广东省考生：ACCA考试怎么样才算成功正确的打印了准考证呢？

1 Rowlands & Medeleev (R&M), a major listed European civil engineering company, was successful in its bid to become

principal (lead) contractor to build the Giant Dam Project in an East Asian country. The board of R&M prided itself in

observing the highest standards of corporate governance. R&M’s client, the government of the East Asian country, had

taken into account several factors in appointing the principal contractor including each bidder’s track record in large

civil engineering projects, the value of the bid and a statement, required from each bidder, on how it would deal with

the ‘sensitive issues’ and publicity that might arise as a result of the project.

The Giant Dam Project was seen as vital to the East Asian country’s economic development as it would provide a

large amount of hydroelectric power. This was seen as a ‘clean energy’ driver of future economic growth. The

government was keen to point out that because hydroelectric power did not involve the burning of fossil fuels, the

power would be environmentally clean and would contribute to the East Asian country’s ability to meet its

internationally agreed carbon emission targets. This, in turn, would contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases

in the environment. Critics, such as the environmental pressure group ‘Stop-the-dam’, however, argued that the

project was far too large and the cost to the local environment would be unacceptable. Stop-the-dam was highly

organised and, according to press reports in Europe, was capable of disrupting progress on the dam by measures such

as creating ‘human barriers’ to the site and hiding people in tunnels who would have to be physically removed before

proceeding. A spokesman for Stop-the-dam said it would definitely be attempting to resist the Giant Dam Project when

construction started.

The project was intended to dam one of the region’s largest rivers, thus creating a massive lake behind it. The lake

would, the critics claimed, not only displace an estimated 100,000 people from their homes, but would also flood

productive farmland and destroy several rare plant and animal habitats. A number of important archaeological sites

would also be lost. The largest community to be relocated was the indigenous First Nation people who had lived on

and farmed the land for an estimated thousand years. A spokesman for the First Nation community said that the ‘true

price’ of hydroelectric power was ‘misery and cruelty’. A press report said that whilst the First Nation would be unlikely

to disrupt the building of the dam, it was highly likely that they would protest and also attempt to mobilise opinion in

other parts of the world against the Giant Dam Project.

The board of R&M was fully aware of the controversy when it submitted its tender to build the dam. The finance

director, Sally Grignard, had insisted on putting an amount into the tender for the management of ‘local risks’. Sally

was also responsible for the financing of the project for R&M. Although the client was expected to release money in

several ‘interim payments’ as the various parts of the project were completed to strict time deadlines, she anticipated

a number of working capital challenges for R&M, especially near the beginning where a number of early stage costs

would need to be incurred. There would, she explained, also be financing issues in managing the cash flows to R&M’s

many subcontractors. Although the major banks financed the client through a lending syndicate, R&M’s usual bank

said it was wary of lending directly to R&M for the Giant Dam Project because of the potential negative publicity that

might result. Another bank said it would provide R&M with its early stage working capital needs on the understanding

that its involvement in financing R&M to undertake the Giant Dam Project was not disclosed. A press statement from

Stop-the-dam said that it would do all it could to discover R&M’s financial lenders and publicly expose them. Sally

told the R&M board that some debt financing would be essential until the first interim payments from the client

became available.

When it was announced that R&M had won the contract to build the Giant Dam Project, some of its institutional

shareholders contacted Richard Markovnikoff, the chairman. They wanted reassurance that the company had fully

taken the environmental issues and other risks into account. One fund manager asked if Mr Markovnikoff could

explain the sustainability implications of the project to assess whether R&M shares were still suitable for his

environmentally sensitive clients. Mr Markovnikoff said, through the company’s investor relations department, that he

intended to give a statement at the next annual general meeting (AGM) that he hoped would address these

environmental concerns. He would also, he said, make a statement on the importance of confidentiality in the

financing of the early stage working capital needs.

(a) Any large project such as the Giant Dam Project has a number of stakeholders.

Required:

(i) Define the terms ‘stakeholder’ and ‘stakeholder claim’, and identify from the case FOUR of R&M’s

external stakeholders as it carries out the Giant Dam Project; (6 marks)

3 On 1 January 2007 Dovedale Ltd, a company with no subsidiaries, intends to purchase 65% of the ordinary share

capital of Hira Ltd from Belgrove Ltd. Belgrove Ltd currently owns 100% of the share capital of Hira Ltd and has no

other subsidiaries. All three companies have their head offices in the UK and are UK resident.

Hira Ltd had trading losses brought forward, as at 1 April 2006, of ￡18,600 and no income or gains against which

to offset losses in the year ended 31 March 2006. In the year ending 31 March 2007 the company expects to make

further tax adjusted trading losses of ￡55,000 before deduction of capital allowances, and to have no other income

or gains. The tax written down value of Hira Ltd’s plant and machinery as at 31 March 2006 was ￡96,000 and

there will be no fixed asset additions or disposals in the year ending 31 March 2007. In the year ending 31 March

2008 a small tax adjusted trading loss is anticipated. Hira Ltd will surrender the maximum possible trading losses

to Belgrove Ltd and Dovedale Ltd.

The tax adjusted trading profit of Dovedale Ltd for the year ending 31 March 2007 is expected to be ￡875,000 and

to continue at this level in the future. The profits chargeable to corporation tax of Belgrove Ltd are expected to be

￡38,000 for the year ending 31 March 2007 and to increase in the future.

On 1 February 2007 Dovedale Ltd will sell a small office building to Hira Ltd for its market value of ￡234,000.

Dovedale Ltd purchased the building in March 2005 for ￡210,000. In October 2004 Dovedale Ltd sold a factory

for ￡277,450 making a capital gain of ￡84,217. A claim was made to roll over the gain on the sale of the factory

against the acquisition cost of the office building.

On 1 April 2007 Dovedale Ltd intends to acquire the whole of the ordinary share capital of Atapo Inc, an unquoted

company resident in the country of Morovia. Atapo Inc sells components to Dovedale Ltd as well as to other

companies in Morovia and around the world.

It is estimated that Atapo Inc will make a profit before tax of ￡160,000 in the year ending 31 March 2008 and will

pay a dividend to Dovedale Ltd of ￡105,000. It can be assumed that Atapo Inc’s taxable profits are equal to its profit

before tax. The rate of corporation tax in Morovia is 9%. There is a withholding tax of 3% on dividends paid to

non-Morovian resident shareholders. There is no double tax agreement between the UK and Morovia.

Required:

(a) Advise Belgrove Ltd of any capital gains that may arise as a result of the sale of the shares in Hira Ltd. You

are not required to calculate any capital gains in this part of the question. (4 marks)

4 You are an audit manager in Smith & Co, a firm of Chartered Certified Accountants. You have recently been made

responsible for reviewing invoices raised to clients and for monitoring your firm’s credit control procedures. Several

matters came to light during your most recent review of client invoice files:

Norman Co, a large private company, has not paid an invoice from Smith & Co dated 5 June 2007 for work in respect

of the financial statement audit for the year ended 28 February 2007. A file note dated 30 November 2007 states

that Norman Co is suffering poor cash flows and is unable to pay the balance. This is the only piece of information

in the file you are reviewing relating to the invoice. You are aware that the final audit work for the year ended

28 February 2008, which has not yet been invoiced, is nearly complete and the audit report is due to be issued

imminently.

Wallace Co, a private company whose business is the manufacture of industrial machinery, has paid all invoices

relating to the recently completed audit planning for the year ended 31 May 2008. However, in the invoice file you

notice an invoice received by your firm from Wallace Co. The invoice is addressed to Valerie Hobson, the manager

responsible for the audit of Wallace Co. The invoice relates to the rental of an area in Wallace Co’s empty warehouse,

with the following comment handwritten on the invoice: ‘rental space being used for storage of Ms Hobson’s

speedboat for six months – she is our auditor, so only charge a nominal sum of $100’. When asked about the invoice,

Valerie Hobson said that the invoice should have been sent to her private address. You are aware that Wallace Co

sometimes uses the empty warehouse for rental income, though this is not the main trading income of the company.

In the ‘miscellaneous invoices raised’ file, an invoice dated last week has been raised to Software Supply Co, not a

client of your firm. The comment box on the invoice contains the note ‘referral fee for recommending Software Supply

Co to several audit clients regarding the supply of bespoke accounting software’.

Required:

Identify and discuss the ethical and other professional issues raised by the invoice file review, and recommend

what action, if any, Smith & Co should now take in respect of:

(a) Norman Co; (8 marks)

3 Assume that today’s date is 10 May 2005.

You have recently been approached by Fred Flop. Fred is the managing director and 100% shareholder of Flop

Limited, a UK trading company with one wholly owned subsidiary. Both companies have a 31 March year-end.

Fred informs you that he is experiencing problems in dealing with aspects of his company tax returns. The company

accountant has been unable to keep up to date with matters, and Fred also believes that mistakes have been made

in the past. Fred needs assistance and tells you the following:

Year ended 31 March 2003

The corporation tax return for this period was not submitted until 2 November 2004, and corporation tax of ￡123,500

was paid at the same time. Profits chargeable to corporation tax were stated as ￡704,300.

A formal notice (CT203) requiring the company to file a self-assessment corporation tax return (dated 1 February

2004) had been received by the company on 4 February 2004.

A detailed examination of the accounts and tax computation has revealed the following.

– Computer equipment totalling ￡50,000 had been expensed in the accounts. No adjustment has been made in

the tax computation.

– A provision of ￡10,000 was made for repairs, but there is no evidence of supporting information.

– Legal and professional fees totalling ￡46,500 were allowed in full without any explanation. Fred has

subsequently produced the following analysis:

Analysis of legal & professional fees

￡

Legal fees on a failed attempt to secure a trading loan 15,000

Debt collection agency fees 12,800

Obtaining planning consent for building extension 15,700

Accountant’s fees for preparing accounts 14,000

Legal fees relating to a trade dispute 19,000

– No enquiry has yet been raised by the Inland Revenue.

– Flop Ltd was a large company in terms of the Companies Act definition for the year in question.

– Flop Ltd had taxable profits of ￡595,000 in the previous year.

Year ended 31 March 2004

The corporation tax return has not yet been submitted for this year. The accounts are late and nearing completion,

with only one change still to be made. A notice requiring the company to file a self-assessment corporation tax return

(CT203) dated 27 July 2004 was received on 1 August 2004. No corporation tax has yet been paid.

1 – The computation currently shows profits chargeable to corporation tax of ￡815,000 before accounting

adjustments, and any adjustments for prior years.

– A company owing Flop Ltd ￡50,000 (excluding VAT) has gone into liquidation, and it is unlikely that any of this

money will be paid. The money has been outstanding since 3 September 2003, and the bad debt will need to

be included in the accounts.

1 Fred also believes there are problems in relation to the company’s VAT administration. The VAT return for the quarter

ended 31 March 2005 was submitted on 5 May 2005, and VAT of ￡24,000 was paid at the same time. The previous

return to 31 December 2004 was also submitted late. In addition, no account has been made for the VAT on the bad

debt. The VAT return for 30 June 2005 may also be late. Fred estimates the VAT liability for that quarter to be ￡8,250.

Required:

(a) (i) Calculate the revised corporation tax (CT) payable for the accounting periods ending 31 March 2003

and 2004 respectively. Your answer should include an explanation of the adjustments made as a result

of the information which has now come to light. (7 marks)

(ii) State, giving reasons, the due payment date of the corporation tax (CT) and the filing date of the

corporation tax return for each period, and identify any interest and penalties which may have arisen to

date. (8 marks)