ACCA证书注册及领取知识！

正确答案：
(a) To: John Dixon
From: Change Management consultant
Changes to policing and impact on the city’s quality of life
This is a complex problem involving different stakeholders each of which is looking for different results from the policing
system. The recognition of the need to change is one of the most difficult parts of the change process. There will be
considerable commitment to the current ways of doing things reinforced by the ways in which performance is measured. The
various stakeholders involved will have different perceptions of the problem and the need for change. They will have different
levels of power and influence and different levels of interest in seeing the change happen. Mendelow’s model for mapping
may prove useful in understanding how to handle the expectations of the different groups. The key players would clearly be
the senior officers in charge of the city’s districts who will be responsible for implementing any change in the way the city is
policed. You will have to decide how to convince these officers that a change to the way they currently do things is needed.
One suggestion is that they actually get first-hand experience of the conditions being faced by the city’s residents. Another
group with significant power and interest are the courts because if they refuse to process the cases of antisocial behaviour
then the whole strategy will fail. However, the interest of the mayor and the media in the reputation the city has gained may
be used to counter the reluctance of the courts to take on the extra workload.
One of the most popular models for understanding change and likely resistance to it, is to carry out a forcefield analysis.
Johnson, Scholes and Whittington argue that such an analysis ‘provides an initial view of change problems that need to be
tackled, by identifying forces for and against change’. They ask three key questions:
What aspects of the current situation might aid change in the desired direction, and how might these be reinforced?
What aspects of the current situation would block such a change, and how can these be overcome?
What needs to be introduced or developed to aid change?

Forcefield analysis
Pushing Resisting
Residents’ desire for safer city Police commitment to serious crime
Mayor of city – city’s reputation District focus and not city concern
John Dixon’s desire for change Traditional performance measures
Courts fear of increased workload
Police resources over committed
Forcefield analysis was first developed by Kurt Lewin and linked to his 3-step model of change where to accomplish desired
change it is necessary to get the various stakeholders to recognise the need for change and unfreeze the situation. This will
require you to use some or all of the styles of managing change explained below. One of the real problems is that each
stakeholder will feel that they have an objective view of the situation. Getting a shared view may be very difficult to achieve
and require real leadership on your part.
Once the need to change is agreed there will need to be major changes in the way the city is policed to achieve the desired
goal of eliminating antisocial behaviour and improving the quality-of-life for the city’s residents. Real change will be needed
to the way in which police resources are deployed, the systems used to police on a city rather than on a district basis and
the way results are measured and publicised. There will be a need for ‘quick wins’ to show the potential positive results
achievable with the new strategy.
Finally, rewards and sanctions must be put in place to re-enforce the desired state of affairs and prevent behaviours slipping
back to the previous position. Here you will need to look at how to refreeze the situation and clearly show how the new
position means that the goals of the city and its stakeholders are really shared.
There are many available change models for a programme such as this such as the Gemini 4Rs framework and most will
look to assess the scope of change required and the timeframe. available to achieve it. Undoubtedly, you will require many ofthe skills associated with project management in a major change programme such as this.
Yours,

正确答案：
6 There are many forms of communication within an organisation, both formal and informal. Formally communicated information often flows in one of three main directions: downwards, upwards and lateral. However, all organisations also have informal communication channels and management must understand their importance.
(a) Formal communicated information flows in three main directions.
(i) Downwards. This form. of communication is often the one most easily recognised and understood. The purpose of downward communication is to give specific directives, to provide information about procedures and practices and to provide information about work practices. It also serves to tell employees about their performance and provides information on organisational and departmental objectives.

正确答案：
(b) [Joanne’s address] [Firm’s address]
Dear Joanne 5 February 2006
I am writing to you in order to set out the value added tax (VAT) issues you face on registering your trade, together with some
other aspects of VAT that are relevant to you.
Registration
VAT registration is compulsory once taxable supplies exceed ￡58,000. This turnover figure is based on the value of your
cumulative taxable supplies in the previous 12 months. You have an obligation to inform. Customs within 30 days of the end
of the month in which the annual limit is exceeded. Registration will become effective on the first day of the following month.
VAT registration is also required if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the taxable supplies in the following 30 days
will exceed ￡58,000. In such cases, notification is required by the end of that 30 day period with registration being effective
from the start of that period.
Based on your estimates of taxable supplies, you will exceed the annual limit in October 2006 when your cumulative turnover
will be ￡62,000. You will therefore have to inform. Customs by the end of November. Your registration will be effective as of
1 December 2006.
You also have the option of voluntarily registering prior to then in which case you will normally become registered from the
date you applied. This is useful where your sales are to VAT registered customers for whom the extra VAT would not be a cost.
You would then be able to recover VAT on your attributable costs. However, you will have to comply with the VAT
administrative requirements.
Recovery of pre-registration VAT
It is possible to claim the recovery of VAT incurred prior to registering for VAT. There are some conditions, however. The costs
of the goods or services must have been incurred for the purpose of the business and there are time limits. You have three
years from the effective date of registration to recover the VAT on fixed assets (such as your computer) but only six months in
the case of purchased services (such as the consultancy fees).
As a result, I would recommend that you apply for voluntary registration as soon as possible, as registering after 1 April 2006
will mean that you will be unable to reclaim the VAT on your consultancy fees.
I hope the above information is useful to you.
Yours sincerely,
A. Consultant.

正确答案：
4 (i) Proposed dividend
The dividend was proposed after the balance sheet date and the company, therefore, did not have a liability at the balance
sheet date. No provision for the dividend should be recognised. The approval by the directors and the shareholders are
enough to create a valid expectation that the payment will be made and give rise to an obligation. However, this occurred
after the current year end and, therefore, will be charged against the profits for the year ending 31 October 2006.
The existence of a good record of dividend payments and an established dividend policy does not create a valid expectation
or an obligation. However, the proposed dividend will be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements as the directors
approved it prior to the authorisation of the financial statements.
(ii) Disposal of subsidiary
It would appear that the loss on the sale of the subsidiary provides evidence that the value of the consolidated net assets of
the subsidiary was impaired at the year end as there has been no significant event since 31 October 2005 which would have
caused the reduction in the value of the subsidiary. The disposal loss provides evidence of the impairment and, therefore,
the value of the net assets and goodwill should be reduced by the loss of $9 million plus the loss ($2 million) to the date of
the disposal, i.e. $11 million. The sale provides evidence of a condition that must have existed at the balance sheet date
(IAS10). This amount will be charged to the income statement and written off goodwill of $12 million, leaving a balance of
$1 million on that account. The subsidiary’s assets are impaired because the carrying values are not recoverable. The net
assets and goodwill of Krup would form. a separate income generating unit as the subsidiary is being disposed of before the
financial statements are authorised. The recoverable amount will be the sale proceeds at the date of sale and represents the
value-in-use to the group. The impairment loss is effectively taking account of the ultimate loss on sale at an earlier point in
time. IFRS5, ‘Non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations’, will not apply as the company had no intention
of selling the subsidiary at the year end. IAS10 would require disclosure of the disposal of the subsidiary as a non-adjusting
event after the balance sheet date.
(iii) Issue of ordinary shares
IAS33 ‘Earnings per share’ states that if there is a bonus issue after the year end but before the date of the approval of the
financial statements, then the earnings per share figure should be based on the new number of shares issued. Additionally
a company should disclose details of all material ordinary share transactions or potential transactions entered into after the
balance sheet date other than the bonus issue or similar events (IAS10/IAS33). The principle is that if there has been a
change in the number of shares in issue without a change in the resources of the company, then the earnings per share
calculation should be based on the new number of shares even though the number of shares used in the earnings per share
calculation will be inconsistent with the number shown in the balance sheet. The conditions relating to the share issue
(contingent) have been met by the end of the period. Although the shares were issued after the balance sheet date, the issue
of the shares was no longer contingent at 31 October 2005, and therefore the relevant shares will be included in the
computation of both basic and diluted EPS. Thus, in this case both the bonus issue and the contingent consideration issue
should be taken into account in the earnings per share calculation and disclosure made to that effect. Any subsequent change
in the estimate of the contingent consideration will be adjusted in the period when the revision is made in accordance with
IAS8.
Additionally IFRS3 ‘Business Combinations’ requires the fair value of all types of consideration to be reflected in the cost of
the acquisition. The contingent consideration should be included in the cost of the business combination at the acquisition
date if the adjustment is probable and can be measured reliably. In the case of Metalic, the contingent consideration has
been paid in the post-balance sheet period and the value of such consideration can be determined ($11 per share). Thus
an accurate calculation of the goodwill arising on the acquisition of Metalic can be made in the period to 31 October 2005.
Prior to the issue of the shares on 12 November 2005, a value of $10 per share would have been used to value the
contingent consideration. The payment of the contingent consideration was probable because the average profits of Metalic
averaged over $7 million for several years. At 31 October 2005 the value of the contingent shares would be included in a
separate category of equity until they were issued on 12 November 2005 when they would be transferred to the share capital
and share premium account. Goodwill will increase by 300,000 x ($11 – $10) i.e. $300,000.
(iv) Property
IFRS5 (paragraph 7) states that for a non-current asset to be classified as held for sale, the asset must be available for
immediate sale in its present condition subject to the usual selling terms, and its sale must be highly probable. The delay in
this case in the selling of the property would indicate that at 31 October 2005 the property was not available for sale. The
property was not to be made available for sale until the repairs were completed and thus could not have been available for
sale at the year end. If the criteria are met after the year end (in this case on 30 November 2005), then the non-current
asset should not be classified as held for sale in the previous financial statements. However, disclosure of the event should
be made if it meets the criteria before the financial statements are authorised (IFRS5 paragraph 12). Thus in this case,
disclosure should be made.
The property on the application of IFRS5 should have been carried at the lower of its carrying amount and fair value less
costs to sell. However, the company has simply used fair value less costs to sell as the basis of valuation and shown the
property at $27 million in the financial statements.
The carrying amount of the property would have been $20 million less depreciation $1 million, i.e. $19 million. Because
the property is not held for sale under IFRS5, then its classification in the balance sheet will change and the property will be
valued at $19 million. Thus the gain of $7 million on the wrong application of IFRS5 will be deducted from reserves, and
the property included in property, plant and equipment. Total equity will therefore be reduced by $8 million.
(v) Share appreciation rights
IFRS2 ‘Share-based payment’ (paragraph 30) requires a company to re-measure the fair value of a liability to pay cash-settled
share based payment transactions at each reporting date and the settlement date, until the liability is settled. An example of
such a transaction is share appreciation rights. Thus the company should recognise a liability of ($8 x 10 million shares),
i.e. $80 million at 31 October 2005, the vesting date. The liability recognised at 31 October 2005 was in fact based on the
share price at the previous year end and would have been shown at ($6 x 1/2) x 10 million shares, i.e. $30 million. This
liability at 31 October 2005 had not been changed since the previous year end by the company. The SARs vest over a twoyear
period and thus at 31 October 2004 there would be a weighting of the eventual cost by 1 year/2 years. Therefore, an
additional liability and expense of $50 million should be accounted for in the financial statements at 31 October 2005. The
SARs would be settled on 1 December 2005 at $9 x 10 million shares, i.e. $90 million. The increase in the value of the
SARs since the year end would not be accrued in the financial statements but charged to profit or loss in the year ended31 October 2006.