2020年江西省7月ACCA考试成绩查询时间

正确答案：
5 BARTOLOME
(a) Senior audit staff leaving for employment with client
Ethical and professional issues
■ Leon’s independence is in doubt as he is threatened by self-interest. Leon’s objectivity in relation to the audit may be
influenced by a desire to please and impress Moreno, as a prospective employer.
■ There appears to be a lack of integrity on the part of James and/or Leon:
? Leon should have confided in an appropriately senior manager/partner of Bartolome. In not doing so he has
compromised the firm by having applied for a position with a client whilst assigned to the client.
? James may lack integrity in having advised Bartolome of the short-listing if he gave an undertaking to Leon not to
do so. (Conversely, James may be acting with integrity in advising Bartolome and as a matter of professional
courtesy.)
■ Leon should be removed from the audit assignment immediately regardless of whether or not he is finally appointed by
Moreno.
■ Leon should be given an oral warning (assuming this to be a first offence) for failing to adhere to Bartolome’s quality
control policies and procedures (requiring disclosure to the firm of any threat of involvement with an audit client).
■ The working papers for all interim audit work relating to Moreno performed under the supervision of Leon should be
reviewed as soon as possible, before the balance sheet date (at the end of the month).
Implications for continuation with assignment
The assignment can be properly continued with a new senior in charge of the audit of the financial statements for the year
ending 30 June 2005. Any planning of the year end and final audit work by Leon should be reviewed, amended as necessary
and approved before any further work is undertaken.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Cost of investment on acquisition of Dylan Co
Matters to consider
According to the schedule provided by the client, the cost of investment comprises three elements. One matter to
consider is whether the cost of investment is complete.
It appears that no legal or professional fees have been included in the cost of investment (unless included within the
heading ‘cash consideration’). Directly attributable costs should be included per IFRS 3 Business Combinations, and
there is a risk that these costs may be expensed in error, leading to understatement of the investment.
The cash consideration of $2·5 million is the least problematical component. The only matter to consider is whether the
cash has actually been paid. Given that Dylan Co was acquired in the last month of the financial year it is possible that
the amount had not been paid before the year end, in which case the amount should be recognised as a current liability
on the statement of financial position (balance sheet). However, this seems unlikely given that normally control of an
acquired company only passes to the acquirer on cash payment.
IFRS 3 states that the cost of investment should be recognised at fair value, which means that deferred consideration
should be discounted to present value at the date of acquisition. If the consideration payable on 31 January 2009 has
not been discounted, the cost of investment, and the corresponding liability, will be overstated. It is possible that the
impact of discounting the $1·5 million payable one year after acquisition would be immaterial to the financial
statements, in which case it would be acceptable to leave the consideration at face value within the cost of investment.
Contingent consideration should be accrued if it is probable to be paid. Here the amount is payable if revenue growth
targets are achieved over the next four years. The auditor must therefore assess the probability of the targets being
achieved, using forecasts and projections of Maxwell Co’s revenue. Such information is inherently subjective, and could
have been manipulated, if prepared by the vendor of Maxwell Co, in order to secure the deal and maximise
consideration. Here it will be crucial to be sceptical when reviewing the forecasts, and the assumptions underlying the
data. The management of Rosie Co should have reached their own opinion on the probability of paying the contingent
consideration, but they may have relied heavily on information provided at the time of the acquisition.
Audit evidence
– Agreement of the monetary value and payment dates of the consideration per the client schedule to legal
documentation signed by vendor and acquirer.
– Agreement of $2·5 million paid to Rosie Co’s bank statement and cash book prior to year end. If payment occurs
after year end confirm that a current liability is recognised on the individual company and consolidated statement
of financial position (balance sheet).
– Board minutes approving the payment.
– Recomputation of discounting calculations applied to deferred and contingent consideration.
– Agreement that the discount rate used is pre-tax, and reflects current market assessment of the time value of money
(e.g. by comparison to Rosie Co’s weighted average cost of capital).
– Revenue and profit projections for the period until January 2012, checked for arithmetic accuracy.
– A review of assumptions used in the projections, and agreement that the assumptions are comparable with the
auditor’s understanding of Dylan Co’s business.
Tutorial note: As the scenario states that Chien & Co has audited Dylan Co for several years, it is reasonable to rely on
their cumulative knowledge and understanding of the business in auditing the revenue projections.

正确答案：
(c) Fiduciary responsibility
Definition of ‘fiduciary responsibility’
A fiduciary responsibility is a duty of trust and care towards one or more constituencies. It describes direction of accountability
in that one party has a fiduciary duty to another. In terms of the case, the question refers to whose interests the directors of
the football club should act in. Traditionally, the fiduciary duty of directors in public companies is to act in the economic
interests of shareholders who invest in the company but are unable to manage the company directly. The case raises a number
of issues concerning broadening the fiduciary duties of the directors of the football club with regard to the building of the new
stadium, to other stakeholder groups.
The case for extending fiduciary responsibility
Although the primary fiduciary duty of directors in large public companies will be to shareholders, directors in businesses such
as the football club described in the case may have good reason to broaden their views on fiduciary responsibility. This would
involve taking into account, and acting in the interests of, the local wildlife centre, the residents, the school, the local
government authority and the fans. The stakeholders in the case are not in agreement on the outcome for the new stadium
and the club will need to privilege some stakeholders over others, which is a common situation whenever a proposal involving
multiple impacts is considered. The specific arguments for broadening the fiduciary duties in this case include the following:
Such an acceptance of claims made on the football club would clearly demonstrate that the club values the community of
which it considers itself a part.
It would help to maintain and manage its local reputation, which is important in progressing the stadium project.
To broaden the fiduciary responsibility in this case would be to an important part of the risk management strategy, especially
with regard to risks that could arise from the actions of local stakeholders.
It could be argued that there is a moral case for all organisations to include other stakeholders’ claims in their strategies as it
enfranchises and captures the views of those affected by an organisation’s policies and actions.

正确答案：
(b) A central feature of many performance measurement systems is the widespread use of league tables that display each
business unit’s performance relative to one another. In the case of service organisations such as TSC the use of league tables
emphasises the company’s critical success factors of profitability and quality of service by reporting results on a weekly basis
at the depot level. The fact that such league tables are used by management will actively encourage competition, in terms of
performance, among depots. The individual position of a business unit in the league table is keenly observed both by the
manager of that unit and his/her peers.
In theory, performance is transparent. In practice although each depot performs essentially the same function and is subject
to the same modes of measurement, circumstances pertaining to different business units may vary significantly. Some depots
may be situated near to the hub (main distribution centre), some may be located far away and some may be in urban zones
with well developed road networks whilst others may be in remote rural areas. Measuring performance via a league table
makes no allowance whatsoever for these relative differences, hence, inequality is built into the performance measurement
system.
Moreover, depot managers might be held responsible for areas over which they have no formal control. The network nature
of the business suggests that there will be a high degree of interdependence of depots; the depot responsible for collection
will very often not be the depot responsible for delivery. Therefore, it is frequently the case that business may be gained for
which the collecting depot receives the revenue, but for which the delivering depot bears the cost. Obviously this impacts
upon the profit statements of both depots. The formal system might not recognise such difficulties, the corporate view being
that ‘the business needs to be managed’; the depots should therefore see any such anomalies as mild constraints to work
around rather than barriers to break down. In such circumstances delivering depots and collecting depots should discuss such
problems on an informal basis. Such informal discussions are aided by close communications between depots recognising
the interdependencies of the business.