你知道ACCA机考中常用的Excel公式吗？

正确答案：

(iii) Internal audit services
A self-review threat may be created when a firm, or network firm, provides internal audit services to a financial statement
audit client. Internal audit services may comprise:
■ an extension of the firm’s audit service beyond requirements of International Standards on Auditing (ISAs);
■ assistance in the performance of a client’s internal audit activities; or
■ outsourcing of the activities.
The nature of the service must be considered in evaluating any threats to independence. (For this purpose, internal audit
services do not include operational internal audit services unrelated to the internal accounting controls, financial systems
or financial statements.)
Services involving an extension of the procedures required to conduct a financial statement audit in accordance with
ISAs would not be considered to impair independence with respect to the audit client provided that the firm’s or network
firm’s personnel do not act or appear to act in a capacity equivalent to a member of audit client management.

When the firm, or a network firm, provides an audit client with assistance in the performance of internal audit activities
or undertakes the outsourcing, any self-review threat created may be reduced to an acceptable level by a clear separation
of:
■ the management and control of the internal audit by client management;
■ the internal audit activities.
Performing a significant portion of an audit client’s internal audit activities may create a self-review threat. Appropriate
safeguards should include the audit client’s acknowledgement of its responsibilities for establishing, maintaining and
monitoring the system of internal controls.
Other safeguards include:
■ the audit client designating a competent employee, preferably within senior management, to be responsible for
internal audit activities;
■ the audit client, audit committee or supervisory body approving the scope, risk and frequency of internal audit
work;
■ the audit client being responsible for evaluating and determining which recommendations of the firm should be
implemented;
■ the audit client evaluating the adequacy of the internal audit procedures performed and the resultant findings by
obtaining and acting on reports from the firm; and
■ appropriate reporting of findings and recommendations resulting from the internal audit activities to the audit
committee or supervisory body.
Consideration should also be given to whether such non-assurance services should be provided only by personnel not
involved in the financial statement audit engagement and with different reporting lines within the firm.

正确答案：
(ii) Shares held in Date Inc and the related dividend income
Degrouping charge
There will be a degrouping charge in Nikau Ltd in the year ending 31 March 2008 in respect of the shares in Date Inc.
This is because Nikau Ltd has left the Facet Group within six years of the no gain, no loss transfer of the shares whilst
still owning them.
Nikau Ltd is treated as if it has sold the shares in Date Inc for their market value as at the time of the no gain, no loss
transfer. This will give rise to a gain, ignoring indexation allowance, of ￡201,000 (￡338,000 – ￡137,000).
This gain will give rise to additional corporation tax of ￡60,300 (￡201,000 x 30%).
Controlled foreign company
Date Inc is a controlled foreign company. The profits of such a company are normally attributed to its UK resident
shareholders such that they are subject to UK corporation tax.
However, none of the profits of Date Inc will be attributed to Nikau Ltd because Date Inc distributes more than 90%
(￡115,000/￡120,000 = 95·8%) of its chargeable profits to its shareholders.
Dividend income
Nikau Ltd is a UK resident company and is therefore subject to corporation tax on its worldwide income.
The dividend income will be grossed up in respect of the withholding tax giving rise to taxable income of ￡39,792
(￡38,200 x 100/96). There is no underlying tax as there are no taxes on income or capital profits in Palladia.
The corporation tax of ￡11,938 (￡39,792 x 30%) will be reduced by unilateral double tax relief equal to the withholding
tax suffered of ￡1,592 (￡39,792 x 4%) resulting in corporation tax due of ￡10,346 (￡11,938 – ￡1,592).

正确答案：
(d) Factors that should be considered by the directors of ITL include:
(i) The cash flows are estimated. How accurate they are requires detailed consideration.
(ii) The cost of capital used by the finance director might be inappropriate. For example if the Snowballer proposal is less
risky than other projects undertaken by ITL then a lower cost of capital should be used.
(iii) The rate of inflation may vary from the anticipated rate of 4% per annum.
(iv) How strong is the Olympic brand name? The directors are proposing to pay royalties equivalent to 6% of sales revenue
during the six years of the anticipated life of the project. Should they market the Snowballer themselves?
(v) Would competitors enter the market and what would be the likely effect on sales volumes and selling prices?
N.B: Only three factors were required.

正确答案：
(b) Sale of industrial equipment
(i) Matters
■ The industrial equipment was in use for nine years (from April 1996) and would have had a carrying value of
$660,000 at 31 March 2005 (11/20 × $1·2m – assuming nil residual value and a full year’s depreciation charge
in the year of acquisition and none in the year of disposal). Disposal proceeds were therefore only $360,000.
■ The $0·3m loss represents 15% of PBT (for the year to 31 March 2006) and is therefore material. The equipment
was material to the balance sheet at 31 March 2005 representing 2·6% of total assets ($0·66/$25·7 × 100).
■ Separate disclosure, of a material loss on disposal, on the face of the income statement is in accordance with
IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’. However, in accordance with IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’,
it should not be captioned in any way that might suggest that it is not part of normal operating activities (i.e. not
‘extraordinary’, ‘exceptional’, etc).
Tutorial note: However, note that if there is a prior period error to be accounted for (see later), there would be
no impact on the current period income statement requiring consideration of any disclosure.
■ The reason for the sale. For example, whether the equipment was:
– surplus to operating requirements (i.e. not being replaced); or
– being replaced with newer equipment (thereby contributing to the $8·1m increase (33·8 – 25·7) in total
assets).
■ The reason for the loss on sale. For example, whether:
– the sale was at an under-value (e.g. to a related party);
– the equipment had a bad maintenance history (or was otherwise impaired);
– the useful life of the equipment is less than 20 years;
– there is any deferred consideration not yet recorded;
– any non-cash disposal proceeds have been overlooked (e.g. if another asset was acquired in a part-exchange).
■ If the useful life was less than 20 years, tangible non-current assets may be materially overstated in respect of other
items of equipment that are still in use and being depreciated on the same basis.
■ If the sale was to a related party then additional disclosure should be required in a note to the financial statements
for the year to 31 March 2006 (IAS 24 ‘Related Party Disclosures’).
Tutorial note: Since there are no specific pointers to a related party transaction (RPT), this point is not expanded
on.
■ Whether the sale was identified in the prior year audit’s post balance sheet event review. If so:
– the disclosure made in the prior year’s financial statements (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’);
– whether an impairment loss was recognised at 31 March 2005.
■ If not, and the equipment was impaired at 31 March 2005, a prior period error should be accounted for (IAS 8
‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’). An impairment loss of $0·3m would have
been material to prior year profit (12·5%).
Tutorial note: Unless this was a RPT or the impairment arose after 31 March 2005 a prior period adjustment
should be made.
■ Failure to account for a prior period error (if any) would result in modification of the audit opinion ‘except for’ noncompliance
with IAS 8 (in the current year) and IAS 36 (in the prior period).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Carrying amount ($0·66m as above) agreed to the non-current asset register balances at 31 March 2005 and
recalculation of the loss on disposal.
■ Cost and accumulated depreciation removed from the asset register in the year to 31 March 2006.
■ Receipt of proceeds per cash book agreed to bank statement.
■ Sales invoice transferring title to Deakin.
■ A review of maintenance expenses and records (e.g. to confirm reason for loss on sale).
■ Post balance sheet event review on prior year audit working papers file.
■ Management representation confirming that Deakin is not a related party (provided that there is no evidence to
suggest otherwise).