ACCA考试的注册费用是多少？

正确答案：A

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：
(c) It has become increasingly common for audit firms to include a disclaimer paragraph within the audit report. However, it is
not a requirement of auditing standards and individual audit firms need to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the
use of a disclaimer paragraph.
The wording is used to state the fact that the auditor’s report is intended solely for the use of the company’s members as a
body, and that no responsibility is accepted or assumed to anyone other than the company and the company’s members as
a body.
The main perceived advantage is that the disclaimer should help to reduce the exposure of the audit firm to liability claims
from anyone other than the company or the company’s body of shareholders. The disclaimer makes it clear that the audit
firm reports only to those who appointed the firm, i.e. the members of the company, and this may make it more difficult for
the audit firm to be sued by a third party.
It is also argued that the use of a disclaimer could help to bridge the ‘expectation gap’ by providing a clearer indication of the
responsibility of the auditor.
In this way the audit firm can manage its risk exposure in an increasingly litigious environment. Recent high profile legal cases
against audit firms, such as the Bannerman case in Scotland, illustrate that an audit firm’s duty of care can extend beyond
the company and its shareholders, and that audit firms should consider how to protect themselves against liability claims.
Tutorial note: It is appropriate here to quote recent cases such as the Bannerman case to illustrate the reason why audit
firms face increased potential exposure to claims from third parties. However, knowledge of specific legal cases is not
required to gain full marks for this requirement.
However, it can be argued that a disclaimer does not necessarily work to protect an audit firm. Each legal case has individual
circumstances, and while a disclaimer might protect the audit firm in one situation, equally it may not offer any protection
where the facts of the case are different.
In addition, it is often argued that if an audit firm conducts an audit using full due care and diligence, there is no need for a
disclaimer, as a high quality audit would be very unlikely to lead to any claims against the audit firm. Consequently, it could
be argued that the use of disclaimers as a means to limit liability could permit low quality audits to be performed, the auditors
being confident that legal cases against them are restricted due to the presence of a disclaimer within the audit report.