2021年内蒙古ACCA考试成绩查询时间

正确答案：D

Statement (ii) is wrong as it reflects the common misconception that the shadow price is the maximum price which should be paid, rather than the maximum extra over the current purchase price.

Statement (iii) is wrong but could be thought to be correct if (ii) was wrongly assumed to be correct.

正确答案：
6 DEVELOPMENTS
General comments
Tutorial note: The following comments, that could be made in respect of any of the three areas of development, will be given
credit only once.
■ Audit scope – the scope of a statutory audit should be as necessary to form. an audit opinion (i.e. unlimited).
■ Audit work undertaken – the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures should be as necessary to implement the overall
audit plan.
(a) Fair value accounting
■ Different definitions of fair value exist (among financial reporting frameworks or for different assets and liabilities within
a particular framework). For example, under IFRS it is ‘the amount for which an asset could be exchanged (or a liability
settled) between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction’.
■ The term ‘fair value accounting’ is used to describe the measurement and disclosure of assets and/or liabilities at fair
value and the charging to profit and loss (or directly to equity) of any changes in fair value measurements.
■ Fair value accounting concerns measurements and disclosures but not initial recognition of assets and liabilities in
financial statements. It does not then, for example, affect the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures to confirm
the existence and completeness of rights and obligations.
■ Fair value may be determined with varying degrees of subjectivity. For example, there will be little (if any) subjectivity
for assets bought and sold in active and open markets that readily provide reliable information on the prices at which
exchange transactions occur. However, the valuation of assets with unique characteristics (or entity-specific assets) often
requires the projection and discounting of future cash flows.
■ The audit of estimates of fair values based on valuation models/techniques can be approached like other accounting
estimates (in accordance with ISA 540 ‘Audit of Accounting Estimates’). However, although the auditor should be able
to review and test the process used by management to develop the estimate, there may be:
? a much greater need for an independent estimate (and hence greater reliance on the work of experts in accordance
with ISA 620);
? no suitable subsequent events to confirm the estimate made (e.g. for assets that are held for use and not for
trading).
Tutorial note: Consider, for example, how the audit of ‘in-process research and development’ might compare with that
for an allowance for slow-moving inventory.
■ Different financial reporting frameworks require or permit a variety of fair value measures and disclosures in financial
statements. They also vary in the level of guidance provided (to preparers of the financial statements – and hence their
auditors). Under IFRS, certain fair values are based on management intent and ‘reasonable supportable assumptions’.
■ The audit of management intent potentially increases the auditor’s reliance on management representations. The auditor
must obtain such representations from the highest level of management and exercise an appropriate degree of
professional scepticism, being particularly alert to the implications of any conflicting evidence.
■ A significant development in international financial reporting is that it is no longer sufficient to report transactions and
past and future events that may only be possible. IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’ (Revised) requires that
key assumptions (and other key sources of estimation uncertainty) be disclosed. This requirement gives rise to yet
another area on which auditors may qualify their audit opinion, on grounds of disagreement, where such disclosure is
incorrect or inadequate.
■ Perhaps one of the most significant impacts of fair value accounting on audit work is that it necessarily increases it.
Consider for example, that even where the fair value of an asset is as easily vouched as original cost, fair value is
determined at least annually whereas historic cost is unchanged (and not re-vouched to original purchase
documentation).

正确答案：

The Company Directors Disqualification Act (CDDA) 1986 was introduced to control individuals who persistently abused the various privileges that accompany incorporation, most particularly the privilege of limited liability. The Act applies to more than just directors and the court may make an order preventing any person (without leave of the court) from being:
(i) a director of a company;
(ii) a liquidator or administrator of a company;
(iii) a receiver or manager of a company’s property; or
(iv) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned with or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company.
The CDDA 1986 identifies three distinct categories of conduct, which may, and in some circumstances must, lead the court to disqualify certain persons from being involved in the management of companies.
(a) General misconduct in connection with companies
This first category involves the following:
(i) A conviction for an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management or liquidation of a company or with the receivership or management of a company’s property (s.2 of the CDDA 1986). The maximum period for disqualification under s.2 is five years where the order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction, and 15 years in any other case.

(ii) Persistent breaches of companies legislation in relation to provisions which require any return, account or other document to be filed with, or notice of any matter to be given to, the registrar (s.3 of the CDDA 1986). Section 3 provides that a person is conclusively proved to be persistently in default where it is shown that, in the five years ending with the date of the application, he has been adjudged guilty of three or more defaults (s.3(2) of the CDDA 1986). This is without prejudice to proof of persistent default in any other manner. The maximum period of disqualification under this section is five years.
(iii) Fraud in connection with winding up (s.4 of the CDDA 1986). A court may make a disqualification order if, in the course of the winding up of a company, it appears that a person:
(1) has been guilty of an offence for which he is liable under s.993 of the CA 2006, that is, that he has knowingly been a party to the carrying on of the business of the company either with the intention of defrauding the company’s creditors or any other person or for any other fraudulent purpose; or
(2) has otherwise been guilty, while an officer or liquidator of the company or receiver or manager of the property of the company, of any fraud in relation to the company or of any breach of his duty as such officer, liquidator, receiver or manager (s.4(1)(b) of the CDDA 1986).
The maximum period of disqualification under this category is 15 years.(b) Disqualification for unfitness
The second category covers:
(i) disqualification of directors of companies which have become insolvent, who are found by the court to be unfit to be directors (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Under s. 6, the minimum period of disqualification is two years, up to a maximum of 15 years;
(ii) disqualification after investigation of a company under Pt XIV of the CA 1985 (it should be noted that this part of the previous Act still sets out the procedures for company investigations) (s.8 of the CDDA 1986). Once again, the maximum period of disqualification is 15 years.
Schedule 1 to the CDDA 1986 sets out certain particulars to which the court is to have regard in deciding whether a person’s conduct as a director makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. In addition, the courts have given indications as to what sort of behaviour will render a person liable to be considered unfit to act as a company director. Thus, in Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd (1988), it was stated that:
‘Ordinary commercial misjudgment is in itself not sufficient to justify disqualification. In the normal case, the conduct complained of must display a lack of commercial probity, although . . . in an extreme case of gross negligence or total incompetence, disqualification could be appropriate.’

(c) Other cases for disqualification
This third category relates to:
(i) participation in fraudulent or wrongful trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986 (s.10 of the CDDA 1986);
(ii) undischarged bankrupts acting as directors (s.11 of the CDDA 1986); and
(iii) failure to pay under a county court administration order (s.12 of the CDDA 1986).
For the purposes of most of the CDDA 1986, the court has discretion to make a disqualification order. Where, however, a person has been found to be an unfit director of an insolvent company, the court has a duty to make a disqualification order (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Anyone who acts in contravention of a disqualification order is liable:
(i) to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine, on conviction on indictment; or
(ii) to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, on conviction summarily (s.13 of the CDDA 1986).

正确答案：

You will be aware of the importance of accurate resource valuation to Worldwide Minerals (WM). Unfortunately, I have to
inform. you that the reserve of mallerite, one of our key minerals in a new area of exploration, was found to have been
overestimated after the purchase of a mine. It has been suggested that this information may have an effect on shareholder
value and so I thought it appropriate to write to inform. you of how the board intends to respond to the situation.
In particular, I would like to address two issues. It has been suggested that the overestimation arose because of issues with
the internal control systems at WM. I would firstly like to reassure you of the importance that your board places on sound
internal control systems and then I would like to highlight improvements to internal controls that we shall be implementing
to ensure that the problem should not recur.
(i) Importance of internal control
Internal control systems are essential in all public companies and Worldwide Minerals (WM) is no exception. If anything,
WM’s strategic position makes internal control even more important, operating as it does in many international situations
and dealing with minerals that must be guaranteed in terms of volume, grade and quality. Accordingly, your board
recognises that internal control underpins investor confidence. Investors have traditionally trusted WM’s management
because they have assumed it capable of managing its internal operations. This has, specifically, meant becoming aware
of and controlling known risks. Risks would not be known about and managed without adequate internal control
systems. Internal control, furthermore, helps to manage quality throughout the organisation and it provides
management with information on internal operations and compliance. These features are important in ensuring quality
at all stages in the WM value chain from the extraction of minerals to the delivery of product to our customers. Linked
to this is the importance of internal control in helping to expose and improve underperforming internal operations.
Finally, internal control systems are essential in providing information for internal and external reporting upon which, in
turn, investor confidence rests.
(ii) Proposals to improve internal systems at WM
As you may be aware, mineral estimation and measurement can be problematic, particularly in some regions. Indeed,
there are several factors that can lead to under or overestimation of reserves valuations as a result of geological survey
techniques and regional cultural/social factors. In the case of mallerite, however, the issues that have been brought to
the board’s attention are matters of internal control and it is to these that I would now like to turn.
In first instance, it is clear from the fact that the overestimate was made that we will need to audit geological reports at
an appropriate (and probably lower) level in the organisation in future.
Once a claim has been made about a given mineral resource level, especially one upon which investor returns might
depend, appropriate systems will be instituted to ask for and obtain evidence that such reserves have been correctly and
accurately quantified.
We will recognise that single and verbal source reports of reserve quantities may not necessarily be accurate. This was
one of the apparent causes of the overestimation of mallerite. A system of auditing actual reserves rather than relying
on verbal evidence will rectify this.
The purchase of any going concern business, such as the mallerite mine, is subject to due diligence. WM will be
examining its procedures in this area to ensure that they are fit for purpose in the way that they may not have been in
respect of the purchase of the mallerite mine. I will be taking all appropriate steps to ensure that all of these internal
control issues can be addressed in future.
Thank you for your continued support of Worldwide Minerals and I hope the foregoing goes some way to reassure you
that the company places the highest value on its investors and their loyalty.
Yours faithfully,
Tim Blake
Chairman