View Full Version : PTC 7 Dec 2007
Oh dear...not really a hard paper but i have SO messed up!! forgot to apply IA to the house to 1998!! and forgot to calculate the CGT payable....left it as the total Gain chargeable!! without applying the relevant tax bands!! ARRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHH 2nd time and I very much doubt i will pass after that...think i also forgot to deduct the PA on the individual income tax caluclation!!
Why is it that everytime you leave the exam room YOU KNOW where you have gone wrong BUT CANT SEE IT whilst the paper is in front of you!! MADNESS
oh well i will blame it the pregnancy :) 4 weeks til arrival and i think it a good one....sapping up me brain power?!!
Oh well all over with now....will wait for the results but definately wont be holding my breath.
Xmas soon be here and then a new year!! and maybe more re-sits LOL
Hope everyone else sitting found it ok and didn't make any silly mistakes like me!!
am sure i got other q's wrong but right now i not even going to dwell on it...couldn't remember even if i wanted to.
here's to the results!!
:crying:
Oh dear...not really a hard paper but i have SO messed up!! forgot to apply IA to the house to 1998!! and forgot to calculate the CGT payable....left it as the total Gain chargeable!! without applying the relevant tax bands!! ARRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHH 2nd time and I very much doubt i will pass after that...think i also forgot to deduct the PA on the individual income tax caluclation!!
Why is it that everytime you leave the exam room YOU KNOW where you have gone wrong BUT CANT SEE IT whilst the paper is in front of you!! MADNESS
oh well i will blame it the pregnancy :) 4 weeks til arrival and i think it a good one....sapping up me brain power?!!
Oh well all over with now....will wait for the results but definately wont be holding my breath.
Xmas soon be here and then a new year!! and maybe more re-sits LOL
Hope everyone else sitting found it ok and didn't make any silly mistakes like me!!
am sure i got other q's wrong but right now i not even going to dwell on it...couldn't remember even if i wanted to.
here's to the results!!
:crying:
mine wasnt well as well........
i dont knw why did i get soo strange answers.....
in house i didnt get any loss n gain cox indexation makes it negative answer n i think indexation never makes or create loss.....???????
and in section 2 income tax i didnt get any taxable income...
and also i forgot that occupational income should be directly deducted from salary,,,but me silly increase the rate band....i knw that but ihowcud i do mistakes in exam n realise after,,,,,,,,,,#
writeen answere wasnt good as welll.....
bless meh...!!!!!!!
I failed mine for the 2nd time in June, as soon as I walked out and my other half said, "that was a challenge" I knew I had messed up, I thought it was straight forward!!!
I forgot to include allowances deduct pensions, didnt even mention the pooling of shares!! Miserabley failed both sections!!! :001_rolleyes:
I decided to miss this resits and retake in June 2008. Figured another year I might get my head around it!!! :blushing: (Very busy year so I wasnt concentrating on exams at all, wedding was 2 months away moved a week before the exams and a very tragic death a few weeks before, wonder I went at all really!)
Happy xmas to all and good luck for the birth of your baby in a couple of weeks!
(You probably done alot better than you think!)
accountschic
07-12-07, 14:18
Me also
I missed the IA saw it too mins before the end couldn't cross other stuff or re calcualte the CGT in time. Just scribbled the new answer down using IA in hope they may take in into account.
I just seemed to draw a blank all the way through.
I messed up the rental income as well. I put 2 quaters rent in half the insurance and the £500 but not £750. Can anyone remember what they did?
Did you charge fuel benefit since in said in payment of some private mielage.
Yikes I feel so daft having mental block , I think PCr finished me off yesterday!
I went in so confident this morning and came out feeling terrible.
The paper wasn't as hard as it could have been but I made some stupid errors on PPR and the shares, so I'm guessing I failed section 2.
Re-Sit's in June then !!!
My own fault for thinking I knew it all - even though I did revise every night for the last 3 weeks.
:laugh::laugh:
so everyone had a rough time with personal taxation.
Gift aid do you just extend your band for 22% and put it in your calculation there?
PPR is the worst thing ever i spent to much time revising matching shares and forgot all about PPR, was so gutted when it was on the paper:thumbdown:
Ive just done the PTC exam today and i thought section 1 was ok, might have fluffed a little mark here and there but all in all ok.
Section 2!
Well it seemed ok but later finding out on the bus that the house question i done as wrong.. i got the proceeds and minuesd off the the cost and the indexation of the cost and i thought well that was easy, but when i read the book it stated that the gain had to be apportioned to how many years the house as occupied!!? i mean you never see this till its happenned in hind-sight!
Well hopefully i wont be knocked for that to much, hoping that maybe just maybe some other people done the same mistake!??
Wow i had a big capital gain tax at the end!!
:glare:
seems like we all did very much the same LOL.....exams...wonder if they take that pressure into account when marking them!..I can wish.
I calculated the sec 2 income tax as nil too......shares kinda confused me as they were all after April 98 and from revision..no pool...can't remember my figure tho.
oh well...lets hope the markers look at this post and make notes on where we all struggled....fingers crossed but i doubt i be marked as competant when missing out calculations of tax at the requierd rate! dumbhead....oh well...look forward to xmas everyone and enjoy the new year celebrations.
best fo luck for the results too.
overall it was an easy exam but that did not stop me making stupid mistakes! did well in bits and thought all the memos were fairly easy. hope it was enough
not sure how much we should talk about it at the moment, but basically I did quite ok, small errors in the first section. But section 2, basically calculated 3 of the 4 wrong, and maybe thought the wrong one was exempt. Although those figures wrong, (Think only got the shares right) I'm hoping the fact I did the bands and all the other calculations.. net income tax, net gains, and gains tax all right and in the right format, (albeit with the wrong figures). Do you think that will mean i have done enough to pass? :huh:
:001_unsure:
Not sure if anyone else feels the same as me but I thought it was a really hard paper as there was some questions set out to trick us, I know I fluffed one as I calculated the car on the secondhand value not the list price!!!
I thought the rental was very confusing as well trying to work out which date to start accruing from,decided in the end to go for October, had £4000 + £150 and £750 if my memory serves me right. Any one else get the same?
Also the inheritance of that painting I did CGT on it but was worried it should have been left as it was inheritance decided to do it anyway as I knew the ring was less than £6000 so not assessable.
I think I did ok on the property one as I remembered to Index it, got confused working out the months and divided my gain by 106/236 (worked in months).
hmm, rent, + ? i thought we were taking everything off even in this case
accountschic
07-12-07, 17:40
Hi
I did much the same, got no CGt for ring but did on painting and messed up the PPR. I worked it in month but got confused about the apportionment and indexation and also the 6 yers he was in Oz.
On section 1 I got 4000 less 500 -150. For the rental.
With a fuel benefit on the car.
I could scream as I though I was ok, had done loads of revision but like so many have said the wording just seemed odd.
It seems many of us got confused on the same area. Just like PCR yesterday.
Well Happy Christmas everyone
accountschic
07-12-07, 17:45
Hi
Yeah I grossed up the donation and extended the band by that for teh 22% rate.
Like you I got so wound up about share pool revisonforgot some key points of the PPR.
Not convinced I will get a competent.
Such a pian as re sits will be next December I think since the new tax year rules are been taught for students after Jan .
Hey ho!
I thought I had done ok when I came out of the exam but there was one thing I was unsure about. In section 2 I ended up not using all my personal allowance on the income tax calculation and couldn't remember whether to use the rest for the capital gains tax calculation. (guess I missed reading that page of the book!).
So I guessed and carried remainder down to use against capital gains.
Checked the book when I got home and guess what. 50/50 chance and I managed to pick the wrong one!!!
So that will have thrown my memo out totally as all the figures were based on my wrong answer before. And I forgot to put the date that capital gains is due for payment on the question that asked for a figure and a date!
But its over now! Christmas time now!
patward1354
07-12-07, 18:24
Certainly feel there are lots of 'grey areas' that we could be caught out on
did anyone else use 21/234 as PPR gain?
what about business expenses still not sure after reading the text books what we do here
and the final bit about 15% commision, really messed up there and tried to incoportate the 5/3 rule and lost the plot:mad2:
Kimberleena
07-12-07, 18:42
I think i made a few stupid mistakes......... did anyone else on the first question about the company car do it for 6 months, i think i read the question wrong im sure it said something about october in it i did the company car tax and the fuel allowance and then apportioned it for 6 months..... :glare:
Also on the second section with the private residences bit i took the time he was in australia as he was working and i thought that all that was exempt so i ended up with i think 21 month chargeable so my house after indexation had no gain..... has anyone else done that??????
topsywright
07-12-07, 18:46
I'm a bit concerned with the house question. I put it as all exempt but am thinking now that there was a period that isn't exempt. but i think thats about the only thing i messed up on so hopefully it shouldn't fail me.
i think it was ok
for the house thou i got that it was fully exempt. but i know exactly what ive done wrong there
did you add a BIK for fuel? wasnt sure on this part too. i added it and took off the employees comp (as £80 a month is not an exact amount) - never seen an example like this in class or the book
and i might have mucked up on the actuall rently income amount (i used 4 months not 6)
happy if everything else thou so hopefully thats enough to get a pass
oh yea i had CGT of £188 (£1880 all at 10%)
I hope they don't measure the thickness of all the correction tape I used...
Fairly sure I got the car and fuel right, but stared off saying the house was rented for 5 months not 4, but only worked this out once I had completed all the section 1 calculations...
For part 2 I got the house unoccupied for 21 months so calculated PPR relief based in that.
Think the CGT only came out at about £50 after the amendment from the Auctioneers fees...
Anyhow it went better than PEV and as well as PCR so - here's hoping. I should have 2 out of 3 but will still hope for a clean sweep...
Kimberleena
07-12-07, 19:04
I also did the rental income on 4 months not 6.... i got £2667, i didnt think that when the house was un occupied you accrued for what rent you should receive, i know when it is occupied you do. Surely if its empty all year youwouldnt be liable for tax on they money you could have got??? I took off the maintenance and £150 for 6months of the insurance but not the decorating
What did anybody write for the email about antonias father's tax? I was completely baffled by this, perhaps I am being stupid? Apart from that I thought it was ok, definately better than expected
Re 21 Months.... I Got This Figure But Forgot The 3 Years Anytime Which Then Would Of Given A Nil Figure And Therefore No Gain To Pay Tax On
I think i made a few stupid mistakes......... did anyone else on the first question about the company car do it for 6 months, i think i read the question wrong im sure it said something about october in it i did the company car tax and the fuel allowance and then apportioned it for 6 months..... :glare:
Also on the second section with the private residences bit i took the time he was in australia as he was working and i thought that all that was exempt so i ended up with i think 21 month chargeable so my house after indexation had no gain..... has anyone else done that??????
YES BUT WHAT ABOUT 3 YEARS ANYTIME RELEIF
i think it was ok
for the house thou i got that it was fully exempt. but i know exactly what ive done wrong there
did you add a BIK for fuel? wasnt sure on this part too. i added it and took off the employees comp (as £80 a month is not an exact amount) - never seen an example like this in class or the book
and i might have mucked up on the actuall rently income amount (i used 4 months not 6)
happy if everything else thou so hopefully thats enough to get a pass
HOUSE SHOULD END UP NIL GAIN SO 5880 SHARES
4800 PAINTING
(8800) EXEMTION
1880 @10% TAX £188
I GOT THE HOUSE PART WRONG AS FORGOT ABOUT 3 YEARS ANYTIME RULE
PCR OK JUST THE ENERGY WRONG AS PUT IT ALL AFTER CONTRIBUTION FIGURE
please help - if the painting was only 4800, was it not exempt as below 6000?
Many thanks :confused1:
This is crazy. I was so confident and stupidly looked forward to this paper until I was sitting in the exam hall.
I even messed up and took car at 14000 as we were only taught to take the cost of a car. Well I tried to apply logic and took the cost that the new owners had paid as they were supplying the benefit and assumed that they can not tax on something that the employer had not actually paid for??
We were also told to concerntrate on FA1985 pool and ignore PRR as it was very unlikley to come up due to any workings taking too long for an exam!
Stuffed was I when I read the paper. And..........................I have studied my arse off which makes it even worse that the things I had been told not to look at or told anything about came up in an exam!!!!! Well least i have had a little rant now, feel a little better:001_smile:
Bluewednesday
07-12-07, 20:46
I can't understand why you were told not to look at PPR. I did the first Tax exams of the new syllabus (back in June 04 I think) and we had PPR in that so it was known right from the start of tax being an exam rather than a simulation.
If it helps no two of anyone in the whole class had the same figure and nearly all of us passed!
While i was studying i couldnt remember going through it - pulled out my notes that i had written in class and across the top it said 'do not spend much time on PRR as this is very unlikley to ever come up in exam'
We had only written half a page of A4 details on it and only covering last 36 months and if living elsewhere for employment!!! No calcs or anything like it.
YES BUT WHAT ABOUT 3 YEARS ANYTIME RELEIF
They only get it if they return to the property and claim it as their PPR again. They went to Australia for 6 years, but as she came back, that is deemed as occupied. Once she moved out of the house into her new flat, she never returned. Therefore although the last 36 months will be deemed occupied, the remainder (which I think was 21 months) will be chargeable.
I thought the paper was pretty easy.
Section 1 was OK, I put the reimbursed entertainment expenses in as a Benefit In Kind, along with the Company Car and the Fuel benefit, then deducted it (along with the subscription) from her salary so they cancel each other out. The property question was a little more difficult; I calculated 4 months rent as the rent due, less the maintenance BEFORE 5 April 2007, and half the insurance cost (policy taken out on October 1, to 31st March is 6 months out of 12), and I ignored the other maintenance as it would apply to the income for 07/08. I explained the reason for Antonia's father by saying it is because the tax he paid is based on the previous years Tax Liability, so he will need to make a balancing payment(the £1500), and that next years payments will be based on this year's Tax Liability, which won't take his "retirement" into account.
Section 2 surprised me as I was expecting a complicated Shares question (involving an FA1985 pool), but there wasn't. I almost forget that Bonus Issues were attached to the original shares, but remembered before I did the question. The painting was pretty straightforward, as was the ring(not chargeable) and the PPR question was a little complicated, but once I drew out the timeline and narrated it, it was OK. I can't remember the exact figure for Net Capital Gains, or the CGT liability, but for the Income Tax Liability, I believe it was nil as once the Trading Profits and Dividends were added, it came to less than £5035, so there was no assesable income. The email was OK as well, the auctioneers fee was an incidental cost of disposal, and the car is exempt, so he can't offset the loss.
please help - if the painting was only 4800, was it not exempt as below 6000?
Many thanks :confused1:
No. Chattels are only exempt if the COST and DISPOSAL PROCEEDS are less than £6000(as was the case with the ring). The amount of the actual gain is irrelevant.
I can't understand why you were told not to look at PPR. I did the first Tax exams of the new syllabus (back in June 04 I think) and we had PPR in that so it was known right from the start of tax being an exam rather than a simulation.
If it helps no two of anyone in the whole class had the same figure and nearly all of us passed!
agreed, i also took it before as a simulation and that was the case in my class too
Re 21 Months.... I Got This Figure But Forgot The 3 Years Anytime Which Then Would Of Given A Nil Figure And Therefore No Gain To Pay Tax On
i think it should be 21 months. you have to have lived in it before and after to qualify for any of the 'rule'. So the 3 at anytime doesnt apply here
They only get it if they return to the property and claim it as their PPR again. They went to Australia for 6 years, but as she came back, that is deemed as occupied. Once she moved out of the house into her new flat, she never returned. Therefore although the last 36 months will be deemed occupied, the remainder (which I think was 21 months) will be chargeable.
I thought the paper was pretty easy.
Section 1 was OK, I put the reimbursed entertainment expenses in as a Benefit In Kind, along with the Company Car and the Fuel benefit, then deducted it (along with the subscription) from her salary so they cancel each other out. The property question was a little more difficult; I calculated 4 months rent as the rent due, less the maintenance BEFORE 5 April 2007, and half the insurance cost (policy taken out on October 1, to 31st March is 6 months out of 12), and I ignored the other maintenance as it would apply to the income for 07/08. I explained the reason for Antonia's father by saying it is because the tax he paid is based on the previous years Tax Liability, so he will need to make a balancing payment(the £1500), and that next years payments will be based on this year's Tax Liability, which won't take his "retirement" into account.
Section 2 surprised me as I was expecting a complicated Shares question (involving an FA1985 pool), but there wasn't. I almost forget that Bonus Issues were attached to the original shares, but remembered before I did the question. The painting was pretty straightforward, as was the ring(not chargeable) and the PPR question was a little complicated, but once I drew out the timeline and narrated it, it was OK. I can't remember the exact figure for Net Capital Gains, or the CGT liability, but for the Income Tax Liability, I believe it was nil as once the Trading Profits and Dividends were added, it came to less than £5035, so there was no assesable income. The email was OK as well, the auctioneers fee was an incidental cost of disposal, and the car is exempt, so he can't offset the loss.
pretty much exactly what i had for everything there! apart from the PPR which i mucked up. i did however add the entertainment as a BIK and then take away as an allowable expense as it was reimbursed
Kimberleena
07-12-07, 21:56
YES BUT WHAT ABOUT 3 YEARS ANYTIME RELEIF
i didnt do that :huh: but with the indexation it still arrived at nil anyway so hopefully i wont have lost too many marks on that
feel quite worried reading all this. Got the shares ok. Thought the painting was exempt. Calculated the gain on the ring and mucked up ppr as didnt think it would come up. But with wrong figures got nil for income tax. And at least got the rest right with wrong figures. Hmm im worried ive failed, anyone want to take a guess?
Kimberleena
07-12-07, 21:58
oooooooo but reading that post previous you can only claim 3 years anytime if you have occupied it previously and after... so i may have done it proper... :ohmy:
No. Chattels are only exempt if the COST and DISPOSAL PROCEEDS are less than £6000(as was the case with the ring). The amount of the actual gain is irrelevant.
The painting was sold for 15k and was deemed to have a value of 9k when inherited so I got the gain on the painting to be 6k before taper relief, apply the 80% for the duration if ownership gives the 4.8k that was taxable.
Then in the final kicker of an e-mail you where told about the 10% Acutioneers fees so the gain is reduced to 3.6k after taper...
Kimberleena
07-12-07, 22:00
feel quite worried reading all this. Got the shares ok. Thought the painting was exempt. Calculated the gain on the ring and mucked up ppr as didnt think it would come up. But with wrong figures got nil for income tax. And at least got the rest right with wrong figures. Hmm im worried ive failed, anyone want to take a guess?
You got nil for income tax in which section?
They only get it if they return to the property and claim it as their PPR again. They went to Australia for 6 years, but as she came back, that is deemed as occupied. Once she moved out of the house into her new flat, she never returned. Therefore although the last 36 months will be deemed occupied, the remainder (which I think was 21 months) will be chargeable.
I thought the paper was pretty easy.
Section 1 was OK, I put the reimbursed entertainment expenses in as a Benefit In Kind, along with the Company Car and the Fuel benefit, then deducted it (along with the subscription) from her salary so they cancel each other out. The property question was a little more difficult; I calculated 4 months rent as the rent due, less the maintenance BEFORE 5 April 2007, and half the insurance cost (policy taken out on October 1, to 31st March is 6 months out of 12), and I ignored the other maintenance as it would apply to the income for 07/08. I explained the reason for Antonia's father by saying it is because the tax he paid is based on the previous years Tax Liability, so he will need to make a balancing payment(the £1500), and that next years payments will be based on this year's Tax Liability, which won't take his "retirement" into account.
Section 2 surprised me as I was expecting a complicated Shares question (involving an FA1985 pool), but there wasn't. I almost forget that Bonus Issues were attached to the original shares, but remembered before I did the question. The painting was pretty straightforward, as was the ring(not chargeable) and the PPR question was a little complicated, but once I drew out the timeline and narrated it, it was OK. I can't remember the exact figure for Net Capital Gains, or the CGT liability, but for the Income Tax Liability, I believe it was nil as once the Trading Profits and Dividends were added, it came to less than £5035, so there was no assesable income. The email was OK as well, the auctioneers fee was an incidental cost of disposal, and the car is exempt, so he can't offset the loss.
Surely the reimbursed entertainment expenses arn't a benefit in kind? as they were purely employment related. Otherwise that's basically what i did, the shares question was surprisingly simple, PPR i ended up with i think 21/236, Income tax liability nil as trading profits & dividends were totally covered by personal allowance. I totally forgot cars were exempt though which i'm pretty annoyed about cos I knew it last night :blushing:, instead i waffled on about the losses relating to the followin tax year as it was sold on 14 Apr '07.
For Task 1.1 BIK I stated that the expenses and subscription were exempt as the expenses were paid for expenses incurred, the subscription was paid personally. So the only BIK was the car and fuel (I said no allowance for the money contributed as it was for fuel)
For 1.2 the rent eventually (once I learned how to count months on my fingers) was 4 months @ 8k per annum so 2,667. As to the expenses I allowed the full value of maintenance prior to April 2005, 1/2 the insurance and nothing for the decorating.
For 1.3 I almost forgot to include the subscription as a negative in the non savings column. But I am not sure what numbers I got for the column totals. I think the total was somthing like 39,290.
1.4 Sorry the numbers are a complete blank.
For 1.5 - the 1.4k needed for 2006/7 was a balance to pay and the 3.5k was a payment on account for 2007/8. I said HRMC were not aware of the change in circumstances.
For 1.6 tell nothing...
For 2.1 Thank Heaven there was no 1985 Pool to calculate (in all my revision questions I had forgotten to perform and indexation, either in the middle to the last one to Apr 98) so I just attached the Bonus and Rights Issues to the original date.
2.2 The painting - said the gain was 6k
2.3 Ring - exempt
2.4 The House - well I got 21/236 so the number was in the region of 10660 (I Hope)
2.5 - Sorry can't remember the taxable amount but I got it to about 9.5k
2.6 - Income Tax - the total of trading profits and dividend income was less than the personal allowance. For CGT I got about 1250 payable...
2.7 The car (exempt), the time to correct your errors, and the nice bit that almost wiped out the tax bill...
For Task 1.1 BIK I stated that the expenses and subscription were exempt as the expenses were paid for expenses incurred, the subscription was paid personally. So the only BIK was the car and fuel (I said no allowance for the money contributed as it was for fuel)
For 1.2 the rent eventually (once I learned how to count months on my fingers) was 4 months @ 8k per annum so 2,667. As to the expenses I allowed the full value of maintenance prior to April 2005, 1/2 the insurance and nothing for the decorating.
For 1.3 I almost forgot to include the subscription as a negative in the non savings column. But I am not sure what numbers I got for the column totals. I think the total was somthing like 39,290.
1.4 Sorry the numbers are a complete blank.
For 1.5 - the 1.4k needed for 2006/7 was a balance to pay and the 3.5k was a payment on account for 2007/8. I said HRMC were not aware of the change in circumstances.
For 1.6 tell nothing...
For 2.1 Thank Heaven there was no 1985 Pool to calculate (in all my revision questions I had forgotten to perform and indexation, either in the middle to the last one to Apr 98) so I just attached the Bonus and Rights Issues to the original date.
2.2 The painting - said the gain was 6k
2.3 Ring - exempt
2.4 The House - well I got 21/236 so the number was in the region of 10660 (I Hope)
2.5 - Sorry can't remember the taxable amount but I got it to about 9.5k
2.6 - Income Tax - the total of trading profits and dividend income was less than the personal allowance. For CGT I got about 1250 payable...
2.7 The car (exempt), the time to correct your errors, and the nice bit that almost wiped out the tax bill...
I agree with most of this down to 2.5 - i had a net taxable before AE of 17600 which left CGT of around £1550. Wait and see a guess - roll on February!
Merry Xmas Everybody!
You got nil for income tax in which section?
oh just in the 2nd section, if it was the 1st then i'd be certain of failure, haha
Kimberleena
08-12-07, 18:10
oh just in the 2nd section, if it was the 1st then i'd be certain of failure, haha
hmmmm i got nil on my income tax bit as well
For Task 1.1 BIK I stated that the expenses and subscription were exempt as the expenses were paid for expenses incurred, the subscription was paid personally. So the only BIK was the car and fuel (I said no allowance for the money contributed as it was for fuel)
For 1.2 the rent eventually (once I learned how to count months on my fingers) was 4 months @ 8k per annum so 2,667. As to the expenses I allowed the full value of maintenance prior to April 2005, 1/2 the insurance and nothing for the decorating.
For 1.3 I almost forgot to include the subscription as a negative in the non savings column. But I am not sure what numbers I got for the column totals. I think the total was somthing like 39,290.
1.4 Sorry the numbers are a complete blank.
For 1.5 - the 1.4k needed for 2006/7 was a balance to pay and the 3.5k was a payment on account for 2007/8. I said HRMC were not aware of the change in circumstances.
For 1.6 tell nothing...
For 2.1 Thank Heaven there was no 1985 Pool to calculate (in all my revision questions I had forgotten to perform and indexation, either in the middle to the last one to Apr 98) so I just attached the Bonus and Rights Issues to the original date.
2.2 The painting - said the gain was 6k
2.3 Ring - exempt
2.4 The House - well I got 21/236 so the number was in the region of 10660 (I Hope)
2.5 - Sorry can't remember the taxable amount but I got it to about 9.5k
2.6 - Income Tax - the total of trading profits and dividend income was less than the personal allowance. For CGT I got about 1250 payable...
2.7 The car (exempt), the time to correct your errors, and the nice bit that almost wiped out the tax bill...
answers upto ring r similar....but y ring is exemp..????i didnt understand....
it was profit so i thought it will be taxable.......
n wat did answer did u get in PPR house one.......????
Bashanti,
The ring was exempt as both the cost and selling price where less that 6k so it doesn't matter that the sale made a profit.
I got the house to be 21/236 months chargable under CGT. The question said the person bought the house and lived in it, then moved to Oz, returned and lived in it, moved out, then sold it without ever moving back in. So the reliefs available are actual occupation, time whislt working abroard and the final 3 years of ownership. I got the period from moving out to sale as 57 months (36 of wihch are 100% releif). I took the sale proceeds, deducted the costs, applied the indexation allowance. This gives the gross gain before PPR relief, multipled this by 215/236. As mentioned came out with aprrox 10660, think it was actually 10661 before taper, as the house was owned before April 98 the taper was 60%.
Agree with everything apart from the taper. The house was owned for 8 complete years after April 1998 (to April '06), plus a bonus year(owned before 17/3/98), therefore 65% is chargeable (35% relief).
hmmmm i got nil on my income tax bit as well
Well that was right. I'm just so feeling sick with the mistakes I made. I was thinking about this 5/3 rule and somehow thought that if an items was bought and sold under 6 grand, you still dealt with it. Just thought didn't use the 5/3 rule. Ah well. So got a big lump of figures wrong with the 4 items only getting the shares correct (what i concentrated on like a crazy man in revision!!!) which proved to be a mistake! Got the rest right with the wrong figures if you see what i mean
Anybody got any experience of doing something like this but still passing? i'm hoping but ahh unfortunately wouldn't be surprised if i failed
I used the bloody car purchase price instread of list price, then I wasn't sure how to deal with the pension contibutions and finaly I restricted my capital gains on chattels to 3/5 instead of 5/3.
This is the second time I've sat this paper was really confident I passed the first time when I sat it along with BTC of which I was not confident at all, I made a mess of section 2 and passed BTC (how Ironic). I fear this time I'll probably pass section 2 and fail section 1! GGGGRRRRR!!!! But fingers crossed if I done everything else right these could be looked as silly mistakes.
I'm sure taper relief was only 65% as it was not 9 full years but 8.5 + the bonus year
Hello did anyone else do the 5/3 calculation for any of the assets in section 2?
I think even though alot of people have got different answers i hope the markers notice where everyone is falling up on and allow a few hick-ups here and there, a friend of mine done another exam and thought he`d failed but told me he knew he got the wrong answers but the workings where correct and they passed him, i hope i pass ;-( (friend done another PTC exam paper a few years back)
Hi All
I've been reading through this thread and I keep thinking that I've really screwed up my PTC paper on the PPR. It wasn't something I was 100% on in the first place so, now I'm going back over the paper as it's available on the site.
I studied with BPP and the course notes state:
*The last 36 months are always deemed occupation in full provided it was the taxpayers PPR at some point.
*Certain periods of absence are deemed occupation, providing that they are preceded and followed (at anytime whatsoever) by actual occupation:
-Any period during which the owner was abroad by reason of his employment.
-Any periods (not exceeding 4 years in total) during which the employed owner was required to work away from home in the UK.
-Any periods (not exceeding 4 years in total) during which the owner if self-employed was working away from home in the UK or overseas.
-Any periods for whatever reason not exceeding 3 years in total.
From what I can gather from previous replies to this thread, most people got to a total of 21 months, being the period between 1/2/02 & 31/10/06 (57 months) less the 3 years (36months) anytime allowance = 21
But I have this nagging in my brain that the period that he was in Australia was not exempt at all and the answer should have been 72 months (6yrs in Oz) + 21 months = 93 months.
The reason is that it did not state that he was required to work in Oz by his employer..... it said he went to take up employment.
Even writing this now, I'm not sure. I think the question wasn't defined enough.......... all I know is I didn't put 21 or 93 !!! I just wish I had studied it more......
Any thoughts ????
Finlaysdad
11-12-07, 09:08
Hi
I have to disagree with this 21 months on the ppr.
He moved to Aus and then returned to his house to live. So as I see it you have 36 months exempt, 36 months chargeable in that period.
So it should be 57 months chargeable in total.
Hi Finlaysdad
I am inclined to agree with you, I applied similar logic but instead of 36 months chargeable in the period he was in Oz, for some reason my memory told me to allow him 4 years out of the six so I actually calculated it as 21 months chargeable for the end period and 24 (72-48) for the Oz period giving a total of 45...... I am hoping they will see it as one error and allow me some slack !!!!
I also agree with the 57 months :thumbup:
It's definitely 21 months. The exam paper states:
On 1 March 1987, Zhu bought a house for £36,000. He had lived in it until 1 September 1990, when he went to Australia to take up employment. He returned from there on 1 September 1996 and moved back into the house until 1 February 2002 when he purchased a small flat. He has lived in the flat since then. Zhu finally sold the house for £178,000 on 31 October 2006.
1/3/87-31/10/06 = 19 years and 8 months = 236 months.
1/3/87-31/8/90= 3 years and 6 months(42 months) Lived in house, therefore exempt.
1/9/90-31/8/96 = 6 years(72 months). Went to Australia for employment, which is exempt period of absence due to employment outside the United Kingdom, Section 223(3)(b) Link (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cg4manual/CG65041.htm)
1/9/96-31/1/02 = 5 years and 5 months (65 months). Lived in house, therefore exempt.
1/2/02-31/10/06 = 4 years and 9 months (57 months). Left house(moved to small flat). Last 36 months (1/11/03-31/10/06) are exempt under section 223(2)(a). Link (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cg4manual/CG64985.htm). Balance of 21 months (57 - 36) is chargeable.
Finlaysdad
12-12-07, 08:18
Ah well. That will teach me to be over confident!
Dear All
I am sorry to destroy your hopes, but I have just received confirmation from my tutor that it should have been 21months chargeable............... the six years was totally exempt !!!!!
I feel I will be re-taking this one in June !!!!!:cursing::cursing:
why retaking with only 1 thing wrong?
roy ramphul
17-12-07, 11:31
In the first section of PTC questions on Benefits in kind, regarding the car benefit I Used 14000 instead of 21000.
In section 2 regarding the painting from the Uncle I calculated as a gain. Apparently I was told that the Gain is exempt
The calculations regarding the gain on the House is probably wrong.
Would I fail the exam because of these errors in the exam.
In section 2 regarding the painting from the Uncle I calculated as a gain. Apparently I was told that the Gain is exempt
Why is the painting gain exempt?
roy ramphul
17-12-07, 14:01
Because it was given to his family and therefore there is no gain arising but In the exam I treated it has a gain because an uncle is a relative.
Confused now - there's no gain when it is given to his family as it is inherited on death - but surely there's a gain when he sells it???
roy ramphul
17-12-07, 14:29
That is what I thought and having looked at the question I think you are correct. But I am sure my tutor said that the gain is exempt.
roy ramphul
17-12-07, 14:35
Having looked at the question, I think you are correct, but I am sure my tutor said that the Gain was exempt.
Confused now - there's no gain when it is given to his family as it is inherited on death - but surely there's a gain when he sells it???
I agree with this from what I understand - there is a gain when it is sold!!
I am not worrying now as when everyone has different answers you start to worry - possibly for no reason!! The best thing we can all do is wait until February and see what happens!! I couldn't even remember the answers I put when I got home, let alone now!! :001_tongue: I am keeping my fingers crossed that we have all done well and passed!! :001_smile:
There is a gain when the painting is sold. If the deemed acquisition cost had been lower than 6000 and/or the proceeds were less than 6000, then the various chattel exemptions would have come into play but, in this case, there is a normally calculated gain
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.