caught people the most so hopefully the CASSI report reflects this. Timing was brutal I thought. Rest of the paper was OK.

MrSzyslak · 25-08-2017 05:29PM

Lyra Fangs wrote:

I had two issues with the AR being the inclusion of the legal/accounting fees in the Goodwill Cal and the LOS around the deferred consideration.

Had LOS but not other.

So we need 18 to pass ?

I must have got C in AUP, Fraud. Then after that not sure as you said rushing through.
How good of attempt do you need for RC you think haha

satnavadays · 25-08-2017 05:58PM

Found that audit exam to be tough. Did anyone put contingent liability for the second issue in the audit report?

gorillafrier · 25-08-2017 08:20PM

Clare2007 wrote: »

I went for a two party swap for the first indicator, anyone else think it was a two party swap??

Fairly sure it was a 3 party swap, key point was that he wanted to retain 100% ownership personally of both trades. Would probably be able to get competent with a 2 party swap. Indicator one on sim 2 was very time consuming. Fair paper overall imo

Clare2007 · 25-08-2017 08:46PM

Yea I thought it was a bit unclear whether it was a two party swap or a three party swap. Fingers crossed they will accept either.

jbeador · 25-08-2017 08:53PM

Thanks AtticusFinch and anyone else who threw up their notes, came in handy.

Good luck everyone with results.

John.burke · 26-08-2017 12:04AM

Aye the reorganization was very unclear. Although, can you explain why either 2 party/3 party swap was even an option ? The financing trade was a new trade without an undertaking hence was it not "share for share" rather than "share for undertaking "? Something for the Cassi report me thinks

Lyra Fangs · 26-08-2017 08:01AM

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Had LOS but not other.

So we need 18 to pass ?

I must have got C in AUP, Fraud. Then after that not sure as you said rushing through.
How good of attempt do you need for RC you think haha

Well I passed the mocks, got 20. I made a decent stab at most indicators but there were a few I had no clue and just did what I could and I still got bc in the majority of them. So I don't think getting overall bc would be that tricky. I hated the aup indicator, mentioned isrs 4400 copied the report from the book and mentioned a few pre engagement procedures and made up a coupe of actual tests to do hoping that's enough for bc

MrSzyslak · 26-08-2017 08:47AM

Lyra Fangs wrote:

Well I passed the mocks, got 20. I made a decent stab at most indicators but there were a few I had no clue and just did what I could and I still got bc in the majority of them. So I don't think getting overall bc would be that tricky. I hated the aup indicator, mentioned isrs 4400 copied the report from the book and mentioned a few pre engagement procedures and made up a coupe of actual tests to do hoping that's enough for bc

I didn't do mocks. Can't believe you passed mocks man? Were you surprised when you got20?

I'd say we both passed did we haha. I made a fairly good and logical attempt at everything.

Bar indicator 7 & 8 I got about half done. Page each but not waffle

Deilginis_1 · 26-08-2017 08:50AM

Tax paper was grand overall . Thought Sim1 was much easier than Sim2. My understanding of the indicators were:

Sim 1
1. Share for undertaking 3 party swap - finance wasn't a new trade - and your man wanted to retain 100% ownership so was just a standard separation of trade . Stamp duty relief available but Vat relief not (?) as finance company was carrying out VAT exempt activities
2. Advantages of a HoldCo with emphasis on participation exemption
3. Transborder relief - a little tricky as wasn't too sure what year or even the amounts involved so was very general
4. Advantage of VAT group which was essentially saving 23k per year I think

Sim2
1. Retirement Relief / Transfers to a spouse / CAT business relief . Very time consuming
2. Establishing a trust for grandson. Was this a life interest trust? Found this tricky - would be very surprised I got BC
3. Pension indicator . Seemed ok - was covered in the book.
4. Capital allowances on intangible assets - patents

Mrgo · 26-08-2017 09:00AM

Deilginis_1 wrote: »

Tax paper was grand overall . Thought Sim1 was much easier than Sim2. My understanding of the indicators were:

Sim 1
1. Share for undertaking 3 party swap - finance wasn't a new trade - and your man wanted to retain 100% ownership so was just a standard separation of trade . Stamp duty relief available but Vat relief not (?) as finance company was carrying out VAT exempt activities
2. Advantages of a HoldCo with emphasis on participation exemption
3. Transborder relief - a little tricky as wasn't too sure what year or even the amounts involved so was very general
4. Advantage of VAT group which was essentially saving 23k per year I think

Sim2
1. Retirement Relief / Transfers to a spouse / CAT business relief . Very time consuming
2. Establishing a trust for grandson. Was this a life interest trust? Found this tricky - would be very surprised I got BC
3. Pension indicator . Seemed ok - was covered in the book.
4. Capital allowances on intangible assets - patents

I answered all like the above - Sim 2 Ind 4 may have been the Knowledge Development Box, hoping that they wanted the IA thing and the KDB, and the IA part will get myself BC!

Deilginis_1 · 26-08-2017 09:03AM

Knowledge Development Box would make sense actually . Just Capital allowances may have been too straight forward looking back. Hopefully CA alone would get BC

Mrgo wrote: »

I answered all like the above - Sim 2 Ind 4 may have been the Knowledge Development Box, hoping that they wanted the IA thing and the KDB and the IA part will get myself BC!

Lyra Fangs · 26-08-2017 09:04AM

MrSzyslak wrote: »

I didn't do mocks. Can't believe you passed mocks man? Were you surprised when you got20?

I'd say we both passed did we haha. I made a fairly good and logical attempt at everything.

Bar indicator 7 & 8 I got about half done. Page each but not waffle

Have to say I found the mocks very useful for timing, getting used to exam pressure and most importantly it tells me how bad my folders are. Though tbf I only had my interim folder with me.

I wasn't crazy surprised about passing the audit mock because we had just done interim so at lot of the stuff was fresh, the indicators I struggled with was the 2nd half of the course.

What annoyed me most was how easy it was to miss out on competent. Like you could miss a reference or misread something and no matter how good the rest of your answer was you were always getting bc.

Hopefully we both passed, if it's marked like the mocks I'd say we did enough!

John.burke · 26-08-2017 09:06AM

Mrgo wrote: »

I answered all like the above - Sim 2 Ind 4 may have been the Knowledge Development Box, hoping that they wanted the IA thing and the KDB and the IA part will get myself BC!

Never considered KDB- good shout!
Indicator 1 - I ignored RR but feel I nailed BPR, does that lose C do you reckon?

John.burke · 26-08-2017 09:16AM

Deilginis_1 wrote: »

Knowledge Development Box would make sense actually . Just Capital allowances may have been too straight forward looking back. Hopefully CA alone would get BC

Here's hoping. I feel to achieve C in tax, it's more a case of identifying the correct relief/exemption and following , just avoiding a fundamental error in your advice

Mrgo · 26-08-2017 09:16AM

John.burke wrote: »

Never considered KDB- good shout!
Indicator 1 - I ignored RR but feel I nailed BPR, does that lose C do you reckon?

Going by the grey box requirements under previous exam solutions I would say yes. They usually go like .... Candidate deals with of CGT,CAT and SD, makes a reasonable attempt at calculations and mentions both RR and BPR.

For BC you'd be hoping for an "OR" in the correction requirements, given the time pressure of this indicator I'd be hoping this will be the case.

John.burke · 26-08-2017 12:48PM

How, if atal, does the HC grade come into play in both core and elective ?

Lou88 · 26-08-2017 01:46PM

Overall thought tax elective was fair enough. Some grey areas though. Would it have made a big difference to go with 2 party swap over a 3 party swap?

I also went with the view that it was the Knowledge Development Box that they were looking for but now wondering whether the patent suggested was a qualifying asset?

John.burke · 26-08-2017 02:59PM

Lou88 wrote: »

Overall thought tax elective was fair enough. Some grey areas though. Would it have made a big difference to go with 2 party swap over a 3 party swap?

I also went with the view that it was the Knowledge Development Box that they were looking for but now wondering whether the patent suggested was a qualifying asset?

hard to say, I reckon 2 party swap is still getting BC though as its easily resolvable into a 3 party swap I.e. Not a fundamental error

How did you treat the trust and vat questions? These appear pretty black or white. I.e. Either C or NC

cobo · 26-08-2017 06:05PM

Would 2/3 points for each heading be enough to get the C for the Pestel analysis?

John.burke · 26-08-2017 06:07PM

Aye, anything more would be overkill! best of luck!

Lou88 · 26-08-2017 07:10PM

Mrgo wrote: »

I answered all like the above - Sim 2 Ind 4 may have been the Knowledge Development Box, hoping that they wanted the IA thing and the KDB, and the IA part will get myself BC!

Same as above except I suggested a 2 party swap-does that mean the shareholder still effectively owned the company or is a 3 party definitely required do you think?

I also suggested kdb and not s291a but thinking whether the patent mentioned in the SIM actually qualifies or not for Kdb? The SIM said to mention any relief so I'd imagine they wanted one relief.

Mrgo · 26-08-2017 08:43PM

Lou88 wrote: »

Same as above except I suggested a 2 party swap-does that mean the shareholder still effectively owned the company or is a 3 party definitely required do you think?

I also suggested kdb and not s291a but thinking whether the patent mentioned in the SIM actually qualifies or not for Kdb? The SIM said to mention any relief so I'd imagine they wanted one relief.

For the swap the question goes "He will set up a new company MFL to undertake the financing trade and the new company will also be 100% owned by Terry" the last bit was what I took as the steer to 3 party "100% owned by Terry".
My interpretation would be that a two party swap is not technically given him ownership, his ownership will be indirect.

I thought Sim 1 had a logical flow, you first start talking about 3 party swaps and that they won't be a group for all the usual craic and then you are led into Ind 2 and start on about the benefit of a holding group, then onto Ind 4 which is related to Ind 1, they (again my take on things) want you to highlight that even though a legal group isn't formed from the 3 party they will still be able to form a group for VAT purposes due to their close economic links.

Sim 2 Ind 4 is up in the air for me, Could be a 100% IA or a 100% KDB or a bit of both!

Lou88 · 26-08-2017 08:57PM

Mrgo wrote: »

For the swap the question goes "He will set up a new company MFL to undertake the financing trade and the new company will also be 100% owned by Terry" the last bit was what I took as the steer to 3 party "100% owned by Terry".
My interpretation would be that a two party swap is not technically given him ownership, his ownership will be indirect.

I thought Sim 1 had a logical flow, you first start talking about 3 party swaps and that they won't be a group for all the usual craic and then you are led into Ind 2 and start on about the benefit of a holding group, then onto Ind 4 which is related to Ind 1, they (again my take on things) want you to highlight that even though a legal group isn't formed from the 3 party they will still be able to form a group for VAT purposes due to their close economic links.

Sim 2 Ind 4 is up in the air for me, Could be a 100% IA or a 100% KDB or a bit of both!

Yes I would agree it probably is a three party swap on that basis.. I just thought as he was the only shareholder of MCL that it was pretty much the same outcome with either swap u chose but that's probably not the case. Yes I agree the final indicator was very vague in terms of the information given so could be either way. For the pension indicator, do you think you just had to explain how to access the fund itself and that it wasn't necessary to talk about termination payments etc. ?

John.burke · 26-08-2017 09:17PM

Lou88 wrote: »

Yes I would agree it probably is a three party swap on that basis.. I just thought as he was the only shareholder of MCL that it was pretty much the same outcome with either swap u chose but that's probably not the case. Yes I agree the final indicator was very vague in terms of the information given so could be either way. For the pension indicator, do you think you just had to explain how to access the fund itself and that it wasn't necessary to talk about termination payments etc. ?

I'd imagine a discussion on termination payments would be required to achieve C.

FAE 2017

Comments