ACCA高效备考指南

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.

正确答案：
(b) Peter will have been resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. When such individuals leave the UK for a purpose other than
to take up full time employment abroad, they normally continue to still be so regarded unless their absence spans a complete
tax year. But, where someone intends to live permanently abroad or to do so for a period of at least three tax years, they may
be treated as non-resident and non-ordinarily resident from the day after the date of their departure, if they can provide
evidence to HMRC of that intention. Selling a residence in the UK and setting up home abroad will normally constitute such
evidence. However to retain non-resident status the intention must actually be fulfilled, and visits to the UK must not exceed
182 days in any tax year or average more than 90 days per year over a period of four tax years. Given that Peter would appear
to have several company directorships in the UK, it is possible that he might fail to satisfy the 90 day average ‘substantial
visits’ rule.
Even if Peter is classed as non-resident, any remuneration earned in the UK will still be liable to UK income tax, and subject
to PAYE, unless it is for duties incidental to an overseas employment, which is unlikely to be the case for fees paid to a nonexecutive
director for attending board meetings. Thus, income tax should still be deducted from the fees under PAYE. Where
PAYE should have been deducted from a director’s emoluments and it has not been, but the tax is nevertheless accounted
for by the company to HMRC, then to the extent that the tax is not reimbursed by the director, he will be treated as receiving
a benefit equivalent to the amount of tax.

正确答案：
(c) Retirement by rotation.
Definition
Retirement by rotation is an arrangement in a director’s contract that specifies his or her contract to be limited to a specific
period (typically three years) after which he or she must retire from the board or offer himself (being eligible) for re-election.
The director must be actively re-elected back onto the board to serve another term. The default is that the director retires
unless re-elected.
Importance of
Retirement by rotation reduces the cost of contract termination for underperforming directors. They can simply not be
re-elected after their term of office expires and they will be required to leave the service of the board as a retiree (depending
on contract terms).
It encourages directors’ performance (they know they are assessed by shareholders and reconsidered every three years) and
focuses their minds upon the importance of meeting objectives in line with shareholders’ aims.
It is an opportunity, over time, to replace the board membership whilst maintaining medium term stability of membership
(one or two at a time).
Applied to Rosh
Retirement by rotation would enable the board of Rosh to be changed over time. There is evidence that some directors may
have stayed longer than is ideal because of links with other board members going back many years.

正确答案：
(iii) ‘If we implement a reward scheme then it is bound to be beneficial for BGL’.
The statement of the manufacturing director is not necessarily correct. Indeed there is much evidence to support the
proposition that the existence of performance-related reward schemes can encourage dysfunctional behaviour. This often
manifests itself in the form. of ‘budgetary slack’ which is incorporated into budgets in anticipation of subsequent cuts by
higher levels of management or to make subsequent performance look better.