PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

System
System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
edited June 18 in AAT student discussion
Sent these to a few people yesterday and got some very useful feedback - Thanks all. Copied below - further feedback would be appreciated.

Section 1.

Task 1.1
Car use - 22%
Fuel - £22%

Computer - (1500 x 5/12) x 20% plus (1800 x 7/12) x 20%. No £500 exemption any more.

Mobile - exempt

£7177 in total - I think.

Task 1.2

Rent - Property B rental 8 months. Don't adjust expenses (all allowable)or time apportion. Deduct loss. £7000 if I recall

Task 1.3.

Employment income
less Pension @ 3% of £1155
less subs
Add Rent
Add BIK

BSI x 100/80
Div x 100/90
ISA - exempt

Task 1.4

Straight forward tax calc (Basic band not adjusted for pension as occupational.)

Task 1.5

Straight forward tax form. Note. P60 income is Gross less pension (£37345), include 3 benefits and subs.

Task 1.6.

Additional ISA income irrelevent as exempt
£150 charity payments would have extended his Basic Tax Band so he'd have paid less tax. Waffled a bit about being fined for incorrect return and liable for interest on money owed - but not relevent here as the error is costing him.

Task 2.1

Match 1 - 500 within 30 days

Match 2 - 300 Rights issue (I've messed up here. Rights issue are matched with originals). The correct process is to add to the original shares (number and cost). Indexation is not available on the Rights Shares though you'd index the FA Pool upto 98 then add the 300 Rights Shares and cost to that balancing figure. You would then dispose of 3500 of the Pool and index the gain at 65%.

Match 3 - 3200 from FA98 pool. (Should be 3500 as above)

Task 2.2 - was this the land one? Exempt as between spouses.

Task 2.3. Relieve £4000 loss against Match 1 to nil off, Match 2 to nil off and reduce Match 3. (Obviously wrong as only 2 matches as 2.1. done wrong)

Task 2.4 - Basic income tax comp.I incorrectly ignored the dividend at this point as it cancelled itself out. My thinking was that it might affect the CGT bands and that was the reason it was there.

Task 2.5. CGT all at 20% (after deducting £8800 allowance.), as enough within Basic Band following Task 2.4. Payable on 31 Jan 08.

Task 2.6.Didn't read the question proprerly so didn't realise that all allowance had been used up, until i'd done answer. Had to amend Painting bought in 1985 advice.

Vintage Car - exempt. This has been queried by someone i sent my answers to. I cannot see anything in the books to change my understanding.

Painting bought 85 - restricted gain (10000-6000)x 5/3. Am I right to think you couldn't accurately work out the alternative due to no indexation being provided in the question. Bit confusing. You would normally compare Proceeds less cost less indexation with the restricted calculation to see which was most beneficial. I was quite clear that the restricted would be the most beneficial but i still thought it was a confusing issue.

Painting bought 98 - bought for and sold for under £6000 - exempt.

Comments

  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    Hi,

    A few comments...

    For the charity payments question I was very cautious. It didn't say how these payments had been made. Presumably not through payroll giving, but it also didn't state that gift aid was applicable. For gift aid to work you must sign a form to gift aid the donation... so in the end I talked about the implications of if it had been give as you earn, gift aided or just a straight donation.

    I thought I used indexation of 75% for Task 2.1. Matching the rights issue correcly, I am sure I used 100% for the first match, offsetting part of the loss, then 75% for the second match, offsetting the remaining loss.

    I would agree that the vintage car os exempt - it's a car, and as far as I was aware, all cars are exempt.
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    Can see where you're coming from re: Charity payment. Hope i get some marks.

    The Match 2 taper would have been 65% wouldn't it as it was in the FA98 Pool, i.e. 8+1 yrs?
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    I also want to add in respect to the gift aid in section 2 I also put that due to them not telling HMRC about it that the charity can't then collect the extra 22%, not sure if this is right but thought I read it somewhere and thought it sounded good!

    Well done everyone for finishing their exams this year. I'm sure we all did better than we think.
    I'm not going to think about it now until 20th August.
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    Hi,

    I can't remember exactly to be honest, I could very well have used 65%. I agree with what you are saying though, 8 yrs + 1. I just thought I used 75%... maybe I had a wobble in the exam! :)
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    The 1st computer had no benefit as was purchased before FY06 so £500 exempt
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    I thought there was no exemption for computers for 06/07. Wasnt the last year for this in 05/06?
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    Yes the first computer was exempt. The £500 rule still applies in 06/07 - as it all depends on when the asset was provided. If I remember correctly it was Jan 2005 - so the exemption still stood until 06.04.05.

    I also said that this benefit on the first computer was Nil.

    Hope this helps :)
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    This appears to be a contentious one.

    According to Osborne - Provision of other Assets.

    "there is an assessable benefit of 20% of the market value of the asset when first provided. This benefit would apply to each tax year that it was used by the employee." It goes on to say,

    "In the case of a computer provided to an employee until 2005/06, there was no assessable benefit when the computer has a value of £2500 or less. For 2006/07 that exemption has been withdrawn, and all computers provided to the employees for private use are assessable. "

    Now to me this is saying that for tax year 06/07 there would be a benefit based on 20% of the £1500 cost. That said I can see where you're coming from. I also don't fully understand where Osborne books are coming from. My understanding is that the £2500 that Osborne refer to is based on the fact that the 1st £500 of the benefit is exempt, not that the computer had no assessable benefit. This may be a play on words but it makes a fundamental difference. If the exemption no longer applies then you have an assessable benefit. But if what Osborne is saying is correct then the computer had no assessable benefit when first provided so this would follow suit in 06/07.

    HMRC website confirms that the exemption still applies - so i'm wrong (another one) - I'm going to be resitting at this rate.

    This has not been covered by my tutors and not covered (well enough)in Osborne

    I need a drink (again)
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    HMRC Website Quote

    "Before 6 April 2006 there was an exemption for the first £500 of the cash equivalent of the benefit associated with a computer loaned by an employer to an employee. This exemption was abolished from 6 April 2006.

    From 6 April 2006 a computer loaned to an employee is treated in the same way as any other asset"

    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/ebik/ebik2/computers.htm

  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    Did everyone put the land as exempt in section 2?

    Looking at all these responses I think I have failed :cry:
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    Lisa

    I made a mess of the Land question first forgot the indexation then had to change all the next question to include the indexation and didnt exempt it. After all that it was exempt anyway...

    Not going to worry now as that cannot change anything.
    Just enjoy the 'summer' (when it comes!)

    Yas
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Re:PTC - suggested answers (inc where i went wrong)

    I think I did ok on the first half of the paper the only thing I messed up was putting 9% as the pension i don't know why I did that it was a stupid m,istake
Privacy Policy