Every sitting, ICAG’s Chief Examiner publishes a report alongside the marking scheme. Most students never read it. That’s a mistake, because the examiner isn’t just marking — they’re telling you, in plain language, exactly where candidates threw marks away. In the November 2017 Financial Reporting (Paper 2.1) report, Question One is a case study in one of the most expensive errors in the whole syllabus: confusing a subsidiary with an associate.
The Scenario
Spacefon Ltd acquired 80% of Buzz Ltd and 40% of Kasapa Ltd on the same date. This is a deliberate examiner set-up — two acquisitions, two different holdings, two completely different accounting treatments required.
The Rule That Separates Passes From Fails
Under IFRS 10, an 80% holding gives control. Control means full consolidation: every line of the subsidiary’s statement of profit or loss — revenue, cost of sales, operating expenses, finance costs, tax — is added in at 100%, and only then is the non-controlling interest’s 20% share separated out at the bottom of the statement.
Under IAS 28, a 40% holding is presumed to carry significant influence, not control. That makes Kasapa an associate. Associates are never line-by-line consolidated. Instead, you use the equity method: a single line in the group statement of profit or loss for “share of profit of associate,” and a single line in other comprehensive income for “share of OCI of associate.” Kasapa’s revenue, cost of sales and expenses never appear anywhere in the group accounts.
The examiner’s own words: “Some of the candidates consolidated the Associate, instead of using the equity accounting method.” When the same mistake is common enough to earn a named mention in a Chief Examiner’s Report, it isn’t bad luck — it’s a syllabus area candidates consistently under-prepare.
The Second Trap: Mid-Year Acquisition
Both Buzz and Kasapa were acquired four months into Spacefon’s financial year, not at the start of it. That means only four months (4/12) of Buzz’s results are consolidated, and only four months of the 40% share of Kasapa’s profit is brought in as an associate. The examiner noted plainly: “Some of the candidates did not realise that the subsidiary was acquired during the year. Hence, the consolidation should be for four months instead of for a full year.” Always check the acquisition date against the year-end before you touch a single figure — this single check prevents a whole cascade of errors.
Exam Tip: Before you write a single number on a consolidation question: (1) confirm the % holding and whether it gives control or significant influence, (2) confirm the acquisition date and calculate the time-apportionment fraction, (3) only then start your workings. Thirty seconds of classification saves an entire question.
The Parts Candidates Got Wrong Downstream
Once the classification is right, the rest of the question hinges on getting non-controlling interest (NCI) and other comprehensive income (OCI) correct — both of which require adjusting Buzz’s profit for the goodwill impairment loss, additional depreciation on the fair value uplift, and the unrealised profit on intra-group sales, before splitting 20% out to NCI. The examiner’s comment: “Most candidates could not compute the NCI and OCI.” This is exactly what happens when the foundation — the classification step — is shaky: everything built on top of it becomes unreliable too.
Even goodwill, described by the examiner as involving information that was “straight forward,” tripped up “most candidates.” The working itself is only three lines: cost of investment, plus fair value of NCI, less fair value of net assets at acquisition (adjusted for any fair value uplifts not yet recorded, such as the undervalued machinery here). That it still went wrong for most candidates tells you this needs repetition, not just understanding.
Why This Matters For Your Mark
ICAG’s marking scheme for this question awarded marks “evenly spread using ticks” — 3 marks for goodwill, 17 for the consolidated statement of profit or loss. Every correctly stated line earns its own tick, independent of the rest. That’s good news: you don’t need a flawless answer to score well. But it’s also exactly why a classification error at the top is so costly — it invalidates the logic of every dependent line beneath it, costing you ticks across revenue, cost of sales, NCI and OCI all at once.
Conclusion
The examiner isn’t hiding the syllabus from you — they’re publishing exactly where marks are lost, every single sitting. Subsidiary versus associate isn’t a grey area if you apply the test correctly: percentage holding, nature of influence, and acquisition date, checked before you write a single figure. Master that three-second classification habit, and an entire category of consolidation error disappears from your script permanently.
Ready to Go Deeper?
This exact examiner-report method — real past questions, real marking schemes, real named mistakes, fixed — is exactly what PassKoGuru’s past question videos and revision kits are built on. Go work through the full library there.
Want breakdowns like this delivered every week? Join the Profs Training Solutions newsletter for free study tips and exam insight, and check out Bill Cobby Impriam’s textbooks — available in both hardcopy and digital format — for the complete syllabus treatment behind every topic like this one.
Comments are closed.