ICAB AL Case Study common mistakes
ICAB AL Case Study · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a general narrative of the case company's situation in the first part of the answer instead of immediately identifying the accounting treatment, the standard (e.g., IFRS 15 or IAS 37) and its recognition criteria, then applying them to the named figures.
Candidates trained on essay-style university papers default to 'introduction, discussion, conclusion' and burn 15–20 minutes of the 3-hour paper restating background that the examiner already knows; they fear that jumping to the standard looks like insufficient analysis.
What to do instead
Practise a fixed opening template: 'Issue - Relevant standard and paragraph - Recognition/measurement criteria - Application to the figures given - Conclusion and journal impact.' Draft the issue-and-standard line within the first 30 seconds of reading each requirement, and cap any scene-setting at one sentence.
Presenting a calculation (goodwill, deferred tax, EPS, consolidation adjustment) as a single final number with no workings, or with workings that omit the source of each input figure.
Under time pressure candidates compute on a calculator and write only the answer, assuming markers will trust it; many have never been marked on a case study where method marks dominate and a wrong figure with correct method still earns most of the credit.
What to do instead
Use a vertical working format where every line cites its source (e.g., 'per trial balance', 'per note 3', 'balancing figure'). Even when the final figure is uncertain, show the full build-up; allocate the last five minutes to checking that every number in the answer body is traceable to a working.
Treating the audit plan as a generic checklist of 'obtain management representations, test controls, vouch samples' that could apply to any client, without linking procedures to the specific assertions and risks identified in the case.
Candidates memorise standard procedure lists during revision and reproduce them because it feels safe; they underestimate how heavily case-study marking rewards risk-specific responses and how quickly generic lists are discounted.
What to do instead
For each risk, write the assertion at risk, then the procedure, then the evidence expected and why it addresses that assertion. For example, link a cut-off risk on revenue to testing shipping documents around year-end rather than 'test sales'. Ban yourself from writing any procedure that does not name a figure, account or document from the case.
Concluding on audit opinion or going-concern appropriateness without weighing both the evidence for and against, and without stating which financial reporting framework and which paragraph of the reporting standard drives the conclusion.
Cases are deliberately written with mixed indicators, and candidates latch onto the first alarming fact (a covenant breach, a loss) and jump to a qualified or adverse opinion; they also confuse material but not pervasive with pervasive, and going-concern uncertainty with going-concern failure.
What to do instead
Write a two-column 'supports / contradicts' table before concluding, then apply the decision tree explicitly: is the matter material? is it pervasive? is it a disagreement or an uncertainty? State the opinion type and the standard paragraph. Practise three past-style scenarios until the tree is automatic.
Calculating tax adjustments (disallowables, capital allowances, deferred tax) on the accounting profit without reconciling each item to the tax computation, and failing to distinguish current tax from deferred tax in the answer.
Candidates conflate the financial reporting profit figure with taxable profit and skip the schedule of adjustments; the case often gives several small items (entertainment, depreciation, provisions) that each need separate treatment, and time pressure encourages lumping them together.
What to do instead
Always build a tax computation schedule: accounting profit, add back each disallowable with its amount, deduct each allowable, apply capital allowances, arrive at taxable profit, apply the rate, then separately compute deferred tax on temporary differences. Label every line 'current tax' or 'deferred tax' so the marker can see the distinction.
Answering the corporate law or tax compliance element with a general statement of principle (e.g., 'directors must act in the company's best interests') instead of citing the specific statutory provision, threshold, deadline or filing requirement that the case turns on.
Candidates revise the narrative of company law but not the mechanical details - filing windows, quorum rules, thresholds for audit exemption, penalty regimes - and under exam pressure they substitute principle for precision because they cannot recall the exact rule.
What to do instead
Build a one-page 'numbers and deadlines' sheet per topic (incorporation, share issues, dividends, directors' duties, tax filing and payment dates, penalty scales) and drill it weekly. In answers, write the provision reference and the number, then apply it: 'Section X requires Y within Z days; here the deadline was missed by N days, so the consequence is...'.
Producing a strategy answer that lists frameworks (SWOT, PESTEL, Porter's five forces) as headings with generic bullets, without quantifying the financial impact of the recommended option or linking it to the case's stated objectives.
Candidates equate 'strategy question' with 'list a model' because that is how models are taught, and they avoid numbers in strategy answers out of fear of arithmetic error; the result is analysis that never reaches a recommendation.
What to do instead
Use the model only as an internal checklist, then write the answer as: objective from the case, two or three feasible options, quantified evaluation of each (cost, revenue, cash, risk), recommendation with justification against the objective, and implementation risks. Every option must carry at least one number derived from case data.
Ignoring the ethical dimension embedded in the case - for example, recommending a treatment that meets the client's wishes, or failing to flag a threat to independence - and answering purely technically.
Candidates compartmentalise ethics as a separate topic and do not expect it to appear inside a financial reporting or audit requirement; when the case describes pressure from a dominant shareholder or a fee dependency, they read it as background colour rather than as the issue to be addressed.
What to do instead
After reading the case, scan explicitly for pressure, incentive, self-interest, familiarity, intimidation and self-review cues, and note them in the margin. In every answer, add a short closing paragraph identifying the threat, evaluating its significance, and stating the safeguard or action (decline, disclose, escalate, resign) with reference to the applicable ethical code.
Mismanaging time and structure: spending disproportionate time on the first requirement, leaving the final requirement (often the highest-value evaluation or ethics section) answered in note form or not at all, and writing continuous prose with no headings or paragraph breaks.
Candidates answer in the order printed and cannot judge marks-per-minute, so a 10-mark calculation expands to fill 40 minutes; without headings, markers cannot locate points and candidates themselves lose track of which requirement they are addressing.
What to do instead
Before writing, annotate each requirement with its mark allocation and a time budget (roughly 1.8 minutes per mark), and answer in descending order of marks per minute if the paper permits. Use the requirement number and a short heading for every section, leave a visible gap between sections, and keep a strict clock check at the halfway point.
Failing to reach a decision or recommendation where the requirement asks for one, ending instead with 'it depends on management's judgement' or a summary of considerations with no conclusion.
Candidates fear committing to an answer that may be marked wrong and believe balanced discussion earns more marks than a firm view; in case studies, however, the professional judgement itself is the assessed skill, and an unresolved answer scores poorly regardless of the quality of the discussion.
What to do instead
Adopt a rule: every answer ends with a sentence beginning 'In my opinion...' or 'I recommend...' followed by the reason and the next action. Where genuine uncertainty exists, state the recommended position, the condition that would change it, and what evidence would resolve it - never leave the conclusion implicit.