江苏省考生注意:怎么才能避免ACCA考试失分?

发布时间:2020-01-10


51题库考试学习网结合了历年高分学霸们的心得体会后,得出了避免ACCA考试丢分7个小技巧,希望对备考的你有多帮助,现在51题库考试学习网就来告诉你怎样避免失分:

01填写信息,稳定情绪

试卷发下来后,立即忙于答题是不科学的,应先填写信息,写清姓名和准考证号等,这样做不仅是考试的要求,更是一剂稳定情绪的“良药”。等待自己的心情有所平静的时候,在慢慢地开始做题,尽快找到考试状态。

02总揽全卷,区别难易

打开试卷,看看哪些是基础题,哪些是中档题,哪些是难题或压轴题,按先易后难的原则,确定解题顺序,逐题进行解答。将低难度的题拿全分、中等难度的题不丢分、高难度的题尽可能多拿分。

力争做到“巧做低档题,题题全做对;稳做中档题,一分不浪费;尽力冲击高档题,做错也无悔。

03认真审题,灵活答题

审题要做到一不漏掉题,二不看错题,三要审准题,四要看全题目的条件和结论。

审题中还要灵活运用知识,发现和寻找简捷的解题方法。其实,所有的问题都是回归本质的知识点的。抓准知识要点即可,难题迎刃而解。

04过程清晰,稳中求快

一要书写清晰,速度略快;

二要一次成功;

三要提高答题速度;

四要科学使用草稿纸;

五要力求准确,防止欲速不达。

(当然这也是根据考生的能力而定的,总而言之准确率第一)

05心理状态,注意调节

考试中,要克服满不在乎的自负心理,要抛弃“胜败在此一举”的负重心理,要克服畏首畏尾的胆怯心理。面对难、中、易的试卷,调节好心理,积极应对。

(面对简单的题不骄傲放纵,以免马虎失分。面对十分困难的题不慌张焦急,将自己能解答的先上去,然后慢慢回忆背诵和复习的知识要点)

06尽量多做,分分必争

ACCA考试评分,多按步骤、按知识点给分、按要点给分毕竟ACCA考试费用不低。

通常来说,考试时间是不够的,因此,考生在答题时,就要会多少,答多少,哪怕是一条辅助线,一个符号,一小段文字,都可写上,没有把握也要敢于写,千万不要将不能完全做出或答案算不出的题放弃不做

07抓住“题眼”,构建“桥梁”

一般难题都有个关键点(称之为“题眼”),抓住了“题眼”,问题就易于解决了。

此外,还要利用相关的知识、规律、信息进行多方联系,构建“桥梁”,找出问题的内在联系,从而构思解题方案,准确、快捷地解决问题。

试纸飘墨香,金笔待启程。忍心为功名,墨汁污纸张。51题库考试学习网预祝参加3月ACCA考季的小伙伴取得好成绩哦~

 


下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题,供大家学习参考。

(ii) Assuming the relief in (i) is available, advise Sharon on the maximum amount of cash she could receive

on incorporation, without triggering a capital gains tax (CGT) liability. (3 marks)

正确答案:
(ii) As Sharon is entitled to the full rate of business asset taper relief, any gain will be reduced by 75%. The position is
maximised where the chargeable gain equals Sharon’s unused capital gains tax annual exemption of £8,500. Thus,
before taper relief, the gain she requires is £34,000 (1/0·25 x £8,500).
The amount to be held over is therefore £46,000 (80,000 – 34,000). Where part of the consideration is in the form
of cash, the gain eligible for incorporation relief is calculated using the formula:
Gain deferred           =                    Gain x value of shares issued/total consideration
The formula is        manipulated on the following basis:
£46,000                    =                     £80,000 x (shares/120,000)
Shares/120,000     =                     £46,000/80,000
Shares                     =                     £46,000 x 120,000/80,000
i.e. £69,000.
As the total consideration is £120,000, this means that Sharon can take £51,000 (£120,000 – £69,000) in cash
without any CGT consequences.

4 Coral is the owner and managing director of Reef Ltd. She is considering the manner in which she will make her first

pension contributions. In November 2007 she inherited her mother’s house in the country of Kalania.

The following information has been extracted from client files and from telephone conversations with Coral.

Coral:

– 1972 – Born in the country of Kalania. Her father, who died in 2002, was domiciled in Kalania.

– 1999 – Moved to the UK and has lived and worked here since then.

– 2001 – Subscribed for 100% of the ordinary share capital of Reef Ltd.

– Intends to sell Reef Ltd and return to live in the country of Kalania in 2012.

– No income apart from that received from Reef Ltd.

Reef Ltd:

– A UK resident company with annual profits chargeable to corporation tax of approximately £70,000.

– Four employees including Coral.

– Provides scuba diving lessons to members of the public.

Payments from Reef Ltd to Coral in 2007/08:

– Director’s fees of £460 per month.

– Dividends paid of £14,250 in June 2007 and £14,250 in September 2007.

Pension contributions:

– Coral has not so far made any pension contributions in the tax year 2007/08 but wishes to make gross pension

contributions of £9,000.

– The contributions are to be made by Reef Ltd or Coral or a combination of the two in such a way as to minimise

the total after tax cost.

– Any contributions made by Coral will be funded by an additional dividend from Reef Ltd.

House in the country of Kalania:

– Beachfront property with potential rental income of £550 per month after deduction of allowable expenditure.

– Coral will use it for holidays for two months each year.

The tax system in the country of Kalania:

– No capital gains tax or inheritance tax.

– Income tax at 8% on income arising in the country of Kalania.

– No double tax treaty with the UK.

Required:

(a) With the objective of minimising the total after tax cost, advise Coral as to whether the gross pension

contributions of £9,000 should be made:

– wholly by Reef Ltd; or

– by Coral to the extent that they are tax allowable with the balance made by Reef Ltd.

Your answer should include supporting calculations where necessary. (9 marks)

正确答案:

 


The town of Brighttown in Euraria has a mayor (elected every five years by the people in the town) who is responsible for, amongst other things, the transport policy of the town.

A year ago, the mayor (acting as project sponsor) instigated a ‘traffic lite’ project to reduce traffic congestion at traffic lights in the town. Rather than relying on fixed timings, he suggested that a system should be implemented which made the traffic lights sensitive to traffic flow. So, if a queue built up, then the lights would automatically change to green (go). The mayor suggested that this would have a number of benefits. Firstly, it would reduce harmful emissions at the areas near traffic lights and, secondly, it would improve the journey times for all vehicles, leading to drivers ‘being less stressed’. He also cited evidence from cities overseas where predictable journey times had been attractive to flexible companies who could set themselves up anywhere in the country. He felt that the new system would attract such companies to the town.

The Eurarian government has a transport regulation agency called OfRoad. Part of OfRoad’s responsibilities is to monitor transport investments and it was originally critical of the Brighttown ‘traffic lite’ project because the project’s benefits were intangible and lacked credibility. The business case did not include a quantitative cost/benefit analysis. OfRoad has itself published a benefits management process which classifies benefits in the following way.

Financial: A financial benefit can be confidently allocated in advance of the project. Thus if the investment will save $90,000 per year in staff costs then this is a financial benefit.

Quantifiable: A quantifiable benefit is a benefit where there is sufficient credible evidence to suggest, in advance, how much benefit will result from the project. This benefit may be financial or non-financial. For example, energy savings from a new building might be credibly predicted in advance. However, the exact amount of savings cannot be accurately forecast.

Measurable benefit: A measurable benefit is a benefit which can only be confidently assessed post-implementation, and so cannot be reliably predicted in advance. Increase in sales from a particular initiative is an example of a measurable benefit. Measurable benefits may either be financial or non-financial.

Observable benefit: An observable benefit is a benefit which a specific individual or group will decide, using agreed criteria, has been realised or not. Such benefits are usually non-financial. Improved staff morale might be an example of an observable benefit.

One month ago, the mayoral elections saw the election of a new mayor with a completely distinct transport policy with different objectives. She wishes to address traffic congestion by attracting commuters away from their cars and onto public transport. Part of her policy is a traffic light system which gives priority to buses. The town council owns the buses which operate in the town and they have invested heavily in buses which are comfortable and have significantly lower emissions than the conventional cars used by most people in the town. The new mayor wishes to improve the frequency, punctuality and convenience of these buses, so that they tempt people away from using their cars. This will require more buses and more bus crews, a requirement which the mayor presents as ‘being good for the unemployment rate in this town’. It will also help the bus service meet the punctuality service level which it published three years ago, but has never yet met. ‘A reduction in cars and an increase in buses will help us meet our target’, the mayor claims.

The mayor has also suggested a number of initiatives to discourage people from taking their cars into the town. She intends to sell two car parks for housing land (raising $325,000) and this will reduce car park capacity from 1,000 to 800 car spaces per day. She also intends to raise the daily parking fee from $3 to $4. Car park occupancy currently stands at 95% (it is difficult to achieve 100% for technical reasons) and the same occupancy rate is expected when the car park capacity is reduced.

The new mayor believes that her policy signals the fact that Brighttown is serious about its green credentials. ‘This’, she says, ‘will attract green consumers to come and live in our town and green companies to set up here. These companies and consumers will bring great benefit to our community.’ To emphasise this, she has set up a Go Green team to encourage green initiatives in the town.

The ‘traffic lite’ project to tackle congestion proposed by the former mayor is still in the development stage. The new mayor believes that this project can be modified to deliver her vision and still be ready on the date promised by her predecessor.

Required:

(a) A ‘terms of reference’ (project initiation document, project charter) was developed for the ‘traffic lite’ project to reduce traffic congestion.

Discuss what changes will have to be made to this ‘terms of reference’ (project initiation document, project charter) to reflect the new mayor’s vision of the project. (5 marks)

(b) The new mayor wishes to re-define the business case for the project, using the benefits categorisation suggested by OfRoad. Identify costs and benefits for the revised project, classifying each benefit using the guidance provided by OfRoad. (14 marks)

(c) Stakeholder management is the prime responsibility of the project manager.

Discuss the appropriate management of each of the following three stakeholders identified in the revised (modified) project.

(i) The new mayor;

(ii) OfRoad;

(iii) A private motorist in Brighttown who uses his vehicle to commute to his job in the town. (6 marks)

正确答案:

(a) Objectives and scope

From the perspective of the ‘traffic lite’ project, the change in mayor has led to an immediate change in the objectives driving the project. This illustrates how public sector projects are susceptible to sudden external environmental changes outside their control. The project initially proposed to reduce traffic congestion by making traffic lights sensitive to traffic flow. It was suggested that this would improve journey times for all vehicles using the roads of Brighttown. However, the incoming mayor now wishes to reduce traffic congestion by attracting car users onto public transport. Consequently she wants to develop a traffic light system which will give priority to buses. This should ensure that buses run on time. The project is no longer concerned with reducing journey times for all users. Indeed, congestion for private cars may get worse and this could further encourage car users to switch to public transport.

An important first step would be to confirm that the new mayor wishes to be the project sponsor for the project, because the project has lost its sponsor, the former mayor. The project scope also needs to be reviewed. The initial project was essentially a self-contained technical project aimed at producing a system which reduced queuing traffic. The revised proposal has much wider political scope and is concerned with discouraging car use and improving public bus services. Thus there are also proposals to increase car parking charges, to reduce the number of car park spaces (by selling off certain car parks for housing development) and to increase the frequency, quality and punctuality of buses. The project scope appears to have been widened considerably, although this will have to be confirmed with the new project sponsor.

Only once the scope of the revised project been agreed can revised project objectives be agreed and a new project plan developed, allocating the resources available to the project to the tasks required to complete the project. It is at this stage that the project manager will be able to work out if the proposed delivery date (a project constraint) is still manageable. If it is not, then some kind of agreement will have to be forged with the project sponsor. This may be to reduce the scope of the project, add more resources, or some combination of the two.

(b) Cost benefit

The re-defined project will have much more tangible effects than its predecessor and these could be classified using the standard approach suggested in the scenario. Benefits would include:

– One-off financial benefit from selling certain car parks

– this appears to be a predictable financial benefit of $325,000 which can be confidently included in a cost/benefit analysis.

– Increased income from public bus use – this appears to be a measurable benefit, in that it is an aspect of performance which can be measured (for example, bus fares collected per day), but it is not possible to estimate how much income will actually increase until the project is completed. – Increased income from car parks

– this appears to be a quantifiable benefit if the assumption is made that usage of the car parks will stay at 95%. There may indeed be sufficient confidence to define it as a financial benefit. Car park places will be reduced from 1,000 to 800, but the increase in fees will compensate for this reduction in capacity. Current expected daily income is 1,000 x $3 x 0·95 = $2,850. Future expected income will be 800 x $4 x 0·95 = $3,040.

– Improved punctuality of buses – this will again be a measurable benefit. It will be defined in terms of a Service Level promised to the residents of Brighttown. Improved punctuality might also help tempt a number of vehicle users to use public transport instead.

– Reduced emissions – buses are more energy efficient and emit less carbon dioxide than the conventional vehicles used by most of the inhabitants of Brighttown. This benefit should again be measurable (but non-financial) and should benefit the whole of the town, not just areas around traffic lights.

– Improved perception of the town – the incoming mayor believes that her policy will help attract green consumers and green companies to the town. Difficulties in classifying what is meant by these terms makes this likely to be an observable benefit, where a group, such as the Go Green team, established by the council itself can decide (based on their judgement) whether the benefit has been realised or not.

The costs of implementing the project will also have to be re-assessed. These costs will now include:

– The cost of purchasing more buses to meet the increased demand and frequency of service.

– The operational costs of running more buses, including salary costs of more bus drivers.

– Costs associated with the disposal of car parks.

– Costs associated with slowing down drivers (both economic and emotional).

The technical implementation requirements of the project will also change and this is almost certain to have cost implications because a solution will have to be developed which allows buses to be prioritised. A feasibility study will have to be commissioned to examine whether such a solution is technically feasible and, if it is, the costs of the solution will have to be estimated and entered into the cost-benefit analysis.

(c) A stakeholder grid (Mendelow) provides a framework for understanding how project team members should communicate with each stakeholder or stakeholder group. The grid itself has two axes. One axis is concerned with the power or influence of the stakeholder in this particular project. The other axis is concerned with the stakeholder’s interest in the project.

The incoming mayor: High power and high interest. The mayor is a key player in the project and should be carefully and actively managed throughout. The mayor is currently enthusiastic about the project and this enthusiasm has to be sustained. As the likely project sponsor, it will be the mayor’s responsibility to promote the project internally and to make resources available to it. It will also be up to her to ensure that the promised business benefits are actually delivered. However, she is also the person who can cancel the project at any time.

OfRoad – a government agency: OfRoad were critical of the previous mayor’s justification for the project. They felt that the business case was solely based on intangible benefits and lacked credibility. It is likely that they will be more supportive of the revised proposals for two reasons. Firstly, the proposal uses the classification of benefits which it has suggested. Secondly, the proposal includes tangible benefits which can confidently be included in a cost-benefit analysis. OfRoad is likely to have high power (because it can intervene in local transport decisions) but relatively low interest in this particular project as the town appears to be following its guidelines. An appropriate management strategy would be to keep watch and monitor the situation, making sure that nothing happens on the project which would cause the agency to take a sudden interest in it.

The private motorist of Brighttown: Most of these motorists will have a high interest in the project, because it impacts them directly; but, individually, they have very little power. Their chance to influence policy has just passed, and mayoral elections are not due for another five years. The suggested stakeholder management approach here is to keep them informed. However, their response will have to be monitored. If they organise themselves and band together as a group, they might be able to stage disruptive actions which might raise their power and have an impact on the project. This makes the point that stakeholder management is a continual process, as stakeholders may take up different positions in the grid as they organise themselves or as the project progresses.


声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:contact@51tk.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。