ACCA Malaysian Tax Desk Special:
“ACCA ATX-MYS Examiner Reports (Jun 2023 → Dec 2025): Same Tax
, Different Ways To Lose Marks”
Between June 2023 and December 2025, the ACCA ATX-MYS examiner reports read like a long-running sitcom where the examiner patiently repeats the same advice every six months, and candidates politely ignore it before showing up with beautifully structured but strangely inaccurate tax advice. If you read the reports year by year — alongside the syllabus updates and exam format changes — a very clear storyline emerges: the paper itself didn’t suddenly become harder; it simply started expecting candidates to behave like real tax advisers rather than enthusiastic calculators.
2023: The Year ATX Became Half Consulting Exam, Half Reality Check
The June 2023 period marked a subtle turning point. The biggest structural shift wasn’t even technical — it was philosophical. ACCA introduced a new exam structure (fully applied to ATX-MYS from December 2023) where a single 50-mark Section A case study dominates the paper, with professional skills embedded into the marking scheme. Ethics marks became mandatory, and communication suddenly mattered as much as technical accuracy.
What did this mean in practice? Candidates discovered that writing long tax computations without explaining implications felt oddly incomplete. Examiner comments around this period consistently noted that answers lacked advisory tone — students wrote as if they were completing TX-level exercises rather than advising Malaysian clients facing real tax consequences.
The problems highlighted were almost poetic in their repetition. Candidates mixed up terminology, ignored scenario details, or applied rules too generically. The examiner wasn’t asking for obscure legislation; the frustration stemmed from candidates failing to explain why a tax treatment applied or how it affected commercial decisions. In, 2023 was the year the examiner gently announced: “Congratulations, you are now a tax consultant — please stop writing like a revision kit.”
2024: The Era Of ‘Straightforward Questions’ That Somehow Weren’t
If 2023 was about format changes, 2024 was about adjustment pains. Examiner commentary across the year repeatedly described questions as fair and accessible, which is exam-report language for: “We didn’t try to trick you.” And yet, performance gaps remained.
One recurring issue was language precision. Candidates frequently used technically incorrect wording — confusing “resident” with “citizen,” or treating exemptions and non-taxable income as identical concepts. The examiner reports stressed that precision reflects professional competence, not academic nit-picking.
Another theme was over-generalisation. Candidates often recognised the topic — incentives, RPGT, or restructuring — but failed to analyse conditions, timelines, or compliance risks. In essence, they knew what the question was about but struggled with how to advise.
From a syllabus perspective, 2024 also introduced notable examinable-content adjustments. Certain corporate income-tax areas were temporarily excluded because legislation was not fully implemented, while new RPGT content — such as deemed disposals on asset reclassification — became examinable.
“Examiner Removes Topic Due To Incomplete Legislation; Candidates Still Somehow Study It More Than The Actual Syllabus.”
2025: The Professional Skills Era — Or, ‘Please Explain Your Advice Like A Human’
By 2025, the examiner reports began sounding less like criticism and more like a therapist’s notes. Technical knowledge was generally adequate, but candidates continued losing marks because their answers lacked structure, commercial reasoning, or clear explanations.
Professional skills had by then become fully embedded in the ATX marking approach. Communication, analysis, scepticism, and commercial awareness were no longer optional extras; they were the difference between a technically correct answer and a high-scoring one.
A curious irony appeared throughout 2025 feedback. Many questions were described as straightforward applications of syllabus areas, yet candidates struggled because they defaulted to memorised templates. Instead of tailoring advice to the scenario, they produced generic lists of reliefs or incentives — as if every Malaysian company exists purely to maximise tax allowances without reading the fine print.
Legislatively, the examinable environment also shifted. Exams in the December 2025 to September 2026 cycle were based on Finance Act 2024 and related enforcement legislation, reflecting ACCA’s annual rule that tax exams follow laws passed before the 31 March cut-off.
This meant students had to adjust to updated compliance frameworks and evolving policy contexts, reinforcing the examiner’s push toward advisory thinking rather than rote memorisation.
Recurring Problems Across All Three Years — The Examiner’s Greatest Hits
Reading the reports chronologically feels like watching the same storyline with new characters. Candidates consistently:
-
Recognised topics but failed to analyse eligibility or consequences.
-
Used imprecise terminology that weakened otherwise correct answers.
-
Treated Section A like a technical question rather than an advisory case study.
-
Ignored ethics marks or professional skills despite them forming a significant portion of available marks after the new format was introduced.
“You knew the tax law. You just didn’t explain it like someone we would hire.”
Syllabus And Exam Changes Detected (2023–2025)
From reviewing the syllabus documents and examinable-content updates, the changes during this period were evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
The biggest structural shift came with the revised exam format: three compulsory questions, heavier weighting on Section A, and expanded professional skills marks. Ethics became a permanent feature of Question 1, reinforcing the advisory nature of the paper.
Technically, ACCA made targeted syllabus adjustments rather than sweeping reforms. Some corporate tax topics were temporarily excluded due to incomplete legislation, while additional RPGT scenarios became examinable — particularly deemed disposals arising from asset reclassification.
The result was not a smaller syllabus but a more focused one, nudging candidates toward practical application instead of theoretical breadth.
The JPRO’s Year-By-Year Verdict
Looking back from June 2023 to December 2025, ATX-MYS did not dramatically reinvent itself. Instead, it matured. The examiner moved the paper away from being a technical checklist and closer to a professional advisory simulation.
In 2023, candidates struggled with the new exam structure and underestimated the importance of communication.
In 2024, they recognised topics but still answered too generically, often missing technical nuances.
By 2025, the examiner seemed to be waiting patiently for candidates to sound like real tax advisers — to explain, evaluate, and justify, not just calculate.
“Malaysian Tax Examiner Repeats Same Advice For Three Years; Candidates Finally Realise ATX Is Not About Memorising Every Relief — It’s About Knowing When To Use It And How To Explain Why.”
