6月ACCA准考证下载、打印攻略在这里

正确答案：

 

正确答案：
2 IFRS3 (Revised) is a further development of the acquisition model and represents a significant change in accounting for business
combinations. The consideration is the amount paid for the business acquired and is measured at fair value. Consideration will
include cash, assets, contingent consideration, equity instruments, options and warrants. It also includes the fair value of all equity
interests that the acquirer may have held previously in the acquired business. The principles to be applied are that:
(a) a business combination occurs only in respect of the transaction that gives one entity control of another
(b) the identifiable net assets of the acquiree are re-measured to their fair value on the date of the acquisition
(c) NCI are measured on the date of acquisition under one of the two options permitted by IFRS3 (Revised).
An equity interest previously held in the acquiree which qualified as an associate under IAS28 is similarly treated as if it were
disposed of and reacquired at fair value on the acquisition date. Accordingly, it is re-measured to its acquisition date fair value, and
any resulting gain or loss compared to its carrying amount under IAS28 is recognised in profit or loss. Thus the 30% holding in
the associate which was previously held will be included in the consideration. If the carrying amount of the interest in the associate
is not held at fair value at the acquisition date, the interest should be measured to fair value and the resulting gain or loss should
be recognised in profit or loss. The business combination has effectively been achieved in stages.
The fees payable in transaction costs are not deemed to be part of the consideration paid to the seller of the shares. They are not
assets of the purchased business that are recognised on acquisition. Therefore, they should be expensed as incurred and the
services received. Transaction costs relating to the issue of debt or equity, if they are directly attributable, will not be expensed but
deducted from debt or equity on initial recognition.
It is common for part of the consideration to be contingent upon future events. Marrgrett wishes some of the existing
shareholders/employees to remain in the business and has, therefore, offered share options as an incentive to these persons. The
issue is whether these options form. part of the purchase consideration or are compensation for post-acquisition services. The
conditions attached to the award will determine the accounting treatment. In this case there are employment conditions and,
therefore, the options should be treated as compensation and valued under IFRS2 ‘Share based payment’. Thus a charge will
appear in post-acquisition earnings for employee services as the options were awarded to reward future services of employees
rather than to acquire the business.
The additional shares to a fixed value of $50,000 are contingent upon the future returns on capital employed. Marrgrett only wants
to make additional payments if the business is successful. All consideration should be fair valued at the date of acquisition,
including the above contingent consideration. The contingent consideration payable in shares where the number of shares varies
to give the recipient a fixed value ($50,000) meets the definition of a financial liability under IAS32 ‘Financial Instruments:
Presentation’. As a result the liability will have to be fair valued and any subsequent remeasurement will be recognised in the
income statement. There is no requirement under IFRS3 (Revised) for the payments to be probable.
Intangible assets should be recognised on acquisition under IFRS3 (Revised). These include trade names, domain names, and
non-competition agreements. Thus these assets will be recognised and goodwill effectively reduced. The additional clarity in
IFRS3 (Revised) could mean that more intangible assets will be recognised on acquisition. As a result of this, the post-combination
income statement may have more charges for amortisation of the intangibles than was previously the case.
The revised standard gives entities the option, on a transaction by transaction basis, to measure non-controlling interests (NCI) at
the fair value of the proportion of identifiable net assets or at full fair value. The first option results in measurement of goodwill on
consolidation which would normally be little different from the previous standard. The second approach records goodwill on the
NCI as well as on the acquired controlling interest. Goodwill is the residual but may differ from that under the previous standard
because of the nature of the valuation of the consideration as previously held interests are fair valued and also because goodwill
can be measured in the above two ways (full goodwill and partial goodwill). The standard gives entities a choice for each separate
business combination of recognising full or partial goodwill. Recognising full goodwill will increase reported net assets and may
result in any future impairment of goodwill being of greater value. Measuring NCI at fair value may have some difficulties but
goodwill impairment testing may be easier under full goodwill as there is no need to gross-up goodwill for partly-owned
subsidiaries. The type of consideration does not affect goodwill regardless of how the payment is structured. Consideration is
recognised in total at its fair value at the date of acquisition. The form. of the consideration will not affect goodwill but the structure
of the payments can affect post-acquisition profits. Contingent payments which are deemed to be debt instruments will be
remeasured at each reporting date with the change going to the income statement.
Marrgrett has a maximum period of 12 months to finalise the acquisition accounting but will not be able to recognise the
re-organisation provision at the date of the business combination. The ability of the acquirer to recognise a liability for reducing or
changing the activities of the acquiree is restricted. A restructuring provision can only be recognised in a business combination
when the acquiree has at the acquisition date, an existing liability which complies with IAS37 ‘Provisions, contingent liabilities and
contingent assets’. These conditions are unlikely to exist at the acquisition date. A restructuring plan that is conditional on the
completion of a business combination is not recognised in accounting for the acquisition but the expense will be met against
post-acquisition earnings.
IAS27 (Revised) uses the economic entity model whereas previous practice used the parent company approach. The economic
entity model treats all providers of equity capital as shareholders of the entity even where they are not shareholders in the parent.
A partial disposal of an interest in a subsidiary in which control is still retained is seen as a treasury transaction and accounted for
in equity. It does not result in a gain or loss but an increase or decrease in equity. However, where a partial disposal in a subsidiary
results in a loss of control but the retention of an interest in the form. of an associate, then a gain or loss is recognised in the whole
interest. A gain or loss is recognised on the portion that has been sold, and a holding gain or loss is recognised on the interest
retained being the difference between the book value and fair value of the interest. Both gains/losses are recognised in the income
statement.

正确答案：
(c) Briefing notes
To: Audit partner
From: Audit manager
Subject: Issues to consider regarding appointment as auditor of Medix Co
Introduction
Medix Co has recently invited our firm to become appointed as auditor. These briefing notes summarise the main issues we
should consider in deciding whether to take the appointment a stage further. My comments are based on a discussion held
with Ricardo Feller, finance director of Medix Co, a discussion with the current audit partner, and information provided in the
local newspaper.
Legal actions and investigations
There are several indications that Medix Co has a history of non compliance with law and regulations. The former finance
director is claiming unfair dismissal, and in the past the local authority has successfully taken legal action against the
company and has a current case pending. In addition, there have been two tax investigations in recent years hinting at noncompliance
with relevant tax regulations.
There are two problems for us in taking on a client with a propensity for legal actions and investigations. Firstly, the reputation
of the company must be considered. If we become associated with the company through being appointed as auditor, we could
be ‘tarred with the same brush’ and our own reputation also tarnished.
Secondly, we could become quickly exposed to an advocacy independence threat, which clearly should be avoided. Our
ethical status should not be compromised for the sake of gaining a new audit client. Mick Evans only ‘believes’ that the tax
matter has been resolved by the directors, and we should avoid taking on a new client which is involved in an on-going
investigation.
Public interest
The problems noted above are compounded by the bad publicity which the company is currently receiving. The local press
contained a recent article discussing Medix Co’s past and current breach of planning regulations. Given the current level of
public interest in environmental issues, and emphasis on corporate responsibility, it would seem that Medix Co has a poor
public perception, which we would not want to be associated with.
Potential liability to lender
The company is currently negotiating a significant bank loan, and the lender will be using the audited financial statements to
make a decision on whether to advance a loan, and the terms of any finance that might be advanced to Medix Co. This means
that our audit opinion for the forthcoming year end will be scrutinised by the lender, and our firm is exposed to a relatively
high risk of liability to a third party. Given that this will be our first audit, and the limited time we have available (discussed
below) our firm may feel that the risk of this audit engagement is too high. Should the appointment be accepted, disclaimers
should be put in place to ensure that we could not be sued in the event of the bank suffering a financial loss as a result of
their lending decision.
Timeframe. and resources
It is currently the last month of the financial year. If we are appointed as auditor we need to work quickly to develop a thorough
understanding of the business, and to begin to plan the assignment. We need to consider whether our firm has sufficient
resources to put together an audit team so quickly without detracting from other client work currently being conducted.
To make this matter worse, Mick Evans states that Medix Co likes ‘a quick audit’, and we need to consider how to manage
this expectation, as first year audit procedures such as systems documentation, and developing business understanding tend
to take a long time. We must be careful that the client does not pressure us into a ‘quick audit’, which could compromise
quality.
Medix Co operates in a reasonably specialist and highly regulated industry, so our firm should take care to ensure we have
expertise in this industry.
Potentially aggressive management style
There are several indicators that the management may take a confrontational approach, such as the unfair dismissal claim
brought against the company by the ex-finance director. In addition, the auditors prior to Mick Evans resigned following a
disagreement with management. This history shows that we may find it difficult to establish a good working relationship with
the management. As the company is owner managed the presence of a dominant managing director exacerbates this problem.
Management bias
There is incentive for the financial statements to be manipulated in order to secure bank finance. There is considerable risk
of material misstatement which our firm may consider to be unacceptably high.
Internal systems and controls
The current auditors have found systems and controls to be poor, and management has not acted upon recommendations
made by the auditors. Of course this does not mean that we should not take on the assignment – many companies have
weak controls. However, if we did take on the appointment, we would not be able to rely on controls or use a controls based
approach for the audit. We would need to take a substantive approach to the audit. One practical issue here is availability of
staff to conduct the audit testing, as substantive procedures tend to be more time consuming than if we could have taken a
systems based approach.
Opening balances
In all new audit assignments, work must be conducted to verify the opening balances. Given the possible fraud and poor
controls described above, we would need to perform. detailed testing on the opening balances as there is a high risk of fraud
and/or error in previous accounting periods. We may also wish to consider the competence of the previous auditors, who
appeared to disregard potential fraud indicator (two cash books) and had only one audit client.
Fees
Mick Evans has made it clear that Medix Co’s management likes to keep a tight control on costs, and it may put pressure on
us to charge a low audit fee. We need to bear in mind the risks associated with this engagement, as discussed above, and
only take on this high risk audit if the audit fee is high enough to compensate.
We should also consider the cash flow problems being experienced by the company. As a business we need to ensure that
we only take on clients with a good credit rating, and it seems that Medix Co, operating with an overdraft, may not be able
to pay our invoices.
Indication of fraud or money laundering
Surely the most serious issue to consider is that Jon Tate, the managing director, has kept two cash books. We need further
detail on this, but it clearly could indicate a fraud being perpetrated at the highest level of management. The fact that he has
maintained two cash books could indicate money laundering activites taking place, especially when considered in the context
of an owner-managed business with overseas operations. If this were the ONLY problem discovered it could be deemed
serious enough to bring to an end our appointment process. It would be reckless for our firm to take on a client where the
managing director is a fraudster.
Conclusion
Further information is needed in many areas before a final decision is made. However, from the information we have gathered
so far, it appears that Medix Co would represent a high risk client, and our firm must therefore be very careful to assess each
problem noted above before deciding whether to proceed with the appointment.