2020年河北ACCA考试准考证打印时间考前两周

正确答案：

正确答案：
3 Poppy Co
(a) Balances held at fair value are frequently recognised as material items in the statement of financial position. Sometimes it is
required by the financial reporting framework that the measurement of an asset or liability is at fair value, e.g. certain
categories of financial instruments, whereas it is sometimes the entity’s choice to measure an item using a fair value model
rather than a cost model, e.g. properties. It is certainly the case that many of these balances will be material, meaning that
the auditor must obtain sufficient appropriate evidence that the fair value measurement is in accordance with the
requirements of financial reporting standards. ISA 540 (Revised and Redrafted) Auditing Accounting Estimates Including Fair
Value Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures and ISA 545 Auditing Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures
contain guidance in this area.
As part of the understanding of the entity and its environment, the auditor should gain an insight into balances that are stated
at fair value, and then assess the impact of this on the audit strategy. This will include an evaluation of the risk associated
with the balance(s) recognised at fair value.
Audit risk comprises three elements; each is discussed below in the context of whether material balances shown at fair value
will lead to increased risk for the auditor.
Inherent risk
Many measurements based on estimates, including fair value measurements, are inherently imprecise and subjective in
nature. The fair value assessment is likely to involve significant judgments, e.g. regarding market conditions, the timing of
cash flows, or the future intentions of the entity. In addition, there may be a deliberate attempt by management to manipulate
the fair value to achieve a desired aim within the financial statements, in other words to attempt some kind of window
dressing.
Many fair value estimation models are complicated, e.g. discounted cash flow techniques, or the actuarial calculations used
to determine the value of a pension fund. Any complicated calculations are relatively high risk, as difficult valuation techniques
are simply more likely to contain errors than simple valuation techniques. However, there will be some items shown at fair
value which have a low inherent risk, because the measurement of fair value may be relatively straightforward, e.g. assets
that are regularly bought and sold on open markets that provide readily available and reliable information on the market prices
at which actual exchanges occur.
In addition to the complexities discussed above, some fair value measurement techniques will contain significant
assumptions, e.g. the most appropriate discount factor to use, or judgments over the future use of an asset. Management
may not always have sufficient experience and knowledge in making these judgments.
Thus the auditor should approach some balances recognised at fair value as having a relatively high inherent risk, as their
subjective and complex nature means that the balance is prone to contain an error. However, the auditor should not just
assume that all fair value items contain high inherent risk – each balance recognised at fair value should be assessed for its
individual level of risk.
Control risk
The risk that the entity’s internal monitoring system fails to prevent and detect valuation errors needs to be assessed as part
of overall audit risk assessment. One problem is that the fair value assessment is likely to be performed once a year, outside
the normal accounting and management systems, especially where the valuation is performed by an external specialist.
Therefore, as a non-routine event, the assessment of fair value is likely not to have the same level of monitoring or controls
as a day-to-day business transaction.
However, due to the material impact of fair values on the statement of financial position, and in some circumstances on profit,
management may have made great effort to ensure that the assessment is highly monitored and controlled. It therefore could
be the case that there is extremely low control risk associated with the recognition of fair values.
Detection risk
The auditor should minimise detection risk via thorough planning and execution of audit procedures. The audit team may
lack experience in dealing with the fair value in question, and so would be unlikely to detect errors in the valuation techniques
used. Over-reliance on an external specialist could also lead to errors not being found.
Conclusion
It is true that the increasing recognition of items measured at fair value will in many cases cause the auditor to assess the
audit risk associated with the balance as high. However, it should not be assumed that every fair value item will be likely to
contain a material misstatement. The auditor must be careful to identify and respond to the level of risk for fair value items
on an individual basis to ensure that sufficient and appropriate evidence is gathered, thus reducing the audit risk to an
acceptable level.

正确答案：

(a) The accounting for the transaction as an asset acquisition does not comply with the requirements of IFRS 3 Business Combinations and should have been accounted as a business combination. This would mean that transaction costs would be expensed, the vessels recognised at fair value, any deferred tax recognised at nominal value and the difference between these amounts and the consideration paid to be recognised as goodwill.

In accordance with IFRS 3, an entity should determine whether a transaction is a business combination by applying the definition of a business in IFRS 3. A business is an integrated set of activities and assets which is capable of being conducted and managed for the purpose of providing a return in the form. of dividends, lower costs or other economic benefits directly to investors or other owners, members or participants. A business consists of inputs and processes applied to those inputs which have the ability to create outputs. Although businesses usually have outputs, outputs are not required to qualify as a business.

When analysing the transaction, the following elements are relevant:

(i) Inputs: Shares in vessel owning companies, charter arrangements, outsourcing arrangements with a management company, and relationships with a shipping broker.

(ii) Processes: Activities regarding chartering and operating the vessels, financing the business, purchase and sales of vessels.

(iii) Outputs: Ceemone would generate revenue from charter agreements and has the ability to gain economic benefit from the vessels.

IFRS 3 states that whether a seller operated a set of assets and activities as a business or intends to operate it as a business is not relevant in evaluating whether it is a business. It is not relevant therefore that some activities were outsourced as Ceemone could chose to conduct and manage the integrated set of assets and activities as a business. As a result, the acquisition included all the elements which constitute a business, in accordance with IFRS 3.

IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements sets out the situation where an investor controls an investee. This is the case, if and only if, the investor has all of the following elements:

(i) power over the investee, that is, the investor has existing rights which give it the ability to direct the relevant activities (the activities which significantly affect the investee’s returns);

(ii) exposure, or rights, to variable returns from its involvement with the investee;

(iii) the ability to use its power over the investee to affect the amount of the investor’s returns.

Where a party has all three elements, then it is a parent; where at least one element is missing, then it is not. In every case, IFRS 10 looks to the substance of the arrangement and not just to its legal form. Each situation needs to be assessed individually. The question arises in this case as to whether the entities created are subsidiaries of the bank. The bank is likely to have power over the investee, may be exposed to variable returns and certainly may have the power to affect the amount of the returns. Thus the bank is likely to have a measure of control but the extent will depend on the constitution of the entity.

(b) Kayte’s calculation of the residual value of the vessels with a 10-year useful life is unacceptable under IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment because estimating residual value based on acquisition cost does not comply with the requirements of IAS 16. Kayte should prepare a new model to determine residual value which would take account of broker valuations at the end of each reporting period and which would produce zero depreciation charge when estimated residual value was higher than the carrying amount.

IAS 16 paragraph 6 defines residual value as the estimated amount which an entity would currently obtain from disposal of the asset, after deducting the estimated costs of disposal, if the asset were already at the age and in the condition expected at the end of its useful life.

IAS 16 requires the residual value to be reviewed at least at the end of each financial year end with the depreciable amount of an asset allocated on a systematic basis over its useful life. IAS 16 specifies that the depreciable amount of an asset is determined after deducting its residual value.

Kayte’s original model implied that the residual value was constant for the vessel’s entire useful life. The residual value has to be adjusted especially when an expected sale approaches, and the residual value has to come closer to disposal proceeds minus disposal costs at the end of the useful life. IAS 16 says that in cases when the residual value is greater than the asset’s carrying amount, the depreciation charge is zero unless and until its residual value subsequently decreases to an amount below the asset’s carrying amount. The residual value should be the value at the reporting date as if the vessel were already of the age and in the condition expected at the end of its useful life. An increase in the expected residual value of an asset because of past events will affect the depreciable amount, while expectation of future changes in residual value other than the effects of expected wear and tear will not. There is no guidance in IAS 16 on how to estimate residual value when the useful life is considered to be shorter than the economic life. Undesirable volatility is not a convincing argument to support the accounting treatment, and broker valuations could be a useful starting point to estimate residual value.

As regards the vessels which are kept for the whole of their economic life, a residual value based upon the scrap value of steel is acceptable. Therefore the vessels should be depreciated based upon the cost less the scrap value of steel over the 30-year period. The engine need not be componentised as it will have the same 30-year life if maintained every 10 years. It is likely that the cost of major planned maintenance will increase over the life of a vessel due to inflation and the age of the vessel. This additional cost will be capitalised when incurred and therefore the depreciation charge on these components may be greater in the later stages of a vessel’s life.

When major planned maintenance work is to be undertaken, the cost should be capitalised. The engine overhaul will be capitalised as a new asset which will then be depreciated over the 10-year period to the next overhaul. The depreciation of the original capitalised amount will typically be calculated such that it had a net book value of nil when the overhaul is undertaken.

This is not the case with one vessel, because work was required earlier than expected. In this case, any remaining net book value of the old engine and overhaul cost should be expensed immediately.

The initial carve out of components should include all major maintenance events which are likely to occur over the economic life of the vessel. Sometimes, it may subsequently be found that the initial allocation was insufficiently detailed, in that not all components were identified. This is the case with the funnels. In this situation it is necessary to determine what the net book value of the component would currently be had it been initially identified. This will sometimes require the initial cost to be determined by reference to the replacement cost and the associated accumulated depreciation charge determined using the rate used for the vessel. This is likely to leave a significant net book value in the component being replaced, which will need to be written off at the time the replacement is capitalised.

正确答案：
(c) As the trust is created in the settlors’ (Paul and Sharon’s) lifetime its creation will constitute a chargeable disposal for capital
gains tax. Also, as the settlors and trustees are connected persons, the disposal will be deemed to be at market value, resulting
in a chargeable gain of ￡80,000 (160,000 – 80,000). No taper relief will be available as the property is a non-business
asset, and has been held for less than three years, but annual exemptions of ￡17,000 (2 x ￡8,500) will be available.
However, in the case of a discretionary trust, gift hold over relief will be available. This is because the gift will constitute a
chargeable lifetime transfer and because there is an immediate charge to inheritance tax (even though no tax is payable due
to the nil rate band) relief is available if a specific accumulation and maintenance trust is used, as in this case the gift will
qualify as a potentially exempt transfer and so gift relief would only be available in respect of business assets. The use of a
basic discretionary trust will thus facilitate the deferral of an immediate capital gains tax charge of ￡25,200 (63,000 x 40%).
If/when the property is disposed of, however, the trustees will pay capital gains tax on the deferred gain at the trust income
tax rate of 40%, and have an annual exemption of only ￡4,250 (50% of the normal individual rate) available to them. The
40% rate of tax and lower annual exemption rate also apply to chargeable gains arising in a specific accumulation and
maintenance trust, as well as a basic discretionary trust.
A chargeable disposal between connected persons will also arise for the purposes of capital gains tax if/when the property
vests in a beneficiary, i.e. one or more of the beneficiaries becomes absolutely entitled to all or part of the income or capital
of the trust. Gift hold over relief will again be available on all assets in the case of a discretionary trust, but only on business
assets in the case of an accumulation and maintenance trust, except where a beneficiary becomes entitled to both income
and capital at the same time.
The trust will have taxable property income in the form. of net rents from its creation and in future years is also likely to have
other investment income, probably in the form. of interest, to the extent that monies are retained in the trust. Whichever form
of trust is used, the trustees will pay tax at the standard trust rate of 40% on income other than dividend income (32·5%),
except to the extent of (1) the first ￡500 of taxable income, which is taxed at the rate that would otherwise apply to such
income (i.e. 22% for non-savings (rental) income, 20% for savings income (interest) and 10% for dividends) but, only to the
extent that it is not distributed; and (2) the legitimate trust management expenses, which are offsettable for the purposes of
the higher trust tax rates against the income with the lowest rate(s) of normal tax and so bear tax only at that rate. The higher
trust tax rate always applies to income that is distributed, other than to the extent that it has been treated as the settlor’s
income, and taxed at that settlor’s marginal tax rate.
As Paul and Sharon intend to create a trust for their unmarried minor (under 18) children, then even if the trust specifically
excludes them from any benefit under the trust, the trust income will be treated as theirs for income tax purposes to the extent
that it constitutes income paid for on behalf (including maintenance payments) of Gisella and Gavin; except where (1) the
total income arising does not exceed ￡100 gross per annum, and (2) income is held for the benefit of a child under an
accumulation and maintenance settlement, to the extent that it is not paid out.