PCT Today

13

Comments

  • AATmunkee
    AATmunkee Registered Posts: 123 ? ? ?
    I got the same figure as well for the tax liability

    which figure??
  • pirate
    pirate Registered Posts: 469
    What's antiques got to do with it??
    I got a part disposal gain of 10000-1818=8182 but I think i prob should have restricted it to 5/3 x 6000-1818.
    Oh well.
    Never had a part disposal and a restriction in the same question in a past paper tho!

    How did you work that out then
    just curiuos
    both vases where £4000 each and the one sold was 10,000 and the one left was £12000.
    I thought it was too simple when I just did 10000-4000= 6000
    K
  • Lou1234
    Lou1234 Registered Posts: 210 ? ? ?
    Yeah the loan was £7600 with no interest and he had to start paying it back when his basic salary reached £20,000
  • jow774
    jow774 Registered Posts: 465 Dedicated contributor ? ? ?
    Did it say that both vases were worth £4000 each? Not that it matters to me as I have made a right hash of that exam and I really thought I'd done the revision, lol. I think DFS yesterday lulled me into a false sense of security.
  • AATmunkee
    AATmunkee Registered Posts: 123 ? ? ?
    For the vase i did 10000 over 10000+12000 x something
    then did 10,000-6000 x 5/3 £6667
  • accounts boy
    accounts boy Registered Posts: 12 Regular contributor ⭐ ? ⭐
    Originally Posted by nscuffell
    Wear and tear is 10% of the income so it does not need to be proportioned any other way

    I assume we dont calculate wear and tear for un-furnished properties?
  • AATmunkee
    AATmunkee Registered Posts: 123 ? ? ?
    Originally Posted by nscuffell
    Wear and tear is 10% of the income so it does not need to be proportioned any other way

    I assume we dont calculate wear and tear for un-furnished properties?

    nope.. we dont.
  • goodyuk
    goodyuk Registered Posts: 50 ? ? ?
    What's antiques got to do with it??
    I got a part disposal gain of 10000-1818=8182 but I think i prob should have restricted it to 5/3 x 6000-1818.
    Oh well.
    Never had a part disposal and a restriction in the same question in a past paper tho!

    I agree.... I did the part disposal and then though "OMG its a chatel" so I need to restrict it... but didnt know how to restrict it on a part disposal so in the end I left it as just a part disposal
  • goodyuk
    goodyuk Registered Posts: 50 ? ? ?
    Can anyone remember the loan no idea how much it was

    I made it chargeable at 4.75% (because it was a zero percent loan so the 4.75% was all chargable irrespective of when he paid it back)
  • taskey
    taskey Registered Posts: 1,800
    i just left it as a part disposal too, thought about chattel but remember that the profits and the original value had to be over 6000, or i might have just made that bit up lol
  • Lou1234
    Lou1234 Registered Posts: 210 ? ? ?
    AATmunkee wrote: »
    For the vase i did 10000 over 10000+12000 x something
    then did 10,000-6000 x 5/3 £6667

    That is what I did.

    4000 x 10000/22000. Then I did the 5/3(Proceeds - £6000).
  • accounts boy
    accounts boy Registered Posts: 12 Regular contributor ⭐ ? ⭐
    Training expenses is exempt if it was work related training. I think??????????
    any body please ? Was it assessible benefit?
  • spursfan323
    spursfan323 Registered Posts: 28 ? ? ?
    I seem to recall it was BOTH vases cost 4k,. So what was the individual cost of the one sold?..
    4k x 10k / (10+12k) =1818

    this much i am pretty sure on.
  • Lou1234
    Lou1234 Registered Posts: 210 ? ? ?
    I also made the loan an assessable benefit and did 4.75 x £7600.
  • AATmunkee
    AATmunkee Registered Posts: 123 ? ? ?
    Lou1234 wrote: »
    That is what I did.

    4000 x 10000/22000. Then I did the 5/3(Proceeds - £6000).

    Thank god.. at least i may of got somethin right!! :)
  • AATmunkee
    AATmunkee Registered Posts: 123 ? ? ?
    Training expenses is exempt if it was work related training. I think??????????
    any body please ? Was it assessible benefit?

    nope, not assessable.. exempt!! checked my book straight after :)
  • jewels.p
    jewels.p Registered Posts: 1,774
    I seem to recall it was BOTH vases cost 4k,. So what was the individual cost of the one sold?..
    4k x 10k / (10+12k) =1818

    this much i am pretty sure on.



    That is why I never used the restriction thing then. I thought the vases were £4000 each I think (Oh who knows) I cant remember much and everyone seems to be getting different figures for everything! lol (shouldnt be laughing really)
  • AATmunkee
    AATmunkee Registered Posts: 123 ? ? ?
    Lou1234 wrote: »
    I also made the loan an assessable benefit and did 4.75 x £7600.

    lol me too!!!
  • AATmunkee
    AATmunkee Registered Posts: 123 ? ? ?
    I got a stupidly high figure (gain) on the sell of the necklace... did people restrict this??? 26,000 - 8500 = 17500 and then took off 5% of 26000 - gain of 16200... BAD TIMES!!!!!
  • noodles
    noodles Registered Posts: 308
    Training expenses is exempt if it was work related training. I think??????????
    any body please ? Was it assessible benefit?
    I did it as exempt as work related
  • NO BUSINESS CASE
    NO BUSINESS CASE Registered Posts: 85 ? ? ?
    I must be honest, or perhaps it is just the nature of tax computations but I did find a lot of the questions ambiguous and open to interpretation.

    I spent as much time explaining why I had done things as I did actually answering the question!!!

    Looking back I wonder if it just looks like I am begging the marker to give me the marks as I know roughly what I am talking about!!! ha ha
  • goodyuk
    goodyuk Registered Posts: 50 ? ? ?
    nscuffell wrote: »
    I did it as exempt as work related

    I did it as exempt too
    The vases I did as a part disposal. but wasnt convinced not to restrict them as I was cinvinced they were a chatel... but didnt know how to restrict a part disposal so left it
  • pirate
    pirate Registered Posts: 469
    What's antiques got to do with it??
    I got a part disposal gain of 10000-1818=8182 but I think i prob should have restricted it to 5/3 x 6000-1818.
    Oh well.
    Never had a part disposal and a restriction in the same question in a past paper tho!
    I must be honest, or perhaps it is just the nature of tax computations but I did find a lot of the questions ambiguous and open to interpretation.

    I spent as much time explaining why I had done things as I did actually answering the question!!!

    Looking back I wonder if it just looks like I am begging the marker to give me the marks as I know roughly what I am talking about!!! ha ha

    Me too
    I explained why I was leaving the repairs in as they house was in a bad state of repair and needed work doing to it. SoI explained that it was not a capital expense and allowed it.

    The vases I read as being bought for 4000 each. Therefore I thought she had bought them for £8000. For this reason I did a simple calculation but added in a lot of stuff about if they had been bought as part of a pair. There was a imilar question in June 09 about painting but it said all 3 were bought for £x so that is definitely a part disposal in this case I read and re read the paragraph and underlined stuff so was sure it was 10000-4000=£6000
    there would be no point in resticting it as if you do 5/3(10000-6000) you get a higher figure

    I did write down the calculation for a part ownership but wont get marks for that. I suppose in real life we get a lot of ambiguous things and thats what they are testing. But i would argue the toss with the HMRC in real life as things are open to interpretation.

    anyway
  • Lou1234
    Lou1234 Registered Posts: 210 ? ? ?
    Me too
    I explained why I was leaving the repairs in as they house was in a bad state of repair and needed work doing to it. SoI explained that it was not a capital expense and allowed it.

    I allowed the redecoration costs of £1500 (I think that was the figure).

    I didn't allow the repairs of £5000 as a deduction as they were carried out before the home was rented (I think). Remembered the book said if repairs were done before the property is rented out for the first time then it is not allowable as the property purchase price would have been lower because of this.
  • goodyuk
    goodyuk Registered Posts: 50 ? ? ?
    Lou1234 wrote: »
    I allowed the redecoration costs of £1500 (I think that was the figure).

    I didn't allow the repairs of £5000 as a deduction as they were carried out before the home was rented (I think). Remembered the book said if repairs were done before the property is rented out for the first time then it is not allowable as the property purchase price would have been lower because of this.


    I agree on both of those :)
  • bpopsicle
    bpopsicle Registered Posts: 12 Regular contributor ⭐ ? ⭐
    With the memo for the extended bands I time apportioned his new salary from August and old salary and came up with £36000 which doesn't reach the higher limit?? So I conjectured that the benefits would push it up to £37400 and added the gift aid and pensions to that grossed up. Did anyone else come up with this problem?
  • pirate
    pirate Registered Posts: 469
    goodyuk wrote: »
    I agree on both of those :)

    The flat was rented out before the repairs. Then she did the repairs then rented it out again.
    from January with 6 months in advance

    As it said repairs as the place needed some stuff I assumed it wasnt capital
    maybe I am muddled
    K
  • donnaalwill
    donnaalwill Registered Posts: 116 ? ? ?
    I removed the perforated pages and when I left the exam room accidentally took them with me as I just put my exam paper in one hand and handed it in!
    But as I did I can say that the vases (which have been bothering me) said that in Sep 97 she bought two vases for £4000. Thats all that was put so I *assumed* it meant that they were bought in bulk so I did the same as some others did and split the cost by 10000/10000+12000 then worked out the 5/3x(10000-6000) which gave me the 6667 figure.
    However, looking at the answers on here and the ones I wrote down on my seat printout I can see a few differences lol
    My answers for benefits was 5341, I worked out car on list price, fuel, I included the loan even though the fact he wasn't going to pay for it until he earned more (I have never come across this before and it completely confused me), I put the training course as exempt.
    Taxable income (I don't know why as can't see it here anywhere) came to 19281. And I had income tax payable at 619.20.
    Section 2.
    I was sooo confused about the necklace, my own fault but I took the market value over the original cost even though it was between family members and came out with 9700, vases as stated I got 6667, shares I lost the plot a little and came out with 3844.
    I did all my workings and felt okay until I came to the last question, I am home study and the less than a page comments in my textbook on paying tax by account meant I clearly didn't consider it to be a 30min major question in part 2. I literally worked my way through the textbook again yesterday to be sure of the rules, looked over it and didn't think it was important enough to take notes on - my mistake. On the scale of it, I think I showed enough to pass, but still, slightly concerned as I had to leave most of that part blank.
    On the plus side I hung around in Birmingham till my friend had finished her exam at 12, took the train back to Cov and have been in the pub since:) Only just got home. ITS OVER! woo! Well until Augusts results anyway:P
  • gguest
    gguest Registered Posts: 14 Regular contributor ⭐ ? ⭐
    i really do think that this exammier needs to get her self a man then maybe she wouldnt be so harsh on us
  • donnaalwill
    donnaalwill Registered Posts: 116 ? ? ?
    gguest wrote: »
    i really do think that this exammier needs to get her self a man then maybe she wouldnt be so harsh on us

    No idea about the gender of the examiner of this one, I think it was hard in parts just because it was a bit trickier than what I've seen and its hard to revise tax papers as the rule changes. But I think that comments pretty uncalled for... So she gets loved up and then makes the paper easier as she is in such a good mood? Didn't that happen in Clueless? Isn't there a clue in that title there?
    I may or may not have passed the exam, but I would imagine it takes more than a 'bad mood through being single' to publish a paper. It must go through checking. Grow up.
Privacy Policy