2020年山西省ACCA考试准考证打印时间考前两周

正确答案：
4 Smith & Co
(a) Norman Co
The invoice is 12 months old and it appears doubtful whether the amount outstanding is recoverable. The fact that such an
old debt is unsettled indicates poor credit control by Smith & Co. Part of good practice management is to run a profitable,
cash generating audit function. The debt should not have been left outstanding for such a long period. It seems that little has
been done to secure payment since the file note was attached to the invoice in November 2007.
There is also a significant ethical issue raised. Overdue fees are a threat to objectivity and independence. Due to Norman Co
not yet paying for the 2007 year end audit, it could be perceived that the audit has been performed for free. Alternatively the
amount outstanding could be perceived as a loan to the client, creating a self-interest threat to independence.
The audit work for the year ended 28 February 2008 should not have been carried out without some investigation into the
unpaid invoice relating to the prior year audit. This also represents a self-interest threat – if fees are not collected before the
audit report is issued, an unmodified report could be seen as enhancing the prospect of securing payment. It seems that a
check has not been made to see if the prior year fee has been paid prior to the audit commencing.
It is also concerning that the audit report for the 2008 year end is about to be issued, but no invoice has been raised relating
to the work performed. To maximise cash inflow, the audit firm should invoice the client as soon as possible for work
performed.
Norman Co appears to be suffering financial distress. In this case there is a valid commercial reason why payment has not
been made – the client simply lacks cash. While this fact does not eliminate the problems noted above, it means that the
auditors can continue so long as adequate ethical safeguards are put in place, and after the monetary significance of the
amount outstanding has been evaluated.
It should also be considered whether Norman Co’s financial situation casts any doubt over the going concern of the company.
Continued cash flow problems are certainly a financial indicator of going concern problems, and if the company does not
resolve the cash flow problem then it may be unable to continue in operational existence.
Action to be taken:
– Discuss with the audit committee (if any) or those charged with governance of Norman Co:
The ethical problems raised by the non-payment of invoices, and a payment programme to secure cash payment in
stages if necessary, rather than demanding the total amount outstanding immediately.
– Notify the ethics partner of Smith & Co of the situation – the ethics partner should evaluate the ethical threat posed by
the situation and document the decision to continue to act for Norman Co.
– The documentation should include an evaluation of the monetary significance of the amount outstanding, as it will be
more difficult to justify the continuance of the audit appointment if the amount is significant.
– The ethics partner should ensure that a firm-wide policy is communicated to all audit managers requiring them to check
the payment of previous invoices before commencing new client work. This check should be documented.
– Consider an independent partner review of the working papers prepared for the 28 February 2008 audit.
– The audit working papers on going concern should be reviewed to ensure that sufficient evidence has been gathered to
support the audit opinion. Further procedures may be found to be necessary given the continued cash flow problems.
– Smith & Co have already acted to improve credit control by making a manager responsible for reviewing invoices and
monitoring subsequent cash collection. It is important that credit control procedures are quickly put into place to prevent
similar situations arising.

正确答案：
6 CERTAIN PRACTICES
Tutorial note: The answer which follows is indicative of the range of points which might be made. Other relevant material will
be given suitable credit.
(a) ‘Lowballing’
Explanation of term
‘Lowballing’ is the ‘loss-leading’ practice in which auditors compete for clients by reducing their fees for statutory audits.
Lower audit fees are then compensated by the auditor carrying out more lucrative non-audit work (e.g. consultancy and tax
advice). Audits may even be offered for free.
Such ‘predatory pricing’ may undercut an incumbent auditor to secure an appointment into which higher price consultancy
services may be sold.
Ethical risks
There is a risk of incompetence if the non-audit work does not materialise and the lowballing firm comes under pressure to
cut corners or resort to irregular practices (e.g. the falsification of audit working papers) in order to ‘keep within budget’.
However, a lack of audit quality may only be discovered if the situation arises that the company collapses and the auditors
are charged with negligence.
If, rather than comprise the quality of the audit, an audit firm substantially increases audit fees, a fee dispute could arise. In
this case the client might refuse to pay the higher fee. It could be difficult then for the firm to take the matter to arbitration
if the client was misled. Thus an advocacy threat may arise.
Financial dependence is a direct incentive that threatens independence. A self-interest threat therefore arises when, having
secured the audit, the audit firm needs the client to retain its services in order to recoup any losses initially incurred.
The provision of many other services gives rise to a self-review threat (as well as a self-interest threat).
Sufficiency of current ethical guidance
In current ethical guidance, the fact that an accountancy firm quotes a lower fee than other tendering firms is not improper,
providing that the prospective client is not misled about:
– the precise range of services that the quoted fee is intended to cover; and
– the likely level of fees for any other work undertaken.
This is clearly insufficient to prevent the practice of lowballing.
Legal prohibitions on the provision of many non-audit services (e.g. bookkeeping, financial information systems design and
implementation, valuation services, actuarial services, internal audit (outsourced), human resource services for executive
positions, investment and legal services) should make lowballing a riskier pricing strategy. This may curb the tendency to
lowball.
Lowballing could be eliminated if, for example, auditors were required to act ‘exclusively as auditors’. Although regulatory
environments have moved towards this there is not a total prohibition on non-audit services.

正确答案：

(c) Issue of bond
This form. of financing a football club’s operations is known as ‘securitisation’. Often in these cases a special purpose vehicle
is set up to administer the income stream or assets involved. In this case, a special purpose vehicle has not been set up. The
benefit of securitisation of the future corporate hospitality sales and season ticket receipts is that there will be a capital
injection into the club and it is likely that the effective interest rate is lower because of the security provided by the income
from the receipts. The main problem with the planned raising of capital is the way in which the money is to be used. The
use of the bond for ground improvements can be commended as long term cash should be used for long term investment but
using the bond for players’ wages will cause liquidity problems for the club.
This type of securitisation is often called a ‘future flow’ securitisation. There is no existing asset transferred to a special purpose
vehicle in this type of transaction and, therefore, there is no off balance sheet effect. The bond is shown as a long term liability
and is accounted for under IAS39 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’. There are no issues of
derecognition of assets as there can be in other securitisation transactions. In some jurisdictions there are legal issues in
assigning future receivables as they constitute an unidentifiable debt which does not exist at present and because of this
uncertainty often the bond holders will require additional security such as a charge on the football stadium.
The bond will be a financial liability and it will be classified in one of two ways:
(i) Financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss include financial liabilities that the entity either has incurred for
trading purposes and, where permitted, has designated to the category at inception. Derivative liabilities are always
treated as held for trading unless they are designated and effective as hedging instruments. An example of a liability held
for trading is an issued debt instrument that the entity intends to repurchase in the near term to make a gain from shortterm
movements in interest rates. It is unlikely that the bond will be classified in this category.
(ii) The second category is financial liabilities measured at amortised cost. It is the default category for financial liabilities
that do not meet the criteria for financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss. In most entities, most financial
liabilities will fall into this category. Examples of financial liabilities that generally would be classified in this category are
account payables, note payables, issued debt instruments, and deposits from customers. Thus the bond is likely to be
classified under this heading. When a financial liability is recognised initially in the balance sheet, the liability is
measured at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which a liability can be settled between knowledgeable, willing
parties in an arm’s length transaction. Since fair value is a market transaction price, on initial recognition fair value will
usually equal the amount of consideration received for the financial liability. Subsequent to initial recognition financial
liabilities are measured using amortised cost or fair value. In this case the company does not wish to use valuation
models nor is there an active market for the bond and, therefore, amortised cost will be used to measure the bond.
The bond will be shown initially at $50 million × 95%, i.e. $47·5 million as this is the consideration received. Subsequentlyat 31 December 2007, the bond will be shown as follows: