So this is all about faithful representation so let's have a quick
chat about faithful representation. What we mean here is, it's the substance, it's
the substance being more important in the
form. Form meaning the legal situation so the whole idea of substance is, it
represents is the word they use. It represents the true economic phenomenon.
Now I'm going to give you a quick example of this where it's better to go
for the true economic phenomena but let's go for the substance than the
actual legal situation. So let me give you an example. You sell some goods
to a bank for 400 and there's a sales invoice etc so legally / form wise that's
the same, isn't it, you've got a sales invoice, done! But actually
there's an agreement to buy it back for 500 in one year's time and if you think
about the true economic phenomena, there's true substance of what's going
on here, we are going to receive 400
from a bank. We are going to pay back
500 in one year and if you look at as a whole, in substance I'm
hoping you can see that 400 is just a loan a one-year loan.
Why we paid back 500, well 100 needs to go to interest paid
that is the substance, that is how you show it. Not the legal form of just a
sale and then the legal form of 500 being a purchase later
that's not what's happened. The true economic phenomena is that it's a loan. So
you always go for that so you never go for the legal situation you always go
for the true substance which means the companies can't try and be too clever
because you should always show the principle of what's happening. And that's
what this question is asking, it says, which of the following then correctly
applies this principle of faithful representation. So let's have a look at
it. Part A or first bit. Reporting the transaction based on it's legal status
rather than it's economic substance. Well no, that's the opposite isn't it. We're
saying that you should show the true economic substance you should show the
true economic phenomena not the legal status. And doing that is
definitely wrong. That's the whole point of faithful representation is do it the
other way around. Excluding the subs and not consolidating a subsidiary
just because its activities are different from the group. Well no, that's
not substance over form at all. Recording the whole of the net proceeds so all of
the loan or the whole of the net proceeds from the issue of a loan which
potentially could go to equity shown it all as debts. Well no because some of it
could go to equity the best thing to do on this convertible loan you always show
a convertible loan as mainly debt but a little bit of equity too because it might
get converted, that's the substance of it. So no, showing it all as a debt that's
wrong so the answer must be "D" allocating part of the sales proceeds of a motor
vehicle to interest received even though it was sold with interest free finance.
That is true because if you go to a shop and you see a car available for 10,000
and you can get zero percent interest on it for two years well
somebody's paying for that interest somewhere and what's really happening is
that the car is probably worth 12,000 cars, it's probably worth
8,000 and 2,000 of that would be they're giving you
interest for the next four years so the car is only worth 8,000
so you'd put 8,000 to the sale of the car and 2000 interest receipt. Not
just putting the whole 10,000 to a car because even though it looks like you're
getting a bargain, you are not. Somebody, somewhere is paying for the interest so
the car itself must be worth less. So just have a read at that again
allocating part of the sales proceeds of a motor vehicle to interest received, yes
instead of putting the whole 10,000 in, put 2,000 of it to interest received even
though there is always 0% yet that's why you've put in some to interest received
you have to make up a figure , based on what the market interest is. Somebody,
somewhere is paying for it. Okay, so the answer is D!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét