The 2022 VCE Accounting exam is a particularly instructive paper because it exposes a recurring tension in the subject. Students who are technically competent often still lose marks because they misinterpret what a question is asking them to do. The Examiner’s Report repeatedly emphasises that errors came from misreading, incomplete explanations, or failure to consider the full accounting effect of a transaction, rather than from a lack of syllabus knowledge .
Several questions from the 2022 exam are especially revealing when unpacked closely.
Question 1(c): describing the effect of a sales return on the Income Statement
This question followed an inventory card and cost of sales calculation and was worth only two marks. Despite this, it produced a wide spread of results.
Students were asked to describe the effect that Credit Note 453 would have on the Income Statement. This is not a recording question. It is an impact question.
What the question was assessing
The question tested whether students understood that a sales return affects multiple components of the Income Statement, not just sales revenue. Specifically, it required students to recognise that:
- net sales decrease by the selling price of the return
- cost of sales decreases by the cost price of the inventory returned
- gross profit and net profit change by the difference between those two figures
What full-mark responses did
According to the Examiner’s Report, full-mark responses clearly identified:
- a decrease in net sales of $1 600
- a decrease in cost of sales of $1 300
- a resulting decrease in gross profit and net profit of $300
These responses showed that students could trace the effect of a transaction through the report, rather than naming a single outcome.
Where marks were lost
Many students mentioned only the decrease in sales and failed to refer to cost of sales. Others stated that profit decreased but did not quantify or explain why. These responses demonstrated partial understanding and were capped at one mark.
This question highlights a recurring VCAA expectation. When students are asked to describe the effect on a report, they must consider all relevant components, not just the most obvious one.
Question 2(a): identifying source documents from a ledger account
This question asked students to identify the source documents used to verify three entries in an Accounts Payable ledger.
Despite being worth only three marks, this question was one of the lowest-performing in the paper. Only a small proportion of students were able to correctly identify all three documents .
What the question was assessing
This question assessed a foundational accounting skill: linking ledger entries back to their originating documents. It required students to distinguish between:
- a purchase invoice
- a cheque butt or EFT receipt
- a credit note
The precision of language mattered.
Where students went wrong
The Examiner’s Report notes several recurring issues:
- students wrote “invoice” instead of “purchase invoice”
- students wrote “cheque” instead of “cheque butt”
- students confused sales and purchase documentation
These errors indicate not a lack of understanding of transactions, but a lack of attention to accounting terminology. VCAA expects exact source document identification, not approximations.
Question 3(a): product costs versus period costs
This question asked students to explain how two different delivery costs should be treated.
The first delivery related to a single identifiable product. The second related to mixed inventory delivered together.
What the question was really testing
This question tested whether students understood that the distinction between product and period costs depends on logical allocation, not on whether a cost is related to inventory in a general sense.
What high-scoring responses did
According to the Examiner’s Report, full-mark responses:
- identified the first delivery cost as a product cost because it could be logically allocated to individual lounge suites
- identified the second delivery cost as a period cost because it could not be logically allocated across multiple types of inventory
These responses explicitly linked allocation to treatment.
Common errors
Lower-scoring responses defined product and period costs without applying the logic to the scenario. Others classified the costs correctly but did not explain why.
This question shows that VCAA rewards explanation grounded in the scenario, not textbook definitions.
Question 3(b): ethical and financial issues with excess inventory
This was a five-mark discussion question and one of the most discriminating in the exam.
Students were presented with a realistic ethical dilemma involving excess inventory received from a supplier.
What the question was assessing
The question required students to integrate:
- ethical considerations
- financial consequences
- long-term business relationships
Importantly, the question could not be answered using a memorised template.
What strong responses did
High-scoring responses:
- considered whether the supplier should be informed
- recognised the financial benefit of zero-cost inventory
- discussed risks such as storage costs, reputational damage, and supplier relationships
- acknowledged that while legal action was unlikely, ethical responsibility still existed
These responses showed balanced judgement rather than certainty.
Where marks were lost
Many students simply repeated information from the question or focused only on the cost of returning the chairs. These responses lacked depth and were capped.
The Examiner’s Report explicitly warns against rote-learned ethical responses, as these questions are designed to change context year to year .
Question 4(a): reconstructing the Capital account
This question required students to reconstruct a Capital account using balance sheet and income statement data.
What the question was assessing
This question tested whether students understood how capital changes over time through:
- profit
- drawings
- owner contributions
Common errors
The Examiner’s Report highlights frequent mistakes:
- recording entries on the wrong side of the ledger
- incorrect cross-references
- missing drawings
- using Net Profit instead of Profit and Loss Summary
These errors reflect weak structural understanding rather than calculation mistakes.
Question 6(a): qualitative characteristics and timeliness
This question required students to identify a qualitative characteristic other than relevance that was breached due to delayed reporting.
What the question was testing
The question tested whether students could:
- identify timeliness
- apply its definition to the specific scenario
Where students struggled
Many students:
- referred to accounting assumptions instead of qualitative characteristics
- named faithful representation or understandability
- failed to link their answer to the delay described in the question
This again reflects a pattern seen across years. Students know definitions but struggle to apply them to context.
Question 9: modelling and recommendation
Question 9 required students to calculate delivery costs under three options and then recommend one.
What VCAA was assessing
This question assessed:
- numerical modelling
- interpretation of constraints
- justification of a decision using data
The Examiner’s Report notes that while many students calculated costs correctly, marks were often lost in the justification section because students failed to compare options explicitly or refer to both financial and non-financial factors .
What the 2022 exam makes clear
Across the paper, the same message appears repeatedly in the Examiner’s Report. Students lose marks when they:
- misread the task
- provide partial explanations
- rely on definitions rather than reasoning
- fail to trace the full accounting effect of a transaction
The 2022 exam did not reward speed or memorisation. It rewarded careful interpretation and complete explanations.
How ATAR STAR uses this level of exam analysis
ATAR STAR prepares Accounting students by unpacking exams at this level of detail so that patterns become visible. This benefits high-achieving students who want to refine precision and students who feel they understand content but are not converting it into marks.
Understanding exactly how questions like these are marked is one of the most effective ways to improve exam performance.