ValidVCE promises up to 365 days of free FP2 real exam questions updates. You will instantly get our free FP2 actual questions updates in case of any update in the examination content by the CSI Certification Exams. These are excellent offers. Download updated FP2 Exam Questions and begin your Financial Planning II (FPII) FP2 certification test preparation journey today. Best of Luck!
| Section | Weight | Objectives |
|---|---|---|
| Topic 1: Financial Planning for Small Business | 15% | - Small Business Financial Planning
|
| Topic 2: Family Law | 15% | - Financial and Property Issues
|
| Topic 3: Investment and Tax Planning | 10% | - Investment Management
|
| Topic 4: Insurance Planning | 10% | - General Insurance
|
| Topic 5: Retirement Planning | 20% | - Registered Pension and Retirement Income Plans
|
| Topic 6: Savings Planning and Debt Management | 10% | - Debt Planning and Mortgages
|
| Topic 7: Financial Planning Practice | 10% | - The Personal Financial Planning Process in Canada
|
| Topic 8: Estate Planning | 10% | - Trusts and Powers of Attorney
|
Because CSI FP2 exam is concerning the future and the destiny of IT people, they pay more attention to the certification. When you decide to choosing IT industry, you have proved your ability. However, what we learn is not enough at all. CSI FP2 Certification will be a big challenge for the candidates. If you decide to join our ValidVCE, we guarantee your success in the first attempt. If you fail, FULL REFUND!
NEW QUESTION # 17
For spousal claims relating to joint family ventures, what does a proprietary award grant?
Answer: C
Explanation:
A proprietary award provides the claimant with an interest in specific property, rather than merely requiring the other party to pay money. The distinction is fundamental in unjust-enrichment and joint-family-venture analysis.
Where one spouse or partner has contributed to the acquisition, preservation, maintenance, or improvement of identifiable property and the legal requirements are satisfied, the court may impose a proprietary remedy, commonly through a constructive trust. Such a remedy recognizes a beneficial ownership interest in the property itself. Canadian jurisprudence distinguishes this from a monetary remedy, where the claimant simply receives compensation measured either by the value of services provided or by an appropriate share of wealth accumulated through the joint family venture.
Option A describes a monetary award, not a proprietary award. A right of first refusal does not constitute the standard equitable remedy arising from unjust enrichment, while an automatic equal division of future income is not the legal consequence of establishing a joint family venture.
Accordingly, the defining feature of a proprietary award is that the claimant receives a beneficial or ownership interest linked to a particular asset.
FPII reference/topic: Family Law - unjust enrichment; joint family venture; constructive trusts; monetary versus proprietary remedies.
NEW QUESTION # 18
What do most successful cases of unequal division of property involve?
Answer: B
Explanation:
Short marriages provide the strongest basis among the listed alternatives for an unequal division of matrimonial property. Under Ontario's equalization regime, the normal rule is that the spouse with the lower net family property is entitled to one-half of the difference between the spouses' net family properties.
A court can depart from equal division only where ordinary equalization would be unconscionable, a deliberately demanding legal threshold. One factor specifically identified in the Family Law Act is where the amount a spouse would otherwise receive is disproportionately large in relation to a period of cohabitation of less than five years.
That provision explains why short marriages are particularly significant in unequal-division cases. A spouse may, for example, experience a major increase in net family property during a very brief marriage, producing an equalization entitlement disproportionate to the duration of the relationship.
Income disparity alone is not generally a basis for unequal property division; it is more directly relevant to support. Domestic abuse can have legal significance, but it does not automatically change equalization unless the statutory property criteria are established. Joint ventures concern a different property or unjust-enrichment analysis.
FPII reference/topic: Family Law - equalization of net family property; unequal division; unconscionability; short marriages.
NEW QUESTION # 19
What is the maximum of the payor spouse's net income that may be deducted to fulfil child support obligations?
Answer: A
Explanation:
The applicable maximum is 50% of the payor's net amount under the ordinary support-deduction framework.
Ontario's Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act provides that the total amount deducted by an income source and remitted under a support deduction order generally must not exceed 50% of the net amount owed by the income source to the payor.
The "net amount" concept is important because the statutory limit does not simply mean 50% of gross salary.
Required statutory deductions are taken into account in determining the amount available for enforcement.
The support obligation itself continues to exist even where enforcement through a particular income source is limited. Arrears can accumulate and other enforcement measures may become available. There are also specific statutory exceptions applying to certain lump-sum amounts and enforcement circumstances, so the
50% figure should be understood as the standard deduction limit tested by the question rather than an absolute limit in every possible enforcement proceeding.
Accordingly, among the four alternatives, 50% correctly represents the general maximum deduction against the payor's net income source for support enforcement.
FPII reference/topic: Family Law - child-support enforcement; support deduction orders; garnishment; limits on deductions from income.
NEW QUESTION # 20
Spouse A, age 69, has been making regular contributions to a spousal Registered Retirement Savings Plan for spouse B, age 65. Assuming Spouse A has sufficient unused contribution room to carry forward, how long can they continue making contributions on behalf of Spouse B?
Answer: A
Explanation:
The relevant age for determining how long contributions can continue to a spousal RRSP is the age of the spouse who is the annuitant of that RRSP-Spouse B.
CRA confirms that even after a contributor has passed the age at which contributions to the contributor's own RRSP are permitted, the contributor may continue making deductible contributions to a spouse's or common- law partner's RRSP, provided the contributor has RRSP deduction room and the spouse is 71 or younger on December 31 of the contribution year.
Accordingly, Spouse A's reaching age 71 does not by itself terminate the ability to contribute to Spouse B's spousal RRSP. Since Spouse B is currently 65, contributions can continue until December 31 of the calendar year in which Spouse B turns 71, assuming Spouse A continues to have available RRSP deduction room.
The "first 60 days" concept concerns which taxation year certain RRSP contributions may be deducted against; it does not extend an RRSP's statutory contribution eligibility beyond the end of the year in which its annuitant turns 71.
Therefore, option B correctly identifies the deadline.
FPII reference/topic: Retirement Planning - spousal RRSPs; contribution age limits; contributor deduction room; age-71 rules.
NEW QUESTION # 21
When a Canadian works abroad for a Canadian employer, what proof must be provided to have that time qualify as residence in Canada for Old Age Security?
Answer: D
Explanation:
Option D directly reflects the Old Age Security residence rules applicable to qualifying employment outside Canada.
Service Canada states that time spent working outside Canada for a Canadian employer may count as Canadian residence where the individual returns to Canada within six months after the employment ends, or where the individual reaches age 65 while still working abroad and otherwise satisfies the applicable conditions. For an application relying on this provision, the individual is required to provide proof of the Canadian employment and proof of physical return to Canada, unless the age-65 exception applies.
The test is therefore not based simply on whether Canadian income tax was paid. Income-tax residency and OAS residence are related concepts in some circumstances but are not interchangeable. Paying Canadian tax alone does not establish the special residence credit for employment abroad.
Option A is incorrect because it states a one-year return period rather than six months and adds income-tax payment as the relevant proof. Options B and C are insufficient because they omit the specific employment and return evidence required.
FPII reference/topic: Retirement Planning - Old Age Security; Canadian residence; employment outside Canada; qualification for public pension benefits.
NEW QUESTION # 22
......
Because industry of information technology is fast-moving. To excel in this advanced industry, pass the FP2 exam of the CSI FP2 certification. Hundreds of applicants have faced issues in updated dumps material to crack the CSI FP2 examination in one go.
PDF FP2 VCE: https://www.validvce.com/FP2-exam-collection.html