2019年北京ACCA报名条件

正确答案：
(b) Tiltman Co
Tiltman’s total assets at 31 March 2006 represent 29% (16·1/55·2 × 100) of Johnston’s total assets. The subsidiary is
therefore material to Johnston’s consolidated financial statements.
Tutorial note: Tiltman’s profit for the year is not relevant as the acquisition took place just before the year end and will
therefore have no impact on the consolidated income statement. Calculations of the effect on consolidated profit before
taxation are therefore inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(i) Inventory overvaluation
This should have been written off to the income statement in the year to 31 March 2005 and not spread over three
years (contrary to IAS 2 ‘Inventories’).
At 31 March 2006 inventory is overvalued by $0·9m. This represents all Tiltmans’s profit for the year and 5·6% of
total assets and is material. At 31 March 2005 inventory was materially overvalued by $1·8m ($1·7m reported profit
should have been a $0·1m loss).
Tutorial note: 1/3 of the overvaluation was written off in the prior period (i.e. year to 31 March 2005) instead of $2·7m.
That the prior period’s auditor’s report was unmodified means that the previous auditor concurred with an incorrect
accounting treatment (or otherwise gave an inappropriate audit opinion).
As the matter is material a prior period adjustment is required (IAS 8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’). $1·8m should be written off against opening reserves (i.e. restated as at 1 April 2005).
(ii) Restructuring provision
$2·3m expense has been charged to Tiltman’s profit and loss in arriving at a draft profit of $0·7m. This is very material.
(The provision represents 14·3% of Tiltman’s total assets and is material to the balance sheet date also.)
The provision for redundancies and onerous contracts should not have been made for the year ended 31 March 2006
unless there was a constructive obligation at the balance sheet date (IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’). So, unless the main features of the restructuring plan had been announced to those affected (i.e.
redundancy notifications issued to employees), the provision should be reversed. However, it should then be disclosed
as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’).
Given the short time (less than one month) between acquisition and the balance sheet it is very possible that a
constructive obligation does not arise at the balance sheet date. The relocation in May was only part of a restructuring
(and could be the first evidence that Johnston’s management has started to implement a restructuring plan).
There is a risk that goodwill on consolidation of Tiltman may be overstated in Johnston’s consolidated financial
statements. To avoid the $2·3 expense having a significant effect on post-acquisition profit (which may be negligible
due to the short time between acquisition and year end), Johnston may have recognised it as a liability in the
determination of goodwill on acquisition.
However, the execution of Tiltman’s restructuring plan, though made for the year ended 31 March 2006, was conditional
upon its acquisition by Johnston. It does not therefore represent, immediately before the business combination, a
present obligation of Johnston. Nor is it a contingent liability of Johnston immediately before the combination. Therefore
Johnston cannot recognise a liability for Tiltman’s restructuring plans as part of allocating the cost of the combination
(IFRS 3 ‘Business Combinations’).
Tiltman’s auditor’s report
The following adjustments are required to the financial statements:
■ restructuring provision, $2·3m, eliminated;
■ adequate disclosure of relocation as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event;
■ current period inventory written down by $0·9m;
■ prior period inventory (and reserves) written down by $1·8m.
Profit for the year to 31 March 2006 should be $3·9m ($0·7 + $0·9 + $2·3).
If all these adjustments are made the auditor’s report should be unmodified. Otherwise, the auditor’s report should be
qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of disagreement. If none of the adjustments are made, the qualification should still be
‘except for’ as the matters are not pervasive.
Johnston’s auditor’s report
If Tiltman’s auditor’s report is unmodified (because the required adjustments are made) the auditor’s report of Johnston
should be similarly unmodified. As Tiltman is wholly-owned by Johnston there should be no problem getting the
adjustments made.
If no adjustments were made in Tiltman’s financial statements, adjustments could be made on consolidation, if
necessary, to avoid modification of the auditor’s report on Johnston’s financial statements.
The effect of these adjustments on Tiltman’s net assets is an increase of $1·4m. Goodwill arising on consolidation (if
any) would be reduced by $1·4m. The reduction in consolidated total assets required ($0·9m + $1·4m) is therefore
the same as the reduction in consolidated total liabilities (i.e. $2·3m). $2·3m is material (4·2% consolidated total
assets). If Tiltman’s financial statements are not adjusted and no adjustments are made on consolidation, the
consolidated financial position (balance sheet) should be qualified ‘except for’. The results of operations (i.e. profit for
the period) should be unqualified (if permitted in the jurisdiction in which Johnston reports).
Adjustment in respect of the inventory valuation may not be required as Johnston should have consolidated inventory
at fair value on acquisition. In this case, consolidated total liabilities should be reduced by $2·3m and goodwill arising
on consolidation (if any) reduced by $2·3m.
Tutorial note: The effect of any possible goodwill impairment has been ignored as the subsidiary has only just been
acquired and the balance sheet date is very close to the date of acquisition.

正确答案：
(iii) Tethys Ltd – Sale of the manufacturing premises
Value added tax (VAT)
– The building is not a new building (i.e. it is more than three years old). Accordingly, the sale of the building is an
exempt supply and VAT should not be charged unless Tethys Ltd has opted to tax the building in the past.
Taxable profits on sale
– There will be no balancing adjustment in respect of industrial building allowances as the building is to be sold on
or after 21 March 2007.
– The capital gain arising on the sale of the building will be ￡97,760 (￡240,000 – (￡112,000 x 1·27)).
Rollover relief
– Tethys Ltd is not in a capital gains group with Saturn Ltd. Accordingly, rollover relief will only be available if Tethys
Ltd, rather than any of the other Saturn Ltd group companies, acquires sufficient qualifying business assets.
– The amount of sales proceeds not spent in the qualifying period is chargeable, i.e. ￡40,000 (￡240,000 –
￡200,000). The balance of the gain, ￡57,760 (￡97,760 – ￡40,000), can be rolled over.
– Qualifying business assets include land and buildings and fixed plant and machinery. The assets must be brought
into immediate use in the company’s trade.
– The assets must be acquired in the four-year period beginning one year prior to the sale of the manufacturing
premises.
Further information required:
– Whether or not Tethys Ltd has opted to tax the building in the past for the purposes of VAT.

正确答案：
4 NATE & CO
(a) – Money laundering is the process by which criminals attempt to conceal the true origin and ownership of the proceeds
of criminal activity, allowing them to maintain control over the proceeds, and ultimately providing a legitimate cover for
their sources of income. The objective of money laundering is to break the connection between the money, and the crime
that it resulted from.
– It is widely defined, to include possession of, or concealment of, the proceeds of any crime.
– Examples include proceeds of fraud, tax evasion and benefits of bribery and corruption.
Client procedures should include the following:
– Client identification:
? Establish the identity of the entity and its business activity e.g. by obtaining a certificate of incorporation
? If the client is an individual, obtain official documentation including a name and address, e.g. by looking at
photographic identification such as passports and driving licences
? Consider whether the commercial activity makes business sense (i.e. it is not just a ‘front’ for illegal activities)
? Obtain evidence of the company’s registered address e.g. by obtaining headed letter paper
? Establish the current list of principal shareholders and directors.
– Client understanding:
? Pre-engagement communication may be considered, to explain to Marcellus Fisher and the other directors the
nature and reason for client acceptance procedures.
? Best practice recommends that the engagement letter should also include a paragraph outlining the auditor’s
responsibilities in relation to money laundering.

正确答案：
(b) Unmodified auditor’s reports
Ethical and professional issues
■ An unmodified opinion means, inter alia, that:
– there are no material matters giving rise to disagreement with the auditor; and
– the auditor’s report does not include an emphasis of matter paragraph (e.g. regarding going concern).
■ By implication the auditor must have obtained sufficient appropriate evidence that notwithstanding the losses:
– the going concern basis is appropriate to Ayora’s financial statements and any related matters (e.g. parental
support) are adequately disclosed therein;
– goodwill in Chatam’s consolidated financial statements is not materially impaired.
■ Management’s written representation (that the goodwill is not impaired) must have been necessary (otherwise it should
not have been asked for). This means that Bartolome does not have sufficient other audit evidence. This seems dubious
as management should have carried out an impairment test to satisfy themselves that goodwill is not impaired. This
test should similarly have satisfied Bartolome.
■ If there is evidence that goodwill is impaired management’s refusal to write it down might be considered a fraud.
■ The matter may cast doubt on the quality of audit evidence obtained in other areas. All other matters on which
management representations have been obtained should be reviewed by another audit partner/manager.
■ Charles Barrington is retiring next year and his share options would presumably be worth less if goodwill were written
down. His position in this long-standing client suggests a familiarity threat.
■ Bartolome may be threatened by self-interest to accept the representation as sufficient in order to retain the client.
■ Bartolome may be unduly influenced by a combination of factors (familiarity and previous experience) and failing to
exercise the necessary degree of professional scepticism.
Implications for continuation with assignment
There is no reason why the audit should not be continued. However, a change in senior audit staff and audit manager may
be overdue. The unmodified auditor’s reports should be subject to a cold review and any quality control issues raised with
the staff who conducted the audit.