点击查看：2020年吉林省9月ACCA考试成绩查询时间

正确答案：
(a) The weaknesses of traditional budgeting processes include the following:
– many commentators, including Hope and Fraser, contend that budgets prepared under traditional processes add little
value and require far too much valuable management time which would be better spent elsewhere.
– too heavy a reliance on the ‘agreed’ budget has an adverse impact on management behaviour which can become
dysfunctional having regard to the objectives of the organisation as a whole.
– the use of budgeting as base for communicating corporate goals, setting objectives, continuous improvement, etc is seen
as contrary to the original purpose of budgeting as a financial control mechanism.
– most budgets are not based on a rational causal model of resource consumption but are often the result of protracted
internal bargaining processes.
– conformance to budget is not seen as compatible with a drive towards continuous improvement.
– budgeting has an insufficient external focus.

正确答案：
(b) Draft guidance
(i) Gifts and hospitality
Gifts and hospitality may be offered as an inducement i.e. to unduly influence actions or decisions, encourage illegal or
dishonest behaviour or to obtain confidential information. An offer of gifts and/or hospitality from a client ordinarily gives
rise to threats to compliance with the fundamental principles, for example:
■ self-interest threats to objectivity and/or confidentiality may be created if a gift from a client is accepted;
■ intimidation threats to objectivity and/or confidentiality may arise through the possibility of such offers being made
public and damaging the reputation of the professional accountant (or close family member).
The significance of such threats will depend on the nature, value and intent behind the offer. There may be no significant
threat to compliance with the fundamental principles if a reasonable and informed third party would consider gifts and
hospitality to be clearly insignificant. For example, if the offer of gifts or hospitality is made in the normal course of
business without the specific intent to influence decision making or to obtain information.
If evaluated threats are other than clearly insignificant, safeguards should be considered and applied as necessary to
eliminate them or reduce them to an acceptable level.
Offers of gifts and hospitality should not be accepted if the threats cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable
level through the application of safeguards.
As the real or apparent threats to compliance with the fundamental principles do not merely arise from acceptance of
an inducement but, sometimes, merely from the fact of the offer having been made, additional safeguards should be
adopted. For example:
■ immediately informing higher levels of management or those charged with governance that an inducement has
been offered;
■ informing third parties (e.g. a professional body) of the offer (after seeking legal advice);
■ advising immediate or close family members of relevant threats and safeguards where they are potentially in
positions that might result in offers of inducements (e.g. as a result of their employment situation); and
■ informing higher levels of management or those charged with governance where immediate or close family
members are employed by competitors or potential suppliers of that organisation.

正确答案：

(a) Except in relation to specifically exempted companies, such as those involved in charitable work, companies are required to indicate that they are operating on the basis of limited liability. Thus private companies are required to end their names, either with the word ‘limited’ or the abbreviation ‘ltd’, and public companies must end their names with the words ‘public limited company’ or the abbreviation ‘plc’. Welsh companies may use the Welsh language equivalents (Companies Act (CA)2006 ss.58, 59 & 60).
Companies Registry maintains a register of business names, and will refuse to register any company with a name that is the same as one already on that index (CA 2006 s.66).
Certain categories of names are, subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, unacceptable per se, as follows:
(i) names which in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitute a criminal offence or are offensive (CA 2006 s.53)
(ii) names which are likely to give the impression that the company is connected with either government or local government authorities (s.54).
(iii) names which include a word or expression specified under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (s.26(2)(b)). This category requires the express approval of the Secretary of State for the use of any of the names or expressions contained on the list, and relates to areas which raise a matter of public concern in relation to their use.
Under s.67 of the Companies Act 2006 the Secretary of State has power to require a company to alter its name under the following circumstances:
(i) where it is the same as a name already on the Registrar’s index of company names.
(ii) where it is ‘too like’ a name that is on that index.
The name of a company can always be changed by a special resolution of the company so long as it continues to comply with the above requirements (s.77).

(b) The tort of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup
Margarine Co Ltd (1917) the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with
his existing dairy company. It cannot be used, however, if there is no likelihood of the public being confused, where for example the companies are conducting different businesses (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd (1907)
and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd (1984). Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use (Aerators Ltd v Tollitt (1902)).
Part 41 of the Companies Act (CA) 2006, which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985, still does not prevent one business from using the same, or a very similar, name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985, a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered (s.665 Companies Act (CA) 2006) and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as, or too like a name appearing on the registrar’s index of company names. In addition, however, a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.

(c) Under ss.69–74 of CA 2006 a new procedure has been introduced to cover situations where a company has been registered with a name
(i) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or
(ii) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant (s.69).
Section 69 can be used not just by other companies but by any person to object to a company names adjudicator if a company’s name is similar to a name in which the applicant has goodwill. There is list of circumstances raising a presumption that a name was adopted legitimately, however even then, if the objector can show that the name was registered either, to obtain money from them, or to prevent them from using the name, then they will be entitled to an order to require the company to change its name.
Under s.70 the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint company names adjudicators and their staff and to finance their activities, with one person being appointed Chief Adjudicator.
Section 71 provides the Secretary of State with power to make rules for the proceedings before a company names adjudicator.
Section 72 provides that the decision of an adjudicator and the reasons for it, are to be published within 90 days of the decision.
Section 73 provides that if an objection is upheld, then the adjudicator is to direct the company with the offending name to change its name to one that does not similarly offend. A deadline must be set for the change. If the offending name is not changed, then the adjudicator will decide a new name for the company.
Under s.74 either party may appeal to a court against the decision of the company names adjudicator. The court can either uphold or reverse the adjudicator’s decision, and may make any order that the adjudicator might have made.