Examiner’s Report - F6 Taxation (VNM) - June 2013 - Question-by-Question Feedback

Aug 29, 2026

Uploaded by Xiajie

Examiner’s report for the F6 Taxation (VNM) exam held in June 2013, summarizing performance across five compulsory questions covering Corporate Income Tax, Personal Income Tax, Foreign Contractor Tax, and Value Added Tax, plus tax administration topics. Emphasis is placed on calculation-heavy questions, candidate handling of a changed CIT format on loss utilisation, and improved time management this sitting. Specific common shortcomings include weak planning of answer formats, drifting from the question requirements, and applying incorrect loss offsetting rules under CIT regulations and Circular 123/2012.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

General Comments

Specific Comments

Question One

Question Two

Question Three

Question Four

Question Five

Examiner’s report F6 Taxation (VNM) June 2013 General Comments The examination consisted of five compulsory questions. As usual, question 1 about Corporate Income Tax (CIT) for 30 marks and question 2 on Personal Income Tax (PIT) for 25 marks, are very heavily based on calculation. Question 3, for 20 marks, is about Foreign Contractor Tax and contains a mix of theory and calculation. Question 4 on Value Added Tax (VAT) and question 5 on various matters, including tax administration, for 15 and 10 marks, respectively, have a theory focus. This year the main part of the CIT question (Question 1) was set differently to the “traditional-style” Question 1. Although this form of question (i.e. loss-carry forward) has been set before in a few previous exam (although on a slightly more miniature scale), many candidates appeared to be reluctant to deal with this change (proven by the fact that they left this question until last ) . The question was however not as difficult as it looked, and many candidates realized that they could attempt many more than 50% of the marks once they got going in the question. This would show that candidates were not well equipped to deal with surprises in the exam, despite the fact that it was an easy surprise, which can be improved in future sittings. Many candidates attempted all five questions, but not all parts. It was a pleasant surprise to me that the longexisting time management issue was remarkably improved in this sitting. Many candidates performed well in a question which was always poorly answered, such as Question 3 on Foreign Contractor Withholding Tax. Many candidates quickly identified the easy marks and tackled the question in a very suitable order to get clear pass marks. Candidates performed particularly well on questions 2, 3, and 4. As discussed, the question that most candidates were reluctant to attempt was question 1 (a), although it was not as tough as it appeared. A number of common issues arose in candidate’s answers: 􀁸 Candidates invested little time in planning a suitable format for the answer. They could have saved a lot of time if they used, for example, table form, instead of writing pages of words. 􀁸 Various candidates still explained what they knew about an issue in a lengthy manner without focusing on what the question asked. 􀁸 Many candidates even provided completely inappropriate answers to the questions asked. For example, some candidates prepared a long reconciliation from accounting profits to taxable income when the question requested preparation of a loss-carry forward schedule. Specific Comments Question One Part (a) required candidates to calculate tax liabilities in the context of loss utilisation. Candidates are required to apply some fundamental knowledge about offsetting the loss between activities in a year and offsetting loss carry forward from previous years. In fact, given that the regulations give the taxpayer the choice to offset loss with profits in the same year, acceptable answers for this question are flexible provided that these are within the constraints of the regulatory framework. (Note: the taxpayer is given the choice of offsetting between activities, however it would often be optimal to offset loss with profits of the activities with highest tax rate. However such “planning” factors were not required in marking scheme. The examiner’s answer only gave one option amongst possible loss offsetting approaches). Examiner’s report – F6 (VNM) June 2013 1 Despite this “style” of question having been examined before, some candidates left this question to the end of the script (perhaps due to a feeling of unfamiliarity), when they had not much time left for successfully attempting this question in full. The most common issues encountered by candidates who did attempt this question included: - Various candidates utilized loss carry forward from previous years for offsetting and did not offset losses and profits amongst

FAQs

How was the exam structured in June 2013 for F6 Taxation (VNM)?

The examination consisted of five compulsory questions. Question 1 (CIT) was worth 30 marks, Question 2 (PIT) 25 marks, Question 3 20 marks, and Question 4 and Question 5 had theory focus with 15 and 10 marks respectively.

What was the key change in the Corporate Income Tax question (Question 1), and how did candidates respond?

Part (a) of Question 1 used a different, loss-carry forward style compared with the traditional format. Many candidates left it to the end due to unfamiliarity, though the examiner noted it was not as difficult as it looked once started.

What common errors did candidates make in loss utilisation under Question 1?

Common issues included failing to offset losses and profits among activities within the same year correctly, offsetting real estate losses with non-real estate profits contrary to regulations, not recognizing real estate losses could offset capital gain from project transfer in 2012, and mishandling inseparable losses required to be offset starting with the lowest tax rate activities.

Aug 29, 2026

Uploaded by Xiajie