Home For AAT student members AQ 2013 AAT Level 4 (Level 8 in Scotland)
Current updates regarding coronavirus (Covid-19) and the precautions AAT are taking will be continually updated on the below page.

Please check this link for the latest updates:
We hope you are all safe and well and if you need us we will be here. 💚


PTC silly mistakes :(

123578

Comments

  • umerali2003umerali2003 Trusted Regular Registered Posts: 400
    yea it gives a much bigger gain and thats the whole point ..... u earn more on the thing which cost lesss (hmrc) wont let u go like that lolzzz think logically
  • jimmyt1988jimmyt1988 Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 23
    for the car benefit I did something like

    List Price * 35% * 3/12 THEN took away the capital contribution, leaving me with 0 >.<. Presume this is wrong and I should have multiplied my final benefit liability by 3/12 then?

    YEP just looked that up, got that a mess, everything else was ok, so hopefully they allow my carried through figure in the rest of the questions
  • FiorellinoFiorellino Feels At Home Registered Posts: 82
    yea it gives a much bigger gain and thats the whole point ..... u earn more on the thing which cost lesss (hmrc) wont let u go like that lolzzz think logically

    I am still not sure about it!
  • NBBNBB Well-Known Registered Posts: 125
    andrea1802 wrote: »
    OOps, should have been just 600o x 10% I think

    I think it should have been
    £6000 - 150 = 5850
    10% x 5850 = 585 wear and tear
    giving £5265 as the total assessable income for flat a???
  • po1988po1988 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 39
    umerali2003

    That formula doesnt include indexation, You do the formular before taper and also you work it out normally (wit indexin etc) and you take the lower of the two figures as the gain

    In this casue it was the indexed one as the formula gives a much higher gain
  • cs_1988cs_1988 Well-Known Registered Posts: 231
    No definately 600 wear and tear. Insurance doesnt come into w and t
  • andrea1802andrea1802 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 43
    po1988 wrote: »
    umerali2003

    That formula doesnt include indexation, You do the formular before taper and also you work it out normally (wit indexin etc) and you take the lower of the two figures as the gain

    In this casue it was the indexed one as the formula gives a much higher gain
    Hi

    Thats what I thought

    andrea
  • cs_1988cs_1988 Well-Known Registered Posts: 231
    w and t is slang for wear and tear by the way

    Check me out!
  • andrea1802andrea1802 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 43
    cs_1988 wrote: »
    No definately 600 wear and tear. Insurance doesnt come into w and t
    Hi

    Your right
  • FiorellinoFiorellino Feels At Home Registered Posts: 82
    andrea1802 wrote: »
    Hi

    Thats what I thought

    andrea

    Agree
  • jimmyt1988jimmyt1988 Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 23
    Painting was something like 60,000

    Less (5,000) + Indexed Amount
    Less (800) + Indexed Amount
    Less (4,500)
    = Chargable gain? 46,XXX

    Cant remember exact figure
  • NBBNBB Well-Known Registered Posts: 125
    It said: "when he took the promotion" or something like that he got the car. The date of the promotion was given. So, he just had the car 3 months ?

    Yes but I thought it said received a car allowance of £25000 for the year regardless when he bought the car as he could only claim up to £25000 anyway, think I am wrong though!!!!!!
  • FiorellinoFiorellino Feels At Home Registered Posts: 82
    jimmyt1988 wrote: »
    Painting was something like 60,000

    Less (5,000) + Indexed Amount
    Less (800) + Indexed Amount
    Less (4,500)
    = Chargable gain? 46,XXX

    Cant remember exact figure

    Yes I did that! anyone else?
  • andrea1802andrea1802 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 43
    jimmyt1988 wrote: »
    Painting was something like 60,000

    Less (5,000) + Indexed Amount
    Less (800) + Indexed Amount
    Less (4,500)
    = Chargable gain? 46,XXX

    Cant remember exact figure
    I indexed both figures, is that correct? as my friend did not index the cleaning of the painitng.
  • jimmyt1988jimmyt1988 Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 23
    well I did lol, whether it's right or not I don't know
  • ju2003ju2003 Just Joined Registered Posts: 2
    I didn't gross up the ppp figure. Did anyone else think it was a bit misleading as it didn't say if it was net or gross amount paid?
  • umerali2003umerali2003 Trusted Regular Registered Posts: 400
    U cant index both ov them one was after april 98 nd there is no indexation after april 98
  • cs_1988cs_1988 Well-Known Registered Posts: 231
    I didnt deduct the cleaning of 800 at all - thought it was revenue!!
  • jimmyt1988jimmyt1988 Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 23
    2 were before 1998 and 1 was after, the 4,500 was after 800 and 5000 were before 1998
  • umerali2003umerali2003 Trusted Regular Registered Posts: 400
    There is no other way of doing the question of painting without using the formule

    it clearely say in bpp book sale proceed less then 6000 cost more then 6000 sale proceed are deemed 2 be 5/3 sale proceed - 6000
  • jimmyt1988jimmyt1988 Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 23
    If Proceeds (60,000) > than 6,000 and cost (5,000) < 6,000 THEN you do the 5/3 (60,000 - 6,000) = 90,000 so it didn't restrict the gain anyway because the gain was about 46,000, but I put the formula in because I believe you have to show it.
  • po1988po1988 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 39
    i indexed both
    A)cause there where two index figures given and in past all figures given where used.
    B) it says repairs etc done to a Chattel that would reflect in the sale proceeds count as costs( Ie. if it wasnt cleaned the sale might of been alot less)
  • cs_1988cs_1988 Well-Known Registered Posts: 231
    umerali2003 - THat is the RISTRICTED gain, i.e, use it if the other way is more than that.
  • FiorellinoFiorellino Feels At Home Registered Posts: 82
    There is no other way of doing the question of painting without using the formule

    it clearely say in bpp book sale proceed less then 6000 cost more then 6000 sale proceed are deemed 2 be 5/3 sale proceed - 6000

    Yes but why they put the indexation factor for the exact date
  • po1988po1988 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 39
    The fomula is used to benefit the CTG Payer by restricting gains.
    In this case the gain would be higher using the formula so it is no use, as we use the lower of the two methods as stated before.
  • umerali2003umerali2003 Trusted Regular Registered Posts: 400
    There was one indexation thats 4 sure because framing the picture is like enhancement we do index the enhancement sperately but in that case the enhancement was done after april 98 so there will be NOindexation
  • mi|kshakemi|kshake Feels At Home Registered Posts: 70
    Wasn't sure if I calculated the benefit right. After calculating benefit percentage etc I deducted his contribution. Can't exactly remember my figure but I think it was around £1900 !?

    Loving this thread. I was having such trouble doing the past papers as I ALWAYS forgot something that was written right there on the paper. Like the personal allowance when you had to calculate the tax in section 2. Always forgot that even if I had already done it in section 1. Remembered this time though! That was definately my worry for this exam - missing something that's right in front of me!

    mi|kshake~
  • karenvkarenv Well-Known Registered Posts: 114
    po1988 wrote: »
    The fomula is used to benefit the CTG Payer by restricting gains.
    In this case the gain would be higher using the formula so it is no use, as we use the lower of the two methods as stated before.

    Thats what I did.
  • jimmyt1988jimmyt1988 Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 23
    In the letter to barberra, just want to check that I'm right in saying her private residence is exempt providing she has lived in it all the time with no time away more than 3 months or the fact work required her to work abroad. And her lil antiques were exempt as cost and proceeds of each was less than 6,000?
  • umerali2003umerali2003 Trusted Regular Registered Posts: 400
    No indexation on enhancement which was framing the picture because the date was oct 1999 some thing like that
Sign In or Register to comment.