ACCA考试成绩有没有有效期呢?

发布时间:2021-03-10


ACCA考试成绩有没有有效期呢?


最佳答案

成绩有设置有效期的,ACCA考试期限实行轮废制,即在一定时间里考完规定科目,否则成绩将会无效。根据新政策,专业阶段(P阶段)考试的时限将为7年。超过七年已通过科目成绩都将作废,必须重考。


下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题,供大家学习参考。

The following information is available for a manufacturing company which produces multiple products:

(i) The product mix ratio

(ii) Contribution to sales ratio for each product

(iii) General fixed costs

(iv) Method of apportioning general fixed costs

Which of the above are required in order to calculate the break-even sales revenue for the company?

A.All of the above

B.(i), (ii) and (iii) only

C.(i), (iii) and (iv) only

D.(ii) and (iii) only

正确答案:B

The method of apportioning general fixed costs is not required to calculate the break-even sales revenue.


3 You are the manager responsible for the audit of Lamont Co. The company’s principal activity is wholesaling frozen

fish. The draft consolidated financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2007 show revenue of $67·0 million

(2006 – $62·3 million), profit before taxation of $11·9 million (2006 – $14·2 million) and total assets of

$48·0 million (2006 – $36·4 million).

The following issues arising during the final audit have been noted on a schedule of points for your attention:

(a) In early 2007 a chemical leakage from refrigeration units owned by Lamont caused contamination of some of its

property. Lamont has incurred $0·3 million in clean up costs, $0·6 million in modernisation of the units to

prevent future leakage and a $30,000 fine to a regulatory agency. Apart from the fine, which has been expensed,

these costs have been capitalised as improvements. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Lamont Co for the year ended

31 March 2007.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues.

正确答案:
3 LAMONT CO
(a) Chemical leakage
(i) Matters
■ $30,000 fine is very immaterial (just 1/4% profit before tax). This is revenue expenditure and it is correct that it
has been expensed to the income statement.
■ $0·3 million represents 0·6% total assets and 2·5% profit before tax and is not material on its own. $0·6 million
represents 1·2% total assets and 5% profit before tax and is therefore material to the financial statements.
■ The $0·3 million clean-up costs should not have been capitalised as the condition of the property is not improved
as compared with its condition before the leakage occurred. Although not material in isolation this amount should
be adjusted for and expensed, thereby reducing the aggregate of uncorrected misstatements.
■ It may be correct that $0·6 million incurred in modernising the refrigeration units should be capitalised as a major
overhaul (IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment). However, any parts scrapped as a result of the modernisation
should be treated as disposals (i.e. written off to the income statement).
■ The carrying amount of the refrigeration units at 31 March 2007, including the $0·6 million for modernisation,
should not exceed recoverable amount (i.e. the higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell). If it does,
an allowance for the impairment loss arising must be recognised in accordance with IAS 36 Impairment of Assets.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A breakdown/analysis of costs incurred on the clean-up and modernisation amounting to $0·3 million and
$0·6 million respectively.
■ Agreement of largest amounts to invoices from suppliers/consultants/sub-contractors, etc and settlement thereof
traced from the cash book to the bank statement.
■ Physical inspection of the refrigeration units to confirm their modernisation and that they are in working order. (Do
they contain frozen fish?)
■ Sample of components selected from the non-current asset register traced to the refrigeration units and inspected
to ensure continuing existence.
■ $30,000 penalty notice from the regulatory agency and corresponding cash book payment/payment per the bank
statement.
■ Written management representation that there are no further penalties that should be provided for or disclosed other
than the $30,000 that has been accounted for.

(c) Explain the extent to which you should plan to place reliance on analytical procedures as audit evidence.

(6 marks)

正确答案:
(c) Extent of reliance on analytical procedures as audit evidence
Tutorial note: In the requirement ‘… reliance … as audit evidence’ is a direction to consider only substantive analytical
procedures. Answer points concerning planning and review stages were not asked for and earn no marks.
■ Although there is likely to be less reliance on analytical procedures than if this had been an existing audit client, the fact
that this is a new assignment does not preclude placing some reliance on such procedures.
■ Analytical procedures will not be relied on in respect of material items that require 100% testing. For example, additions
to property is likely to represent a very small number of transactions.
■ Analytical procedures alone may provide sufficient audit evidence on line items that are not individually material. For
example, inventory (less than 1/2% revenue and less than 1% total assets) may be shown to be materially correctly
stated through analytical procedures on consumable stores (i.e. fuel, lubricants, materials for servicing vehicles etc).
■ Substantive analytical procedures are best suited to large volume transactions (e.g. revenue, materials expense, staff
costs). If controls over the completeness, accuracy and validity of recording transactions in these areas are effective then
substantive analytical procedures showing that there are no unexpected fluctuations should reduce the need for
substantive detailed tests.
■ The extent of planned use will be dependent on the relationships expected between variables. (e.g. between items of
financial information and between items of financial and non-financial information). For example, if material costs rise
due to an increase in the level of business then a commensurate increase in revenue and staff costs might be expected
also.
■ ‘Proofs in total’ (or reasonableness tests) provide substantive evidence that income statement items are not materially
misstated. In the case of Yates these might be applied to staff costs (number of employees in each category ×
wage/salary rates, grossed up for social security, etc) and finance expense (interest rate × average monthly overdraft
balance).
■ However, such tests may have limited application, if any, if the population is not homogenous and cannot be subdivided.
For example, all the categories of non-current asset have a wide range of useful life. Therefore it would be
difficult/meaningless to apply an ‘average’ depreciation rate to all assets in the class to substantiate the total depreciation
expense for the year. (Although it might highlight a risk of potential over or understatement requiring further
investigation.)
■ Substantive analytical procedures are more likely to be used if there is relevant information available that is being used
by Yates. For example, as fuel costs will be significant, Yates may monitor consumption (e.g. miles per gallon (MPG)).
■ Analytical procedures may supplement alternative procedures that provide evidence regarding the same assertion. For
example, the review of after-date payments to confirm the completeness of trade payables may be supplemented by
calculations of average payment period on a monthly basis.
Tutorial note: Credit will be given for other relevant points drawn from the scenario. For example, the restructuring during
the previous year is likely to have caused fluctuations that may result in less reliance being placed on analytical procedures.

声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:contact@51tk.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。